The Cartoon That Will Destroy America And/Or Entertain Some Children

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by AQuestion

 

So you would say flamboyant behavior is sex, not gender?

Lots of hip movement?

Calling everyone "girlfriend"?

Like Lafayette from True Blood. That's feminine.

Dear bigfatfurrytexan,

Is that what I said? I don't think it is. Flamboyant? Gene Simmons is flamboyant, I am pretty sure he is straight.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by AQuestion

 

There are not solely "woman" and "man" traits. It is what I mean when i say there are no absolutes. As far as traits go, typically men are more one way, women more another. Neither is always one or the other.

But being "feminine" has nothing to do with traits and everything to do with mannerisms. You are looking in the wrong box to find "feminine". It isn't in the "trait" box, it is in the "mannerisms" box.

Dear bigfatfurrytexan,

Look up hermaphrodite, then tell me again what they are.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


I'd nuance that by stating that many, if not most of our gender-based reactions are actually cultural mimicking.

After all, it is our culture that defines what is viewed as feminine or masculine. The scottish tartan/kilt is a good example of that. It used to represent clan status, and was understood as such. Today, most people just find it weird to see a dude walking around in a skirt.

"Acting feminine", or "feminine mannerisms" doesn't really mean anything in the absolute.

It will probably not turn kids into gay(which is impossible) BUT it will promote femininity in male children, and brings it to be the norm, however, i don't think 1 cartoon will have that effect, unless we make it into serious issue and the cartoon companies makes more because they have the spotlight.

reply to post by Siberbat

If you look at the first sentaince of my post, you will know the purpose of my objection. "I think the issue is not as much about sexuality as it is about nudering the modern man."

I think you hit the nail on the head...There really seems to be an agenda to feminizing the modern man. I get that kids should use their imaginations and some kids even cross dress just out of fun, but when u blur the line between male and female i think there is something wrong with that imo.

Come on, we all know the show is going to get the axe after 6 episodes anyway! It's not going to turn anyone gay, it's not going to set any dangerous precedents for children, it's not going to do anything except get low ratings.

Be realistic, people!

reply to post by Ismail


Of course it means nothing in the absolute. We are talking about human behavior, afterall. There is no absolute in human behavior. It is irrational.

Wearing a kilt is not a behavior. It is an act. Thus, it would not be a mannerism.

I just want to state for the record that men who wear kilts are dead sexy and extremely manly in my book!

reply to post by AQuestion


a hermaphrodite is a mix of sexes. Why do you blend "sex" with "behavior"?

The psychology of a human is absolutely tied to some degree to the neurochemical response of the body. (moodiness, etc, etc). But beyond that, it is not a physical trait. You are trying to make the behaviors of people relate to physical traits.

"femininity" in behavior has nothing to do with plumbing. It has to do with behavior. Sometimes men are effeminate while still being straight. I have seen it many times, as I am sure you have.

reply to post by AQuestion


It is what you are saying. You are attaching the argument to the physical only. It is ignoring the psychological entirely. Behavior is not physical, at least not entirely. It is, at least, derived from something else An irrational awareness prone to irrational decisions for irrational reasons.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


In that case, what would you define as mannerism ? I don't really see the difference as such.

It's just a cartoon. It'll either make it or it won't ... on it's own merits or lack of merits.
Cartoons come and go easily. Very few are remembered after child hood.
Except South Park. My guilty pleasure .... South Park. (especially the goth kids!! )

reply to post by FlyersFan


Flyers, you're such a conformist.

reply to post by FlyersFan


You know, I went back to watch some cartoons that I watched as a lad. I was amazed at how dirty some of them were

And I didn't even notice as a child. I just found them entertaining. And guess what, you can't be destroyed and corrupted by risque humor that you don't even notice.

reply to post by Akragon

The Cartoon That Will Destroy America And/Or Entertain Some Children,

The only problem is that I saw some chemtrail in that sequence.

Originally posted by Ismail
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

In that case, what would you define as mannerism ? I don't really see the difference as such.

freedictionary.com has a definition that I see as being fairly accurate:

Exaggerated or affected style or habit, as in dress or speech.

whereas a trait would be:

A genetically determined characteristic or condition. Traits may be physical, such as hair color or leaf shape, or they may be behavioral, such as nesting in birds and burrowing in rodents. Traits typically result from the combined action of several genes, though some traits are expressed by a single gene.

But it would be silly to get into an argument of semantics. If you intended to use trait as mannerism, then lets discuss on that par.

Originally posted by Ismail
reply to post by FlyersFan

 

Flyers, you're such a conformist.

Awesome! Is that you Raven??

Originally posted by NarcolepticBuddha
And I didn't even notice as a child.

Yep. The kids probably won't even think twice about this character.
And considering how quickly cartoons come and go ... it probably won't be around long anyways.

reply to post by AQuestion


Excellent points.

Maya Angelou's

AT HARVEST TIME in her book I WOULDN'T TAKE NOTHING FOR MY JOURNEY NOW

is excellent.

It notes very eloquently that we all reap what we sow.

It just doesn't work to plant cacti and hope to harvest mangoes or blueberries.

Pretending that there are no consequences for choices and behaviors is folly.

Pretending that the wholesale full court press of propaganda such as the cartoon--does not exist and has not been destroying a culture for more than 60 years--is folly.

The fact that 70-80% of the population have NO DEFENSE against swallowing wholesale, believing such propaganda is tragic.

reply to post by NarcolepticBuddha


im a lumber jack and im ok i work al night and i work all day

reply to post by BO XIAN


Thing is cultures change and adapt, they always have and always will. Every older generation will see fault with it because "it wasn't like this in my day".
If cultures do not change and adapt they will stagnate and die.