Sunday, May 9, 2010

Podcast Interview: Blackest Night and Feminism

For my third appearance on the podcast Made of Fail, I give my thoughts on Blackest Night and we talk some more about feminism that started with my Athena #1 review.

Click here and take a look:

Click here!

Also remember that this is Not Safe For Work! ‎

49 comments:

Filler Joe said...

I'll hold out on that podcast until my Blackest Night comes in the mail but I'm interested in it.

Tezzle said...

"I'm cute!" And he's just so modest, folks!

XD Really though, it's all true. You rock, dude. Linkara: I AM A WOMAN-FRIENDLY MAN! *punch!*

TheGoose said...

After I talked with you about where you got your info that William Moulton Marston used bondage in the Wonder Woman comics to lure in boys, I found out that your wrong.

First, you got your info from Scott Tipton's Comics 101, where he said that it was his THEORY that Marston used bondage to titillate. He clearly didn't research if his theory were true, he just thinks that's why Marston did it.

I checked with comic book historian Alan Kistler (here's his website: http://alankistler.squarespace.com/) and, considering that he researched for his history of Wonder Woman article, he said that Marston was using bondage because he believed that it was liberating and empowering.

I asked Kistler if he had evidence and he said that that he gotten evidence from talking with people who had worked with Marston and also made two different points about bondage back in the 1930's:

1. The target of these books were kids, not teens, so it makes no sense why Marston would try to titillate young children.

2. Bondage was a highly taboo fetish not openly discussed, so using it to titillate pre-adolescents doesn't seem likely.

So, in conclusion, Marston didn't use bondage to entice boys Wonder Woman. Linkara, please do more research about comics history, check and try to understand your sources, and do more research.

TheGoose said...

One last thing, I wanted to add. Even if the theory were true that Marston did use bondage to entice boys, he wouldn't have had to used since Wonder Woman wasn't the first or only female superheroine. It's not like a lot of kids would've have been afraid to read her book otherwise.

Kylie said...

Hey, no arguing from me that you're cute. (Which you are, by the way. :))

Another interveiw, Lewis/Linkara? (whichever you want to be called.) Are people just NOW noticing you?

By the way, There actually is a halfway decent fanfiction about the Channel Awesome gang over on fanfiction.net, if you want to check it out. Although it's called "The Spoony Experiment", everybody's in it. (I mean everybody. Whoever wrote it made it a goal to sqeeze in everyone he could think of.) It's not great, but at least it's not a slash fic for once.

You know, I think it's kinda cool that people care enough to critize you. Even if it's a poorly written "Respect my opinion!" type thing, they still bothered to leave it. If you really want to hear my two cents, I think you shouldn't even bother messing with those kinds of people. It's the people that tune in to see you every week that you want to try and please. (And, so far, you're doing a damn good job at it!)


Plus, you have an entire army of fangirls. (Myself included.) How many other people can honestly say that?!

Celey said...

Yes, I would say Linkara is cuteness-approved... *Although, I'm probably not one to judge... I find crickets to be absolutely adorable.. spiders, too... Especially the big ones because they're just so round and fuzzy-looking!*

I wouldn't say he's woman-friendly... I'd say more like everybody-friendly (except for people who forgot where they left their brain and stuff)...

//>.>\\'... I still think he's misguided with the feminism thing, though... I mean, I'm pretty tolerant of most beliefs and philosophies... as long as they don't cause any harm or spread any hate around...

I guess it helps that Linkara is nice... I don't think his conscience would allow him to be harmful or hateful... (Or for that matter, dishonest... I saw that interview he did with Spoony with that lady... Kristen Lokken?)..

Still, I do find it worrisome...

Lewis Lovhaug said...

Fine, I was wrong.

Goose, what is your obsession with proving me wrong? You keep bringing up this old crap as if it had any sort of real significance. Oh yes, you say it's because you don't want to see misinformation spread, but then again it was something I thought to be correct myself and yet you treat it as if it's the most important aspect of the entire thing, yet I'm not seeing many thorough analyses citing me as a source for this one minor piece of trivia, and that's what it is - TRIVIA.

It's like the people who are mistaken about Wonder Woman needing to always be published in order for DC to retain the copyright - it's incorrect, but all in all it's a trivial matter that has no real bearing on anything. Why do you persist in challenging me on the silliest and smallest things and then post about it in SOMETHING THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!?

Perpugilliam said...

Ooh, more Blackest Night discussion. I feel spoiled now. XD

This was a really interesting, intelligent podcast. I'll have to go through the archives later. It also made me wonder if you were ever going to discuss Greg Land in AT4W, but I guess there's not really anything new that can be said on that topic.

Also, I burst out laughing when you said, "I'm cute." I guess modesty is pointless when you're explaining why you have fangirls, lol.

Lewis Lovhaug said...

"This was a really interesting, intelligent podcast. I'll have to go through the archives later. It also made me wonder if you were ever going to discuss Greg Land in AT4W, but I guess there's not really anything new that can be said on that topic."

We'll be getting to Land in the future. I have a copy of Ultimate Power just waiting for me to review! =D

Celey said...

Does seem pretty nitpicky... //>.>\\'...

It's probably 'cause you have so many fans, Linkara... There's bound to be a few that are gonna scrutinize every single detail of what you've said... //^_^\\'...

Happens in a lot of fandoms...

Reminds me of an episode of Animaniacs... This one is poor quality...

But it's still classic and hilarious....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgd5S-X-_dQ

Anonymous said...

Ah, Blackest Night
While I'm not much of a Geoff Johns fan (I prefer Grant Morrison, Garth Ennis and Warren Ellis), I must admit he writes some pretty good mainstream.
Blackest Night is an excellent example of a bombastic popcorn theatre done right.

I think that the whole Star Sapphires issue somehow stems from the fact that they wanted to stick to the traditional costume-scheme associated with the singular Star Sapphire.
Still, I would LOVE to see a man wearing that thing.
ESPECIALLY Hal Jordan (hmmm)


I'm glad you don't spurn all sexuality.
I have no problem when a character that's intended to be promiscuous or an exhibitionist dresses in that way, because it MAKES SENSE for who they are.


I'm shocked you are the most slashed member of TGWTG, always thought it was the Nostalgia Critic wirg the Angry Video Game Nerd
(at least that's the impression I've got from all the hate-sex art I saw)


And since Wonder Woman is being talked about, I would love to confirm one thing.
Is there really a contract that forbids DC to use Wonder Woman or any related character outside of the comics unless Wonder Woman is the star?
Was that the reason why Donna Troy couldn't appear on Teen Titans?
Why Wonder Woman got omitted during the Batman Beyond featuring the Justice League crossover episode?
Why Wonder Woman can not appear on Smallville?
And why Cassie Sandsmark won't appear on the upcoming Young Justice cartoon?
And if yes, than how come Donna Troy appeared on the Teen Titans segment of "The New Adventures of Superman" despite the show not even having Wonder Woman herself make an appearance?

TheGoose said...

"Goose, what is your obsession with proving me wrong? You keep bringing up this old crap as if it had any sort of real significance. Oh yes, you say it's because you don't want to see misinformation spread, but then again it was something I thought to be correct myself and yet you treat it as if it's the most important aspect of the entire thing, yet I'm not seeing many thorough analyses citing me as a source for this one minor piece of trivia, and that's what it is - TRIVIA."

I don't have an obsession with proving you wrong. Like you said, I don't like misinformation being spread. And considering how many times you talk about how women are portrayed in comics, I would think that my "trivial," info would be important to you. Especially, since you tend to get pretty heated about how women are portrayed in comics.

And why do I treat it so important despite no one having cited you in papers,etc. Because there are plenty of non-comic book readers watching your show and believing what you say. And considering how much you talk about the portrayal of women in comics and comics history, in general, I would think you would want to know the right info before you start saying that Willaim Moulton Marston, who created one of the most important comic book characters and figures for women, tried to lure in boys with bondage. Thereby giving misinformation to people who know so little of Wonder Woman, her creator, and the history of women in comics.

"It's like the people who are mistaken about Wonder Woman needing to always be published in order for DC to retain the copyright - it's incorrect, but all in all it's a trivial matter that has no real bearing on anything. Why do you persist in challenging me on the silliest and smallest things and then post about it in SOMETHING THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!?"

You brought it up in the podcast! You said that Marston was trying to use bondage to lure boys into reading Wonder Woman. I was just trying to correct you and make sure listeners wouldn't get the wrong idea. And, again, considering how you always talk about the portrayal of women in comics, I would think you would want to know the right info and give it out to people. Plus, why should people get the wrong idea about one of most important women character ever and her creator's intentions? My "trivial," info seems a lot more important than what you gave as an example.

TheGoose said...

And where do you get the idea that I obsess about trying to prove you wrong?

Carry said...

Excellent podcast, and very enlightening! ^^ Never really heard of Greg Land before this, and now I'm not sure I want to...

PS: Big win for discussing Emp. It really is good.

Anonymous said...

This made my Friday! Ahhh you+MoF will always equal awesome in my book!

-kayla

Anonymous said...

I muted it for a few minutes after "The Name of the Wind" was mentioned because I'm currently reading it and want to avoid spoilers.

Lewis Lovhaug said...

"You brought it up in the podcast!"

Oh, did I? Crap, I forgot. ^^; My apologies.

"Like you said, I don't like misinformation being spread. And considering how many times you talk about how women are portrayed in comics, I would think that my "trivial," info would be important to you. Especially, since you tend to get pretty heated about how women are portrayed in comics."

Yes, I do, but that doesn't answer why you gave a crap so much. Yes, the misinformation thing, but honestly? It's such a small matter that I can't believe you care. It's not like I was saying "Marston wanted boys to become sexual deviants" or that "Stan Lee secretly wants porn in every superhero story," it's a matter of marketing from a source that I trust and you seem to want to disprove me wrong about it, when I'm citing someone else and you should ask THEM if they were giving an opinion or not.

And again, what does that have to do with me caring about the way women are treated in comics? Is it about the bondage-themed covers? It's not like I was saying I approved of them, I'm saying that that was the intent of them. And while I'm sure Alan Kistler has done plenty of fact-checking of his own, but we probably don't know TRUE intention unless we flat-out asked Marston, otherwise it's not a bad theory considering how much friggin' bondage and innuendo there is on those old Wonder Woman covers.

And honestly, it's a conversation point that is so distracting from the POINT and that you care about something so trivial like that, which you've ALREADY corrected me on (the podcast was recorded before the twitter convo) that it comes off more like you just want to prove that you outwitted me at something.

"And where do you get the idea that I obsess about trying to prove you wrong?"

In addition to bringing this up again after the Twitter convo, I've already brought up in another post about you bringing up the Hellfire Club thing multiple times after the conversation was over (now, you said that was because you weren't sure if I'd seen it, but why didn't you just try e-mailing me? I read EVERY piece of fanmail I get, even if I don't answer it), and frankly it seems like every time you make a comment on an episode, it's to say how you disliked it, that my argument wasn't satisfactory, that I didn't use enough jokes, that I did this instead of that, etc.

In addition, you keep REPOSTING THE SAME COMMENTS at different places. Now, again, you've said this is because you want to make your say in various places, but it comes off more like you want to make YOUR points known so that more people will see YOUR stuff on the matter instead of simply responding to comments already made. You don't just say "I agree with so and so, and here's why," you flat out copy and paste the same text over to it.

Now, I'm not trying to be mean or try to negate your criticisms or correct me on facts that I get wrong or say that your points aren't valid or etc., etc. Far from it - I like critique because it keeps me on my toes and helps me work that much harder to work better and I'm greatful for that, Goose. However it really does not come across like your comments are meant to be constructive, but rather be competitive with me even though there isn't a competition.

You don't say, "Gee, are you sure about this whole Marston bondage thing, Linkara? My source says this instead." You instead say, "You are WRONG, Linkara!"

Am I making any sense?

Queen Anthai said...

I was just trying to correct you and make sure listeners wouldn't get the wrong idea.

Goose, I am going to say this ONCE.

It's my damned podcast, and I officially don't give a s**t if sometimes we make a mistake. This applies to my guests, who I consider to be the internet equivalent of visitors to my home. Don't get so self-important that you make it your holy mission to go onto Twitter, and over here, and on MY random-expletive community to harass my friends over something that was a throwaway comment.

Wheaton's Law.

Spiral said...

I'm pretty sure the Hope Entity is a literal blue bird of happiness.

It's, theoretically, representative of the dove that Moses sent out to find land after the end of the Biblical flood.

No idea on the compassion squid though. Predator, Compasquid, and ANGER BULL all seem sort of out of place.

At least red is associated with causing anger in bulls, though, I guess?

Anyway, yeah.

TheGoose said...

"It's my damned podcast, and I officially don't give a s**t if sometimes we make a mistake. Don't get so self-important that you make it your holy mission to go onto Twitter, and over here, and on MY random-expletive community to harass my friends over something that was a throwaway comment."

Alright, I went too far. I wasn't trying to be self-important or harass your friends. Though, Linkara's comment weren't throwaway since you guys were talking about women in comics.

TheGoose said...

"It's such a small matter that I can't believe you care. It's not like I was saying "Marston wanted boys to become sexual deviants" or that "Stan Lee secretly wants porn in every superhero story," it's a matter of marketing from a source that I trust and you seem to want to disprove me wrong about it, when I'm citing someone else and you should ask THEM if they were giving an opinion or not."

I don't think that stating rightly a creator's intentions about how they created a character and tried to market it is trivial.

"And again, what does that have to do with me caring about the way women are treated in comics? Is it about the bondage-themed covers? It's not like I was saying I approved of them, I'm saying that that was the intent of them. And while I'm sure Alan Kistler has done plenty of fact-checking of his own, but we probably don't know TRUE intention unless we flat-out asked Marston, otherwise it's not a bad theory considering how much friggin' bondage and innuendo there is on those old Wonder Woman covers."

It matters because of how you present yourself and how you go on about how women are portrayed in comics, whether good or bad. My aim was to correct you because I don't want people to get the wrong impression of what Marston did to market Wonder Woman. Your theory that you got from Scott Tripton was HIS THEORY. He has no facts! Alan Kistler, on the other hand, has actually talked to people who worked with Marston. I would say that is enough to be sure what his intentions were when tried to market Wonder Woman.

"And honestly, it's a conversation point that is so distracting from the POINT and that you care about something so trivial like that, which you've ALREADY corrected me on (the podcast was recorded before the twitter convo) that it comes off more like you just want to prove that you outwitted me at something."

It matters in one of the things you talk about: how women are portrayed in comics!

"In addition, you keep REPOSTING THE SAME COMMENTS at different places. Now, again, you've said this is because you want to make your say in various places, but it comes off more like you want to make YOUR points known so that more people will see YOUR stuff on the matter instead of simply responding to comments already made. You don't just say "I agree with so and so, and here's why," you flat out copy and paste the same text over to it."

I just wanted to make my research known. Thanks for the tip on how I can do it better.

"You don't say, "Gee, are you sure about this whole Marston bondage thing, Linkara? My source says this instead." You instead say, "You are WRONG, Linkara!"

Sorry about that. If something like this happens in the future, I'll do more constructively.

"In addition to bringing this up again after the Twitter convo, I've already brought up in another post about you bringing up the Hellfire Club thing multiple times after the conversation was over (now, you said that was because you weren't sure if I'd seen it, but why didn't you just try e-mailing me? I read EVERY piece of fanmail I get, even if I don't answer it), and frankly it seems like every time you make a comment on an episode, it's to say how you disliked it, that my argument wasn't satisfactory, that I didn't use enough jokes, that I did this instead of that, etc."

Didn't think of e-mail. Sorry about that. But, I don't see how I'm obsessing over you just because I state my opinion. Plus, I have said good things about your reviews. Just check the comment in your DK 2 #2 review.

TheGoose said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Celey said...

I loved the choice of words.... *Hope Squid and Compassion Squid*

I mean... I dunno what it is, but I just think these two things are made of awesome.

It kind of reminds me of the Grim Squeaker. :D...

Plus... Squid is an interesting word, anyway... It's like.... squid... Squeaky and cute and to the point....

Janett Jazz said...

Goose? Goose-sweetie? Have a cookie, and a glass of moo-moo and sit down.

There. Feel better?

Now listen close:

1. Your source and Linkara's source are just running on theories. You both might be right. You both might be wrong. Both Kistler and Tipton are basing their theories about Marston's motivation by extrapolating from the data available (which frankly isn't much, and in the case of witnesses borders on hearsay). To claim that not only is Linkara wrong but that his "incorrectness" is because he did not do research or that he is spreading misinformation because he is not aware of every single theory about why Wondie gets tied up is...well, short sighted and quite frankly shows that you may be misinterpreting the situation.

2. Sweetiepops, you are starting to behave erratically. The twitter conversation was odd enough (and trust me, I've seen some weird ones), but the last few videos where you have commented have shown that you seem to become unreasonably agitated when anyone disagrees with you.

3. Take a deep breath.


There. All better, tootie?

Lewis Lovhaug said...

"There. All better, tootie?"

..."tootie?" O.o

Janett Jazz said...

@Lewis

Yes. Tootie. It's a cuter version of "Toots". You got a problem with my pet names, bucko?

Lewis Lovhaug said...

"Yes. Tootie. It's a cuter version of "Toots". You got a problem with my pet names, bucko?"

No ma'am. D=

...assuming ma'am based on Janett and OH GOD DON'T HURT ME! D=

TheGoose said...

"frankly it seems like every time you make a comment on an episode, it's to say how you disliked it, that my argument wasn't satisfactory, that I didn't use enough jokes, that I did this instead of that, etc."

That's not obsessing over you, I'm just stating my opinion. And if you look at the comments at past reviews, I have given good remarks.

"And while I'm sure Alan Kistler has done plenty of fact-checking of his own, but we probably don't know TRUE intention unless we flat-out asked Marston, otherwise it's not a bad theory considering how much friggin' bondage and innuendo there is on those old Wonder Woman covers."

I think we can come to the conclusion that Marston wasn't trying to lure boys with bondage based on talks with people who worked with him and other facts. You, still just have a theory unsupported by facts.

""You don't say, "Gee, are you sure about this whole Marston bondage thing, Linkara? My source says this instead." You instead say, "You are WRONG, Linkara!"

Is it wrong for me to say you're wrong when I've given you facts, while you have given just a theory?

Janett Jazz said...

@Lewis

*Pats head and gives cookie

Good boy. I'm glad that's cleared up.

...because I usually don't take lip from people in states that name cities after Spanish vulgarities.












......I'm not kidding, Minnesota. "Vergas", really? Good God.


PS: Keep up the good work, Linkara. I just started watching your review videos just to humor my GF (Hi Honey!),but you've really sold me as an entertainer, and I look forward to the rest of your stuff.

NGT said...

I find Queen Anthai's...threats? I don't know really how to describe that...amusing.

In fact, I find the whole upset with Goose set here amusing. "If you don't like, don't watch/read/listen" is not a valid defense here on the internets, just as it isn't in person. Things that have been posted where the public can get at them are by default open to public scrutiny and hence public criticism or ridicule. This is the price of fame, no matter how relatively small or large.

If you're not prepared to respond in a manner that's either a flat "don't care" or present a logical argument you're not helping your case. Any down-talking garnishment is pure asshattery and reflects no credit on anyone involved.

Now a cursory glance at the Wikipedia page on Marston makes it pretty clear the guy was pro-bondage, or at least pro-submission. Thus I don't think Lewis' source can be considered accurate. Based on that page you can draw two arguments. Marston believed that bondage/submission was a positive experience and necessary for the continued function of human society, thus it got dropped in Wonder Woman as political polemic. (Seriously, he basically defines a perfect society as erotic happiness in slavery in a direct quote!) Or Marston was a personal fan of bondage, his beliefs on its necessity are rationalizations, and its insertion into Wonder Woman was purely author appeal and anybody else it happened to titillate was extra.

deuxhero said...

@TheGoose

Given that we know he was open about his own love for it...

Dan Shive said...

Linkara, directly addressing single critics, particularly oddly persistent ones, is a path to time wasted and higher blood pressure.

Your most potent counter attack is to take whatever valid arguments they might have into consideration and continue to put out quality work without bothering to waste time arguing them with them unless you genuinely want additional feedback or clarification of a point.

Unless, of course, you genuinely enjoy arguing with them. It's hard to tell with just type, but my advice is based on the impression that this is less a case of fun debate and more a case of "Linkara smash" ^^;

JeanJacket said...

"I'm cute."

Clearly this is a curse on the internet. :P

That was cool. I don't know that much about feminism(which is probably something I should learn about, being a girl...), so it's always interesting to hear discussions about it.

I keep meaning to start following the Made of Fail podcasts. *writes down reminder on a sticky note and probably loses it*

Frankie Addiego said...

What I hate about the whole feminism vs sexualization thing is that it's sort-of implying that I devalue women or something by just reading or drawing something that is drawn to be titillating. I mean, I don't think women should all just be back in the kitchen, or not able to vote or whatever, I just like, well-drawn cleavage. The lack of parallel skimpiness or crotch-cleavage on men assumes that most women would like to see that.

I found the opinions on Power Girl interesting, though I think the real reason that they draw her like that isn't even just titillation as much as this ongoing tribute to Wally Wood who was, by some accounts, something of a perv. I prefer the "this is what I got" explanation though I don't think they need one. I see lots of women with cleavage out, but it doesn't mean they're sluts with no value on their own lives or whatever.

Frankie Addiego said...

ALSO--and if this doesn't get approved, I understand--shouldn't that guy be commended for choosing War Hammer (and no, I don't know what that is) over a weekend of "hot monkey sex?" I mean, this whole episode is about how there's too much horniness in artists' and readers' minds, but here comes a guy who says, "no! I don't want to have sex! I want to do something else, okay?"

Strannik said...

Anonymous:

Is there really a contract that forbids DC to use Wonder Woman or any related character outside of the comics unless Wonder Woman is the star?

No.

Was that the reason why Donna Troy couldn't appear on Teen Titans?

Why Wonder Woman got omitted during the Batman Beyond featuring the Justice League crossover episode?


Media rights issues related to 1970s Wonder Woman TV show. Those issues have since been resolved.

Anonymous said...

"Is it wrong for me to say you're wrong when I've given you facts, while you have given just a theory?"

No it isn't.

Except that you have not given facts, have you? You have given just another theory which guesses at Marston's true intention. Thus, your statement is just another educated guess.

So I would suggest a little humility and admitting that your position is on loose soil here.

Perpugilliam said...

@ Frankie: There's a huge difference between being anti-sex and being a feminist. Women can have just as strong of a sexual desire as men, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. The issue discussed in the podcast is how characters are being portrayed unrealistically for the sake of "sex appeal."

The most obvious gender flipped equivalent of this is Taylor Lautner's character in the Twilight movies. In media overall, both genders are being objectified, and I won't deny that. However, the vast majority of the female demographic that are interested in comics read indie comics and manga because they feel alienated by mainstream comics that are created almost exclusively by men, for men.

Someone wanting to look at scantily-clad cartoon women is none of my business, but comic companies making fanservice and poor female characterization the norm and accepting it as a good business model is ridiculous.

Queen Anthai said...

Perpugilliam:

Thaaaaaaaannk you. One can be pro-sex and anti-sexism both at the same time. Sometimes people just DO want to lust after someone's hot body, even though ordinarily they're anti-objectification.

I truly don't see anything wrong with that. I'm having a hard time putting this into words, so bear with me. But it's like, people don't think the exact same way every day all of the time. A little inconsistency and even a tiny bit of hypocrisy (if that's how some may label it) is just a part of being human. Thinking "WOOOO BRING ON THE BOOBS!" once in a while is fine, even if you're a feminist, because let's face it - boobs are pretty. :)

I think if you treat people with respect 99.9 percent of the time, you can get away with a little Neanderthal thinking that other 0.1%. That's just an ordinary sex drive, you know? It's being the caveman ALL THE FREAKING TIME that's sexist and disgusting, because it doesn't demonstrate any general underlying respect.

When superheroes are drawn and/or written as sexpots - men or women - as the sum total of their character when that isn't a natural part of their personality, that's when it's gone wrong. Poison Ivy is a character who can be written as trading on her sexuality, because that's half her shtick. But, for example, Supergirl how she was written and drawn pre-Sterling Gates.....yeahhhhh, that's not where you should be going with Supergirl.

I hope I made a modicum of sense because I think I went all over the place there. :/

By the way, that "sex or Warhammer" anecdote seems to be causing a bit of confusion, so let me clarify - in that specific instance, they hardly ever had any "couples' alone time," and that weekend was something his girlfriend had planned WELL in advance, and he knew about it, and he was blowing off his relationship for a game night that was a regular occurrence. Time with his girlfriend was not. So you can see where she'd be a little cranky about it.

Plus a lot of that was just me picking on the guy because he listens to the show and I've been needling him about that incident for eight years. Trust me, with some of the crap he gives ME, he's got it coming. XD

TheGoose said...

"Except that you have not given facts, have you? You have given just another theory which guesses at Marston's true intention. Thus, your statement is just another educated guess.

So I would suggest a little humility and admitting that your position is on loose soil here."

Apparently, you didn't see the points I brought up or that the points come from someone who has facts and has done research.

Linkara's source didn't have any facts to support his theory.

Anonymous said...

"Apparently, you didn't see the points I brought up or that the points come from someone who has facts and has done research."


Linkara's source didn't have any facts to support his theory."

No. Both did research but came to vastly different conclusions based on interpretation of the evidence.
Your man is trying to do the same thing as Linkara's: trying to interpret the motivations of an individual postmortem WITHOUT anything made by the individual himself suggesting the truth or falsehood of either claim.

I saw your points quite clearly and while they paint an interesting theory, they are just that: a theory no greater or lesser than Linkara's source.

In light of this, I suggest that eat a hot slice of humble pie.

MFlorian said...

I hate it when Mom and Dad fight. ¬_¬

Spiral said...

Ah, a thought I neglected to mention. As for the whole "sex sells" debate, I need to point you no farther than the "success" of Evony.

(thanks Cracked)

TheGoose said...

"No. Both did research but came to vastly different conclusions based on interpretation of the evidence.
Your man is trying to do the same thing as Linkara's: trying to interpret the motivations of an individual postmortem WITHOUT anything made by the individual himself suggesting the truth or falsehood of either claim.

I saw your points quite clearly and while they paint an interesting theory, they are just that: a theory no greater or lesser than Linkara's source.

In light of this, I suggest that eat a hot slice of humble pie."

I'm going to say this for the last time, but I'm not trying to be high and or mighty.

If you look up Linkara's source, Scott Tipton, he says in his Comics 101 article that because all of the bondage, he theorzied that Marston was using bondage to lure boys with bondage.

If you go to Alan Kistler's twitter page (http://twitter.com/SizzlerKistler) and check his responses to my questions, you'll see that he talked with people who worked with Marston and did more research into what the public perception of what bondage was and many other points of interest than Tipton in proving what Marston was doing by having bonage in Wonder Woman comics.

That's the last time I'm repeating myself. Without sounding mean or high or mighty, accept that Tipton has no evidence to support his theory, while Kistler does. Therefore, I believe Kistler and that Marston wasn't trying to seduce boys with bondage.

If you don't accept Kistler's research, fine. But, I don't see why you or anyone else believes in a theory with no evidence behind it.

If anything else, I'll ask Kistler what Marston said about bondage and anything else about Wonder Woman.

Anonymous said...

"If you go to Alan Kistler's twitter page (http://twitter.com/SizzlerKistler) and check his responses to my questions, you'll see that he talked with people who worked with Marston and did more research into what the public perception of what bondage was and many other points of interest than Tipton in proving what Marston was doing by having bondage in Wonder Woman comics."

Once again: he is just making a guess at Marston's intentions. I don't see why you are having such trouble accepting that you have nothing more substantial than this.

"If you don't accept Kistler's research, fine. But, I don't see why you or anyone else believes in a theory with no evidence behind it."

His research is fine. It's just that I require superior evidence to prove that one theory is better than another. As it stands, both Tipton's and Kistler's theories are on the same soil.

dreaming-faerie said...

Wow. While TheGoose is a bit overbearing in responses and such, I've never met anyone more condescending than Janett Jazz. The constant use of 'boy,' 'tootie,' and 'sweetie,' and snarking just because of a place where someone lives is really problematic and disturbing.

I do like reading the responses back and forth in a discussion, but it may just be better to just watch/listen to the videos and keep out of the comments. I hate it when internet rules are reinforced.

Anonymous said...

@dreaming-faerie

I'm pretty sure that he/she/the entity known as Jazz was probably just playing around...

You should probably get a sense of humor.

TimeTravelerJessica said...

I'm glad the Star Sapphire costumes got brought up. What, no men in the equivalent speedos?

Also when you mentioned several people assumed you're either gay or a prude during the Athena review I facepalmed. As a woman who is against similar depictions of women, I usually get accused of being a feminazi. No one ever cares to find out that I'm just as appalled by those Ambercrombie ads with the bare torso of an anonymous guy that's framed in such a way you can't even see his face. You don't have to be a feminazi or a gay man or whatever to be disgusted with the reduction of human beings to sexual objects. You keep on with your sweet feminist ways! You know we love you for it. ;)

Mike said...

Always look forward to listening to your podcasts you're awesome.