The Big Picture: Boy's Own Adventure

[Paradoxrifts]

How long do I have to wait for the dark, grim and gritty reboot?

 

[Lonewolfm16]

It's always nice to see uninformed hypocritical children rant against other groups uninformed hypocritical children on the other side of the aisle. The self-righteous stupidity in the comments thus far is astounding.

When I first heard about this, quite honestly I was annoyed. There is nothing wrong with the idea of boys being boys and girls being girls. It is not bigotry to subscribe to "traditional" gender roles, nor is it idiocy to feel that the "politically correct" of the world are trying very hard to dictate what is and isn't acceptable. Do you, as a person, like everything and everyone? Do you have a completely open mind when it comes to everything you encounter? No? Then what gives you, or anyone like you the right to tell someone else what is and isn't acceptable?

SOCIETY reinforces gender stereotypes. SOCIETY determines what is and isn't allowed. Not the left, not the right, SOCIETY as a whole. Some people think that presenting these types of concepts to children is confusing. Some people have beliefs that find this type of pandering(and make no mistake, this is pandering), offensive. And regardless of the validity of those beliefs, they have just as much right to them as you do to yours.

Social change should come because of a change in how SOCIETY thinks, feels, behaves. It should not be attained via force or coercion. When a religious radical speaks out, he is quickly labeled as a bigot or fool(well if that person is from the west, other cultures seem to get a free pass no matter what nonsense they spout), yet when someone steps up in the name of "insert this weeks hippy agenda item" they are immediately praised by both the media and the vocal minority as standing up for what they believe.

I personally do not agree with either point of view due to the fact that I do not believe it is my place to DICTATE what others think. But maybe that is just me.

Two things: One, no traditional gender roles are not evil, as long as they are not forced. It should be "a guy wants to hunt, fix cars, wear manly clothes, read war-stories ect ect, fine. A guy wants to wear girly clothes, shop, read fashion mags and romance novels thats fine too. Do what you want" and saying that cross-dressing/ acting in traditionally opposite gender ways is acceptable isn't a attack on more traditional styles. Just a call for tolerance.
two, society is a collection of individuals. The "political correctness" side? They are part of society. And social change happens more easily when you push it. (see civil rights and feminism.)

Name ONE instance where societal change came more easily by "pushing it"? Calling for tolerance is just another form of coercion. EVERYONE, racist, bigot, hippy, communist, socialist, republican, democrat, elitist, etc. Everyone has just as much right to their opinion as anyone else. Telling someone who hates minorities to be "tolerant" is hypocritical and ultimately has little effect on their actual beliefs. You can not force people to change how they think. You can place limits on how they express those thoughts, you can ensure the differing points of view are presented peacefully. But you can not make someone believe something they don't want to.

What you can do, and this is where my initial comment stems from, is inundate people with propaganda. You can manipulate the SOCIAL consciousness and create a false sense of "tolerance". The only problem is that "change" built on a foundation of manipulation lasts only as long as you are the one doing the manipulating.

True societal change ONLY comes with time. It comes from the debate, it comes from the differing points of view. Those who claim their enemies fools tend to be fools themselves.

One example? Did you not read the parenthetical statement after my last sentence? Civil rights, feminism in the 20s and later the 60s, the abolitionist movement in the north, ect ect. And your view seems to be that since some people don't like cross-dressing, cross-dressing shouldn't be allowed on television. How is that a view in favor of freedom? People don't like it? Fine, they retain the right to freedom of thought and speech, they can not like it all you want. And I have the right to call them a idiot and a bigot. Thats how freedoms works. And the Hub has the right to show as many shows in support of cross-dressing as they want.

 

[sleeky01]

Am I missing something? Does said ring actually change his gender or just slap a dress on him?

Would he really be a tranny or a cross-dresser?

And with kids watching this show are they really gonna care?

 

[Ihateregistering1]

It's always nice to see uninformed hypocritical children rant against other groups uninformed hypocritical children on the other side of the aisle. The self-righteous stupidity in the comments thus far is astounding.

When I first heard about this, quite honestly I was annoyed. There is nothing wrong with the idea of boys being boys and girls being girls. It is not bigotry to subscribe to "traditional" gender roles, nor is it idiocy to feel that the "politically correct" of the world are trying very hard to dictate what is and isn't acceptable. Do you, as a person, like everything and everyone? Do you have a completely open mind when it comes to everything you encounter? No? Then what gives you, or anyone like you the right to tell someone else what is and isn't acceptable?

SOCIETY reinforces gender stereotypes. SOCIETY determines what is and isn't allowed. Not the left, not the right, SOCIETY as a whole. Some people think that presenting these types of concepts to children is confusing. Some people have beliefs that find this type of pandering(and make no mistake, this is pandering), offensive. And regardless of the validity of those beliefs, they have just as much right to them as you do to yours.

Social change should come because of a change in how SOCIETY thinks, feels, behaves. It should not be attained via force or coercion. When a religious radical speaks out, he is quickly labeled as a bigot or fool(well if that person is from the west, other cultures seem to get a free pass no matter what nonsense they spout), yet when someone steps up in the name of "insert this weeks hippy agenda item" they are immediately praised by both the media and the vocal minority as standing up for what they believe.

I personally do not agree with either point of view due to the fact that I do not believe it is my place to DICTATE what others think. But maybe that is just me.

Two things: One, no traditional gender roles are not evil, as long as they are not forced. It should be "a guy wants to hunt, fix cars, wear manly clothes, read war-stories ect ect, fine. A guy wants to wear girly clothes, shop, read fashion mags and romance novels thats fine too. Do what you want" and saying that cross-dressing/ acting in traditionally opposite gender ways is acceptable isn't a attack on more traditional styles. Just a call for tolerance.
two, society is a collection of individuals. The "political correctness" side? They are part of society. And social change happens more easily when you push it. (see civil rights and feminism.)

Name ONE instance where societal change came more easily by "pushing it"? Calling for tolerance is just another form of coercion. EVERYONE, racist, bigot, hippy, communist, socialist, republican, democrat, elitist, etc. Everyone has just as much right to their opinion as anyone else. Telling someone who hates minorities to be "tolerant" is hypocritical and ultimately has little effect on their actual beliefs. You can not force people to change how they think. You can place limits on how they express those thoughts, you can ensure the differing points of view are presented peacefully. But you can not make someone believe something they don't want to.

What you can do, and this is where my initial comment stems from, is inundate people with propaganda. You can manipulate the SOCIAL consciousness and create a false sense of "tolerance". The only problem is that "change" built on a foundation of manipulation lasts only as long as you are the one doing the manipulating.

True societal change ONLY comes with time. It comes from the debate, it comes from the differing points of view. Those who claim their enemies fools tend to be fools themselves.

One example? Did you not read the parenthetical statement after my last sentence? Civil rights, feminism in the 20s and later the 60s, the abolitionist movement in the north, ect ect. And your view seems to be that since some people don't like cross-dressing, cross-dressing shouldn't be allowed on television. How is that a view in favor of freedom? People don't like it? Fine, they retain the right to freedom of thought and speech, they can not like it all you want. And I have the right to call them a idiot and a bigot. Thats how freedoms works. And the Hub has the right to show as many shows in support of cross-dressing as they want.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Civil rights and women's suffrage wasn't about changing people's beliefs, it was about extending constitutionally protected rights to groups who had been deprived of them. When segregation ended, it was "blacks now have the same legal rights as whites", not "blacks now have the same legal rights as whites, and you are banned from thinking they shouldn't".

People's attitudes are changed more easily by taking a non-combative approach, this was why MLK advocated non-violent protest for civil rights, or with Gandhi for expelling the British from India, to show people who was on the moral high-ground. When you have one person being the bully and the other being the victim, it's clear who is morally in the right in the situation.

On the other hand, when you have two sides screaming at one another, in this case one claiming that Shezow is a big conspiracy to turn kids into crossdressers and the other side screaming that anyone who has any issue with the show is a bigoted fascist, no one makes progress, as attacking and insulting people causes them to go into defense mode and makes the idea of them changing their beliefs even more remote.

Also, I haven't heard of anyone saying this show should be banned. Actually, now that I think about it, the article from Ben Shapiro is the only thing I've heard anyone say about this show. I haven't seen a single fox-news pundit talk about it or seen a weekly standard article about it. This whole thing sounds like making a mountain out of a mole hill.

 

[Lonewolfm16]

It's always nice to see uninformed hypocritical children rant against other groups uninformed hypocritical children on the other side of the aisle. The self-righteous stupidity in the comments thus far is astounding.

When I first heard about this, quite honestly I was annoyed. There is nothing wrong with the idea of boys being boys and girls being girls. It is not bigotry to subscribe to "traditional" gender roles, nor is it idiocy to feel that the "politically correct" of the world are trying very hard to dictate what is and isn't acceptable. Do you, as a person, like everything and everyone? Do you have a completely open mind when it comes to everything you encounter? No? Then what gives you, or anyone like you the right to tell someone else what is and isn't acceptable?

SOCIETY reinforces gender stereotypes. SOCIETY determines what is and isn't allowed. Not the left, not the right, SOCIETY as a whole. Some people think that presenting these types of concepts to children is confusing. Some people have beliefs that find this type of pandering(and make no mistake, this is pandering), offensive. And regardless of the validity of those beliefs, they have just as much right to them as you do to yours.

Social change should come because of a change in how SOCIETY thinks, feels, behaves. It should not be attained via force or coercion. When a religious radical speaks out, he is quickly labeled as a bigot or fool(well if that person is from the west, other cultures seem to get a free pass no matter what nonsense they spout), yet when someone steps up in the name of "insert this weeks hippy agenda item" they are immediately praised by both the media and the vocal minority as standing up for what they believe.

I personally do not agree with either point of view due to the fact that I do not believe it is my place to DICTATE what others think. But maybe that is just me.

Two things: One, no traditional gender roles are not evil, as long as they are not forced. It should be "a guy wants to hunt, fix cars, wear manly clothes, read war-stories ect ect, fine. A guy wants to wear girly clothes, shop, read fashion mags and romance novels thats fine too. Do what you want" and saying that cross-dressing/ acting in traditionally opposite gender ways is acceptable isn't a attack on more traditional styles. Just a call for tolerance.
two, society is a collection of individuals. The "political correctness" side? They are part of society. And social change happens more easily when you push it. (see civil rights and feminism.)

Name ONE instance where societal change came more easily by "pushing it"? Calling for tolerance is just another form of coercion. EVERYONE, racist, bigot, hippy, communist, socialist, republican, democrat, elitist, etc. Everyone has just as much right to their opinion as anyone else. Telling someone who hates minorities to be "tolerant" is hypocritical and ultimately has little effect on their actual beliefs. You can not force people to change how they think. You can place limits on how they express those thoughts, you can ensure the differing points of view are presented peacefully. But you can not make someone believe something they don't want to.

What you can do, and this is where my initial comment stems from, is inundate people with propaganda. You can manipulate the SOCIAL consciousness and create a false sense of "tolerance". The only problem is that "change" built on a foundation of manipulation lasts only as long as you are the one doing the manipulating.

True societal change ONLY comes with time. It comes from the debate, it comes from the differing points of view. Those who claim their enemies fools tend to be fools themselves.

One example? Did you not read the parenthetical statement after my last sentence? Civil rights, feminism in the 20s and later the 60s, the abolitionist movement in the north, ect ect. And your view seems to be that since some people don't like cross-dressing, cross-dressing shouldn't be allowed on television. How is that a view in favor of freedom? People don't like it? Fine, they retain the right to freedom of thought and speech, they can not like it all you want. And I have the right to call them a idiot and a bigot. Thats how freedoms works. And the Hub has the right to show as many shows in support of cross-dressing as they want.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Civil rights and women's suffrage wasn't about changing people's beliefs, it was about extending constitutionally protected rights to groups who had been deprived of them. When segregation ended, it was "blacks now have the same legal rights as whites", not "blacks now have the same legal rights as whites, and you are banned from thinking they shouldn't".

People's attitudes are changed more easily by taking a non-combative approach, this was why MLK advocated non-violent protest for civil rights, or with Gandhi for expelling the British from India, to show people who was on the moral high-ground. When you have one person being the bully and the other being the victim, it's clear who is morally in the right in the situation.

On the other hand, when you have two sides screaming at one another, in this case one claiming that Shezow is a big conspiracy to turn kids into crossdressers and the other side screaming that anyone who has any issue with the show is a bigoted fascist, no one makes progress, as attacking and insulting people causes them to go into defense mode and makes the idea of them changing their beliefs even more remote.

Also, I haven't heard of anyone saying this show should be banned. Actually, now that I think about it, the article from Ben Shapiro is the only thing I've heard anyone say about this show. I haven't seen a single fox-news pundit talk about it or seen a weekly standard article about it. This whole thing sounds like making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Civil rights was about so much more than just legal rights, that's why King had lines like "judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character", the goals were legal rights, as well as unity and a end to racism. And feminism in the 20s was more focused on legal battles, but in the 60s it became much more of a movement to affect social change. Besides that King described his movement as being spiritually aggressive yet non-violent, so it wasn't about complete pacivity, just a lack of physical violence. And you shouldn't be basing your beliefs on who seems nicer, you should be basing them on whose points make the most sense.

 

[punipunipyo]

Nope... last time I check, the ONLY WAY to pass down my gene to the next generation, and to secure my kind's existence, in another words... NATURAL SELECTION SAYS: male + female = survival of our kind, sorry to break it to you, but no "mental sickness" here, which brings me to a good question... assuming you are on "the other side"... how do you intend to "pass your gene"? think about it...

Firstly, it's not really "your gene," is it? Your genetics are a combination of everything that went before you.

Secondly, why does it matter if you pass "your gene" to others? The only reason seems to be egotism. There's no need for more humans to exist in the world, there are more than enough already, probably too many for the available resources to be be sustainable. I'm curious as to why you think it's such necessity to reproduce.

Then there's the issue that plenty of heterosexuals don't have children either. Are they as invalid in your eyes as gay people, because they choose to have sex for pleasure rather than procreation? Is producing babies the only reason people exist?

WOA!? wait... "invalid"? I didn't say that, don't put words in my mouth... second... nope... it IS my gene... I am the combination of my father and mother(as I was born, taking bio-material based off of their blueprints), and all my experiences/personalities/bio-mass I had accumulated over my life time are of my own, which WILL BE PASSED ON TO THE NEXT GEN. yes, I play a significant part in this...

from the way you answered me... I had few questions for you... as a friend...

1. Are you anti-social? as in... do you hate human? "..There's no need for more humans to exist in the world.."

2. Are you detached from your family members? "it's not really 'your gene,' is it? Your genetics are a combination of everything that went before you.Secondly, why does it matter if you pass 'your gene' to others?"

3. Did you REALLY think B4 you say things? "plenty of heterosexuals don't have children either. Are they as invalid in your eyes as gay people, because they choose to have sex for pleasure rather than procreation?" (there... you just proven my point of my first post...BTW, yes, sex for sake of pleasure "ONLY", is wrong...)

again... this is going off topic... I think we can REALLY have good discussion OUTSIDE this thread... please, I AM interested to chat about this whole philosophical/social/religious/scientific issue, I would like to know why you think the way you do... PM me or something... I'll try my best to let you know why I think the way I do... just not in this thread...

(TOPIC) again... YES, I am a strong (didn't use the word ANTI- this time)non-homosexual believer, and I'd be offended if a cartoon says "Homosexual is normal" to my kids... but again, "Shezow" isn't that, people who does think so need to chill out.. that's all... (first statement is there to make the second sound)

 

[Aardvaarkman]

WOA!? wait... "invalid"? I didn't say that, don't put words in my mouth

You said that you believe homosexuality is wrong. That is a synonym for saying that it is invalid.

... second... nope... it IS my gene... I am the combination of my father and mother(as I was born, taking bio-material based off of their blueprints), and all my experiences/personalities/bio-mass I had accumulated over my life time are of my own, which WILL BE PASSED ON TO THE NEXT GEN. yes, I play a significant part in this...

But why is it so important to you that those traits be passed on?

1. Are you anti-social? as in... do you hate human? "..There's no need for more humans to exist in the world.."

No, I think humans are great. But there is no shortage of them. In fact, making too many more humans could actually endanger the human species. Look into history and how over-population has doomed species and populations in the past.

3. Did you REALLY think B4 you say things?

Yes. That's kind of a weird thing to write for somebody who uses "B4" instead of actual words.

... you just proven my point of my first post...BTW, yes, sex for sake of pleasure "ONLY", is wrong...)

What makes it wrong? Is the only time you have sex when you want to conceive a child?

 

[piclemaniscool]

Whoa Whoa Whoa. The Hub isn't JUST for My Little Pony. They're slowly gathering all the classic WB cartoons as well. Superman, Batman, Batman Beyond, and even the Animaniacs! If you don't watch The Hub because of a single show which doesn't even air after 1:00 pm, you're missing out.

Another thing is that bob mentioned the international viewers. I don't know about most of Europe, but having watched a lot of Israeli television, it's almost impossible to see a show WITHOUT people cross-dressing every episode. And those are real people, not just cartoon characters (whose voice actor is most likely female anyway, don't forget). This seems to be an American-exclusive problem.

 

[J Tyran]

a transvetite superhero...

Does wearing female clothing even make a man a transvestite? I genuinely don't know, in my own mind its just clothes but its probably more complicated than that.

 

[Jamane]

a transvetite superhero...

Does wearing female clothing even make a man a transvestite? I genuinely don't know, in my own mind its just clothes but its probably more complicated than that.

"transvestite" is literally the word for a person who dresses in clothes associated with the other gender so... yes, yes it does.
This does not mean you are transgender that is different.

 

[theApoc]

One example? Did you not read the parenthetical statement after my last sentence? Civil rights, feminism in the 20s and later the 60s, the abolitionist movement in the north, ect ect. And your view seems to be that since some people don't like cross-dressing, cross-dressing shouldn't be allowed on television. How is that a view in favor of freedom? People don't like it? Fine, they retain the right to freedom of thought and speech, they can not like it all you want. And I have the right to call them a idiot and a bigot. Thats how freedoms works. And the Hub has the right to show as many shows in support of cross-dressing as they want.

Um, none of those things came more easily because of "pushing" anything. Historically, "pushing" things of that nature creates DEEP divides in society and is not really the catalyst for ANY type of actual change. When there is injustice people should be made aware, hence the right of our citizenry to speak out and express their points of view. However, in all instances where ideology is "pushed" onto society there have been both divisive and often violent conflicts as a result.

And no I am not saying cross dressing should be banned from TV. What I am saying is that if people are allowed to put cross dressing on TV, or promote gay marriage, or any other random social issue, then the alternative points of view should have the same freedom REGARDLESS of what the vocal minority thinks is "right" or "fair". My initial post was not in reference to what should or shouldn't be on TV, but rather in response to the uninformed masses who were passing judgement on people who just happen to have a different point of view. No one is suggesting people have to agree, but to say that someone else does not have the right to speak their mind is ridiculous.

The comments before mine were filled with inaccuracies and exaggeration. They have a perfectly legitimate right to speak their minds, just as I do. I commented on the FACT that most of the com-mentors were basing their posts on either mis-information or pure speculation. Bob's videos are OP-ED pieces, nothing more and should be treated as such IMO.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

And no I am not saying cross dressing should be banned from TV. What I am saying is that if people are allowed to put cross dressing on TV, or promote gay marriage, or any other random social issue, then the alternative points of view should have the same freedom REGARDLESS of what the vocal minority thinks is "right" or "fair".

They are allowed to. The vast majority of TV content contains "traditional" or "normative" depictions of gender roles. Also, what makes you think supporters of gender equality are a "vocal minority"?

This is a very strange angle to approach it from - because the story here is that a show that dares depict a male character in "female" clothes is being attacked, and people are saying it shouldn't be shown. Nobody has said anything about banning shows that show males in traditionally male clothes.

No one is suggesting people have to agree, but to say that someone else does not have the right to speak their mind is ridiculous.

When did anybody say that others don't have the right to speak their mind?

Bob's videos are OP-ED pieces, nothing more and should be treated as such IMO.

I don't think anybody ever thought otherwise. Perhaps you can point out who was claiming that Bob is a hard news reporter? He's obviously an entertainment reviewer.

What's wrong with op-ed pieces, anyway? Some of the best journalism ever written has been in the editorial/opinion format.

 

[Frankster]

Ranma 1/2 laughs at this pathetic weakling who doesnt even have the "balls" to fully become a girl, merely dress as one.

Otherwise surprised this is an issue at all.

 

[angel85]

you know, it's funny that I saw this video JUST as I started watching Cyber 6 on youtube. Cyber 6 is about a transgendered hero as well, except that she's a female hero whose secret identity is a man. Of course that show is a drama along the lines of Batman the Animated Series while Shezow is a comedy with the gender swap reversed but the similarity IS there.

 

[Mcupobob]

I couldn't find any articles or videos about this show from fox news. In fact the I can't find any Main-stream Conservative sites making any comments on this show. I feel like the only people making a big deal out of the show are people wanting to be outraged by some pretend controversy. Just to hate on the right wing for something they didn't even say or do.

I have no problem with the show and I don't think anyone does, besides apparently conspiracy theorist from my Internet searchings.

 

[cthulhuspawn82]

The constant mentioning of "conservatives" shows how partisanship is ruining good discussion. Its crazy to see anything harmful with this show, and the whole idea of a "gay agenda" is ridiculous as well, so why don't we specifically bash people who hold those beliefs rather than attacking an entire political philosophy that holds stances on a multitude of social and economic issues?

I have to wonder how some here would treat a moderate or liberal who thinks this show is a somehow a threat to our children. Would they get a free pass since much of this thread is about bashing conservatives rather than than bashing people who are anti-LGBT?

I'm not disagreeing with the general sentiment of the thread. Just pointing out that people should be focusing on the relevant belief rather than bringing up an entire ideology, comprised of many beliefs, 99% of which have nothing to do with this issue.

 

[Mcupobob]

The constant mentioning of "conservatives" shows how partisanship is ruining good discussion. Its crazy to see anything harmful with this show, and the whole idea of a "gay agenda" is ridiculous as well, so why don't we specifically bash people who hold those beliefs rather than attacking an entire political philosophy that holds stances on a multitude of social and economic issues?

I have to wonder how some here would treat a moderate or liberal who thinks this show is a somehow a threat to our children. Would they get a free pass since much of this thread is about bashing conservatives rather than than bashing people who are anti-LGBT?

I'm not disagreeing with the general sentiment of the thread. Just pointing out that people should be focusing on the relevant belief rather than bringing up an entire ideology, comprised of many beliefs, 99% of which have nothing to do with this issue.

My problem is that I can't find these conservatives that are supposedly bashing this show. I searched for an hour and every article about this show is about the "backlash" it has received however I've yet to find a single website or hell even post that even gives a fart.

If anyone can prove me wrong, but I think the hub is making this shit up in order to draw ratings to the show. The only nay-sayer was apparently someone at the hub who's whole reaction was basically "I'm not sure this is a good idea scooby!"


Capcha: peter out

 

[krvhill]

Saw something like this before. I read a webcomic called Spinnerette (http://www.spinnyverse.com/) One of the Heroes in it is Green Gabe a male descendant of Anne of Green Gables. The traditional uniform being a dress and pigtails, just because he's male the family saw no reason to break with tradition. I thought it was a cool idea.

 

[krvhill]

Saw something like this before. I read a webcomic called Spinnerette (http://www.spinnyverse.com/) One of the Heroes in it is Green Gabe a male descendant of Anne of Green Gables. The traditional uniform being a dress and pigtails, just because he's male the family saw no reason to break with tradition. I thought it was a cool idea.