Page 4 of 5
Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 12:24 pm
by Karilyn
Zink wrote:In a way they are being more offensive to gay people. By having Dennis not bully Walter because Walter seems "gay" then they are implying that all gay males act like a girly stereotype.
Not really.
The understanding that not all feminine guys are gay, and not all gay guys are feminine, is fairly new.
You can say they aren't gay. But this is the 50s. If you put a feminine guy in a story at that time, they WERE gay. Heck, that was true pretty much through the 90s. Even now, the odds of a feminine male not being heavily implied as being gay in a current television or comic is slim to none. About the only time it doesn't occur, is if the writer wants to make the specific point that "Oh yeah, haha everyone thinks this guy is gay, but he's really straight as a ruler. Haha, look at the drama and comedy from the awkard social situations!"
You can try to pretend that "Oh yeah, the creator wasn't anti-gay, and these were just feminine boys who weren't gay," but that would be pretty darn hard to believe.
Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 5:37 pm
by Misterian
I don't care if that change is "polically correct", these people are only idiots to give Dennis those kind of changes. I refuse to see that black-haired kid as Dennis.
Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:03 pm
by Blubber
I used to read the Beano as a kid, and it really wasn't that bad. The thing about Dennis the manace was that he always got his comupins from his parnets or the teacher, and sometimes even from Walter. Either that or he covered some kid that was bullying
him in custard, or some other rubbish.
Nothing really bad ever happened, when Gnasher bit someone
*GASP* there was no blood, or even a cut, just cartoony bandages and throbbing. Also, from what I remember Walter was always bragging how much better he was, and calling Dennis stupid and other such things.
But yeah, he sometimes did things that he wasn't supposed to do. Dennis the
Menace. It was in the contract. So what they've done to him isn't great, but I don't overly care. I'm never going to watch/read it ever again. And if you want children to see the original Dennis, show them it. Google, youtube, torrents, whatever I'm sure you'll find it.
To me, it's just a really cheesey childrens cartoon. Nothing to fuss over.
Now
I've not read the wikipedia article, so I'm talking from memory.
Desperate Dan having his guns replaced?
Seriously,
it's not that big a deal.
Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:23 pm
by Superior Bacon
Misterian wrote:I don't care if that change is "polically correct", these people are only idiots to give Dennis those kind of changes. I refuse to see that black-haired kid as Dennis.
You know, reading comprehension is a good skill to have. There's a UK version and a US version. The UK version is the one getting changed.
Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 8:03 pm
by Null
Bacon wrote:Null wrote:I just found it weird that some of you are criticizing the comic of being homophobic or something, when not only did the comic never state any characters were gay, but not even the wikipedia article said anything about homosexuals at all.
I also agree with Plasma's point about the fact that the characters are children, and don't actually have any sexuality.
It's the stereotype thing. Maybe it was just aimed at 'softies' or maybe it was aimed at gays, I don't know, but it's something that has to be read inbetween the lines. Of course they're not going to outright says gays, that'd be ridiculous.
I'm hoping it's not gays, but it could be. I don't know.
I would tell you that I honestly believe it's not aimed at gays. While I still feel both sides have been making some good (and bad) points, I still think that Plasma has made the most valid point that the characters are children and really don't have a sexuality. I would also like to add that Wikipedia would actually state any controversies about certain things under a section labelled "Controversies" (Sorry for over explaining that part, I just don't want there to be any confusion).
Additionally, I am pretty sure Wikipedia can't actually be biased, considering the articles can be editted by anyone (I have never editted anything on Wikipedia, so I don't know if that's true, but I'm pretty sure they only discriminate against bad grammar and obvious inaccuracies about the topic.)
I also feel that Karilyn is overreacting a bit. Maybe I've misunderstood, but has she even read the comic? I think it's unfair of her to draw so many conclusions from so little.
Finally, people need to rationalize when they "read between the lines". By all means, look for deep, hidden messages in things, but understand this is your own speculation. You can have your own views on things, but that doesn't mean you're right.
Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 8:18 pm
by Water
Alright, get this: Dennis the Menace is a kid. Do you remember what life was like when you were a kid? Do you think that maybe, just maybe, the original creator of Dennis the Menace wasn't trying to convey a message that beating up girly, sissy boys is a good thing, but was actually just trying to capture a slice-of-life, winsome childhood story? It actually kind of sickens me that people are trying to find a political message in a 50s comic series aimed at children.
Karilyn wrote:The understanding that not all feminine guys are gay, and not all gay guys are feminine, is fairly new.
You can say they aren't gay. But this is the 50s. If you put a feminine guy in a story at that time, they WERE gay. Heck, that was true pretty much through the 90s. Even now, the odds of a feminine male not being heavily implied as being gay in a current television or comic is slim to none. About the only time it doesn't occur, is if the writer wants to make the specific point that "Oh yeah, haha everyone thinks this guy is gay, but he's really straight as a ruler. Haha, look at the drama and comedy from the awkard social situations!"
You can try to pretend that "Oh yeah, the creator wasn't anti-gay, and these were just feminine boys who weren't gay," but that would be pretty darn hard to believe.
Where do you get the idea that feminine male characters in the fifties are automatically gay? You act like this trend was strongest in the fifties, and has diminished since, but actually the opposite is more likely to be true. Homosexuals were less outspoken and well-known in the fifties than during the last twenty years. The stereotype of femininity=homosexuality probably wasn't a stereotype at all, at the time. But I can understand why you might think it was at the time. Cartoons in the fifties were definitely offensive by today's standards, but not for gay jokes.
And I don't really understand what you mean about feminine males being implied as gay. Do you think this trend being propagated by writers? I highly doubt the creators of Dennis the Menace ever tried to imply that Walter was gay. Sure, writers might sometimes make gay jokes, but only for cheap laughs in more mature, modern stories.
If anything, I think this trend of softies=gays is largely due to a fanbase reading too far into characters, and picking up on implications that aren't really there. Kind of like what you and Bacon are doing right now.
Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 8:28 pm
by Superior Bacon
Null wrote:Bacon wrote:Null wrote:I just found it weird that some of you are criticizing the comic of being homophobic or something, when not only did the comic never state any characters were gay, but not even the wikipedia article said anything about homosexuals at all.
I also agree with Plasma's point about the fact that the characters are children, and don't actually have any sexuality.
It's the stereotype thing. Maybe it was just aimed at 'softies' or maybe it was aimed at gays, I don't know, but it's something that has to be read inbetween the lines. Of course they're not going to outright says gays, that'd be ridiculous.
I'm hoping it's not gays, but it could be. I don't know.
I would tell you that I honestly believe it's not aimed at gays. While I still feel both sides have been making some good (and bad) points, I still think that Plasma has made the most valid point that the characters are children and really don't have a sexuality. I would also like to add that Wikipedia would actually state any controversies about certain things under a section labelled "Controversies" (Sorry for over explaining that part, I just don't want there to be any confusion).
Additionally, I am pretty sure Wikipedia can't actually be biased, considering the articles can be editted by anyone (I have never editted anything on Wikipedia, so I don't know if that's true, but I'm pretty sure they only discriminate against bad grammar and obvious inaccuracies about the topic.)
I also feel that Karilyn is overreacting a bit. Maybe I've misunderstood, but has she even read the comic? I think it's unfair of her to draw so many conclusions from so little.
Finally, people need to rationalize when they "read between the lines". By all means, look for deep, hidden messages in things, but understand this is your own speculation. You can have your own views on things, but that doesn't mean you're right.
Of course the kids don't have a set sexuality, unless they're given a boyfriend/girlfriend. It's the stereotype that's the issue. No one's saying Walter's gay; it's that he represents a gay stereotype and is being bullied for it. Maybe he's just being bullied for not being traditionally masculine,
I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is incredibly biased. Anyone can edit anything. Have you seen how many articles require clean up for lack of citations, etc? The articles itself looks fine, but that doesn't mean it's complete.
I'm not arguing whether or not the kid is gay/a gay stereotype. You just can't take everything at face value. Of course they're never going to come out and say "hey, let's bully the fags," that's ridiculous. Even kids shows have things like that. I've never read the comics, I can't pass judgement; but taking things just at face value is a little ignorant. Maybe it does mean nothing, but you have to accept the possibility that it's not just bullying "girly" boys.
Water wrote:If anything, I think this trend of softies=gays is largely due to a fanbase reading too far into characters, and picking up on implications that aren't really there. Kind of like what you and Bacon are doing right now.
I'm not arguing whether the Softies represent gays or not. I'm just arguing the possibility of it.
Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 8:51 pm
by Superior Bacon
Ame no Akai wrote:Bacon wrote:
Water wrote:If anything, I think this trend of softies=gays is largely due to a fanbase reading too far into characters, and picking up on implications that aren't really there. Kind of like what you and Bacon are doing right now.
I'm not arguing whether the Softies represent gays or not. I'm just arguing the possibility of it.
Rather redundant, isn't it.
Nope. I'm not saying he is a representation of gay stereotypes, I'm saying there's a possibility he is.
Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 9:03 pm
by Null
Bacon wrote:Null wrote:Bacon wrote:
It's the stereotype thing. Maybe it was just aimed at 'softies' or maybe it was aimed at gays, I don't know, but it's something that has to be read inbetween the lines. Of course they're not going to outright says gays, that'd be ridiculous.
I'm hoping it's not gays, but it could be. I don't know.
I would tell you that I honestly believe it's not aimed at gays. While I still feel both sides have been making some good (and bad) points, I still think that Plasma has made the most valid point that the characters are children and really don't have a sexuality. I would also like to add that Wikipedia would actually state any controversies about certain things under a section labelled "Controversies" (Sorry for over explaining that part, I just don't want there to be any confusion).
Additionally, I am pretty sure Wikipedia can't actually be biased, considering the articles can be editted by anyone (I have never editted anything on Wikipedia, so I don't know if that's true, but I'm pretty sure they only discriminate against bad grammar and obvious inaccuracies about the topic.)
I also feel that Karilyn is overreacting a bit. Maybe I've misunderstood, but has she even read the comic? I think it's unfair of her to draw so many conclusions from so little.
Finally, people need to rationalize when they "read between the lines". By all means, look for deep, hidden messages in things, but understand this is your own speculation. You can have your own views on things, but that doesn't mean you're right.
Of course the kids don't have a set sexuality, unless they're given a boyfriend/girlfriend. It's the stereotype that's the issue. No one's saying Walter's gay; it's that he represents a gay stereotype and is being bullied for it. Maybe he's just being bullied for not being traditionally masculine,
I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is incredibly biased. Anyone can edit anything. Have you seen how many articles require clean up for lack of citations, etc? The articles itself looks fine, but that doesn't mean it's complete.
I'm not arguing whether or not the kid is gay/a gay stereotype. You just can't take everything at face value. Of course they're never going to come out and say "hey, let's bully the fags," that's ridiculous. Even kids shows have things like that. I've never read the comics, I can't pass judgement; but taking things just at face value is a little ignorant. Maybe it does mean nothing, but you have to accept the possibility that it's not just bullying "girly" boys.
I'm willing to accept any possibilities, but they need some factual backings or rationalization. Otherwise, to me, considering possibilities seems to just turn into some weird paranoia.
Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 9:44 pm
by Bill Nye the Science Guy
why do i always cause an arguement D: i think this happened last time with the SSB thing
it wasnt aimed at gays, its stupid to think that, and its stupid for OTHER people to think that, thats the whole point of the thread
Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 11:44 pm
by Plasma
Bacon wrote:Nope. I'm not saying he is a representation of gay stereotypes, I'm saying there's a possibility he is.
Hold on.
You're going all defensive over... that you want people to be
unsure of whether or not he's intentionally a stereotype? Because that's what your post means, y'know.
Actually, just wanna point this out:
Bacon wrote:Ame no Akai wrote:Bacon wrote:I'm not arguing whether the Softies represent gays or not. I'm just arguing the possibility of it.
Rather redundant, isn't it.
Nope. I'm not saying he is a representation of gay stereotypes, I'm saying there's a possibility he is.
Someone claimed what you were doing was redundant. So you say exactly the same thing again.
You did that on purpose, didn't you?
Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 11:58 pm
by Superior Bacon
Plasma wrote:Bacon wrote:Nope. I'm not saying he is a representation of gay stereotypes, I'm saying there's a possibility he is.
Hold on.
You're going all defensive over... that you want people to be
unsure of whether or not he's intentionally a stereotype? Because that's what your post means, y'know.
I'm not getting defensive, I'm trying to explain what I mean.
Actually, just wanna point this out:
Bacon wrote:Ame no Akai wrote:Bacon wrote:I'm not arguing whether the Softies represent gays or not. I'm just arguing the possibility of it.
Rather redundant, isn't it.
Nope. I'm not saying he is a representation of gay stereotypes, I'm saying there's a possibility he is.
Plasma wrote:Someone claimed what you were doing was redundant. So you say exactly the same thing again.
You did that on purpose, didn't you?
I was trying to explain. I suppose I didn't do it well.
Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 12:54 am
by Myk
butthurt over gays
you're all faggots in my eyes
Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 1:06 am
by Karilyn
Myk wrote:you're all faggots in my eyes
Awww, that's the sweetest thing anyones ever said to me.
Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 1:22 am
by Null
Myk wrote:butthurt over gays