Wonder Woman no longer honorary UN Women mascot.

Moderators: Enigma, Sonic#

Locked
Pikachu
member
member
Posts: 170
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 9:22 2016

Wonder Woman no longer honorary UN Women mascot.

Post by Pikachu » Thu Dec 15, 12:35 2016

After almost 45,000 signatures.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/741/288/ ... and-girls/

Their reasons are detailed there^

I agree with their conclusions for different reasons. In the petition they muddle the issues, they start talking about Wonder Woman being a sex object and so forth, but then say the role shouldn't be given to a fictional character to begin with, rendering the rest of their Anita Sarkessian style ranting moot.

No, the real reason Wonder Woman is not suitable is for the same reason almost all fictional characters are unsuitable. Wonder Woman has a dual mandate to both be empowering yet also edgy, entertaining and marketable in a cynical world, which causes inconsistency in her message of peace/feminism. Murdering Maxwell Lord on live TV, breaking his neck to free Superman from his control is one example of some of the unwholesome things Wonder Woman has had to do to stay interesting in comics. There are also versions of her that are sycophantic and evil, as shown in the story "Injustice, God's Among Us."

Thus the role should go to dedicated activist, without a conceptually conflicting mandate.

User avatar
garbage videos

Posts: 38
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 15:12 2016

Re: Wonder Woman no longer honorary UN Women mascot.

Post by garbage videos » Thu Dec 22, 10:26 2016

The UN sucks and noone respects them except corporate bankers.

Amazons are free to dress however they want, they don't obey corporate UN new world order norms. An Amazon not wearing modest clothing is not evil. UN is trying to enforce nunnery and subjugation of minds, which in of itself is evil.

Alternate Universe comics aren't legit lore, argument denied.

User avatar
rowan
member
member
Posts: 9567
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 11:01 2004
Location: US

Re: Wonder Woman no longer honorary UN Women mascot.

Post by rowan » Thu Dec 22, 13:25 2016

I think I read that most fictional characters only last about a month. *shrug*
spacefem wrote:All your logical argue are belong to us!

User avatar
Sonic#
member
member
Posts: 5159
Joined: Sat Nov 7, 9:37 2009
Location: Georgia, US

Re: Wonder Woman no longer honorary UN Women mascot.

Post by Sonic# » Thu Dec 22, 13:55 2016

Other points aside, I agree that a fictional character as a mascot to a UN agency creates several rhetorical problems. I don't think Wonder Woman's bad per se.

I've seen Winnie the Pooh and Tinkerbell cited a lot in articles about Wonder Woman and the UN. How long did they last?

User avatar
Nachos
member
member
Posts: 4707
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 6:42 2004
Location: Next Tuesday
Contact:

Re: Wonder Woman no longer honorary UN Women mascot.

Post by Nachos » Thu Dec 29, 13:50 2016

Sonic# wrote:I've seen Winnie the Pooh and Tinkerbell cited a lot in articles about Wonder Woman and the UN. How long did they last?
As far as I can find out, Winnie the Pooh is still the ambassador for the Day of Friendship http://www.unric.org/en/latest-un-buzz/ ... friendship and Tinkerbell is the ambassador of Green (Environmental awareness aimed at children) http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=32706

They're both still ambassadors.
Ugh, I'm tired of my signature.

Pikachu
member
member
Posts: 170
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 9:22 2016

Re: Wonder Woman no longer honorary UN Women mascot.

Post by Pikachu » Sun Jan 29, 0:29 2017

Today's feminist icon isn't tough. They're sensitive people who embrace their victimhood. They have as little privilege as possible. They're an ethnic minority. They're genderqueer and non binary. They're fat and proud. They're not straight, or violent. They're strong single mothers. They use words and blogs as their instrument for social justice instead of fists. This is why Wonder Woman was rejected as honorary UN mascot. WW is way behind the times.

User avatar
Sonic#
member
member
Posts: 5159
Joined: Sat Nov 7, 9:37 2009
Location: Georgia, US

Re: Wonder Woman no longer honorary UN Women mascot.

Post by Sonic# » Sun Jan 29, 8:34 2017

Glib overgeneralizing attacks don't explain why Wonder Woman stopped being an honorary UN mascot.

Pikachu
member
member
Posts: 170
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 9:22 2016

Re: Wonder Woman no longer honorary UN Women mascot.

Post by Pikachu » Sun Jan 29, 10:57 2017

We don't have to explain it because they already did. We all know she'd have been accepted if she'd met that criteria.

User avatar
Aum
member
member
Posts: 3068
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 23:35 2007
Location: Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ

Re: Wonder Woman no longer honorary UN Women mascot.

Post by Aum » Sun Jan 29, 13:16 2017

I didn't even know she was the mascot. Totally bizarre.

Given that she was created from some guy's S&M fantasy, I'm glad she's no longer the mascot.
The artist's job is not to succumb to despair, but to find an antidote to the emptiness of existence. -W.A.

User avatar
Sonic#
member
member
Posts: 5159
Joined: Sat Nov 7, 9:37 2009
Location: Georgia, US

Re: Wonder Woman no longer honorary UN Women mascot.

Post by Sonic# » Sun Jan 29, 14:36 2017

Pikachu wrote:We don't have to explain it because they already did. We all know she'd have been accepted if she'd met that criteria.
No, we don't. That invokes a couple of fallacies. First, there's alleged certainty, where you say "we all know" something that rests on us accepting your hypotheticals (feminists are X; WW is X) and your result (WW stays). No, neither of those ideas are certain. As I've just alleged, they're overgeneralizations trivially. I'm neither genderqueer nor nonbinary, but I am a feminist. Second, they didn't "already [do]" anything. That insists on an interpretation of what happened that lacks any evidence, save generalizations about a petition that you haven't actually grounded in any meaningful details, followed by further generalizations to make that petition speak for all of feminism.

So, yes, overgeneralization.

That said, you imply that being genderqueer or nonbinary is a bad thing, among other items on that list that seem quite off-topic. Why would you do that?

Pikachu
member
member
Posts: 170
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 9:22 2016

Re: Wonder Woman no longer honorary UN Women mascot.

Post by Pikachu » Mon Jan 30, 11:53 2017

Sonic# wrote:
Pikachu wrote:We don't have to explain it because they already did. We all know she'd have been accepted if she'd met that criteria.
No, we don't. That invokes a couple of fallacies. First, there's alleged certainty, where you say "we all know" something that rests on us accepting your hypotheticals (feminists are X; WW is X) and your result (WW stays). No, neither of those ideas are certain. As I've just alleged, they're overgeneralizations trivially. I'm neither genderqueer nor nonbinary, but I am a feminist. Second, they didn't "already [do]" anything. That insists on an interpretation of what happened that lacks any evidence, save generalizations about a petition that you haven't actually grounded in any meaningful details, followed by further generalizations to make that petition speak for all of feminism.

So, yes, overgeneralization.

That said, you imply that being genderqueer or nonbinary is a bad thing, among other items on that list that seem quite off-topic. Why would you do that?
You are a feminist, but you are not a feminist icon. I said today's feminist icon is...

They state they didn't want a white, violent "pin up" look with American iconography. So, an ethnic minority, a non violent blogger, and someone who's fat and proud. Add in gay, genderqueer, single parent, and everything else I mentioned and you get a figure that personifies every form of diversity. A figure of intersectionality. The modern feminist issue.

I think you're projecting when you say I imply any of these are bad things. Does the trainspotter morally judge the train? Does the biologist judge the zebra? The iconic feminist of the third wave dictates identity politics through her perceived marginalization. The iconic feminist of 2016 just is.

User avatar
Sonic#
member
member
Posts: 5159
Joined: Sat Nov 7, 9:37 2009
Location: Georgia, US

Re: Wonder Woman no longer honorary UN Women mascot.

Post by Sonic# » Mon Jan 30, 14:14 2017

Then your statement still lacks evidence that it actually pertains to "feminist icons" in general.

And you are being negative. You say that today's feminist icon "isn't tough." They're "sensitive people who embrace their victimhood." You're setting up a number of statements that are charged with negativity, and then connecting in qualities of the kind of diversity you ridicule in places like your profile: "I identify as a non conforming dalmatian otherkin." These are lodged in terms that feminists would disagree with two-fold: that they are in fact "embrac[ing] their victimhood," and that being "sensitive" involves weakness, or not being tough. There's a semantic slipperiness to that kind of statement: what do you mean by tough? Either you mean a kind of effectiveness or value (in which case you're attempting an attack: not tough as not effective/valuable) or you mean tough in a descriptive sense, which runs contrary to what feminists would say about themselves: they are tough. At best, you intend an attack by issuing statements that describe your prejudice, not any external object of study. In substance, it's contrafactual.
Today's feminist icon isn't tough. They're sensitive people who embrace their victimhood.
You then list a number of traits that you seem to assess as being contrary to the kind of toughness Wonder Woman exemplifies. So, no, I'm not projecting there. You implied all of those indicate an absence of toughness and an inability to be effective, and your posting history makes it clear that you judge feminists poorly on the basis of generalizations that you make up.

So your posts don't explain why WW was turned away. Nor do they provide a meaningful critique against feminism.

Pikachu
member
member
Posts: 170
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 9:22 2016

Re: Wonder Woman no longer honorary UN Women mascot.

Post by Pikachu » Sat Mar 4, 12:33 2017

Sonic# wrote:Then your statement still lacks evidence that it actually pertains to "feminist icons" in general.
I don't believe it does.
And you are being negative.
Maybe that's because the state of affairs as they are now is negative. Which is why Trump beat Hilary. The most memorable event in 2016 regarding feminism has been the extremely ...dramatic reaction to Trump's victory. Students have been offered therapy for it!
You say that today's feminist icon "isn't tough."
Feminist academics today are encouraged to go to safe spaces with colouring books and play doh whenever they feel triggered by ideas. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/opin ... .html?_r=0

And when not hiding, burning books: http://www.titleixforall.com/disturbing ... inst-boys/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... rmany.html

Anita Sarkeesian (most subscribed feminist channel on youtube) and some other feminist went to the UN to ask them to censor the internet because of harrassment. The same Anita who blocks all comments, allows no debate on her channel and never responds to her critic's arguments. Calling them all harassers. And of course "Everything is sexist" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRquPxdHNGE

And while we may disagree on what today's feminist icon look like, we can clearly see it isn't what Wonder Woman represents. http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/201 ... characters
They're "sensitive people who embrace their victimhood." You're setting up a number of statements that are charged with negativity, and then connecting in qualities of the kind of diversity you ridicule in places like your profile: "I identify as a non conforming dalmatian otherkin."
Don't you have to assume my identity first before calling it ridicule?
These are lodged in terms that feminists would disagree with two-fold: that they are in fact "embrac[ing] their victimhood,"
They typically function via identity politics, the more of a victim or an oppressed class you are, the more value your words are given. Which is why the YOU'RE A WHITE MALE!! silencing tactic exists.
At best, you intend an attack by issuing statements that describe your prejudice, not any external object of study. In substance, it's contrafactual.
Nope.
Today's feminist icon isn't tough. They're sensitive people who embrace their victimhood.
You then list a number of traits that you seem to assess as being contrary to the kind of toughness Wonder Woman exemplifies. So, no, I'm not projecting there. You implied all of those indicate an absence of toughness and an inability to be effective, and your posting history makes it clear that you judge feminists poorly on the basis of generalizations that you make up.

So your posts don't explain why WW was turned away. Nor do they provide a meaningful critique against feminism.
Again, I simply disagree with you. My proposition is very simple. Do the exact opposite of every problem THEY said they had with Wonder Woman, at the very least. Add all the intersecting oppressed identities (according to feminist theory) and you have the ultimate intersectional feminist figure of 2016/17.

Locked