• Solumbran@lemmy.worldEnglish
    2·
    3 天前

    Her outfit matters as it makes the character incoherent. No one in the show wondered why a battle robot would wear heels. She didn’t say why either. As such, her character already doesn’t make sense. It is heels and a boob armor, it could have been a broom up her ass, either way it doesn’t make sense and it’s not about “her looks” but about the implications of the character deciding to wear something like this. Borgs are supposed to be ultra-rational, this makes her character stupidly incoherent.

    And how is the fact that a kid is shown as being sexualized and romanced by adults characters about her looks? My point was that she’s a kid mentally, and yet portrayed sexually, how is that about looks? Of course, the underlying meta explanation is that she was just a sex object put in the show for her looks, but my point was precisely that characters in the show, since they don’t know that, are apparently fine with dating a kid. This is a horrible character, no matter her looks.

    Overall, most of my points were not about her looks, but they do relate to it since the character was made badly just so that it could be objectified. To try to make you understand, her looks are not the problem, but the main reason that pushed the writers to make a bad, incoherent, shitty character. And of course I didn’t even start digging into the things you mentioned because they are too many and less bad than what I mentioned, but yes, her actions and choices are incoherent, her relationships weird and bad and basically child abuse, and her performance was pretty abysmal. I just focused on the initial, core problem of the character, which is that it was written lazily because they didn’t care about it making sense, about picking a proper actress, or about thinking about the moral implications of their choices, as all that they wanted was an object-woman.

      • Solumbran@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        2 天前

        Yeah, indeed.

        Still waiting for you to explain how something is sexist when it’s not related to gender btw.

          • Solumbran@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            2 天前

            Yes and sexism is about gender, not sex.

            But sure, let’s continue on this bad faith argument, since my point was that I am against objectification of both men and women, so whether it is about sex and gender it’s the same since it’s related to neither. So how is it sexist?

            • Steve@communick.newsEnglish
              22·
              2 天前

              How many times have you been upset at a male being cast for their appearance? I mentionned before nearly all actors in US media have been cast for their attractiveness.

              Do you rail against the unrealistic body standards of male superheros in comic books, the same way you would women?

              Be honest, nobody does.

              • Solumbran@lemmy.worldEnglish
                1·
                2 天前

                Yeah so you’re really set on talking to yourself.

                I am talking about objectification. The concept of showing someone as primarily an attractive body, as if they were nothing else.

                And yes, just in star trek I mentioned instances of it, and I didn’t even get started on shits like Enterprise.

                Of course comic books have an extreme tendency to show unrealistic body standards, and the fact that the idea of a “normal” guy now is a bodybuilder says a lot, but that’s not about objectification. When Star Trek shows Riker naked in his bathtub just for the sake of it, yeah, that is. And yes I’m against it.

                I think you are so stuck in your vision of things that you just cannot admit that someone would see things differently.