Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Colonol Dekker on September 09, 2014, 01:17:38 am
-
Spider-Woman's Big Ass is a Big Deal!:
apparently so.
-
I laughed. As far as I can tell he's correct.
-
I'm in a state of concurrence.
-
Ugh. What a painful rant. He's a got a few points, but honestly? That style isn't very good for making them.
In addition, some of his points are quite stupid. "Noone cared when this happened to <male character> a decade ago" isn't a good reason why noone should care now when a female character is depicted that way. "This has always been done this way" is not a good reason to continue doing it.
-
That may be so, but the typical rant on how this is a showcase of blatant societal mysogyny, rape culture and what not, falls flat when you learn that in fact men have been depicted this way forever. Maddox is right here, this has been the comics style for ages now, and it has nothing to do with "sexism". Perhaps a charge of "hyperssexuality" can be done, and that's a lot fairer I think. Still, the fact that this was only a scandal when it hit a woman's depiction is again the usual trite that is getting old very very fast, annoying as **** when people claim to be a special target for having a specific gender. No, people, it's not that, it's just that you are ****ing lazy at observing and maths.
(This is incidentally one of the feminism worst traits, they state they are all for equality but for obvious reasons only cry foul when they feel women are being targeted, and they don't even care to look the other way if their accusations are even true in the first place. Just watch the old mantra on how Barbie dolls are patriarchal nonsense because they create this impossible to recreate image of beauty that women should crave for, Barbie has been this symbol for ages, and if you just show them a typical picture of He-Man (or any other badass human hero for which there are innumerous toys to buy) they should see how stupid their argument is, but instead they just keep at it).
And don't get me started at "viking women were also warriors". My head is still hurting for the facepalms of the last week due to this nonsense.
-
There's a reason why the Hawkeye Initiative (http://thehawkeyeinitiative.com/) is a thing though.
-
In addition, some of his points are quite stupid. "Noone cared when this happened to <male character> a decade ago" isn't a good reason why noone should care now when a female character is depicted that way. "This has always been done this way" is not a good reason to continue doing it.
No, but it is a good reason not to go completely up the wall about it. When you make comments like "You'd never see a man depicted like that!" which are completely and utterly false it does mean that you need to include an argument for why it's bad for a woman to be depicted that way but not a man.
Or you can just say "Hey, that's how comic books are for both sexes" and leave it at that.
What you can't do is complain about it being a sexist depiction for women, but not men and leave it at that.
-
There's a reason why the Hawkeye Initiative (http://thehawkeyeinitiative.com/) is a thing though.
That was one of the dumbest pages I've ever seen in my life. No, that doesn't work, because what is "sexually attractive" in men is way different than what it is in women. It's no surprise all those "switches" make men not "sexy" but rather just full blown gay. Men have probably an unconscious taste for women in submissive poses, while women are the exact opposite. They like alpha males with big muscles and filled with strenght and confidence. This is why the switcheroo is just silly and fails to prove any point. Google search for "Superman", "Spider-man", "Captain America" and so on and so on, and you'll see hyperssexualized images of super heroes with super strenght, super confidence, superior alpha male beings capable of conquering it all.
And yes, their crotches are there for all to appreciate.
-
Are you seriously going to claim that the power and action poses that male superheroes are drawn in and the tits & ass poses female ones usually get are the same? That they're both equivalently sexualized, or read as sexual by the intended audience?
-
see Goob, told you it'd be back within a couple days :)
-
Are you seriously going to claim that the power and action poses that male superheroes are drawn in and the tits & ass poses female ones usually get are the same? That they're both equivalently sexualized, or read as sexual by the intended audience?
No, I am saying that that webpage is definitely not proving your claim.
And I'm saying that all these people making these indignated calls in the internet about how the industry is mysogynistic are lazy people who don't even fact-check their claims. They just run with it because it seems a rigtheous challenge, it looks like defending women, so go go go. That's not the way to go. See "half of viking warriors were women" for obvious example of the same asinine attitude.
Look, let me give you an olive branch here: It seems to me that prima facie all these comics are biased towards showing power fantasies for young men and sexual babes for young men. Because that's their target audience. I don't think that's even "mysoginy", it's just the market being the psychopathic bastard that it is, providing goods to cater to their demands. And I think it's appropriate to criticize it, and try to have new ideas in place, new women heroes that aren't hyperssexualized babes, go for it. But this particular thing is foolish pretensious nonsense.
-
That may be so, but the typical rant on how this is a showcase of blatant societal mysogyny, rape culture and what not, falls flat when you learn that in fact men have been depicted this way forever. Maddox is right here, this has been the comics style for ages now, and it has nothing to do with "sexism". Perhaps a charge of "hyperssexuality" can be done, and that's a lot fairer I think. Still, the fact that this was only a scandal when it hit a woman's depiction is again the usual trite that is getting old very very fast, annoying as **** when people claim to be a special target for having a specific gender. No, people, it's not that, it's just that you are ****ing lazy at observing and maths.
(This is incidentally one of the feminism worst traits, they state they are all for equality but for obvious reasons only cry foul when they feel women are being targeted, and they don't even care to look the other way if their accusations are even true in the first place. Just watch the old mantra on how Barbie dolls are patriarchal nonsense because they create this impossible to recreate image of beauty that women should crave for, Barbie has been this symbol for ages, and if you just show them a typical picture of He-Man (or any other badass human hero for which there are innumerous toys to buy) they should see how stupid their argument is, but instead they just keep at it).
Perhaps because He-Man and such figures are subjected to the exact same problem?. These gender stereotypes hurt men as well, but feminists are more interested in the female side because, well, they are female.
showing power fantasies for young men and sexual babes for young men. Because that's their target audience
Which is in itself, again, a stereotype being applied to men, which hurts men.
-
Are spiderwoman comics now rated R-18 in australia?
(http://i62.tinypic.com/qrxgk6.jpg)
I laughed. As far as I can tell he's correct.
+1 for that. Would upvote again.
-
Which is in itself, again, a stereotype being applied to men, which hurts men.
That's debatable. What matters for the industry is what sells, and unfortunately the industry thinks boobs sell way better than characters. And unfortunately they are right.
That's what makes this spiderwoman's thing even more facepalmworthy. They could have picked so many **** from all comics. But no. They had to show this spiderwoman with the catchphrase no spiderman would be drawn like this. I mean, I could even swear this was written as a false flag operation. How dumb can you possibly be??!?
-
I'm glad the industry thinks that way, because I happen to really like boobs.
-
Are you seriously going to claim that the power and action poses that male superheroes are drawn in and the tits & ass poses female ones usually get are the same?
In a word, yes; the artist is depicting them in a manner that the audience derives pleasure and reinforcement from.
That they're both equivalently sexualized,
Yes; comics, like many mass media, sexualize males through hyper-masculinity and alpha-male stereotypes; women are sexualized through submissive positioning and emphasis of primary+secondary biological sexual characteristics. While female characters often are depicted showing more skin, the males are depicted as overly-muscled/chiseled, often in tight clothing to emphasize those features. That the depictions are rendered differently does not make one more or less sexualized than the other.
or read as sexual by the intended audience?
Consciously? No. Subconsciously? Absolutely. There is a reason that male characters designed to appeal to a male audience (particularly adolescents) are not depicted as obese, slovenly, smelly, with neckbeards and a penchant for their mother's basements. The structure of sexual objectification of men and women in media is different, but the outcome is nearly identical.
-
These gender stereotypes hurt men as well, but feminists are more interested in the female side because, well, they are female.
The immediate response to which is usually "Well, why should we men give a flying **** about gender stereotypes which hurt women then?"
If you don't go after the root cause (gender stereotypes) you only hurt your argument because you allow people to point at things like He-man, etc and ask why they aren't being dealt with. This is actually my biggest problem with modern feminism. If you concentrate only on "women's problems" you quickly lose half your audience.
-
"This has always been done this way" is not a good reason to continue doing it.
In the cases of artistic style, there is no viable reason to tell someone to change drawing techniques.
Basically, what I'm saying is that there is no good reason to force someone to stop doing it
Specially in these cases where it's basically life drawing with paintjobs for both sexes
-
Well to be fair, in the case of most women, they are only half, at best, painted.
-
Male power fantasies are not female sexual fantasies (which is not to say there is no overlap, but the primary purpose is not the titillation of female readers).
-
I think comics is possibly a bad place to look anyway if you are just going to go on appearances. The styles used are based on Renaissance statues of heroic proportions, and ironically what most people remember about those Statues is that David had a small willy....
I suppose if you look at just the pictures and didn't read the stories, you could say it's objectifying women, but then, just by looking at the women and not bothering to take their opinions and actions into account, that's objectifying them to the same degree.
This is always a point where things tend to trip up by trying to help too hard. Objectifying women isn't just the fact that they dress scantily etc, women should have as much right to do that as they wish, same as anyone else, objectification is when those women are depicted as vacuous, silly and incapable of taking care of themselves.
Fact of the matter is that most of the women in the Comic Universe are strong, independent and perfectly capable defending themselves. Yes, they may be drawn as power fantasies, but that's just one aspect of the character, and it isn't really fair to just judge by one aspect.
Now, that doesn't get Comics completely off the hook, there have certainly been characters that don't meet those criteria (many of them dragged along like a comet-tail for 50ish years)
I suppose the way I see it is that there's nothing wrong with a scantily clad, strong woman. If we, however, start seeing the scantily clad before the strong, then aren't we just as guilty of jumping to conclusions from appearances as the very people we stand against?
-
Male power fantasies are not female sexual fantasies (which is not to say there is no overlap, but the primary purpose is not the titillation of female readers).
I don't see anyone actually saying that they are...
-
this is me not caring. i never liked spiderman anyway, dont care that they made the female version a prostitute. superheroes never much appealed to me, and one of the reasons was the hypersexuality of both genders. i dont understand the practicality of wearing a skin tight outfit that could neither withstand combat nor huge changes in temperature, both of which are things superheroes have to face on a regular basis, and it just looks silly. modern incarnations of batman are at least somewhat practical in their costumes, fully clothed and decked out in body armor. you still got abs of steel but batman is a ninja and that is to be expected. its even less practical for someone like superman who could do the same job in jeans and a t shirt and would probibly be fat because of earth's relatively low gravity. there are just too few justifications for being scantily clad regardless of gender.
-
Nobody takes kindly to hypersensitive people who see -isms everywhere. If you want to show examples of sexism you should pick solid ones otherwise it is likely to do more damage than good to the cause.
-
this is me not caring. i never liked spiderman anyway, dont care that they made the female version a prostitute. superheroes never much appealed to me, and one of the reasons was the hypersexuality of both genders. i dont understand the practicality of wearing a skin tight outfit that could neither withstand combat nor huge changes in temperature, both of which are things superheroes have to face on a regular basis, and it just looks silly. modern incarnations of batman are at least somewhat practical in their costumes, fully clothed and decked out in body armor. you still got abs of steel but batman is a ninja and that is to be expected. its even less practical for someone like superman who could do the same job in jeans and a t shirt and would probibly be fat because of earth's relatively low gravity. there are just too few justifications for being scantily clad regardless of gender.
You seem to be under the impression that comics are real, you could just as justifiably ask why Cyclops doesn't burn his own face off, or how do these heroes manage to talk to each other in space. The reason for lack of clothes or skin-tight ones is that it is supposed to enhance the physique of the character. It's not about having an excuse to do it, it's about projecting an image of strength.
As I mentioned earlier about the statue of David, he isn't naked with his cock out for the titillation of others, he's doing it because it is the purest form of human physique, people's problem with nudity is their problem, not the comics, but it's easier in our minds to change the comics than to change ourselves.
-
it just seems excessively shallow. i know thats what comic readers expect. its probibly also why i dont give two ****s about comics.
-
I think the problem is we need to draw a line (if you'll pardon the pun) between women being 'sexy' and women being 'sex objects'. Women may want to be sexy, but they don't want to be sex objects.
Take the She-Hulk as an example, partly because there was some Drama over her recently with her being referred to as a 'Big Green Porn Star'. It seems strange to me that the person who said this completely ignored the fact that she is also depicted as an intelligent, qualified lawyer, a team leader and someone who will willingly sacrifice herself for others. Those attributes were ignored and instead someone only saw green boobies and then claimed he's defending women's rights by doing so.
There's nothing wrong with her character enjoying being 'sexy', the problems arise when other people claim that her attitude is evidence of sexism, because they are, quite literally, just judging by appearances.
-
As I mentioned earlier about the statue of David, he isn't naked with his cock out for the titillation of others, he's doing it because it is the purest form of human physique, people's problem with nudity is their problem, not the comics, but it's easier in our minds to change the comics than to change ourselves.
Alternatively, we force everyone to take Life Drawing classes
Which is honestly, an experience everyone should go through because it teaches more than just how to draw
-
The narrative I often see in the ultra-conservatives is that nudity is bad and is thought of as the result of excessive 'feminism.' I think the theoretically more open minded seeing nudity as a sexist thing does no one any good - it all just removes attention from real issues that at least the United States has in terms of gender equality. This most definitely including the large relative consequences of nude photos for women compared to men.
Yes the points weren't all well thought out- but any form of media that dismisses criticism of what amounts to simple nudity, I tend to see as a good thing.
-
Personally I'm sick of the bull**** that Internet Feminazis dredge up to assault Geekdom daily. Rather than promoting and strengthening the depiction, representation, and even exploring the issues of women, they just *****.
"Oh, look those misogynists!"
"How dare they think like men!"
"Men are rapists, Troll roflmo!"
These dip****s can safely sit behind a veil of Internet (mainly Tumblerinas and Twitteristas) spouting bull**** that would make my former Philosophy Department's Women's Studies unit to commit seppuku several times over. There is indeed a problem with sexism, depiction of women, etc. There are all legitimate problems, but between the "Gamer" raeg, death threats, idiot logic of Anita Sarkesian and ****ing outmoded Second-Wave feminists who happily ride the ego train on Twitter and Tumblr, I think there's a serious problem within radical Feminism itself. Gamers are stupid, that's a given, and prone to really dumbass behavior such as rape threats and death threats, still not okay by any moral or ethical means.
We've still got issues with pay gaps between women and men, sexual harassment, issues of gender/sexual culture gaps, and even the advertising industry's idiocy. What these Internet "stars" want is nothing more than attention, ego boosting, and blind followers rather than working towards the empowerment, progression of women, and bringing women's issue to the foreground. They stupidly believing that by "changing" men they can make progress. As one crazy put it, after a contestant on Miss America said women have a right to defend themselves, "No! Men have to be taught not to rape women!"
What?! Is she (said Feminazi) delusional in believing that women don't have a right to defend themselves? Quite frankly so.
I.E. It's mostly hot-air that gets idiots on all sides riled up. I bet ya most of these "Feminists" would break if they actually tried to make a game or similar media that spoke on women's issues. Frankly, most Post-Second Wave feminists only know how to *****, whine, and ***** some more than rolling up sleeves and getting **** done. Most Feminists are known to cry wolf, few actually get a rifle and shoot the wolf.
Internet Feminists make my brain hurt by many degrees, and I can understand the reason why many in the middle ground don't bother getting involved. You can't reason with nutcases.
So what, Spider Woman's ass?
Doesn't change the fact that these same critics (yes, I'm railing hard on the Post-Second Wave feminists) are easy to lay blame, neglectful to try and change the perception by hard work and sweat. Literally my geek/nerd/Intellectual side is firmly insulted by the quagmire over really dumb things.
So end of my crazy rant?
In a nutshell, complaining about Spiderwoman's ass is just that, complaining, Most internet feminists are downright lazy, and insult the "title" they try to hold.
Critques are valid, indeed, but in a day and age where anyone has a right to complain, the sole few actually work to make a positive change. As my usual line: "More women into the Geek industries, more stories, games, comics, and stuff that speaks from a woman's experience and issues."
-
It's a bit funny that comics, of all things, were attacked here. Not only I found them (well, the movies and cartoons, anyway. I rarely read actual comics) fairly even with regards to their treatment of men and women, they're highly stylized and employ numerous tropes so characteristic of the genre that without them, they'd be unrecognizable. I'd say, from a logical point of view, there's little a reason for some of the most powerful Superheroes to even wear any clothing, other than "traditional" human modesty (see Dr. Manhattan from Watchmen, who came to that very conclusion after a while). Yes, they're sexualized to a degree, but it's arguably a degree acceptable to most people or either gender. Both men and women will show skin and wear form-fitting clothing if they're comfortable with how they look. Nudity, even being completely nude, isn't wrong. What is wrong is seeing other people only in sexual terms. And I'd say, comic book heroines (and heroes as well) do well in that regard, too. They are interesting, intelligent characters. There is a tendency for female heroes to have female villains (and vice versa, male heroes and male villains), but that seems to be pretty well mixed up, too.
-
The strong backlash and use of terms like feminazis really hurts any argument madeon this topic. You are comparing some feminists to the actual Nazis, which we associate with WW2 and the holocaust. Are those feminists killing large numbers of people? No. The comparison is ludicrous and insulting and does nothing to further this debate.
Especially as hlp is a primarily male audience, it behooves us to be a little more careful about the tone and the terms used in sensitive topics like this one. Have a little respect, even when you disagree. Sweeping generalizations, dismissive/derogatory tones should have no place in this discussion.
-
Male power fantasies are not female sexual fantasies (which is not to say there is no overlap, but the primary purpose is not the titillation of female readers).
I don't see anyone actually saying that they are...
That they're both equivalently sexualized,
Yes; comics, like many mass media, sexualize males through hyper-masculinity and alpha-male stereotypes; women are sexualized through submissive positioning and emphasis of primary+secondary biological sexual characteristics. While female characters often are depicted showing more skin, the males are depicted as overly-muscled/chiseled, often in tight clothing to emphasize those features. That the depictions are rendered differently does not make one more or less sexualized than the other.
-
I wholly agree with Besk. Care needs to be taken when discussing feminism online, because dropping terms like 'femininazi' severely undercuts your credibility. Complaining about feminists complaining does nothing but ignite hot heads and keep bad blood, and isn't a contribution to debate.
-
Good to see people trying to calm things down, I was worried that post was going to be the start of a long depressing spiral.
The thing is, it's never wise to judge a group by their most extreme exponents, and yet every side tends to do it. It's like saying that mainstream Christianity is accurately represented by the Westboro Baptist Church. Yes, you can argue that they simply take Christian views and stretch them to the limit, but that's kind of what every extremist group does with its views.
'The Gaming Community', that mysterious homogenous group that doesn't strictly exist, is judged by the 'Trolls', feminists are judged by the 'Feminazis' etc.
That's not the way to do it.
-
While I agree with the sentiment regarding terms like "feminazi" I'm a bit disappointed that that was the only take people got out of AtomicClucker. Then again, it proves his point that with all the **** flowing around in the internet regarding those tumblerite arguments, sensible people with common sense reasoning will just rather not get involved.
And I even think that's not only reasonable, it's absolutely the rational thing to do. Which, in turn, is probably for the worst...
-
Agreed, AC does make some points that are perfectly valid, however, the moment I saw that word I thought 'Well, there goes the thread....'
-
I think this thread needs more pics of SpiderWoman's ass. If possible, some pics from the comic as well.
This should help us make a clearer judgement on whether or not it's offensive, or simply fantastic.
-
You are comparing some feminists to the actual Nazis, which we associate with WW2 and the holocaust. Are those feminists killing large numbers of people? No.
While it's a completely unfair depiction of even many radical feminists, there are some really radical ones who kind of remind me of Karl Marx in that what they write makes kind of sense on paper, but would lead to disaster on a national scale if it was ever put into practice. :p
Still, it's not a good term because there's no self-identification. The result is that even fairly reasonable feminists get lumped in with the idiots.
-
Male power fantasies are not female sexual fantasies (which is not to say there is no overlap, but the primary purpose is not the titillation of female readers).
I don't see anyone actually saying that they are...
That they're both equivalently sexualized,
Yes; comics, like many mass media, sexualize males through hyper-masculinity and alpha-male stereotypes; women are sexualized through submissive positioning and emphasis of primary+secondary biological sexual characteristics. While female characters often are depicted showing more skin, the males are depicted as overly-muscled/chiseled, often in tight clothing to emphasize those features. That the depictions are rendered differently does not make one more or less sexualized than the other.
...and I then went on to explain how that sexualization of males is directed at a male audience for their purposes in the very next paragraph. See:
or read as sexual by the intended audience?
Consciously? No. Subconsciously? Absolutely. There is a reason that male characters designed to appeal to a male audience (particularly adolescents) are not depicted as obese, slovenly, smelly, with neckbeards and a penchant for their mother's basements. The structure of sexual objectification of men and women in media is different, but the outcome is nearly identical.
Seriously, everyone, stop picking single lines out of entire posts on a subject to nitpick an argument the original author is NOT making.
-
Let me just say three things.
It's not impossible to change a culture. It's been done countless times, with far greater obstacles. Those who say otherwise have their mind trapped within the next week, next month, next year. The question I and people like Anita are asking is, what kind of culture do we really want? Is this really how we want things to be?
Two, ok, so we can talk about things like gender pay gaps and domestic violence rates, but not the attitudes that lie behind them? That often reveal themselves in places like comics and video games? Or perhaps, if i want escapism, I want escape from having to deal with that **** too. The 'importance' argument is a lazy argument, and a bad one.
Three, I am under no obligation to listen to anyone who rants about "feminazis", and anyone who expects me to does not think highly of my self worth. Saying things like that tell me enough about one's character to allow me to dismiss them as much as I please. AC, do you have the balls to call me a feminazi? Yes, I am a man. A man who calls himself a passionate feminist, and who fully supports Anita and Zoe Quinn. Are you willing to say the same thing to someone's face that you said about others from a safe distance? I'd like to see how important the word is to you.
Also, this is Third Generation feminism, not Second. First was the Suffragettes. Second was 1960s (Women's Liberation). Third is what you're ranting about now. At least get your terms right.
[Note to admins. I'm not trying to start a fight. I actually want to see what his answer is.]
-
Also, this is Third Generation feminism, not Second. First was the Suffragettes. Second was 1960s (Women's Liberation). Third is what you're ranting about now. At least get your terms right.
To be fair, he referred repeatedly to post-second wave feminism, not second wave. Which is a perfectly reasonable term, in that there is frequently a debate (with some second-wave feminists being among the loudest) if there is actually a distinct third-wave feminism at all, as the feminists who are supposedly a part of it are quite a diverse lot with diverse objectives (ranging from the extreme bat**** "we don't need men to continue the human race" strains of radfem to much more moderate feminists who have adopted queer and racial interests into feminism generally).
</clarifying nitpick>
Carry on.
-
It's not impossible to change a culture. It's been done countless times, with far greater obstacles. Those who say otherwise have their mind trapped within the next week, next month, next year. The question I and people like Anita are asking is, what kind of culture do we really want? Is this really how we want things to be?
I don't want things to be puritanical either, look where that led last time.
There's a line it's incredibly easy to cross when 'protecting women' where we are actually protecting our own stereotype of what women like and want instead of actually talking to a representative group of women. And by representative, I mean 'not just those that see sexism in it'.
-
Male power fantasies are not female sexual fantasies (which is not to say there is no overlap, but the primary purpose is not the titillation of female readers).
I don't see anyone actually saying that they are...
That they're both equivalently sexualized,
Yes; comics, like many mass media, sexualize males through hyper-masculinity and alpha-male stereotypes; women are sexualized through submissive positioning and emphasis of primary+secondary biological sexual characteristics. While female characters often are depicted showing more skin, the males are depicted as overly-muscled/chiseled, often in tight clothing to emphasize those features. That the depictions are rendered differently does not make one more or less sexualized than the other.
...and I then went on to explain how that sexualization of males is directed at a male audience for their purposes in the very next paragraph. See:
or read as sexual by the intended audience?
Consciously? No. Subconsciously? Absolutely. There is a reason that male characters designed to appeal to a male audience (particularly adolescents) are not depicted as obese, slovenly, smelly, with neckbeards and a penchant for their mother's basements. The structure of sexual objectification of men and women in media is different, but the outcome is nearly identical.
Seriously, everyone, stop picking single lines out of entire posts on a subject to nitpick an argument the original author is NOT making.
My entire point is that it isn't a sexual fantasy; it's a power fantasy.
-
Also, this is Third Generation feminism, not Second. First was the Suffragettes. Second was 1960s (Women's Liberation). Third is what you're ranting about now. At least get your terms right.
To be fair, he referred repeatedly to post-second wave feminism, not second wave. Which is a perfectly reasonable term, in that there is frequently a debate (with some second-wave feminists being among the loudest) if there is actually a distinct third-wave feminism at all, as the feminists who are supposedly a part of it are quite a diverse lot with diverse objectives (ranging from the extreme bat**** "we don't need men to continue the human race" strains of radfem to much more moderate feminists who have adopted queer and racial interests into feminism generally).
</clarifying nitpick>
Carry on.
Look above that. "Outmoded second-wave feminists."
-
Let me clarify it simply, "Feminazi" perhaps isn't the best term, being a monstrosity coined by Rush Limbaugh. And perhaps it was too harsh and loaded.
But I'll stand by my point they're idiots, like the MRAs and other morons they argue with.
But I tend to argue (I studied under Post-Second Wave and Third Wave feminism), that the Internet Feminists are so firmly ego-tied that they literally worship the "Myth of Feminism," similar to how certain "Myths" were the foundations of Nazi and Marxist ideologies. They spout near-religious tenets and rabid idiocy that makes me wonder if it's a Cult of Personality rather than a movement (and I most assure you Feminism IS a movement, not a Party). Second Wave feminism brought up lots of points, and certainly lots of yelling, and helped to push through social changes that started with the First Wave. Then issues such as free expression, self-determined sexuality, and yep, pr0n, came along and shook Second Wave Feminism to pieces.
Third Wave feminism, is a lot more fragmented, but opened a can of worms about female sexuality that Second Wave feminists considered degrading and oppression, whereas several former Second Wave feminists began to ask question about self-determination, a woman's right to her own sexual expression and determination that lead to a split. But I consider Third Wave's greatest achievement was the "recognition of the self" as opposed to a lot of Second Wave organizations that tended to lean towards group think. There are 3rd Wave Feminists who actually find Pr0n empowering, while others get involved in artwork that deals with female erotica and touching things the Second Wave would shriek at like a bunch of stuttering hens.
There's a clear difference when a counter-organization finally recognizes the need for women to start changing the culture, i.e. Fine Young Capitalists, and they've been getting some **** from the Twitteristsa and Tumlbrinas for actually trying to do something.
It's an outdated, ill-informed, and often dumb idea to attempt to demand culture to change without actually doing anything, and even neglecting to speak from a woman's perspective. Let's take the Feminist Art for example, I use Judy Chicago as an important goal-post, because hell, she actually did something, and rather than complain, she actually tried to speak and celebrate the idea, the notion, of women. A lot of Feminist Art was driven less by the need to "criticize" the Patriarchy and more to speak to the audience about a woman's world. And frankly a lot of Feminist artists are UNDER fire by Feminists for not appealing to set base of ideas, the problem rooted back to Feminism being a loosely affiliated movement instead of a centralized organization.
There's no central tenets to Feminism aside from striving for gender equality and women's enfranchisement.
Frankly, those are so much more powerful than a women squawking about "Gamers being misogynist,"
Women making games, comics, and other things, plus getting those works recognized and sold, would be more successful, and I dare say, intimate to the audience, than trying to force the AAA games industry to shill out to meet "Politically Correct" goals. Plus with the Internet crowd sounding like they came several decades behind the curve, it leads me to challenge their actual legitimacy to understanding what is Feminism.
Edit: I should clarify there's a distinct difference between Post-Second Wave and Third Wave feminists. Post-Second Wave feminists still maintain a strong connection to the fireworks of the Second Wave movement, but the Third Wave feminists actually "evolved" with the times and began to ask new questions, and gasp, worry less about the Patriarchy, and work on more personal and intimate levels.
-
My entire point is that it isn't a sexual fantasy; it's a power fantasy.
I think it's actually a combination of the two, but not a female sexual fantasy as you appeared to believe I was saying earlier.
-
My entire point is that it isn't a sexual fantasy; it's a power fantasy.
I think it's actually a combination of the two, but not a female sexual fantasy as you appeared to believe I was saying earlier.
If it were intended as a direct response to you, I would have quoted you directly in the original post, even given the extra time it would have taken due to being on a phone; regardless, as I said, just because it can double as a sexual fantasy doesn't mean that was the intent behind its inclusion.
-
If it were intended as a direct response to you, I would have quoted you directly in the original post, even given the extra time it would have taken due to being on a phone; regardless, as I said, just because it can double as a sexual fantasy doesn't mean that was the intent behind its inclusion.
True; although, if we're to consider direct conscious intent as being relevant to the assessment of inclusion of elements of sexual objectification in a piece, it also excludes a fair proportion of what may be perceived of as male sexual fantasy (female sexual objectification). Very few artists actually show evidence of conscious intent behind their renderings which are sexually objectifying (it's not as if virtually anyone states it outright).
Either intent matters, or it does not. If one wants to argue that certain depictions of females are sexually objectifying regardless of intent, then one cannot argue that male power fantasies are irrelevant as sexual objects because they were not intended as such. The converse is also true.
Personally, I think context matters, but intent (being a purely subjective determination) does not. Which leads to my earlier conclusion: sexual and power fantasies/politics strongly overlap for all gender identities (wave to Foucault everyone).
-
If it were intended as a direct response to you, I would have quoted you directly in the original post, even given the extra time it would have taken due to being on a phone; regardless, as I said, just because it can double as a sexual fantasy doesn't mean that was the intent behind its inclusion.
True; although, if we're to consider direct conscious intent as being relevant to the assessment of inclusion of elements of sexual objectification in a piece, it also excludes a fair proportion of what may be perceived of as male sexual fantasy (female sexual objectification). Very few artists actually show evidence of conscious intent behind their renderings which are sexually objectifying (it's not as if virtually anyone states it outright).
Either intent matters, or it does not. If one wants to argue that certain depictions of females are sexually objectifying regardless of intent, then one cannot argue that male power fantasies are irrelevant as sexual objects because they were not intended as such. The converse is also true.
Personally, I think context matters, but intent (being a purely subjective determination) does not. Which leads to my earlier conclusion: sexual and power fantasies/politics strongly overlap for all gender identities (wave to Foucault everyone).
First you use "conscious intent", then you switch to just "intent", as though the terms were synonymous. They are not; there is such a thing as subconscious intent. You'll note that the word "conscious" was likewise missing from my own post.
-
I don't want things to be puritanical either, look where that led last time.
This. There are issues of obvious sexism in media where we should strive for some cultural change. Then there are issues like this spider womans ass (or strip club scene in Hitman) where there is no real evidence of sexism. People complaining about such things are either misinformed and should be corrected, or indeed, just puritanical, dont like to see stuff with a hint of sexuality in it, and then they should be actively opposed.
-
no real evidence of sexism
Assigning any sort of absolute terms to something which is not in any way absolute (such as gender and the issues surrounding it) is problematic. Esp. when those things occur in art. There is not a hard line to be drawn here, and if there is, it's not up to you.
-
Assigning any sort of absolute terms to something which is not in any way absolute (such as gender and the issues surrounding it) is problematic. Esp. when those things occur in art. There is not a hard line to be drawn here, and if there is, it's not up to you.
When you take into account that Spiderman was also usualy depicted in tight clothing with prominent ass when crawling around just like Spiderwoman, then yes, all claims of sexism (concerning this particular photo) evaporate with pretty absolute certainty.
-
Assigning any sort of absolute terms to something which is not in any way absolute (such as gender and the issues surrounding it) is problematic. Esp. when those things occur in art. There is not a hard line to be drawn here, and if there is, it's not up to you.
When you take into account that Spiderman was also usualy depicted in tight clothing with prominent ass when crawling around just like Spiderwoman, then yes, all claims of sexism (concerning this particular photo) evaporate with pretty absolute certainty.
Yes, because cultural context is completely irrelevant and two identical poses couldn't possibly have different meanings under any circumstances.
:rolleyes:
-
Yes, because cultural context is completely irrelevant and two identical poses couldn't possibly have different meanings under any circumstances.
:rolleyes:
Yes, something like that actually. Women in tight clothing with prominent ass = men in tight clothing with prominent ass. Thats not sexism, thats just mildly sexualy explicit images, which I am OK with sometimes cause I am not a puritan. Any "cultural context" implying sexism is merely in your head and then it is you, not the society or art that has a problem to solve.
If Spidey was depicted with loose covering clothing while Spiderwoman was all tight and revealing for no good reason, that would be actual sexism and a cause for some activism. Not otherwise.
-
That's debatable. What matters for the industry is what sells, and unfortunately the industry thinks boobs sell way better than characters. And unfortunately they are right.
Some sort of inner-necro, but - I see this getting thrown around a lot, but I have never actually seen some solid stuff on why this is true, if at all.
-
First you use "conscious intent", then you switch to just "intent", as though the terms were synonymous. They are not; there is such a thing as subconscious intent. You'll note that the word "conscious" was likewise missing from my own post.
Mine was shorthand; there actually is *not* such a thing as "subconscious intent." Conscious intent and intent are precisely the same thing.
intent (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/intent)
[mass noun]
Intention or purpose
adjective
1 (intent on/upon) Determined to do (something):
intention (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/intention)
noun
1A thing intended; an aim or plan:
1.1 [mass noun] The action or fact of intending:
Subconscious motivations do not constitute intent for any legal or philosophical purpose.
So again, either intent matters, or it does not. One cannot have it both ways when it is convenient to make a point about sexual objectification of women while ignoring the same objectification in similar contexts of men (and transgendered, and the myriad of other gender identities). The fundamental point I'm making here is that some forms of media - comics among them - objectify both genders on both the basis of power and sexuality together with great frequency, and focusing merely on a quarter of the whole picture (sexual objectification of women specifically) does the greater potential injustices a serious disservice.
This is one of the problems I have with some forms of feminism that I brought up in an earlier thread: some feminists get so caught up in looking at single examples or areas of objectification directed specifically at women that they have a habit of ignoring the larger context which is actually more problematic to begin with. I think that's a fair bit of what's going on in the case of Spiderwoman. There are so many problems with power/gender depictions in comics that it's absolutely laughable to pick one depiction of Spiderwoman as a serious case study of how women specifically are being objectified while other gender identities are not.
-
Some sort of inner-necro, but - I see this getting thrown around a lot, but I have never actually seen some solid stuff on why this is true, if at all.
It's probably a hard statement to prove. Perhaps more solid would be to state that it is a lot easier to draw boobs than designing complex rich likeable characters filled with great writing. And they still sell. A great boob in a cover will sell quite a lot.
-
First you use "conscious intent", then you switch to just "intent", as though the terms were synonymous. They are not; there is such a thing as subconscious intent. You'll note that the word "conscious" was likewise missing from my own post.
Mine was shorthand; there actually is *not* such a thing as "subconscious intent." Conscious intent and intent are precisely the same thing.
intent (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/intent)
[mass noun]
Intention or purpose
adjective
1 (intent on/upon) Determined to do (something):
intention (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/intention)
noun
1A thing intended; an aim or plan:
1.1 [mass noun] The action or fact of intending:
Subconscious motivations do not constitute intent for any legal or philosophical purpose.
So again, either intent matters, or it does not. One cannot have it both ways when it is convenient to make a point about sexual objectification of women while ignoring the same objectification in similar contexts of men (and transgendered, and the myriad of other gender identities). The fundamental point I'm making here is that some forms of media - comics among them - objectify both genders on both the basis of power and sexuality together with great frequency, and focusing merely on a quarter of the whole picture (sexual objectification of women specifically) does the greater potential injustices a serious disservice.
This is one of the problems I have with some forms of feminism that I brought up in an earlier thread: some feminists get so caught up in looking at single examples or areas of objectification directed specifically at women that they have a habit of ignoring the larger context which is actually more problematic to begin with. I think that's a fair bit of what's going on in the case of Spiderwoman. There are so many problems with power/gender depictions in comics that it's absolutely laughable to pick one depiction of Spiderwoman as a serious case study of how women specifically are being objectified while other gender identities are not.
Personally I think it's laughable that we've been spending most of our time talking about how "some feminists" get the issue wrong than the issue itself. This is what actual anti-feminists do to obfuscate and distract. Why the hell are we doing it? Exactly what is the threshold for something that's ok to comment about, MP-Ryan? How dare he use one example you didn't think was important enough! What, does he need to add one more to get certified?
Seriously, this is nitpicking disguised as serious concern. If you can't stand discussing casual sexism in comics and games because they're 'trivial', why don't we go into the more serious stuff then that might interest you?
-
For the record.
Miss Marvel is better.
-
I think the whole "Feminists picking the wrong thing to get angry about" debate is about as important as "Let's pick the right thing to get angry about" one though.
Arguing the wrong point loses you support very quickly and people who might otherwise care about what you think stop listening to you if you are demonstrably wrong. This whole Spiderwoman's ass thing has probably lost more support for real changes in comics than it has gained.
-
Personally I think it's laughable that we've been spending most of our time talking about how "some feminists" get the issue wrong than the issue itself. This is what actual anti-feminists do to obfuscate and distract. Why the hell are we doing it? Exactly what is the threshold for something that's ok to comment about, MP-Ryan? How dare he use one example you didn't think was important enough! What, does he need to add one more to get certified?
Seriously, this is nitpicking disguised as serious concern. If you can't stand discussing casual sexism in comics and games because they're 'trivial', why don't we go into the more serious stuff then that might interest you?
For one, this thread was about a rant about the depiction of Spiderwoman in the first place, and why that's such a ****ty thing to focus on given the objectification in comics generally and not just specific to women.
For two, I already raised the larger issues (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=88335.msg1762804#msg1762804), to which the only related-but-indirect response was that male power fantasies are not the same thing as female sexual fantasies, which no one in the thread has actually claimed.
If anyone would care to make an argument why the depiction of Spiderwoman is a case of sexual objectification that is more important than the conflation of both power and sexual stereotyping and objectification prevalent in comics generally, I'd love to see it (and counter it).
-
Personally I think it's laughable that we've been spending most of our time talking about how "some feminists" get the issue wrong than the issue itself. This is what actual anti-feminists do to obfuscate and distract. Why the hell are we doing it?
Wrong, this is the *topic* of the thread itself. If you don't want to engage in this conversation that you find oh so distracting and oh so anti-feminist, why didn't you engaged otherwise with that other thread I started with actual women objectification in games, or started your own about comics or whatever? I really tried to bring this conversation forward into actual "issues", and many people tried to do the exact same. And yet I've not seen you there, just here complaining that this topic is a distraction. Is this some kind of parody? Have you been hacked?
-
I think the whole "Feminists picking the wrong thing to get angry about" debate is about as important as "Let's pick the right thing to get angry about" one though.
Arguing the wrong point loses you support very quickly and people who might otherwise care about what you think stop listening to you if you are demonstrably wrong. This whole Spiderwoman's ass thing has probably lost more support for real changes in comics than it has gained.
I'm as guilty of this as anyone (I just did it!), but there's been a shift from talking about gender issues to talking about and criticizing how other people talk about gender issues, to finally people talking about and criticizing how other people talk about and criticize people who talk gender issues. It turns real debates into nitpicking and discussions about how commentators aren't going the "right way" about discussing it. Someone decided to call out a particular objectification of Spiderwoman. Why is this such a horrible thing?
-
If you're referring to Maddox, I don't consider it to be a bad thing at all. If not, who are you referring to?
-
If you're referring to Maddox, I don't consider it to be a bad thing at all. If not, who are you referring to?
Whoops. I'm removing the phrase, "in a video." Was referring to what Maddox responded to, as well as The E and Ralwood.
-
Someone decided to call out a particular objectification of Spiderwoman. Why is this such a horrible thing?
Mainly due to the fact that it ignores the objectification of women and men in comics generally, implying that there is a greater problem with one form than another. There isn't. Objectification of the male and female body in comics is rampant, all of which is targeted toward a predominantly male audience and may have unhealthy psychological consequences.
-
Someone decided to call out a particular objectification of Spiderwoman. Why is this such a horrible thing?
Mainly due to the fact that it ignores the objectification of women and men in comics generally, implying that there is a greater problem with one form than another. There isn't. Objectification of the male and female body in comics is rampant, all of which is targeted toward a predominantly male audience and may have unhealthy psychological consequences.
Somebody complaining about a specific instance is not "ignoring" a general issue.
And there is a greater problem with one form than another.
-
Someone decided to call out a particular objectification of Spiderwoman. Why is this such a horrible thing?
Mainly due to the fact that it ignores the objectification of women and men in comics generally, implying that there is a greater problem with one form than another. There isn't. Objectification of the male and female body in comics is rampant, all of which is targeted toward a predominantly male audience and may have unhealthy psychological consequences.
Aside from what Ralwood has already said, can you separate the visual depictions of women from other elements in comics like women in refrigerators or rape as backstory? Does it look so innocuous in the context of all the other awful things in comics you admit exist?
-
Aside from what Ralwood has already said, can you separate the visual depictions of women from other elements in comics like women in refrigerators or rape as backstory? Does it look so innocuous in the context of all the other awful things in comics you admit exist?
Nowhere have I said it is innocuous.
Rather, I have said it is but a tiny miniscule part of the various forms of power and gender stereotyping and objectification that occur in comics. Instead of talking about how women are sexually objectified in comics and that this is somehow worse than the sexual objectification of men in those same comics, let's talk about how comics portray constant stereotypes of women and men that reinforce and promote disparate power relationships between sexual ideal-types in both genders and 'lesser' people who do not fit those stereotypes. Let's talk about how comics portray absurd meanings of what it is to be male, which reinforce and contribute to absurd meanings of what it means to be female, which are manifested in the real world.
What absolutely makes me see red in discussions related to feminism is the common steadfast refusal among many self-described feminists to acknowledge that female sexual objectification is merely one part of the problems in the way we humans unjustly view, portray, and reinforce power disparities between various groups of people - or the belief that that part of the problem bears greater scrutiny that the greater picture because it is somehow qualitatively worse. There is a lot of injustice done to women in the world, true; there is a hell of a lot more injustice done, period. I think it's important to challenge it in all it's forms - which means that instead of calling out a picture of Spiderwomen as being a case of female sexual objectification in comics that you'd never seen in reagrds to men, I'm much happier to call out a picture of Spiderwoman as an example of the sexual objectification that occurs in comics and is unacceptable generally, right alongside the various male 'heroes' in skintight clothing with alpha-male personality complexes the size of Jupiter. One is just as bad as the other in terms of net effect. BOTH affect women too.
-
What absolutely makes me see red in discussions related to feminism is the common steadfast refusal among many self-described feminists to acknowledge that female sexual objectification is merely one part of the problems in the way we humans unjustly view, portray, and reinforce power disparities between various groups of people - or the belief that that part of the problem bears greater scrutiny that the greater picture because it is somehow qualitatively worse. There is a lot of injustice done to women in the world, true; there is a hell of a lot more injustice done, period. I think it's important to challenge it in all it's forms - which means that instead of calling out a picture of Spiderwomen as being a case of female sexual objectification in comics that you'd never seen in reagrds to men, I'm much happier to call out a picture of Spiderwoman as an example of the sexual objectification that occurs in comics and is unacceptable generally, right alongside the various male 'heroes' in skintight clothing with alpha-male personality complexes the size of Jupiter. One is just as bad as the other in terms of net effect. BOTH affect women too.
Somebody complaining about a specific instance is not "ignoring" a general issue.
-
Somebody complaining about a specific instance is not "ignoring" a general issue.
Followed immediately by:
And there is a greater problem with one form than another.
If you think there is a greater problem with female sexual objectification as embodied by the Spiderwoman issue than there is a problem in the entire comic industry with power and sexual objectification in comics generally, you are ignoring the general issue to bring focus onto a specific subcategory of it.
It's like someone trying to claim the consequences of climate change to a particular country in the middle of the Pacific are more important than the consequences of climate change to the whole planet. Are they serious? Yes. Are they important? Yes. Are they a piece of a bigger picture? Yes. Are the consequences to one small piece of the planet a greater problem than the consequences to the planet as a whole? Hell no.
The consequences of female sexual objectification in a given industry alone are nowhere near as dire as the consequences of sexual objectification generally in an industry, because the whole is a greater problem than the sum of its individual parts (there are multiplicative effects). In a media type where sexual objectification is confined predominantly to females then I get the idea of criticizing that strongly because it comprises the main part of the larger picture, but in this case, we have groups making the statement that essentially male figures would not be portrayed in this kind of sexualized manner, which is patently false.
I cannot believe, that after four threads on very nearly the same subject in almost as many weeks, I am still repeating myself concerning the importance of representative examples of the problem at hand when making a point about objectification.
-
I think it's way worse than claiming women objectification is worse than what happens to men's representation. Because if it were just that, then it would merely be an account of whether it was more than 50%, 51%? No, the big thing here is that feminism draws from the theory of the Patriarchy, and this theory claims that oppression is something absolutely of a monopoly against women. There is also token claims about how men are also victims of a system that favors them systematically (don't think too hard on that last sentence, it is well known to provoke brain damage), but overall, it's all about women.
-
I think it's way worse than claiming women objectification is worse than what happens to men's representation. Because if it were just that, then it would merely be an account of whether it was more than 50%, 51%? No, the big thing here is that feminism draws from the theory of the Patriarchy, and this theory claims that oppression is something absolutely of a monopoly against women. There is also token claims about how men are also victims of a system that favors them systematically (don't think too hard on that last sentence, it is well known to provoke brain damage), but overall, it's all about women.
So you're saying our culture isn't patriarchal?
If you really don't understand how men are also hurt by a patriarchal culture, then clearly you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
-
I think I've mentioned before that, philosophically, I fall into the realm of neo-Marxism that draws heavily on Foucault. Feminism is a subcategory of Marxism that draws on the concepts of patriarchy and female oppression to make its arguments, whereas my school of thought concerns itself with explaining society in terms of conflict over power differential, based on things like economics, sexuality, race, class, etc. Feminism is much narrower in scope than it's older, wider cousin, which is probably the reason I knock heads with feminists so frequently. I'm not content to look at social inequality through the lens that gives gender politics primacy; feminists frequently are.
With respect to Ralwood's comment above, I don't think there's any question that our culture is still patriarchal, but I think there is definite danger in viewing that as a major cause of social inequality and conflict in our society.
-
Let's define Patriarchy as a pervasive cultural belief that women and men should occupy certain social roles according to their gender, and that men's roles should be the dominant and 'humanized' ones. Why would this be harmful to men? Because it expects men to dehumanize other human beings who happen to not be men, which is not a natural impulse, and because it forces men into roles they may not want to play.
You should get that checked if this idea gives you brain damage.
-
I'm not content to look at social inequality through the lens that gives gender politics primacy; feminists frequently are.
We live in the real world, not a world of pure idealized thought, and in the real world, our society is demonstrably patriarchal in nature. Complaining about real world problems isn't wrong just because they're not all-inclusive treatises of perfect logic that account for any and all possible circumstances.
-
I'm not content to look at social inequality through the lens that gives gender politics primacy; feminists frequently are.
We live in the real world, not a world of pure idealized thought, and in the real world, our society is demonstrably patriarchal in nature. Complaining about real world problems isn't wrong just because they're not all-inclusive treatises of perfect logic that account for any and all possible circumstances.
Since I didn't get the edit in before your response, a repost:
With respect to Ralwood's comment above, I don't think there's any question that our culture is still patriarchal, but I think there is definite danger in viewing that as a major cause of social inequality and conflict in our society.
Economic class, race, and ethnic origin are still much better predictors of social inequality, conflict, and power imbalances than is gender.
-
With respect to Ralwood's comment above, I don't think there's any question that our culture is still patriarchal, but I think there is definite danger in viewing that as a major cause of social inequality and conflict in our society.
Economic class, race, and ethnic origin are still much better predictors of social inequality, conflict, and power imbalances than is gender.
And... have nothing whatsoever to do with sexist portrayals of comic book characters.
-
I'm not content to look at social inequality through the lens that gives gender politics primacy; feminists frequently are.
We live in the real world, not a world of pure idealized thought, and in the real world, our society is demonstrably patriarchal in nature. Complaining about real world problems isn't wrong just because they're not all-inclusive treatises of perfect logic that account for any and all possible circumstances.
Since I didn't get the edit in before your response, a repost:
With respect to Ralwood's comment above, I don't think there's any question that our culture is still patriarchal, but I think there is definite danger in viewing that as a major cause of social inequality and conflict in our society.
Economic class, race, and ethnic origin are still much better predictors of social inequality, conflict, and power imbalances than is gender.
Volunteering for Safe Haven for a week will quickly dispel that illusion.
-
Let's define Patriarchy as a pervasive cultural belief that women and men should occupy certain social roles according to their gender, and that men's roles should be the dominant and 'humanized' ones. Why would this be harmful to men? Because it expects men to dehumanize other human beings who happen to not be men, which is not a natural impulse, and because it forces men into roles they may not want to play.
You should get that checked if this idea gives you brain damage.
That is a perfectly reasonable idea except feminists don't preach that one version of it. What they preach is that gender roles are designed to systematically oppress women and favor men. This is why it is called "patriarchy" and not "genderchy" or whatever. This one is a coherent theory until one tries to shoehorn in it the notion that men are also oppressed in this system because they are forced to partake in a particular role. This notion seems true, but it is incompatible with the previous. It becomes ridiculous once you are aware that what they are saying is that men are "forced" to be privileged, and that his role as the privileged one is oppressive to him.
Nevertheless, this notion is essential to most of the more radical claims and demands.
-
That is a perfectly reasonable idea except feminists don't preach that one version of it. What they preach is that gender roles are designed to systematically oppress women and favor men. This is why it is called "patriarchy" and not "genderchy" or whatever.
No, it's called "patriarchy" because the system was put in place by men and is run by men. In as much as there are intentionally-manufactured gender roles, yes, they are designed to systematically oppress women and favor men. See, for instance, the intentional creation of the male "computer geek" stereotype (http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/smartnews/2013/10/computer-programming-used-to-be-womens-work/). Most gender roles are not intentionally-manufactured, but they are culturally-absorbed and -enforced, by both men and women, and this hurts everyone.
The biggest problem with the patriarchy isn't that it goes out, actively seeking women to oppress. The problem is that most people don't even notice it, so they think it's perfectly normal for, for instance, a group comprised of 17% women to feel "evenly-split" between men and women (and people think women outnumber men when the percentage of women is... 33%).
-
Let's define Patriarchy as a pervasive cultural belief that women and men should occupy certain social roles according to their gender, and that men's roles should be the dominant and 'humanized' ones. Why would this be harmful to men? Because it expects men to dehumanize other human beings who happen to not be men, which is not a natural impulse, and because it forces men into roles they may not want to play.
You should get that checked if this idea gives you brain damage.
That is a perfectly reasonable idea except feminists don't preach that one version of it. What they preach is that gender roles are designed to systematically oppress women and favor men. This is why it is called "patriarchy" and not "genderchy" or whatever. This one is a coherent theory until one tries to shoehorn in it the notion that men are also oppressed in this system because they are forced to partake in a particular role. This notion seems true, but it is incompatible with the previous. It becomes ridiculous once you are aware that what they are saying is that men are "forced" to be privileged, and that his role as the privileged one is oppressive to him.
Nevertheless, this notion is essential to most of the more radical claims and demands.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/07/children-of-same-sex-couples-are-happier-and-healthier-than-peers-research-shows/
Read the theorized reason for the results. It really should not be rocket science that forcing people into roles, privileged or not, can bring on a lot of anguish. Or are you saying all men are happy when they're dominating others?
Better yet, go read an Ibsen play if you want it spelled out for you.
-
Depending on which views are pushed about "Patriarchy," I'll be quick to assert that the entire idea after a while can be damaging for any of the groups. By attempting to shoehorn "Patriarchy" into a certain definition, we run afoul of stereotyping it.
Imagine if suddenly Matriarchy became Patriarchy... then squint your eyes and realize after a while its nonsense..
One problem is that men and women are biologically hard-wired, so our thoughts, ideas, and conclusions tend be a bit different and gender biased. I've always joked that men and women exist on a modicum of toleration for one another, but that's my own evil opinion not driven by any rational or logical conclusions.
For a more topic centric theme about Spider Woman's ass: Why did it suddenly become an issue?
Most of us would normally shrug our shoulders and say, "Oh, it's just a comic!"
But now it's become a sign (and in my opinion a rather ridiculous symptom) of Internet Feminist contention over issues that have actually been pointed and roundly debated in the past: Nothing new is achieved trying to claim the pose of Spider Woman's ass is Sexist, rather it's pointing out the obvious. It pops up, people scream about and the issue dies down. Rinse and repeat.
Oh, keep in mind it is a fictional depiction of potential sexual and power fantasy, but it has less effect, than let's say the idiocy of marketing departments photoshopping ads and spreads to unrealistic proportions of real humans depicted in a much more influential setting. I actually do find it funny that we're sparring hotly over a fictional depiction, than more weighty (and I would daresay) destructive forces that propels myths of thinness and unnatural body types (and a part of my argument hinges that comics generally ARE super-human, they've got little ties to actually physical reality).
No great changes are made, people scratch their heads, and nothing is accomplished other than shoehorning existing concepts.
In my opinion, it reinforces the status-quo of gender relations in the Geek community and most people get tired of fighting over and find better things to do.
-
One problem is that men and women are biologically hard-wired, so our thoughts, ideas, and conclusions tend be a bit different and gender biased. I've always joked that men and women exist on a modicum of toleration for one another, but that's my own evil opinion not driven by any rational or logical conclusions.
I'm sure that's true. Too bad you have no idea what they are, because you can't distinguish them from the effects gender roles have on personality and brain development. We won't know what differences are really ingrained until environmental differences are narrowed considerably.
-
They do have effects on our roles and how we project our psyche on to things, one such example is what men and women would find "sexy."
Don't try pulling the wool over my jaded eyes about the nature vs. nurture, to say environment can't play a hand is like believing flapping my arms can make me fly.
I'm saying I do acknowledge that these can play roles, but I'm saying in my opinion, the discussion about Spider Woman's pose and ass is a symptom is pointing out the obvious with a floodlight and buckets of flares. And that, in the end, little traction is gained in actually promoting a better discussion of women's identity in Geekdom without resorting to ****-flinging, which internet "authorities" have turned into a professional sport.
I can claim to be a Feminist, but I'm not certainly a mold of Feminist that most male and female Feminists will like.
-
One problem is that men and women are biologically hard-wired, so our thoughts, ideas, and conclusions tend be a bit different and gender biased. I've always joked that men and women exist on a modicum of toleration for one another, but that's my own evil opinion not driven by any rational or logical conclusions.
I'm sure that's true. Too bad you have no idea what they are, because you can't distinguish them from the effects gender roles have on personality and brain development. We won't know what differences are really ingrained until environmental differences are narrowed considerably.
Let's kidnap a whole bunch of babies, throw them into a controlled environment, and see what happens
For science
-
One problem is that men and women are biologically hard-wired, so our thoughts, ideas, and conclusions tend be a bit different and gender biased. I've always joked that men and women exist on a modicum of toleration for one another, but that's my own evil opinion not driven by any rational or logical conclusions.
I'm sure that's true. Too bad you have no idea what they are, because you can't distinguish them from the effects gender roles have on personality and brain development. We won't know what differences are really ingrained until environmental differences are narrowed considerably.
Let's kidnap a whole bunch of babies, throw them into a controlled environment, and see what happens
For science
FOR SCIENCE!
-
And... have nothing whatsoever to do with sexist portrayals of comic book characters.
Neither does the feminist premise that our culture's patriarchy is responsible for society's ills. Regardless, there is rampant gender objectification in comics generally which also has a great deal to do with power imbalances and it impacts people of all kinds. Want to talk about inequality in comics? At least there ARE female characters in them. Shall we talk about ethnic and national diversity sometime? Comics are problematic portrayals of humanity for all kinds of reasons; female sexual objectification is by no means the biggest or worst of them. If we're going to talk about sexual objectification in comics, let's not cherry-pick Spiderwoman as an example that women are subjected to it more frequently when the male characters are just as frequently sexualized (for a male audience, a fact I'm sure would make many straight young male comic readers give up the genre for good if they realized it).
Volunteering for Safe Haven for a week will quickly dispel that illusion.
I assume you're familiar with the phrases "anecdotal evidence" and "confirmation bias?"
Keep in mind you're talking to someone with a degree in sociology/psychology and heavy involvement in criminal justice, both studied and in practice. I'll repeat myself: Economic class, race, and ethnic origin are still much better predictors of social inequality, conflict, and power imbalances than is gender (though I'll clarify that to say at least in the Western world). Take a look at prison demographics sometime if you want to see what the real picture of social inequality, conflict, and power imbalances look like. Women face serious sexism and harms in some aspects of Western society, but the real fact of the matter is that most feminist women are members of a very privileged class of humanity and, as a group, women face far fewer social hurdles than many other designated 'minority' groups (I use quotes because women are actually a majority of the human population, not to imply minority status among others is somehow questionable).
All of which is a tangent not really related to comics, of course, but we wandered away from that beginning with the aside on patriarchy.
-
One problem is that men and women are biologically hard-wired, so our thoughts, ideas, and conclusions tend be a bit different and gender biased. I've always joked that men and women exist on a modicum of toleration for one another, but that's my own evil opinion not driven by any rational or logical conclusions.
I'm sure that's true. Too bad you have no idea what they are, because you can't distinguish them from the effects gender roles have on personality and brain development. We won't know what differences are really ingrained until environmental differences are narrowed considerably.
This (http://dbm.neuro.uni-jena.de/pdf-files/Luders-NI09-2.pdf), and the various articles it cites, may blow your mind (depending on your level of biology/neurology education).
There very much are male and female brains, and they appear to be hard-wired during early development; likely in utero, based on most studies. One of the best ways of studying this, which has been done fairly extensively now, is among transgendered persons.
-
And... have nothing whatsoever to do with sexist portrayals of comic book characters.
Neither does the feminist premise that our culture's patriarchy is responsible for society's ills.
Except inasmuch as one of those ills is the constant sexist treatment of female characters which is... oh, right! The topic at hand.
Regardless, there is rampant gender objectification in comics generally which also has a great deal to do with power imbalances and it impacts people of all kinds. Want to talk about inequality in comics? At least there ARE female characters in them. Shall we talk about ethnic and national diversity sometime? Comics are problematic portrayals of humanity for all kinds of reasons; female sexual objectification is by no means the biggest or worst of them.
If you want to talk about racism in comics, make a thread about it. I'm not stopping you. I also agree that it's a huge problem; it just has nothing to do with this topic.
If we're going to talk about sexual objectification in comics, let's not cherry-pick Spiderwoman as an example that women are subjected to it more frequently when the male characters are just as frequently sexualized (for a male audience, a fact I'm sure would make many straight young male comic readers give up the genre for good if they realized it).
It's cherry-picking to talk about the thread's topic? If you don't want to talk about Spider-Woman, just... stop posting in this thread, maybe?
-
And... have nothing whatsoever to do with sexist portrayals of comic book characters.
Neither does the feminist premise that our culture's patriarchy is responsible for society's ills.
Except inasmuch as one of those ills is the constant sexist treatment of female characters which is... oh, right! The topic at hand.
Regardless, there is rampant gender objectification in comics generally which also has a great deal to do with power imbalances and it impacts people of all kinds. Want to talk about inequality in comics? At least there ARE female characters in them. Shall we talk about ethnic and national diversity sometime? Comics are problematic portrayals of humanity for all kinds of reasons; female sexual objectification is by no means the biggest or worst of them.
If you want to talk about racism in comics, make a thread about it. I'm not stopping you. I also agree that it's a huge problem; it just has nothing to do with this topic.
If we're going to talk about sexual objectification in comics, let's not cherry-pick Spiderwoman as an example that women are subjected to it more frequently when the male characters are just as frequently sexualized (for a male audience, a fact I'm sure would make many straight young male comic readers give up the genre for good if they realized it).
It's cherry-picking to talk about the thread's topic? If you don't want to talk about Spider-Woman, just... stop posting in this thread, maybe?
As I have now said multiple times, and many other people have said multiple times, the reason why people are finding this Spiderwoman example such a laughable example of sexual objectification in comics is the way it was presented - that no Spiderman would be drawn that way. The topic at hand - from page 1 on - is why this Spiderwoman is a bad example, something my posts have been consistently aimed at to point out that female sexual objectification is really not the main problem with objectification in comics at all. Page 1 was about a criticism of precisely the way the Spiderwoman example was cherry-picked in the first place.
In point of fact, nearly everyone but you and Vega have been saying that this thread is about the way examples of female sexual objectification are cherry-picked while examples of male sexual objectification are not, and how this is generally a bad strategy for dealing with objectification in comics in general.
-
As I have now said multiple times, and many other people have said multiple times, the reason why people are finding this Spiderwoman example such a laughable example of sexual objectification in comics is the way it was presented - that no Spiderman would be drawn that way.
Okay, then show me one Spider-Man cover where Spider-Man both in that pose and naked (i.e. "drawn that way"), and I'll stop thinking that your arguments are both bizarre and nonsensical.
-
that ass is a damn good scapegoat for everyone's concerns, but eliminating the ass will not make the problems go away.
-
The thing is, a lot of Spidermans poses are interpretable as almost Homo-erotic anyway, if you choose to see them that way.
(http://images.alphacoders.com/127/12711.jpg)
These sorts of poses are far from rare for him. The idea the Spiderwoman is treated any less or more favorably is the problem.
It's a tricky road to walk, what if I started complaining that those poses were too homo-erotic and insulting to Heterosexual men purely for the sake of titillating those with sexual preferences for males, regardless of their own gender? At best, I'd be called an idiot, at worst a bigot. Ergo, it's an un-winnable argument and not worth having.
-
As I have now said multiple times, and many other people have said multiple times, the reason why people are finding this Spiderwoman example such a laughable example of sexual objectification in comics is the way it was presented - that no Spiderman would be drawn that way.
Okay, then show me one Spider-Man cover where Spider-Man both in that pose and naked (i.e. "drawn that way"), and I'll stop thinking that your arguments are both bizarre and nonsensical.
Quoting myself from page 1 again:
Yes; comics, like many mass media, sexualize males through hyper-masculinity and alpha-male stereotypes; women are sexualized through submissive positioning and emphasis of primary+secondary biological sexual characteristics. While female characters often are depicted showing more skin, the males are depicted as overly-muscled/chiseled, often in tight clothing to emphasize those features. That the depictions are rendered differently does not make one more or less sexualized than the other.
Flipside pulled out an excellent example of exactly what I'm talking about. The fact that the artistry is different does not make one any more or less sexualized than the other. And before we do this circular dance again, the male sexual objectification in comics is presented for a male gaze, not necessarily (though it can also be) for female fantasy.
-
Quoting myself from page 1 again:
Yes; comics, like many mass media, sexualize males through hyper-masculinity and alpha-male stereotypes; women are sexualized through submissive positioning and emphasis of primary+secondary biological sexual characteristics. While female characters often are depicted showing more skin, the males are depicted as overly-muscled/chiseled, often in tight clothing to emphasize those features. That the depictions are rendered differently does not make one more or less sexualized than the other.
Flipside pulled out an excellent example of exactly what I'm talking about. The fact that the artistry is different does not make one any more or less sexualized than the other. And before we do this circular dance again, the male sexual objectification in comics is presented for a male gaze, not necessarily (though it can also be) for female fantasy.
And as I said multiple times, a power fantasy is not a sexual fantasy. Do you enjoy going around in circles?
-
And as I said multiple times, a power fantasy is not a sexual fantasy. Do you enjoy going around in circles?
You may find where I addressed that on page 3 to be helpful (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=88335.msg1762968#msg1762968) now that we're circling back on arguments previously made.
Power objectification and sexual objectification are two sides of the same coin.
EDIT: The ironic humour of the fact that I am making these posts while watching the first Captain America movie on TV is also not lost on me. I'm off for the night to hang out with the wife.
-
Thing is, Comic art is based very heavily on Greek/Roman Mythology, and let's look at how they depicted their superheroes...
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/Herakles/Hpix/1991.07.0082.jpeg
or if the top link doesn't work
http://intranet.puhinui.school.nz/Topics/AncientCivs/TheGrkWorld/www.museum.upenn.edu/Greek_World/Images/Land_time/L_64_185_450.gif
(Warning, contains drawn images of genitals, hence no img tag)
Hercules, the original Superhero, as it were.
Now, there's an image that can either be powerful or sexual depending on where your mind chooses to take it.
-
Very well, let's skip ahead a few posts to your next nonsensical argument:
there actually is *not* such a thing as "subconscious intent." Conscious intent and intent are precisely the same thing.
intent (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/intent)
[mass noun]
Intention or purpose
adjective
1 (intent on/upon) Determined to do (something):
intention (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/intention)
noun
1A thing intended; an aim or plan:
1.1 [mass noun] The action or fact of intending:
Subconscious motivations do not constitute intent for any legal or philosophical purpose.
Not presented (and hence why I didn't even bother responding to this the first time): an explanation for how that definition of "intent" prevents it from being paired with the word "subconscious", and an explanation of when, exactly, Hard-Light Productions became a court of law, or alternatively, how you can make any categorical statements about philosophy.
-
I'm not even entirely sure what the argument is about any more, is it about whether these poses are sexual fantasies or power fantasies? Because, in a way, they are both, it could even be argued that the two overlap in a big way.
Take this image of Spider-woman, similar to the Spiderman one I posted earlier...
(http://hqwide.com/wallpapers/l/1920x1080/2/comics_peter_parker_ultimate_spider_woman_jessica_drew_1920x1080_1054.jpg)
Is it sexual? Is it powerful? The answer is wholly dependent on the interpretation of the viewer. Yes, she's in a pose that could be described as 'revealing', but the blurring in the background suggests speed and power, that she's about to land a whole load of whoop-ass on someone.
Surely the interpretation is in the eye of the beholder?
Edit : Link doesn't seem to be working, I'll try to find another shortly.
Here's a direct link:
http://hqwide.com/wallpapers/l/1920x1080/2/comics_peter_parker_ultimate_spider_woman_jessica_drew_1920x1080_1054.jpg
-
If no one has anything new to say, I'm just going to close the thread.
-
Not presented (and hence why I didn't even bother responding to this the first time): an explanation for how that definition of "intent" prevents it from being paired with the word "subconscious", and an explanation of when, exactly, Hard-Light Productions became a court of law, or alternatively, how you can make any categorical statements about philosophy.
The subconscious, or to do something subconsciously, is to do it without awareness. Intent or intention is with purpose, plan, or a given aim. The two are mutually exclusive. You cannot form a purpose, plan, or aim without being aware of it. Your actions can be influenced by your subconscious, but then they are by definition not done with intent. Intent is a wholly conscious formation. This is from the english definition of the terms, which is in turn what is then the meaning for the logical purposes of philosophy, and is the plain meaning to which the term is also used in law.
I'd like to see the psychological leaps involved in formulating an example of an act that has subconscious intent. It's certainly not anything recognized in clinical psychology or law, or any field of philosophy based on logic.
I'm not even entirely sure what the argument is about any more, is it about whether these poses are sexual fantasies or power fantasies? Because, in a way, they are both, it could even be argued that the two overlap in a big way.
That's pretty much what I've been saying, too. There's no real difference.
EDIT: We are going in circles, kara; at this point I'm not opposed to thread closure.
-
it'll be back within the week, mark my words.
-
Locking is fine by me, I feel the thread isn't really making any headway anyway, kinda got all mashed up in the gears of minutiae.
-
it'll be back within the week, mark my words.
Meh, there's actually a far less wordy and more productive discussion going on in the gaming subforum. It should be fairly evident that resurrecting this particular topic in GD is pointless.
-
Locked.
If people decide to start a new topic they can bring something new to talk about or it will be locked too.