[Luis Dias]

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.

[AdmiralRalwood]

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. 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%).

[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.

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.

[AtomicClucker]

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.

[Mr. Vega]

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.

[AtomicClucker]

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.

[deathfun]

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

[AtomicClucker]

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!

[MP-Ryan]

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.

[MP-Ryan]

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, 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.

[AdmiralRalwood]

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?

[MP-Ryan]

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.

[AdmiralRalwood]

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.

[Nuke]

that ass is a damn good scapegoat for everyone's concerns, but eliminating the ass will not make the problems go away.

[Flipside]

The thing is, a lot of Spidermans poses are interpretable as almost Homo-erotic anyway, if you choose to see them that way.



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.

[MP-Ryan]

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.

[AdmiralRalwood]

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?

[MP-Ryan]

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 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.

[Flipside]

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.

[AdmiralRalwood]

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

[mass noun]
Intention or purpose

 adjective

1 (intent on/upon) Determined to do (something):

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.