[karajorma]

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.

[MP-Ryan]

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, 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).

[Luis Dias]

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?

[Mr. Vega]

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?

[karajorma]

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?

[Mr. Vega]

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.

[MP-Ryan]

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.

[AdmiralRalwood]

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.

[Mr. Vega]

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?

[MP-Ryan]

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.

[AdmiralRalwood]

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.

[MP-Ryan]

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.

[Luis Dias]

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.

[AdmiralRalwood]

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.

[MP-Ryan]

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.

[Mr. Vega]

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.

[AdmiralRalwood]

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.

[MP-Ryan]

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.

[AdmiralRalwood]

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.

[Mr. Vega]

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.