15,254
pages
ALL POSTSSpoilers - Feeling bad for the Red Lotus?
<p>I'm warning for the second time that this topic is going to contain spoilers.
</p><p>Okay, so we can all see that the Avatar series isn't what it use to be. The series kind of grew with us in a sense, so we're seeing things directed to a more mature crowd. But I was wondering if anyone felt bad for either P'Li's, Ming-Hua's, or Ghazan's deaths? Personally, I wouldn't care for Zaheer, considering he was ringleader and all, but I feel like the rest of them were just lost.
</p><p>Edit: Not to mention I felt bad for Ming-Hua mostly, but only because she doesn't have arms. When Korra smashed her with that rock and she hit was wall I remembered going, "aw". But that shouldn't matter, because with or without arms she's still pretty deadly, lol.
</p>
(Edited by JuniperAlien)
<p>Yes, it <i>would</i> bother me—<i>on a strictly personal level</i>. "Did they just...<i>throw away</i> the <i>cool</i> villain who was implied to be a former child soldier, just so that his windbag girlfriend could unlock one-winged-angel mode?" I'd probably say.
</p><p>The difference is that it wouldn't be an example of a <i>greater pattern</i> in mainstream media as a whole. But refusal to <i>ignore</i> such patterns, it seems, has been labeled "hypocrisy," thus contributing to the degradation of that word into a meaningless snarl.
</p>
<div class="quote"><i>Supermensch wrote:
Bahamut is right about the definition of <i>ad hominem</i>. Unless you want to go with the original Latin meaning "[addressed] at/towards a/the person", though then it basically loses its negative connotation.</i></div>
<p>Um...he kinda openly said he was criticizing <i>me</i>, then called me a hypocrite for saying that P'Li was fridged but <i>Zhao</i> (among others) wasn't. That's a circumstantial <i>ad hominem</i>. </p>
Bahamut is right about the definition of <i>ad hominem</i>. Unless you want to go with the original Latin meaning "[addressed] at/towards a/the person", though then it basically loses its negative connotation.</i></div>
<p>Um...he kinda openly said he was criticizing <i>me</i>, then called me a hypocrite for saying that P'Li was fridged but <i>Zhao</i> (among others) wasn't. That's a circumstantial <i>ad hominem</i>. </p>
(Edited by Deist Zealot)
<div class="quote"><i>I wouldn't hold it against feminists when they complain about female characters being used in negative ways and don't complain when the same thing happens with male characters, though. They're just focused on female issues; there's nothing wrong with that.</i></div>
<p>I have no issue with that, my issue is that it is ridiculous to say either of the following: </p><p>A. Because there's a pattern of this Trope being abused & selectively applied to women, therefore any <i>individual</i> scene where it's applied to a woman is automatically wrong. </p><p>B. You can fix a double standard with its opposite. </p><p>The reason I bring up "What if it were a male character" is because, <i>if the characters are actually viewed equally, then that shouldn't make a difference.</i> </p>
<p>I have no issue with that, my issue is that it is ridiculous to say either of the following: </p><p>A. Because there's a pattern of this Trope being abused & selectively applied to women, therefore any <i>individual</i> scene where it's applied to a woman is automatically wrong. </p><p>B. You can fix a double standard with its opposite. </p><p>The reason I bring up "What if it were a male character" is because, <i>if the characters are actually viewed equally, then that shouldn't make a difference.</i> </p>
(Edited by Neo Bahamut)
<div class="quote"><i>Neo Bahamut wrote:
<div class="quote">I wouldn't hold it against feminists when they complain about female characters being used in negative ways and don't complain when the same thing happens with male characters, though. They're just focused on female issues; there's nothing wrong with that.</i></div>
I have no issue with that, my issue is that it is ridiculous to say either of the following: <p>A. Because there's a pattern of this Trope being abused & selectively applied to women, therefore any <i>individual</i> scene where it's applied to a woman is automatically wrong. </p><p>B. You can fix a double standard with its opposite. </p><p>The reason I bring up "What if it were a male character" is because, <i>if the characters are actually viewed equally, then that shouldn't make a difference.</i> </p> </div> <p>You say you have no issue with that. But then, you make it clear that you, in fact, have <i>multiple</i> issues with it—one of which whiffs of silencing tactic, the other of which is rooted in false equivalence. </p><p>And...y'know, you're right. It <i>shouldn't</i> make a difference; and it wouldn't <i>if </i>characters <i>were</i> viewed equally. The trouble is that they're <i>not</i>. And how things <i>might</i> be in a <i>perfect world</i> doesn't magically become reality by virtue of people tuning out all evidence to the contrary. If anything, that just <i>perpetuates</i> it. </p>
<div class="quote">I wouldn't hold it against feminists when they complain about female characters being used in negative ways and don't complain when the same thing happens with male characters, though. They're just focused on female issues; there's nothing wrong with that.</i></div>
I have no issue with that, my issue is that it is ridiculous to say either of the following: <p>A. Because there's a pattern of this Trope being abused & selectively applied to women, therefore any <i>individual</i> scene where it's applied to a woman is automatically wrong. </p><p>B. You can fix a double standard with its opposite. </p><p>The reason I bring up "What if it were a male character" is because, <i>if the characters are actually viewed equally, then that shouldn't make a difference.</i> </p> </div> <p>You say you have no issue with that. But then, you make it clear that you, in fact, have <i>multiple</i> issues with it—one of which whiffs of silencing tactic, the other of which is rooted in false equivalence. </p><p>And...y'know, you're right. It <i>shouldn't</i> make a difference; and it wouldn't <i>if </i>characters <i>were</i> viewed equally. The trouble is that they're <i>not</i>. And how things <i>might</i> be in a <i>perfect world</i> doesn't magically become reality by virtue of people tuning out all evidence to the contrary. If anything, that just <i>perpetuates</i> it. </p>
(Edited by Deist Zealot)
<div class="quote"><i>You say you have no issue with that. But then, you make it clear that you, in fact, have multiple issues with it</i></div>
<p>No, just because the general issue of "Women in Fridges" is legitimate, that doesn't mean that I have to accept every argument that namedrops the damn Trope. Once again, you are failing to recognize the difference between the generalization & the single case. </p> <div class="quote"><i>—one of which whiffs of silencing tactic,</i></div>
<p>No, there is simply a difference between criticizing the media in general & criticizing a specific work. When you're making a generalization, it's not a problem if a few things don't fit your generalization--just like interpreting a set of data, an outlier doesn't mean that the pattern doesn't hold. As the common refrain goes, "This Trope wouldn't be a problem if it was just an isolated case." </p><p>But <i>that goes both ways</i>. You can't treat a pattern like it's an individual data point & you can't treat an individual data point like it's a pattern. Once you're making a criticism about a specific work, you can't appeal to what everyone else is doing & insist that it still applies. Yes, the Trope is being employed, but there are qualitative differences in how individual works use their Tropes. If you have a writer who treats his characters equally & writes several scenes of characters being spurred on by the deaths of loved ones & another writer who just doesn't treat his female characters as important to the plot outside of dying & giving motivation to the males, yes both of those authors will "fridge" 1 or more women, but how they got there is <i>totally different,</i> & that difference is important, <i>especially</i> when you want to criticize the author's specific work. Further, the problem with "fridging" is <i>supposed to be</i> that it demonstrates an attitude that women characters are expendable relative to the male ones, it's not supposed to be about nitpicking the scene. </p> <div class="quote"><i>the other of which is rooted in false equivalence.</i></div>
<p>Again, no. You don't reverse a double-standard by creating a new double standard, <i>you just create a new double standard</i>. I'm sorry, but that shouldn't be hard to understand. It's effectively just applying a new form of sexism to the character, which creates more problems in the long run than it solves. </p><p>1. If you apply this reasoning to other stereotyped Tropes, you end up closing a ton of possible archetypes to women. In this example, you're saying that P'Li can occupy a relatively minor role like Ghazan & Ming-Hua OR she can be the main villain like Zaheer, but she CAN'T be the lost loved one that spurs Zaheer to further heights. However, if you change "girlfriend" to "great friend" to get around Nick's censors, you can still give that role to a male, no problem. The same goes for any other female-dominated archetype, you can make the rule to stop using it for women & then just fill it with men. That arbitrary rule doesn't do anything because it addresses the result, not the root problem. Also, once again, Tropes Are Not Bad. If you avoid them because of negative connotations, you also end up throwing out their positives. Or you could take a 3rd option & simply recognize that you are not every other author, you are not to be blamed for their faults, & you can choose to use the Trope more responsibly. </p><p>2. As Anita Sarkeesian said before me, "Reversing the Trope seems like a good idea, but you're actually just reinforcing it by recognizing it as the norm & creating an exception to it." </p><p>3. Are you familiar with the phrase "ambivalent sexism"? Even "positive" double-standards are a problem <i>because they are double standards</i>. They reinforce the notion that men & women are different & unequal, & should be treated as such. A common example is "women need to be cherished & protected," which sounds like a great deal, until you see that it also manifests as "women are weak & incapable." </p> <div class="quote"><i>And...y'know, you're right. It shouldn't make a difference; and it wouldn't if characters were viewed equally. The trouble is that they're not. And how things might be in a perfect world doesn't magically become reality by virtue of people tuning out all evidence to the contrary. If anything, that just perpetuates it.</i></div>
<p>I never said anything about a perfect world, or the stereotype not existing. These are words that you've repeatedly shoved in my mouth based on the fact that I reject <i>your complaint about a specific scene</i>. What I'm saying is basically Gandhi's refrain of "be the change that you want to see." If you want to see equal treatment, the best way to do that is to create a situation of equal treatment, not to simply reverse the discriminatory practice. </p><p>Not only that, that's also a bad way of writing. As a post I saw once put it, you should think of writing like acting. You shouldn't be afraid to portray something because someone might get offended & accuse you of endorsing it. If they can't recognize that difference, then that's their problem. Your concern should be to make your character(s) project the illusion of being independent, self-willed people as much as possible. This means that ANY character should be able to meet ANY fate. Regardless of what anyone else is doing, you shouldn't consider the character's gender to be a reason to do or not do something with that character. </p>
<p>No, just because the general issue of "Women in Fridges" is legitimate, that doesn't mean that I have to accept every argument that namedrops the damn Trope. Once again, you are failing to recognize the difference between the generalization & the single case. </p> <div class="quote"><i>—one of which whiffs of silencing tactic,</i></div>
<p>No, there is simply a difference between criticizing the media in general & criticizing a specific work. When you're making a generalization, it's not a problem if a few things don't fit your generalization--just like interpreting a set of data, an outlier doesn't mean that the pattern doesn't hold. As the common refrain goes, "This Trope wouldn't be a problem if it was just an isolated case." </p><p>But <i>that goes both ways</i>. You can't treat a pattern like it's an individual data point & you can't treat an individual data point like it's a pattern. Once you're making a criticism about a specific work, you can't appeal to what everyone else is doing & insist that it still applies. Yes, the Trope is being employed, but there are qualitative differences in how individual works use their Tropes. If you have a writer who treats his characters equally & writes several scenes of characters being spurred on by the deaths of loved ones & another writer who just doesn't treat his female characters as important to the plot outside of dying & giving motivation to the males, yes both of those authors will "fridge" 1 or more women, but how they got there is <i>totally different,</i> & that difference is important, <i>especially</i> when you want to criticize the author's specific work. Further, the problem with "fridging" is <i>supposed to be</i> that it demonstrates an attitude that women characters are expendable relative to the male ones, it's not supposed to be about nitpicking the scene. </p> <div class="quote"><i>the other of which is rooted in false equivalence.</i></div>
<p>Again, no. You don't reverse a double-standard by creating a new double standard, <i>you just create a new double standard</i>. I'm sorry, but that shouldn't be hard to understand. It's effectively just applying a new form of sexism to the character, which creates more problems in the long run than it solves. </p><p>1. If you apply this reasoning to other stereotyped Tropes, you end up closing a ton of possible archetypes to women. In this example, you're saying that P'Li can occupy a relatively minor role like Ghazan & Ming-Hua OR she can be the main villain like Zaheer, but she CAN'T be the lost loved one that spurs Zaheer to further heights. However, if you change "girlfriend" to "great friend" to get around Nick's censors, you can still give that role to a male, no problem. The same goes for any other female-dominated archetype, you can make the rule to stop using it for women & then just fill it with men. That arbitrary rule doesn't do anything because it addresses the result, not the root problem. Also, once again, Tropes Are Not Bad. If you avoid them because of negative connotations, you also end up throwing out their positives. Or you could take a 3rd option & simply recognize that you are not every other author, you are not to be blamed for their faults, & you can choose to use the Trope more responsibly. </p><p>2. As Anita Sarkeesian said before me, "Reversing the Trope seems like a good idea, but you're actually just reinforcing it by recognizing it as the norm & creating an exception to it." </p><p>3. Are you familiar with the phrase "ambivalent sexism"? Even "positive" double-standards are a problem <i>because they are double standards</i>. They reinforce the notion that men & women are different & unequal, & should be treated as such. A common example is "women need to be cherished & protected," which sounds like a great deal, until you see that it also manifests as "women are weak & incapable." </p> <div class="quote"><i>And...y'know, you're right. It shouldn't make a difference; and it wouldn't if characters were viewed equally. The trouble is that they're not. And how things might be in a perfect world doesn't magically become reality by virtue of people tuning out all evidence to the contrary. If anything, that just perpetuates it.</i></div>
<p>I never said anything about a perfect world, or the stereotype not existing. These are words that you've repeatedly shoved in my mouth based on the fact that I reject <i>your complaint about a specific scene</i>. What I'm saying is basically Gandhi's refrain of "be the change that you want to see." If you want to see equal treatment, the best way to do that is to create a situation of equal treatment, not to simply reverse the discriminatory practice. </p><p>Not only that, that's also a bad way of writing. As a post I saw once put it, you should think of writing like acting. You shouldn't be afraid to portray something because someone might get offended & accuse you of endorsing it. If they can't recognize that difference, then that's their problem. Your concern should be to make your character(s) project the illusion of being independent, self-willed people as much as possible. This means that ANY character should be able to meet ANY fate. Regardless of what anyone else is doing, you shouldn't consider the character's gender to be a reason to do or not do something with that character. </p>
(Edited by Neo Bahamut)
<p>Does anyone besides me feel that P'li should not have been killed? Judging by her backstory, I think she acted out of love and gratitude for Zaheer rather than pure evil. It upsets me that she is dead. I really loved that moment between her and Zaheer in "Enter the Void". It made me feel for her and even for Zaheer.
</p>
(Edited by Mayabelle)
<p>@ Neo Bahamut: I love how calling an example by its right name is a "name drop" (while bringing Anita Sarkeesian into it somehow <i>isn't</i>—speaking of double standards) and a generalization now. Equivocate around in circles all you want; it doesn't <i>go away </i>just because you <i>like</i> the work. (Hell, <i>I</i> like the work.)
</p><p>And in closing? Genuine double standards cannot <i>exist</i> outside of a context involving imbalance of power. And "offense" is entirely irrelevant to...well, pretty much <i>everything</i>.
</p>
<div class="quote"><i>Mayabelle wrote:
Does anyone besides me feel that P'li should not have been killed? Judging by her backstory, I think she acted out of love and gratitude for Zaheer rather than pure evil. It upsets me that she is dead. I really loved that moment between her and Zaheer in "Enter the Void". It made me feel for her and even for Zaheer.</i></div>
<p>She was as brutal as the rest of them (sniping at Kai, and so on) and actually had the highest on-screen body count (by virtue of <i>one scene</i>, no less). </p><p>But even so: it <i>was</i> kinda cheap and skeevy that they sacrificed a character implied to be a former child soldier to give a pompous ascended fanboy—main villain or no—a few (short) moments of grief and a power boost (that was supposed to be about emotion and attachment, but was nonetheless only <i>briefly</i> hampered by said short moments of grief).
</p>
Does anyone besides me feel that P'li should not have been killed? Judging by her backstory, I think she acted out of love and gratitude for Zaheer rather than pure evil. It upsets me that she is dead. I really loved that moment between her and Zaheer in "Enter the Void". It made me feel for her and even for Zaheer.</i></div>
<p>She was as brutal as the rest of them (sniping at Kai, and so on) and actually had the highest on-screen body count (by virtue of <i>one scene</i>, no less). </p><p>But even so: it <i>was</i> kinda cheap and skeevy that they sacrificed a character implied to be a former child soldier to give a pompous ascended fanboy—main villain or no—a few (short) moments of grief and a power boost (that was supposed to be about emotion and attachment, but was nonetheless only <i>briefly</i> hampered by said short moments of grief).
</p>
(Edited by Deist Zealot)
<div class="quote"><i>Deist Zealot wrote:
@ Neo Bahamut: I love how calling an example by its right name is a "name drop" (while bringing Anita Sarkeesian into it somehow <i>isn't</i>—speaking of double standards) and a generalization now. Equivocate around in circles all you want; it doesn't <i>go away </i>just because you <i>like</i> the work. (Hell, <i>I</i> like the work.) <p>And "offense" is entirely irrelevant to...well, pretty much <i>everything</i>. </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Mayabelle wrote:
Does anyone besides me feel that P'li should not have been killed? Judging by her backstory, I think she acted out of love and gratitude for Zaheer rather than pure evil. It upsets me that she is dead. I really loved that moment between her and Zaheer in "Enter the Void". It made me feel for her and even for Zaheer.</i></div>
She was as brutal as the rest of them (sniping at Kai, and so on) and actually had the highest on-screen body count (by virtue of <i>one scene</i>, no less). <p>But even so: it <i>was</i> kinda cheap and skeevy that they sacrificed a character implied to be a former child soldier to give a pompous ascended fanboy—main villain or no—a few (short) moments of grief and a power boost (that was supposed to be about emotion and attachment, but was nonetheless only <i>briefly</i> hampered by said short moments of grief).
</p> </div> <p>I still do not agree with her dying. She should have been simply imprisoned rather than killed. </p>
@ Neo Bahamut: I love how calling an example by its right name is a "name drop" (while bringing Anita Sarkeesian into it somehow <i>isn't</i>—speaking of double standards) and a generalization now. Equivocate around in circles all you want; it doesn't <i>go away </i>just because you <i>like</i> the work. (Hell, <i>I</i> like the work.) <p>And "offense" is entirely irrelevant to...well, pretty much <i>everything</i>. </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Mayabelle wrote:
Does anyone besides me feel that P'li should not have been killed? Judging by her backstory, I think she acted out of love and gratitude for Zaheer rather than pure evil. It upsets me that she is dead. I really loved that moment between her and Zaheer in "Enter the Void". It made me feel for her and even for Zaheer.</i></div>
She was as brutal as the rest of them (sniping at Kai, and so on) and actually had the highest on-screen body count (by virtue of <i>one scene</i>, no less). <p>But even so: it <i>was</i> kinda cheap and skeevy that they sacrificed a character implied to be a former child soldier to give a pompous ascended fanboy—main villain or no—a few (short) moments of grief and a power boost (that was supposed to be about emotion and attachment, but was nonetheless only <i>briefly</i> hampered by said short moments of grief).
</p> </div> <p>I still do not agree with her dying. She should have been simply imprisoned rather than killed. </p>
(Edited by Mayabelle)
<div class="quote"><i>Mayabelle wrote:
I still do not agree with her dying. She should have been simply imprisoned rather than killed.</i></div>
<p>What I was hoping would happen with the Red Lotus is as follows: </p>
I still do not agree with her dying. She should have been simply imprisoned rather than killed.</i></div>
<p>What I was hoping would happen with the Red Lotus is as follows: </p>
- Zaheer, <i>if anyone</i>, dead.
- Alternately, Zaheer trapped in the Fog of Lost Souls (seriously: he <i>oughtta</i> be keeping Zhao and spirit!Aiwei company).
- The other three meeting possibly ambiguous fates, but with the implication that they were <i>defeated</i>. That even if they <i>did</i> turn out to all have survived and even <i>regrouped</i>, the death or condemnation of their strategist and linchpin would leave them unlikely to <i>rally</i> any time soon (if ever).
(Edited by Deist Zealot)
<p>And for <i>my</i> closing statement, I didn't say anything resembling "it's okay because I like the work," nor did I say that namedropping is bad in & of itself. It's not that I'm being vague, quite the opposite in fact, you just keep changing what I said into something else. Also, how dare I respond to the assertion that I ignore/refuse to believe feminist criticisms by citing feminist criticisms! At this point--actually long before now--you're just grasping at straws to maintain not only your initial complaint, but also the various assertions you made about me along the way, to which I say:
</p><p>http://images.lolstream.com/assets/media_show/730__26b39d3bb54f5551eb7197b883c8ab4a.jpg
</p><p>...Though it's just as well, because that whole argument had basically nothing to do with the topic, so I was going to have to stop soon anyway.
</p>
(Edited by Neo Bahamut)
<p>Funny that you think you're in any position to accuse others of grasping at straws. You've been doing nothing <i>but</i> from the get-go.
</p><p>And for what? To tie yourself in knots to avoid acknowledging that a cheap, skeevy move was made? You're hardly in any position to complain about my suspecting you of bias over it—and <i>especially</i> not after trying to derail about "offense."
</p><p>Also? If name-dropping isn't inherently bad, your attempted use of the accusation as an auto-discredit card falls flat—<i>especially</i> in light of bringing Anita Sarkeesian into it being <i>far</i> more of a "name-drop" than the use of the term "fridging." And considering that the vast majority of your argument has consisted of <i>the selfsame excuses</i> made by people who think that they're "debunking" Sarkeesian? She wouldn't be in your corner. <i>At all</i>.
</p>
(Edited by Deist Zealot)