You mean she’s a lot more self-aware than most fictitious kids written as her age by 45 year old white guys? More so than many actual adults with real living perspectives, for that matter?
I mean that she’s fictitious. She’s a creation. If the self-awareness stands out to you, it’s not because the Real Kid Her Age is unseasonably mature, it’s just because the characterization was loose, purposefully or not, due to the author having a point to make at the expense of robust characterization, or simply not having a 15 year old high schooler of opposite gender’s perspective.
As for the white thing? It’s just part & parcel of identifying the author. I entirely mean to say that middle aged white dudes, existing at the confluence of many privileged categories, have extraordinary peril when it comes to losing touch with the concerns of others. It may seem a light thing, but even young women have voices that can be lost when a (typically older, male, and yes, white) author has something they really want to say through them.
Exactly. To some unenlightened people, women achieving equality with men means that women must behave as poorly as (most) men. Objectification is objectification, no matter who is doing it to who.
How can you agree with Abbie? It’s unethical to do, in my opinion. Just because a lot of people ogle at “hot” people doesn’t make it OK. And how do we know she’s not lying about not dropping her pen on purpose? The following article may be about ogling women, but the same principle applies to ogling men as well. http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/4199
“A lot of people ogle at hot people.” No, everyone ogles hot people. Everyone is going to continue to ogle hot people. There’s nothing wrong with it, as long as you don’t do it in a way to make them uncomfortable. “Objectification” is a word women use to make men feel bad about liking women. I’ve already had this argument on Facebook, so further deponent sayeth not.
You know I not sure she actually objectified Mr. Peterson if anything she was merely admiring the view. There’s a fairly large gap between the two. Objectifying someone usually entails treating someone as a something and matching behavior afterwards. If anything Abbie respectful actions blow any arguments out of the water after all she still treated him as a teacher. Besides I imagine this arc is more about Devyn’s asexuality than anything else.
Humans are beings of nature (more bluntly, animals) before they are beings of culture – and it is basic instinct with all animals to check new individuals of the opposite sex for desirability as sexual partners (and thus as potential partners in procreation). If you refuse to view a person in any other light, even after getting to know them, you can talk of objectification – but to demand that people must never be influenced by the degree of sexual attraction they feel towards a person is denying the basic human intincts of sexuality (also, it’s plain unrealistic).
I think I get it, now. Devyn throws out an argumentum ad personam to take attention off her. Which didn’t work. She left it too late. She had to do it before Abbie said, “but not you.”
You don’t remember being a teenager, do you? Teenagers don’t always plan their confrontations. They don’t always realize when their own weirdness is going to come back at them.
Is that what ‘social anxiety’ is?? You just dont see what all the fuss is about boys??
Sounds like puberty has not ‘kicked in’ yet.. Devyn may be a very late developer??
Frelance, if you cannot ‘suspend your belief in reality’ what are you doing here??? go troll elsewhere.. >:(
Just *maybe* some ‘older’ people have kids that age, and a very good understanding of their ‘growing up’ problems…
believe it or not EVEN much older people have problems about the above! 🙂
Bizkit, Just think for a moment.. 🙂
The ‘person across the room’ may be staring because they are awfully shy, and cannot build up the courage to talk…
It is YOUR TURN to talk to them, and be sympathetic..
I have a friend like that – I go across and explain to her – she is usually happy for the attention! 🙂
I see some comments here and I touched on the same thing for the action in question, where the roles reversed everyone would be throwing a huge fit about a girl being objectified, but with this the complaint seems non existent. ~<3
Double standards exist. They don’t make a wrong thing right.
That said, this is the sort of thing we tend to OVERreact to when the genders are reversed. There should be negative consequences, but they should also scale with the amount of actual harm done. These are teenagers; their socialization process is not yet complete.
Well, so much for having your friends in your class.
I feel sorry for Devyn. She’s had to put up with her social anxiety for three years, and now this.
I’m afraid I’m with Abbie on this one. I don’t think she did anything wrong.
She’s a lot more self-aware than most kids her age too. More so than many adults, for that matter.
You mean she’s a lot more self-aware than most fictitious kids written as her age by 45 year old white guys? More so than many actual adults with real living perspectives, for that matter?
White guys? Where did race come in?
I mean, you make it sound like he’s incompetent to write the scene because he’s 45 and white. I think you need to explain that.
I mean that she’s fictitious. She’s a creation. If the self-awareness stands out to you, it’s not because the Real Kid Her Age is unseasonably mature, it’s just because the characterization was loose, purposefully or not, due to the author having a point to make at the expense of robust characterization, or simply not having a 15 year old high schooler of opposite gender’s perspective.
As for the white thing? It’s just part & parcel of identifying the author. I entirely mean to say that middle aged white dudes, existing at the confluence of many privileged categories, have extraordinary peril when it comes to losing touch with the concerns of others. It may seem a light thing, but even young women have voices that can be lost when a (typically older, male, and yes, white) author has something they really want to say through them.
if it’s not ok for guys to do to girls, it’s not ok for girls to do to guys.
I sense an unsupported premise.
Exactly. To some unenlightened people, women achieving equality with men means that women must behave as poorly as (most) men. Objectification is objectification, no matter who is doing it to who.
How can you agree with Abbie? It’s unethical to do, in my opinion. Just because a lot of people ogle at “hot” people doesn’t make it OK. And how do we know she’s not lying about not dropping her pen on purpose? The following article may be about ogling women, but the same principle applies to ogling men as well. http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/4199
The fact it wasn’t even her pen Dean picked up indicates she was lying
“A lot of people ogle at hot people.” No, everyone ogles hot people. Everyone is going to continue to ogle hot people. There’s nothing wrong with it, as long as you don’t do it in a way to make them uncomfortable. “Objectification” is a word women use to make men feel bad about liking women. I’ve already had this argument on Facebook, so further deponent sayeth not.
Nothing wrong with what she did? So to you, there is nothing wrong with objectifying people?
You know I not sure she actually objectified Mr. Peterson if anything she was merely admiring the view. There’s a fairly large gap between the two. Objectifying someone usually entails treating someone as a something and matching behavior afterwards. If anything Abbie respectful actions blow any arguments out of the water after all she still treated him as a teacher. Besides I imagine this arc is more about Devyn’s asexuality than anything else.
Humans are beings of nature (more bluntly, animals) before they are beings of culture – and it is basic instinct with all animals to check new individuals of the opposite sex for desirability as sexual partners (and thus as potential partners in procreation). If you refuse to view a person in any other light, even after getting to know them, you can talk of objectification – but to demand that people must never be influenced by the degree of sexual attraction they feel towards a person is denying the basic human intincts of sexuality (also, it’s plain unrealistic).
I think I get it, now. Devyn throws out an argumentum ad personam to take attention off her. Which didn’t work. She left it too late. She had to do it before Abbie said, “but not you.”
Devyn’s plan for taking attention off herself was to go confront someone who wasn’t paying attention to her?
You don’t remember being a teenager, do you? Teenagers don’t always plan their confrontations. They don’t always realize when their own weirdness is going to come back at them.
Ouch!
Damn, that’s gonna leave a mark.
Is that what ‘social anxiety’ is?? You just dont see what all the fuss is about boys??
Sounds like puberty has not ‘kicked in’ yet.. Devyn may be a very late developer??
Frelance, if you cannot ‘suspend your belief in reality’ what are you doing here??? go troll elsewhere.. >:(
Just *maybe* some ‘older’ people have kids that age, and a very good understanding of their ‘growing up’ problems…
believe it or not EVEN much older people have problems about the above! 🙂
Bizkit, Just think for a moment.. 🙂
The ‘person across the room’ may be staring because they are awfully shy, and cannot build up the courage to talk…
It is YOUR TURN to talk to them, and be sympathetic..
I have a friend like that – I go across and explain to her – she is usually happy for the attention! 🙂
I’ve always had the same kind of issues with ogling that Devyn appears to be exhibiting here 🙄
Well, you tried Dayven. Just move on from there. Though what Abbie said about eye contact was a pretty good point on it’s own.
Once upon a midnight dreary, it was the girls being ogled by the guys; my, how times have changed…
I see some comments here and I touched on the same thing for the action in question, where the roles reversed everyone would be throwing a huge fit about a girl being objectified, but with this the complaint seems non existent. ~<3
were* ~<3
No. It’s still wrong.
And it disturbs me that Devyn is also referring to him as “the sub”, not by name.
I SO want to take the last panel and make it an image I’ll use continuously when I deal with peope
Double standards exist. They don’t make a wrong thing right.
That said, this is the sort of thing we tend to OVERreact to when the genders are reversed. There should be negative consequences, but they should also scale with the amount of actual harm done. These are teenagers; their socialization process is not yet complete.