yhwx

adywan said:

You keep going back to wikipedia to say we’re all wrong about how Mary Sue is a derogatory term used towards female characters, yet you seem to have ignored this one paragrpah in that same wiki entry

“Christine Scodari, a researcher in media studies from gender perspective, noticed a tendency within slash fandom to label major female characters (e.g. Nyota Uhura in the Star Trek 2009 film reboot) as “Mary Sues” because the slash fans “begrudged” how the development of the female character takes away screen time from slashable male characters.[16]”

Like i said before, just because a word or term originated with a certain meaning does not mean that , after time, it can’t become something that becomes commonly used as a derogatory term towards a race or sex. It is more widely used as in derogatory form towards female characters that it is used in its original meaning. You only have to go on certain forums and sites to see just how many use it because they hate the “female agenda” in Hollywood as they see it. The comments section on youtube alone since TFA came out was littered with the comments using “Mary Sue” in a derogatory fashion.

This is a good post.

MaximRecoil said:

yhwx said:

MaximRecoil said:

TV’s Frink said:

MaximRecoil said:

why do you even reply to me?

Given that you intentionally misquoted my post, your intellectual dishonesty is noted.

It seems like you don’t understand the concept of “joke.”

He wasn’t claiming, either implicitly or explicitly, to be authoritative and truthful in that post. I think that should be obvious. The misquote was used to make a point.

An intentional misquote is intellectually dishonest. There is no valid point to be made which requires you to misquote someone.

The misquote is so god damn small that you’re doing so much ado about nothing.

MaximRecoil said:

yhwx said:

Where does that assertion come from? I never said that they controlled those sources; I’m just saying that there’s inherent sexism in our society. Is that that hard to understand? I guess so.

You pointed out that Wikipedia editors are “overwhelmingly male”, in order to suggest bias on their part. I then pointed out that the paragraph I cited is sourced, from a female author, no less. So, unless Kat Feete is under the control of male Wikipedia editors, your point is negated.

Holy shit, did you not read the last two sentences of that section that you just quoted. I clarified my intention there!

This is the “your being offended is your fault” attitude that is extremely toxic to the underprivileged.

When someone is offended as a result of their own misconceptions, it is logically their fault.

Logically, I guess, but it is still an extremely toxic attitude to take.

We don’t define words by what somebody in a white paper said once, we define them by how they’re used, and now, “Mary Sue” is being used in a sexist fashion.

This is a mere assertion on your part, i.e., you have no reliable source to back it up.

Okay.

It is 100% reasonable to be offended by the use of the term Mary Sue.

False. It is never reasonable to be offended by a term that doesn’t mean what you think it means.

I’d rather refer this issue to the women rather than you, thank you very much.

Try asking a woman about it sometime.

Which woman gets to redefine the English language? To find out the meaning of words, you don’t ask a random person, you look to reliable sources. You haven’t provided any reliable sources which supports your assertions, and that’s because there are none. A Mary Sue is a character type, and the sex of the character is not part of the definition. Again, prior to December 2015, Wesley Crusher was the most famous Mary Sue. Were you trying to play the “misogynistic” card then? Of course not, and you doing it with Rey is a case of special pleading, which is a logical fallacy.

The reliable sources are based on how people generally use words.

MaximRecoil said:

TV’s Frink said:

MaximRecoil said:

why do you even reply to me?

Given that you intentionally misquoted my post, your intellectual dishonesty is noted.

It seems like you don’t understand the concept of “joke.”

He wasn’t claiming, either implicitly or explicitly, to be authoritative and truthful in that post. I think that should be obvious. The misquote was used to make a point.

We have Revenge of the Sith in (mostly) theatrical HD fashion, but not Star Wars.

MaximRecoil said:

yhwx said:

They certainly can.

No, mere assertions don’t cut the mustard on Wikipedia, as I already said. Information has to be cited from a reliable source, else it can be removed.

Wikipedia’s sole goal is not truth; no, it is verifiability. You can put a wild falsehood on Wikipedia as long as it is verifiable.

Show me a wild falsehood from a source that Wikipedia editors have agreed is a “reliable source” - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources.

I’ll concede these points to you because the Wikipedia discussion (which, I’ll admit, I partially instigated) is stupid.

There’s the societal issues that I’ve mentioned before (and that you have ignored)

Say what? That assertion has nothing to do with anything I said, nor with anything else I said. Once again, what do Wikipedia editors have to do with those sources? Do you think they control those cited websites?

Where does that assertion come from? I never said that they controlled those sources; I’m just saying that there’s inherent sexism in our society. Is that that hard to understand? I guess so.

but this Wikipedia talk is really a distraction. Like Frink said, if your words offend a large cross-section people, find different words.

The only people who are offended are people who don’t know what the term “Mary Sue” means. Logically, that’s their fault, not mine.

This is the “your being offended is your fault” attitude that is extremely toxic to the underprivileged. We don’t define words by what somebody in a white paper said once, we define them by how they’re used, and now, “Mary Sue” is being used in a sexist fashion. It is 100% reasonable to be offended by the use of the term Mary Sue. Try asking a woman about it sometime.

DuracellEnergizer said:

This discussion is ass.

Yes, it is quite the donkey.

MaximRecoil said:

TV’s Frink said:
Actually, it doesn’t.

Yes, it does. A false premise inherently negates any conclusions which follow from it.

Wow, you know so many words!

Basic common human decency suggests that even if you don’t think something is offensive, the fact that many other people think so means you should try to use a different method to get your point across.

It has nothing to do with what I think. There is a generally accepted definition of Mary Sue, which is completely at odd with your “gut feeling” of what it means. I’m not going to stop using the English language in accordance with its accepted conventions just because someone else is unwilling or unable to do their homework.

Whatever you or other people say is the official definition of the word, it hasn’t been used that way. We don’t judge words by what Webster said once, we judge them by how people actually use them. Every good dictionary adheres to this doctrine.

As I said and which you keep conveniently ignoring, all you have to do is argue your points about Rey being overpowered or unearned or whatever without using a term many of us find offensive. Should be simple. But nah, it’s better to attempt to prove your superiority instead with big words, right?

As Kat Feete said, “The term was coined in fanfiction, made its way from there into the publishing world, and has slowly been filtering into the writing community as a useful shorthand for a frighteningly common error in characterization.”

I should disregard useful shorthand because you “have a bad feeling” about it? If you can’t be rational about a topic, why do you even reply to it?

There are other ways to state the same concept in a short manner.

MaximRecoil said:

yhwx said:

MaximRecoil said:

yhwx said:
Well, you cited Wikipedia…

And yes, before you “well actually” me, I know there are rules on Wikipedia, but an unmaintained Wikipedia page can have tons of misinformation on it.

Comparing Wikipedia to Urban Dictionary is utterly absurd, and you trying to hang a lampshade on it doesn’t negate the absurdity. The “Mary Sue” Wikipedia entry isn’t even remotely obscure/unmaintained. Just look at its lengthy “talk” page. Also, the parts I’ve quoted have citations, which are the actual sources.

Okay, I guess. But the fact that Wikipedia editors are overwhelmingly male (by its own self-admission) probably doesn’t help that article out.

You don’t think that the members of this forum, you know, the ones arguing that “Mary Sue” is a misogynistic term, are overwhelmingly male too? The difference is, baseless assertions don’t cut the mustard on Wikipedia.

They certainly can. Wikipedia’s sole goal is not truth; no, it is verifiability. You can put a wild falsehood on Wikipedia as long as it is verifiable.

Also, that summary of the definition of Mary Sue in the opening paragraph is sourced, with the primary source being:

http://fmwriters.com/Visionback/Issue30/marysue.htm

Many of us have heard the term “Mary Sue” floating around writing communities. A Mary Sue is a character that the author identifies with so strongly that the story is warped by it. Sometimes male Sues are called “Gary Stus,” but more often the name is used for both sexes of offenders. The term was coined in fanfiction, made its way from there into the publishing world, and has slowly been filtering into the writing community as a useful shorthand for a frighteningly common error in characterization.

The author is named “Kat Feete” (female name). The other source given is:

http://www.springhole.net/writing/whatisamarysue.htm

Even if we assign some level of credence to your out-of-left-field conspiracy theory, what do those sources have to do with Wikipedia editors?

There’s the societal issues that I’ve mentioned before (and that you have ignored), but this Wikipedia talk is really a distraction. Like Frink said, if your words offend a large cross-section people, find different words.

TV’s Frink said:

Well…great.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/eight-women-say-charlie-rose-sexually-harassed-them--with-nudity-groping-and-lewd-calls/2017/11/20/9b168de8-caec-11e7-8321-481fd63f174d_story.html?utm_term=.6122deec8c98

https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/933025473617125376

NEW: CBS News terminates Charlie Rose following allegations of sexual misconduct. “There is absolutely nothing more important, in this or any organization, than ensuring a safe, professional workplace,” says CBS News President David Rhodes.

Tyrphanax said:

http://originaltrilogy.com/topic/Ranking-the-Star-Wars-films/id/47377/

Nominated. Jesus Christ.

Re-nominated.

This is one of the worst threads for many reasons.

MaximRecoil said:

TV’s Frink said:

MaximRecoil said:

Your mere gainsaying is dismissed.

Sorry again Possessed, now I think Impscum, Twooffour, and this guy are all actually the same guy.

Your crystal ball is in need of repair. I’ve been “MaximRecoil”, and only “MaximRecoil”, on every forum I’ve ever posted on since 2000 when I first started using the internet.

Ya’ ever heard that saying that every joke has a bit of truth to it?

MaximRecoil said:

TV’s Frink said:

Person A: [uses outdated misogynistic term]

Your “misogynistic” assertion has already been confuted, which negates the rest of your post.

You’re dismissed.

MaximRecoil said:

yhwx said:
Well, you cited Wikipedia…

And yes, before you “well actually” me, I know there are rules on Wikipedia, but an unmaintained Wikipedia page can have tons of misinformation on it.

Comparing Wikipedia to Urban Dictionary is utterly absurd, and you trying to hang a lampshade on it doesn’t negate the absurdity. The “Mary Sue” Wikipedia entry isn’t even remotely obscure/unmaintained. Just look at its lengthy “talk” page. Also, the parts I’ve quoted have citations, which are the actual sources.

Okay, I guess. But the fact that Wikipedia editors are overwhelmingly male (by its own self-admission) probably doesn’t help that article out.

MaximRecoil said:

No.

Your mere gainsaying is dismissed.

imperialscum said:

Frink, you just got dismissed again.

TV’s Frink said:

Possessed said:

I bet you and impscum would hit it off great.

Sorry Possessed, but actually he’d be best buds with twooffour.

MaximRecoil said:

Your mere assertion holds no water.

twooffour said:

Um, seriously, no.

This sentiment is completely arbitrary, and it holds no water.
What is a musical arrangement? A remake of a musical piece… into another musical piece.

I don’t need my Hamelin Campanella rearrangement as some film score to a SpongeBob cartoon for it to be valid, or pass for “respectful”, thank you very much.

Remakes can be done in different ways, you can attempt to copy it shot for shot (which, I think, went horribly wrong with Psycho, even though I’ve only seen bits of the remake), or, you can take the plot and ideas, and remake as something new.
Put it in another setting (like, maybe one more suited for the modern day, or something else), tweak around the details, and essentially make a movie that “could’ve turned out, had they made different decisions”. And that form of “imitation” has all the justification you need.

So no, dismissed.
This thread would make more sense as a “good remakes vs. bad remakes”, to which I’d reply, I don’t vividly remember any original / remake right now 😄

Lol, nice comparison.

MaximRecoil said:

adywan said:

There are plenty of terms that started out as one thing and were distorted over time to be derogatory towards a certain race or sex. Mary Sue is one of those.

"Mary-Sue
A sexist term used to enforce the misogynistic ideals that female characters/authors shouldn’t be allowed to fantasize or write anything along the lines of wish fulfillment. Its misogynistic qualities are exemplified in many ways, most notably being the fact that it’s not a term dominated by the male counterpart despite existing in a patriarchal society, as well as the fact that the male counterpart is largely undecided upon in name and also undefined (see urban dictionary’s Gary Stu entry which has no definition but to say “A Male Mary Sue”, and the Marty-Stu entry which involves the “Mary Sue” definition to define it).

It’s usually used on the whole to bully new authors out of writing female characters altogether, making the task seem so daunting to some that they now only write slash fictions with two male characters, also exemplifying the misogynistic qualities this term involves."

You’re citing Urban Dictionary? Anyone can write absolutely anything on there and it remains forever. There is no oversight or rules whatsoever. I could write an Urban Dictionary entry that says Mary Sue is the name of my plumber’s great-aunt.

Well, you cited Wikipedia…

And yes, before you “well actually” me, I know there are rules on Wikipedia, but an unmaintained Wikipedia page can have tons of misinformation on it. The people editing and managing Wikipedia are also a compounding factor here too.

The fact that Wesley Crusher was the most famous Mary Sue in mainstream fiction prior to Rey negates your assertions anyway (and negates the assertions of whoever wrote that Urban Dictionary entry).

No.

MaximRecoil said:

yhwx said:
I don’t freaking care whether it’s a part of the “official” definition, it still has an inheriently mysogonist quality around, even if people don’t realize that (which may be caused by further sexism). It’s still a product of our sexist culture.

So noting that Wesley Crusher was a Mary Sue, is “inherently misogynistic”? How does that work? You realize that Wesley Crusher was a male character, right? Your mere assertion holds no water. It is simply the name of a type of character.

You keep saying that. I’m sure it’ll become true if you say it enough times.

By the way, the person who wrote the parody featuring the character for which the trope was subsequently named, is a woman (Paula Smith), which means the most famous person to mock the type of character now known as a Mary Sue, is a woman. I suppose she’s “misogynistic” too?

Women can be misogynistic too. It’s to a far less greater extent than men, but it still happens.

MaximRecoil said:

TV’s Frink said:
If you can show me that Mary Sue isn’t used far more often than Gary Stu, I’d love to see it.

Mary Sue is used far more often, because Mary Sue is usually used to refer to characters of either sex. Once again:

A Mary Sue is an idealized and seemingly perfect fictional character. Often, this character is recognized as an author insert or wish fulfillment.[1] They can usually perform better at tasks than should be possible given the amount of training or experience. Sometimes, the name is reserved only for women, but more often the name is used for both sexes. A male can also be referred to as a Gary Stu, but more commonly either sex is called a Mary Sue. [2][3]

It is just the name of a trope. The sex of the character is not part of the definition, which is why the most famous Mary Sue prior to Rey was Wesley Crusher from Star Trek: TNG.

I don’t freaking care whether it’s a part of the “official” definition, it still has an inheriently mysogonist quality around, even if people don’t realize that (which may be caused by further sexism). It’s still a product of our sexist culture.

Possessed said:

I bet you and impscum would hit it off great.

MaximRecoil said:

yhwx said:

No, not having it.

It doesn’t matter whether you’re “having it” or not; it doesn’t change the facts whatsoever.

MaximRecoil said:

TV’s Frink said:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MarySue

Mary Sue is a derogatory term

Oh.

It is not “derogatory” in the sense that you used the term; you claimed it was misogynistic. It isn’t.

yhwx said:

Er… there kind of is. At least in Western culture, there’s a tendency to shun women who are perceived to “do it all,” without perceived difficulty. It does not matter if the term came from an actual character; it’s still a product of the sexist culture that we live in. Culture does not exist in a vacuum.

MaximRecoil said:

This is your tacit admission that you haven’t even bothered to do your homework in order to avoid commenting on things you know nothing about:

The term “Mary Sue” comes from the name of a character created by Paula Smith in 1973 for her parody story “A Trekkie’s Tale”[4]:15 published in her fanzine Menagerie #2.[5]

True. I am a dummy on the Internet.

TV’s Frink said:

dahmage said:

DominicCobb said:

Rey’s marksmanship is a perfect example of the sexist bullshit that is the Mary Sue argument. Think how common it is in movies (not just Star Wars) that a guy picks up a gun for the first time and his aim and ability is never questioned. Yet they go out of their way to show that Rey isn’t perfect with a blaster but people call it out anyway.

The Luke comparisons are legitimate. Not because he’s a Gary Stu (although seriously guys, if anyone’s a heroic author avatar, maybe it’s the character that shares George’s name?), but because the truth is no one watches Star Wars and questions Luke’s ability with a blaster, like the thought never even occurs. The fact Rey is held to a higher level of scrutiny is just proof of the sexist skepticism of the capabilities of female characters and women in general.

The only post worth reading on this page.

Reported.

Co-signed.

TV’s Frink said:

MaximRecoil said:

I suggest you do a Google search. “Gary Stu” is even mentioned in the opening paragraph of the Wikipedia “Mary Sue” article.

Thank you for proving my point. The only time anyone every pulls out Gary Stu is to defend their use of Mary Sue.

In fact, watch what happens when you search Wikipedia for Gary Stu:

Mary Sue
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Gary Stu)

Hahahaha.

Even Wikipedia gets it!