I thought she looked fine. But she didn’t look strong or athletic. A cute girl in a batgirl suit who didn’t look very convincing in the role. I thought she was miscast but she certainly wasn’t fat.
It affects other people when you make those feelings public and they have to listen to / read them. Now while you are certainly entitled to say / write what you like, other people are also entitled to make inferences about you from what you say/write.
Well, it’s not really “honesty”. You aren’t telling us why you feel it’s so important to you to make your disgust for these particular women known in such an over the top fashion.
I mean I hate Real Housewives or Whereverthefuck because I can’t stand the bickering and screeching and over the top crazy behavior. And I can maybe see hating any of the actresses from Sex and the City or Girls because of the vapid characters they play. But that’s a long way off from being personally offended by Lena Dunham’s existence.
Bravo, msmith! Well stated.
No, being a decent human being is the best policy. Plenty of assholes play the “I was just being honest” card when they hurt someone’s feelings or react to trivial matters with unnecessary harshness or rage when what they should be focusing on is becoming more compassionate people. There are ways to be honest without being a dick, but it usually requires some self-reflection and a desire to want to improve oneself. If you’re often getting defensive and saying things like “They’re the ones with the problem” or “People don’t really want to hear the unvarnished truth”, the issue is most likely with your own personality.
Yeah. She looked good in her outfit, but she didn’t look athletic. It wasn’t her weight (which was fine) but her lack of muscles; she doesn’t have superpowers, so she actually does need to be very fit. She didn’t look like she’d be up for jumping around and kicking stuff much, she just looked like a pretty girl with a nice figure that the costume sometimes made look fat, even though she really wasn’t. And she didn’t move very well - her kicks looked like they took effort. A little training and a better costume and she would have been fine.
Most of the commentary I saw at the time though was about her not looking good in her outfit. They’d have been fine with a teeny tiny skinny girl who also didn’t have any muscles and was just as miscast. :smack:
No, you’re missed my point. I not talking about other posters having those two specific complaints. Although, if that thread was started today, that’s probably what they’d come up with. And I don’t believe you’re not seeing the no-so-subtle accusations of sexism and/or misogyny in this thread.
What I’m taking about is how that thread ran three pages in 2010 without anyone coming up with the idiotic interpretation of jokes and hyperbole as hate and anger and then going into lecture mode. The culture here has changed since then. That was before everyone started falling over each other to be the first to say “tsk tsk”.
People are just giving their honest opinions about your posts. I thought you were all in favor of honesty?
I’m not claiming that nobody is making “no-so-subtle” accusations of sexism and/or misogyny in this thread. My point is that nobody is directing any such accusations towards anybody else simply for having individual preferences about what’s attractive or what’s not.
What’s inspiring inferences of sexism and/or misogyny is posters expressing vehement contempt or disgust towards female celebrities simply because they don’t meet their individual preferences about attractiveness.
And mind you, we’re talking here about examples of clean, healthy, carefully groomed, flatteringly photographed, young or youngish women who are regarded by millions of people as well up among the most beautiful human females in the world. Not some kind of fetish-porn freaks with festering sores or mouths full of maggots, slave-act coprophagia, etc.
If somebody is feeling severe visceral revulsion or hostility and contempt just from seeing mainstream publicity photos of the sort of women discussed here, there is something else going on besides “meh, not really my type”.
[QUOTE=emcee2k]
What I’m taking about is how that thread ran three pages in 2010 without anyone coming up with the idiotic interpretation of jokes and hyperbole as hate and anger and then going into lecture mode. The culture here has changed since then. That was before everyone started falling over each other to be the first to say “tsk tsk”.
[/quote]
Your reading comprehension’s at fault. The part of the discussion from 2010 didn’t garner any “tsk tsk” in that thread because it wasn’t the part with the expressions of extreme contempt and disgust. The posts with remarks like “zombie ugly”, “her face looks like a war zone”, “[a hideously deformed face image is] a good picture of her”, etc., were all from 2013 or 2014.
So if “the culture has changed”, it’s perhaps not in the way you think.
To be fair, the “zombie ugly” remark appears to have been a poor attempt at a zombie thread joke, versus a real comment on her appearance.
But I have another example of the kind of misogynist hate. There was a thread here on this board discussing musician/singers, and someone described Colbie Caillat as “that whore”, simply because they don’t appreciate her style of music.
WTF gets into people?
Might also be a fox and the grapes thing - I can’t have that star in a million years, and she’d laugh at me if I tried, so she must be an ugly ho at heart.
But if you were organizing a neighborhood team you’d want him on it. If the guys calling actresses ugly ran across one in a bar who showed the slightest interest, I think their personal standards would “fall” low enough to go home with her.
Wouldn’t that apply to the stars the guy finds attractive as well?
To my mind, it has a greater element of choosing to champion X against Y. Once the choice is made, X becomes the exemplar of every virtue and Y becomes an abomination. See: sports teams.
Is there any other kind?
And wouldn’t be able to get to first base with her. See? A good analogy works on so many levels. 
Well, the prior poster who responded to the thread reopening with “I vote ugly zombie bitch” was probably just joking about the thread status, so I didn’t quote him.
But the poster who called her “zombie ugly” also said “she looks like Droopy the Dog”, so I counted that in the “real comment on her appearance” category.
Mind you, I think most if not all of even the most vitriolic comments may well be intended as jokes or hyperbole to some extent (except of course for racepug, who apparently is just being absolutely honest about his feelings).
But the fact that such vitriolic and contempt-laden insults are considered mere humorous exaggeration of an intended meaning along the lines of “well, I personally don’t find her appealing” is interesting.
[QUOTE=Irishman]
But I have another example of the kind of misogynist hate. There was a thread here on this board discussing musician/singers, and someone described Colbie Caillat as “that whore”, simply because they don’t appreciate her style of music.
WTF gets into people?
[/QUOTE]
I’m not sure whether it’s “people” or just “idiom”. In the same way we’ve seen “bitches” and “hos” come to be used as neutral or nearly neutral synonyms for “women”, it may be that phrases like, say, “she’s an ugly fucking nasty cunt” have come to be seen as neutral or nearly neutral variants on “she’s not my type” or “I don’t really like her performance style”.
Yeah, I have no problem with calling that type of talk fundamentally sexist and/or misogynistic. But I doubt that most of the people who use it are really intending it in a sexist or misogynistic way. It’s just a currently fashionable style of slang.
Sometimes there will be four women in a commercial. Three of them will be very attractive and one will be drop dead gorgeous. Then the drop dead gorgeous woman will get the least screen time or they will obscure her so you maybe only get one good look at her. So I’m stuck looking at very attractive women and that somehow is a ripoff. ARRRG!
Also, they keep wasting time by showing the product in the commercial. I was never going to buy that anyways.
I’m just glad Helen Hunt got the nude scenes in that movie instead of Jack Nicholson.
He was still considered something of a sex symbol, but frankly, not the kind anyone wants to see naked.
Although, now that I think about it, if you switch their scenes it would have been a hundred times funnier. Greg Kinnear getting his artist muse back after spying Jack in the tub. Then Helen being mad about it when she finds out and Jack getting on his high horse that she has no business telling him who he can pose nude for.
And then there would have been the scene when Jack shows up at her door in nothing but a thin pair of shorts, soaking wet from the rain.
Personally I wouldn’t go so far as to say that I’m “better” than those people because I don’t find the likes of Uma Thurman, Sara Jessica Parker, or Julia Roberts attractive. But I certainly don’t go along with the crowd on the perceptions of those people, either. And yeah, there’s some hyperbole attached to my comments about those people earlier. But I meant what I typed. At least part of the reason why those people are celebrities is supposed to be because of their looks. I feel I can go to my local grocery store and find several women better looking than any of them and without having to try very hard to do so.
That’s one way of interpreting it. But I’m WAAAAAY past believing that women find me unattractive. I know better, now. So in all honesty I feel like women like the aforementioned ones would be the ones missing out if we were ever in the same room together and then didn’t “hook up.” And I wouldn’t be feeling sorry for them in the least.
Gosh, you sound awesome!
They don’t even need to act like the men are all that handsome.