I’ve just edited my comment to replace “appear” with “come across as” because maybe the original phrasing makes the point sound more focused on physical appearance than I intended.
Appear did make me think that it was at least partially focused on physical appearance. Although I’m not sure that it reads very differently still, since I’m not how else to take it, especially the “low-status” part. Arguing to gatekeep who can outwardly associate themselves with a social movement based on how they come across or who seems low-status or off putting feels needlessly exclusionary, particularly because those impressions are highly tied into social, racial, gendered and economic prejudices and, unavoidably, physical appearence.
I’m not a fan of merch generally and will avoid branded clothing as much a possible, and I don’t think selling EA merchandise is a good idea overall, but objecting to it on the grounds of how attractive the person wearing it may be, physically or otherwise, seems wrong-headed.
Can you say why?
I’ve just edited my comment to replace “appear” with “come across as” because maybe the original phrasing makes the point sound more focused on physical appearance than I intended.
Appear did make me think that it was at least partially focused on physical appearance. Although I’m not sure that it reads very differently still, since I’m not how else to take it, especially the “low-status” part. Arguing to gatekeep who can outwardly associate themselves with a social movement based on how they come across or who seems low-status or off putting feels needlessly exclusionary, particularly because those impressions are highly tied into social, racial, gendered and economic prejudices and, unavoidably, physical appearence.
I’m not a fan of merch generally and will avoid branded clothing as much a possible, and I don’t think selling EA merchandise is a good idea overall, but objecting to it on the grounds of how attractive the person wearing it may be, physically or otherwise, seems wrong-headed.