Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

A question on sexism/misogyny

14748495153

Posts

  • mrt144mrt144 King of the Numbernames Registered User regular
    Is it ok to think people shouldn't talk about their feelings for reasons that are unrelated to sexism? Because it's an incredibly dull and self-absorbed character trait.

    I guess. Now that we know how you feel, can you go be dull and self absorbed elsewhere?

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    Is it ok to think people shouldn't talk about their feelings for reasons that are unrelated to sexism? Because it's an incredibly dull and self-absorbed character trait.

    Totally. Being feminist just means you're not holding this position based on it being "for girls."

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    Man I guess I see why feminists have such an image problem now. That lady! Wow, she basically eliminates a hundred years of written work from my mind! I mean on the one hand the first 45 pages of Google for any of the shit that is 'common' consists of placid reassurance the the author doesnt think like that but on the other hand

  • mrt144mrt144 King of the Numbernames Registered User regular
    I think it's pretty much indicative of a problem where no man speaks for men but one woman speaks for women.

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    Man I guess I see why feminists have such an image problem now. That lady! Wow, she basically eliminates a hundred years of written work from my mind! I mean on the one hand the first 45 pages of Google for any of the shit that is 'common' consists of placid reassurance the the author doesnt think like that but on the other hand

    I've known multiple men who don't allow their wives to drive.

    Makes it easier to deal with the occasional sexist nutbag who happens to be a woman.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Sticks wrote: »
    I never would have guessed that the construction industry was championing women's rights...

    Unions.

    Construction has a lot of unions, and often very good ones.

    Good unions are beautiful.

    It's partly that, but also the fact that jobs in that segment don't have the higher end positions where you actually see a wage gap.

    Like, do you really think Walmart pays female cashiers less? Of course not, they all get the same shitty wage. The disparity doesn't come into play until you start looking at who gets promoted to an actual managerial position.

    Well, construction is a whole lot of lower end jobs. It also has a lot more room for entrepreneurship (ie: contractors!).

    It's only tenuously related to feminism by my own admission, but you had the same thing happened when CNN interviewed textile factory workers in Pyongyang (predominantly women). Unsurprisingly, they knew very little of women in the outside world, but one of the things that got their attention--in addition to the styles and fashions in a magazine--was the issue of income disparity in countries like the US, South Korea, and Japan. When it became apparent that it was a reality across the economy, the workers (women in their 30s to 40s, I think) were all shocked that women in these much freerer countries, particularly the US, weren't striking or burning their workplaces down in anger. Of course, they were being interviewed by a CNN team being followed by a government handler, so they no doubt controlled what they said on the camera, but they still seemed quite surprised. They weren't aware of income disparity being a major problem along gender lines in other countries, and it was hard for them to imagine in their own country.

    And it makes sense: these were urban wage workers in North Korea, which meant they were used to incredibly strict wage conditions. They could hardly strike either, but they were under the impression income disparity was minimal, and were probably right given how little money they actually made anyway. If you went to higher wage professions in that country--say, obviously, the military--you'd begin to see pretty steep income disparity between men and women in the same paygrades. But a bunch of seamstresses and textile workers, whose manager would likely be a woman too, aren't going to even know the first thing about that.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • TubeTube Says some shit Administrator, ClubPA admin
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Is it ok to think people shouldn't talk about their feelings for reasons that are unrelated to sexism? Because it's an incredibly dull and self-absorbed character trait.

    Totally. Being feminist just means you're not holding this position based on it being "for girls."

    I'm absolutely with you on that. There's also some interesting ramifications to men taking on traditionally feminine roles like childcare, such as their spouses losing respect for them based on it. I even knew a case where it was used against a father in divorce proceedings. I wonder how many generations it'll be before stay at home fathers aren't stigmatised unconsciously for their non traditional role.

  • TubeTube Says some shit Administrator, ClubPA admin
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Man I guess I see why feminists have such an image problem now. That lady! Wow, she basically eliminates a hundred years of written work from my mind! I mean on the one hand the first 45 pages of Google for any of the shit that is 'common' consists of placid reassurance the the author doesnt think like that but on the other hand

    I've known multiple men who don't allow their wives to drive.

    Makes it easier to deal with the occasional sexist nutbag who happens to be a woman.

    It's a problem in the Internet age because

    A. People who want an excuse to discredit feminism will latch on to those writers as examples of typical feminism rather than outliers. How many times have you heard "all sex is rape" mentioned? Which feeds into...
    B. The more shocking and outrageous the post, the more likely it is to become controversial, be shared on Facebook and twitter, be seen be thousands of people who have little other experience of feminism.

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Is it ok to think people shouldn't talk about their feelings for reasons that are unrelated to sexism? Because it's an incredibly dull and self-absorbed character trait.

    Totally. Being feminist just means you're not holding this position based on it being "for girls."

    I'm absolutely with you on that. There's also some interesting ramifications to men taking on traditionally feminine roles like childcare, such as their spouses losing respect for them based on it. I even knew a case where it was used against a father in divorce proceedings. I wonder how many generations it'll be before stay at home fathers aren't stigmatised unconsciously for their non traditional role.

    It's one of the hot button issues in modern feminism, alongside looking at how different things currently are for people in different socioeconomic and racial groups; feminism's victories have had much more benefit for middle-class culture than other groupings, and that's been ignored by a lot of people. I wasn't really aware of it myself until a few years ago.

    The sexualization debate is an interesting one here, too. There are lots of reasons to be for or against sexualization in general which have nothing to do with biological sex or gender. Some love porn and visible sexuality, but want it to be more balanced. Others want that balance, but also to reduce the overall amount of sexualization in the culture. Basically, if feminism can "win" on the topic of sexualization, then sexualization will still be an issue to debate, but will no longer be a feminist issue anymore than cheese preference is.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Man I guess I see why feminists have such an image problem now. That lady! Wow, she basically eliminates a hundred years of written work from my mind! I mean on the one hand the first 45 pages of Google for any of the shit that is 'common' consists of placid reassurance the the author doesnt think like that but on the other hand

    I've known multiple men who don't allow their wives to drive.

    Makes it easier to deal with the occasional sexist nutbag who happens to be a woman.

    It's a problem in the Internet age because

    A. People who want an excuse to discredit feminism will latch on to those writers as examples of typical feminism rather than outliers. How many times have you heard "all sex is rape" mentioned? Which feeds into...
    B. The more shocking and outrageous the post, the more likely it is to become controversial, be shared on Facebook and twitter, be seen be thousands of people who have little other experience of feminism.

    Absolutely. Our media culture thrives on outrage, scandal, and controversy, so the outliers get the air time and the ad money. This is really true with most social networks, but the internet makes it easier to monetize gossip and social dysfunction.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Is it ok to think people shouldn't talk about their feelings for reasons that are unrelated to sexism? Because it's an incredibly dull and self-absorbed character trait.

    Totally. Being feminist just means you're not holding this position based on it being "for girls."

    I'm absolutely with you on that. There's also some interesting ramifications to men taking on traditionally feminine roles like childcare, such as their spouses losing respect for them based on it. I even knew a case where it was used against a father in divorce proceedings. I wonder how many generations it'll be before stay at home fathers aren't stigmatised unconsciously for their non traditional role.

    Sweden actually forces fathers to take a large chunk of the given parental leave because of these sorts of issues.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited June 2012
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Man I guess I see why feminists have such an image problem now. That lady! Wow, she basically eliminates a hundred years of written work from my mind! I mean on the one hand the first 45 pages of Google for any of the shit that is 'common' consists of placid reassurance the the author doesnt think like that but on the other hand

    I've known multiple men who don't allow their wives to drive.

    Makes it easier to deal with the occasional sexist nutbag who happens to be a woman.

    It's a problem in the Internet age because

    A. People who want an excuse to discredit feminism will latch on to those writers as examples of typical feminism rather than outliers. How many times have you heard "all sex is rape" mentioned? Which feeds into...
    B. The more shocking and outrageous the post, the more likely it is to become controversial, be shared on Facebook and twitter, be seen be thousands of people who have little other experience of feminism.

    B is the big problem imo.

    There's a sort of "Internet Feminism Blogsphere" that's a sort of closed information loop (not unlike US conservative media) and that subsists entirely on outrage that is then spread and amplified across the various parts of the webring. And by god, if outrage isn't at hand, it can be manufactured.

    PA should be well familiar with it since we brushed up against it with the old controversy that shall not be named involving wolves.

    shryke on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    There's also the issue that a lot of communication is intended for an internal audience, but isn't restricted to them. It can be really exhausting to include every single caveat of a conversation, and most people use shorthand within their community that doesn't include those caveats, because those caveats are assumed to already be known.

    Say my actual opinion on hipsters is that, while I respect their right to express themselves artistically and philosophically, I personally do not enjoy the aesthetic of their sub-culture, and find it frustrating that this aesthetic that I do not appreciate is so prevalent that it makes it difficult to find that which I do personally enjoy. I have no grudge against them, and I am happy that they are doing something that they enjoy, but I do wish that their enjoyment didn't make my enjoyment more difficult to pursue.

    Chances are, among people who understand my position, I'm going to articulate the above as "Fucking hipsters." and shake my fist in the air in a dramatic fashion.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    This is only metaphorically topical, but I just realized that there has been no greater retardation of animal rights than the institution of PETA. My sister's dogs are kept in a locked cage 20 hours a day sometimes in the name of crate training and also because our wacky neighbor who put tarp over his blinds and disconnected his doorbell and encourages his neighbors not to get solar panels because that would allow people to see into his yard and we know he has a kid but we've never seen the kid leave the house goes mental every time he hears dogs barking. I'm only here like one week during the year, so I always think man, dogs have it rough. If I wanted to help solve this problem, who would I go to to clear my conscience? Is there an organization advocating more ethical treatment of animals? Hey, that sounds familiar, I think the name of the organization was People for the Ethical -

    and I'm back to watching TV. The moral of the story is don't be PETA

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    The moral of the story is don't be PETA

    There will always be a PETA-type group. And sadly the Rush Limbaughs of the world will always track them down and parade them around on their shoulders. You could have exactly one goose feminist and he would make her the face of it.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    The moral of the story is don't be PETA

    There will always be a PETA-type group. And sadly the Rush Limbaughs of the world will always track them down and parade them around on their shoulders. You could have exactly one goose feminist and he would make her the face of it.

    That's the magic of modern mass media

    eeyore.jpg

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Bagginses wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    V1m wrote: »
    Yeah again, here lemme see...

    every single thing listed there by @tbloxham, all the shit that "some feminists say" I cannot find anywhere.

    What I can find is pages and pages of people saying things like this about a place called Sneak a Peek Cafe where the baristas wear bikinis: "The question is — does that make her anti-feminism? I would say no and would argue that perhaps it makes her pro-woman." I can find pages and pages and pages of people bringing up the question "what about stay-at-home moms?" and deciding yeah that's sort of interesting but obviously stay-at-home moms are perfectly kosher they're just another element of society to discuss.

    I cannot find shit about all this definitely far-too-common angry haranguing of perfectly normal good people who would be feminists but not now because of all this abuse.

    Feminists are insufferable harpies the same way Sandra Fluke is, which is to say they are not but Rush Limbaugh will happily yell about how they totally are.

    Here, let me help (your google-fu is weak btw):

    http://evebitfirst.wordpress.com/2010/10/07/a-rant/

    EDIT: her "all men are rapists" bit is pretty good too.

    I hate it when sexists consider themselves feminists. It's rather insulting to the movement. Especially when they're clearly emotionally disturbed.

    I thought anyone who cared about the rights of women was a feminist.

    I'm not going to go into "no true Scottsman" mode, but at least in my experience, modern feminism is about equality, options, and opportunity, and the rights of women being a focus is primarily because women and traits dubbed feminine are what lack support. Misandrists go against what many consider to be the feminist ideal.

    Wait a minute so feminism is actually the thing where stereotypically female characteristics and methods are better than what we have going on right now with all the violence and macho whatever?

    What?

    No.

    The idea is that stereotypically female characteristics and methods are ALSO VALID.

    Feminism of the sort I advocate allows for men to be stay-at-home dads and to crochet and to talk about their feelings without getting crap for it.

    Maybe I have slightly old fashioned stereotypes, but it seems like women got all the worst ones.

  • RaekreuRaekreu Registered User regular
    edited June 2012
    nm, reading comprehension fail




    Raekreu on
  • LadyMLadyM Registered User regular
    edited June 2012
    Shivahn wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    Like, my favorite, is the "Mario" plot- A man has to save a woman from a Bad Thing. In its initial story? Maybe not so bad.

    Enshrined in stereotype and depicted over and over again? Now we might have a problem.

    THE MOSAIC (have to plug @LadyM at all times)

    Man, I feel sorry for her.

    You make one awesome post and you have a million fans who want more from you :p

    (That mosaic analogy was amazing)

    It was the first time a post of mine has been Awesomed! That was pretty cool!

    I was actually taking a class on Greek pottery at the time (also covering some mosaic-art), and the ingrained gender stereotypes are much easier to see when you're looking at a time / culture far removed from your own. Men on Greek pottery have dark skin (black or red depending what "style" of pottery, red-figure or black-figure), women's skin was depicted as white. Men had a larger style of eye with a tearduct at the corner, women were drawn with smaller, almond-shaped eyes. Women who looked straight at the viewer (instead of being in profile) were inevitably scary gorgons (like Medusa); women's direct gaze was literally villified. Men were depicted nude, with the bare [strike]asses[/strike] minimum amount of clothing/ornamentation needed to identify them (i.e. Herakles wore his lion skin, Hermes carried his wand, etc), women were clothed because their sexuality was scary and needed to be controlled.

    ch6807s.jpg

    On the one hand, it echos our society in some way; some physical features have been gendered--and I'm not even talking about big boobies, but things like eyelashes, even though AFAIK there is not any natural dichotomy in eyelash-length between men and women--and yet in other ways their standards were so different from ours (even though our modern democracy hails from many of their ideals) that it really belies the unspoken belief that a lot of people still have that there is one "natural" way that the sexes / genders relate to one another, end of story. You know--"Well, sexism is bad, but you can't blame guys for wanting to [do or see whatever the particular subject is]. It's natural." It's like people who make up biological reasons for women to carry handbags.

    I am very skeptical whenever I see people claiming "this is just the way it is, it cannot change." What is there in our history that hasn't changed?

    Bonus picture of the freakiest gorgons I've ever seen, like they belong in a sci-fi movie:
    Spoiler:

    LadyM on
  • CambiataCambiata Social Justice Rogue Registered User regular
    LadyM wrote: »
    Shivahn wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    Like, my favorite, is the "Mario" plot- A man has to save a woman from a Bad Thing. In its initial story? Maybe not so bad.

    Enshrined in stereotype and depicted over and over again? Now we might have a problem.

    THE MOSAIC (have to plug @LadyM at all times)

    Man, I feel sorry for her.

    You make one awesome post and you have a million fans who want more from you :p

    (That mosaic analogy was amazing)

    It was the first time a post of mine has been Awesomed! That was pretty cool!

    I'm glad I got to Awesome it! I thought for sure someone else would have got there before me. :D

    -Tal wrote:
    If you don't develop Stockholm Syndrome, it's not a real RPG.
    Steam
    Origin ID: jazzmess
    Wishlist
  • ShivahnShivahn Eastern coastal temptressRegistered User regular
    That's really interesting about the Greek artwork. It's really neat to be able to see how cultures viewed things through stuff like that (even if the views themselves are ehh not so great).

    Unrelatedly, the snakes of her hair:
    LadyM wrote: »
    Bonus picture of the freakiest gorgons I've ever seen, like they belong in a sci-fi movie:
    Spoiler:

    look like these guys:
    Spoiler:

    I think they're adorable, but then again I think majoring in biology may have messed with my definition of cute. In any case, the resemblance made me do a double take.

  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    edited June 2012
    durr I'm a platyhelminthes durr I'm one of the first phylogenetic examples of bilaterality durrrrr


    edit: haha wikipedia page
    Spoiler:
    Spoiler:

    Paladin on
    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    Shivahn wrote: »
    That's really interesting about the Greek artwork. It's really neat to be able to see how cultures viewed things through stuff like that (even if the views themselves are ehh not so great).

    Unrelatedly, the snakes of her hair:
    LadyM wrote: »
    Bonus picture of the freakiest gorgons I've ever seen, like they belong in a sci-fi movie:
    Spoiler:

    look like these guys:
    Spoiler:

    I think they're adorable, but then again I think majoring in biology may have messed with my definition of cute. In any case, the resemblance made me do a double take.

    All biologists consider flatworms to be cute.

    Natures own adorable little googly-eyes just waiting for us to discover the microscope.

  • LadyMLadyM Registered User regular
    My God, those flatworms need their own cartoon special or something. <3

    Dolphins also engage in penis fencing! The more you know.

  • CambiataCambiata Social Justice Rogue Registered User regular
    Is it ok to think people shouldn't talk about their feelings for reasons that are unrelated to sexism? Because it's an incredibly dull and self-absorbed character trait.

    -Tal wrote:
    If you don't develop Stockholm Syndrome, it's not a real RPG.
    Steam
    Origin ID: jazzmess
    Wishlist
  • KanaKana Registered User regular
    I accidentally wandered across some penis fencing gay porn one time

    and I mean like, with the funny face guards and everything

    it was adorable

    History is an account, mostly false, of events, mostly unimportant, which are brought about by rulers, mostly knaves, and soldiers, mostly fools.
  • V1mV1m Registered User regular
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    V1m wrote: »
    Yeah again, here lemme see...

    every single thing listed there by @tbloxham, all the shit that "some feminists say" I cannot find anywhere.

    What I can find is pages and pages of people saying things like this about a place called Sneak a Peek Cafe where the baristas wear bikinis: "The question is — does that make her anti-feminism? I would say no and would argue that perhaps it makes her pro-woman." I can find pages and pages and pages of people bringing up the question "what about stay-at-home moms?" and deciding yeah that's sort of interesting but obviously stay-at-home moms are perfectly kosher they're just another element of society to discuss.

    I cannot find shit about all this definitely far-too-common angry haranguing of perfectly normal good people who would be feminists but not now because of all this abuse.

    Feminists are insufferable harpies the same way Sandra Fluke is, which is to say they are not but Rush Limbaugh will happily yell about how they totally are.

    Here, let me help (your google-fu is weak btw):

    http://evebitfirst.wordpress.com/2010/10/07/a-rant/

    EDIT: her "all men are rapists" bit is pretty good too.

    I hate it when sexists consider themselves feminists. It's rather insulting to the movement. Especially when they're clearly emotionally disturbed.

    It's not just insulting, it's actively damaging to what one presumes are her stated goals in several ways. Anyway, Durandal asked for proof that such people exist on the internet, and it's been supplied. And apparently in sufficient numbers that she gets plenty of positive comment (one is assuming that she didn't write them all herself, of course).

    PS Don't read what she wrote about her son, it's pretty upsetting. Bringing a kid up to believe that he's already a rapist for the love of God. :(

  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    LadyM wrote: »
    Shivahn wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    Like, my favorite, is the "Mario" plot- A man has to save a woman from a Bad Thing. In its initial story? Maybe not so bad.

    Enshrined in stereotype and depicted over and over again? Now we might have a problem.

    THE MOSAIC (have to plug @LadyM at all times)

    Man, I feel sorry for her.

    You make one awesome post and you have a million fans who want more from you :p

    (That mosaic analogy was amazing)

    It was the first time a post of mine has been Awesomed! That was pretty cool!

    I was actually taking a class on Greek pottery at the time (also covering some mosaic-art), and the ingrained gender stereotypes are much easier to see when you're looking at a time / culture far removed from your own. Men on Greek pottery have dark skin (black or red depending what "style" of pottery, red-figure or black-figure), women's skin was depicted as white. Men had a larger style of eye with a tearduct at the corner, women were drawn with smaller, almond-shaped eyes. Women who looked straight at the viewer (instead of being in profile) were inevitably scary gorgons (like Medusa); women's direct gaze was literally villified. Men were depicted nude, with the bare [strike]asses[/strike] minimum amount of clothing/ornamentation needed to identify them (i.e. Herakles wore his lion skin, Hermes carried his wand, etc), women were clothed because their sexuality was scary and needed to be controlled.

    ch6807s.jpg

    On the one hand, it echos our society in some way; some physical features have been gendered--and I'm not even talking about big boobies, but things like eyelashes, even though AFAIK there is not any natural dichotomy in eyelash-length between men and women--and yet in other ways their standards were so different from ours (even though our modern democracy hails from many of their ideals) that it really belies the unspoken belief that a lot of people still have that there is one "natural" way that the sexes / genders relate to one another, end of story. You know--"Well, sexism is bad, but you can't blame guys for wanting to [do or see whatever the particular subject is]. It's natural." It's like people who make up biological reasons for women to carry handbags.

    I am very skeptical whenever I see people claiming "this is just the way it is, it cannot change." What is there in our history that hasn't changed?

    Bonus picture of the freakiest gorgons I've ever seen, like they belong in a sci-fi movie:
    Spoiler:

    Did they show many men head on? Drawing forward-perspective faces can be difficult, so it might just be that they could only get monsters to look right because monsters are supposed to be freaky.

  • SticksSticks Registered User regular
    edited June 2012
    Bagginses wrote: »
    Did they show many men head on? Drawing forward-perspective faces can be difficult, so it might just be that they could only get monsters to look right because monsters are supposed to be freaky.

    That seems like a silly question. If someone went to the time to categorize differences between males/females in ancient greek pottery, I rather doubt they would overlook something that obvious.

    edit: I just realized you said many and not any. What would be the hypothesis there, that if there very few then it's a small sample size and the ones of females with a forward perspective simply didn't survive? Or...?

    Sticks on
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited June 2012
    So, my sons have a couple of superhero comic board books aimed at the very young. Like, under 3. All three of my sons loved these books between the ages of like 1.5 and 2.5. They feature child versions of Spidey, Hulk, Cap'n Murca, etc. Banner turns into Hulk whenever he gets excited about sunny days and ice cream, and they all get together to plan how they are going to be caring and share with one another. Hulk jumps into a tree to save a stuck kitten. And so on. They have a treehouse they go to after school is over and their chores are done. The treehouse is painted with signs indicating "no villains allowed" and "Spidey and Friends," with some of the N's painted backwards like ᴎ. Point is: these superheroes are supposed to be like, maybe, 6-year-old versions of themselves.

    Where am I going with this? Maybe you've guessed? Well, Hulk and Captain A. are all super-muscular in a way that no kid could be. But, you know, they are superheroes. The real kicker is Spider Girl. In addition to her cute little girlish pigtails, she wears lipstick and earrings. She has a small waist comapred to her full hips, and, yes, she has tig ol' bitties.

    I'm not even sure what to make of it, except that I don't think you'd find such a depiction anywhere except in a rendering of a superhero comic character. Heck, I didn't even notice it until I was on my third kid with this book, and my wife simply asked, "hey, is there anything strange about this page to you?" and it was instantly like "OMG!"

    Yar on
  • SticksSticks Registered User regular
    That went from adorable to....kinda weird pretty quick. You have to wonder about the art decisions that are made sometimes.

    Even if you can't get behind the idea of "sexism in the media", that still doesn't seem like a good choice of depiction for a children's book.

    If they are all supposed to be kids, why the hell would you go with exaggerated sex characteristics?

  • LilnoobsLilnoobs Alpha Queue Registered User regular
    You not noticing it but your wife noticing it is part of the problem.

  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited June 2012
    Lilnoobs wrote: »
    You not noticing it but your wife noticing it is part of the problem.

    Neither of us noticed it for about 7 years. And when she noticed it, all she said was, "is there anything strange about this page?" and I instantly noticed it. So I'd say the distinction there is minimal. In fact, I almost always notice and point out crap like this way more often than my wife does. So, no, not relevant or part of any problem.

    Sticks wrote: »
    If they are all supposed to be kids, why the hell would you go with exaggerated sex characteristics?

    The conclusion that we eventually came to was that this book was probably produced in a global assembly line. The writing, art direction, animation, printing, etc., were probably handled by people in few different countries speaking different languages, and without much of any visionary leader overseeing the whole thing to artistic perfection. Someone somewhere was tasked to draw some superheroes according to some vague specifications, and they were probably pretty far removed from anyone who was aware that these were supposed to be children they were drawing. Even the male characters only have some vague characteristics like broad noses and mouths, large feet, long torsos and short legs, etc., they don't really look exactly like children.

    My wife and I actually had to go through and look for certain things in the text and stuff to make sure they were really supposed to be kids, because it is sort of vague about that. It's believeable that no one in publishing really took that hard of a look to notice that a character who was presented as likely being about 6 yrs old was also being drawn with the body of at least a 15 yr old. However, it's also within the realm of possibility that she is older. Often media will present older children/teens but describe them doing things only younger children are into. It's a common marketing/enticement technique.

    Yar on
  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    Yar wrote: »
    So, my sons have a couple of superhero comic board books aimed at the very young. Like, under 3. All three of my sons loved these books between the ages of like 1.5 and 2.5. They feature child versions of Spidey, Hulk, Cap'n Murca, etc. Banner turns into Hulk whenever he gets excited about sunny days and ice cream, and they all get together to plan how they are going to be caring and share with one another. Hulk jumps into a tree to save a stuck kitten. And so on. They have a treehouse they go to after school is over and their chores are done. The treehouse is painted with signs indicating "no villains allowed" and "Spidey and Friends," with some of the N's painted backwards like ᴎ. Point is: these superheroes are supposed to be like, maybe, 6-year-old versions of themselves.

    Where am I going with this? Maybe you've guessed? Well, Hulk and Captain A. are all super-muscular in a way that no kid could be. But, you know, they are superheroes. The real kicker is Spider Girl. In addition to her cute little girlish pigtails, she wears lipstick and earrings. She has a small waist comapred to her full hips, and, yes, she has tig ol' bitties.

    I'm not even sure what to make of it, except that I don't think you'd find such a depiction anywhere except in a rendering of a superhero comic character. Heck, I didn't even notice it until I was on my third kid with this book, and my wife simply asked, "hey, is there anything strange about this page to you?" and it was instantly like "OMG!"

    It might be a post-barbie thing (Barbie was the first adult body doll). All the characters were clearly adults with stylized versions of their normal physiques, so it's not that surprising that the only woman had her normal build. I was half expecting her to be the only one with a child's body and complaints of how infantilizing that is.
    Sticks wrote: »
    Bagginses wrote: »
    Did they show many men head on? Drawing forward-perspective faces can be difficult, so it might just be that they could only get monsters to look right because monsters are supposed to be freaky.

    That seems like a silly question. If someone went to the time to categorize differences between males/females in ancient greek pottery, I rather doubt they would overlook something that obvious.

    edit: I just realized you said many and not any. What would be the hypothesis there, that if there very few then it's a small sample size and the ones of females with a forward perspective simply didn't survive? Or...?

    I think it was a general-purpose class on greek pottery and the gender dynamics were just an observation. I used "many" because of artistic individuality. Even if there is something against drawing women head-on, a few artists might try. If drawing men head on is extremely rare, then we can reach the same conclusion as there being none.

  • mrt144mrt144 King of the Numbernames Registered User regular
    Yar wrote: »
    So, my sons have a couple of superhero comic board books aimed at the very young. Like, under 3. All three of my sons loved these books between the ages of like 1.5 and 2.5. They feature child versions of Spidey, Hulk, Cap'n Murca, etc. Banner turns into Hulk whenever he gets excited about sunny days and ice cream, and they all get together to plan how they are going to be caring and share with one another. Hulk jumps into a tree to save a stuck kitten. And so on. They have a treehouse they go to after school is over and their chores are done. The treehouse is painted with signs indicating "no villains allowed" and "Spidey and Friends," with some of the N's painted backwards like ᴎ. Point is: these superheroes are supposed to be like, maybe, 6-year-old versions of themselves.

    Where am I going with this? Maybe you've guessed? Well, Hulk and Captain A. are all super-muscular in a way that no kid could be. But, you know, they are superheroes. The real kicker is Spider Girl. In addition to her cute little girlish pigtails, she wears lipstick and earrings. She has a small waist comapred to her full hips, and, yes, she has tig ol' bitties.

    I'm not even sure what to make of it, except that I don't think you'd find such a depiction anywhere except in a rendering of a superhero comic character. Heck, I didn't even notice it until I was on my third kid with this book, and my wife simply asked, "hey, is there anything strange about this page to you?" and it was instantly like "OMG!"

    Really need to see scans of this because I can not fucking believe it.

  • mrt144mrt144 King of the Numbernames Registered User regular
    Yar wrote: »
    Lilnoobs wrote: »
    You not noticing it but your wife noticing it is part of the problem.

    Neither of us noticed it for about 7 years. And when she noticed it, all she said was, "is there anything strange about this page?" and I instantly noticed it. So I'd say the distinction there is minimal. In fact, I almost always notice and point out crap like this way more often than my wife does. So, no, not relevant or part of any problem.

    Sticks wrote: »
    If they are all supposed to be kids, why the hell would you go with exaggerated sex characteristics?

    The conclusion that we eventually came to was that this book was probably produced in a global assembly line. The writing, art direction, animation, printing, etc., were probably handled by people in few different countries speaking different languages, and without much of any visionary leader overseeing the whole thing to artistic perfection. Someone somewhere was tasked to draw some superheroes according to some vague specifications, and they were probably pretty far removed from anyone who was aware that these were supposed to be children they were drawing. Even the male characters only have some vague characteristics like broad noses and mouths, large feet, long torsos and short legs, etc., they don't really look exactly like children.

    My wife and I actually had to go through and look for certain things in the text and stuff to make sure they were really supposed to be kids, because it is sort of vague about that. It's believeable that no one in publishing really took that hard of a look to notice that a character who was presented as likely being about 6 yrs old was also being drawn with the body of at least a 15 yr old. However, it's also within the realm of possibility that she is older. Often media will present older children/teens but describe them doing things only younger children are into. It's a common marketing/enticement technique.

    The global assembly line of Japan making adults into children into adults again.

  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    Bagginses wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    So, my sons have a couple of superhero comic board books aimed at the very young. Like, under 3. All three of my sons loved these books between the ages of like 1.5 and 2.5. They feature child versions of Spidey, Hulk, Cap'n Murca, etc. Banner turns into Hulk whenever he gets excited about sunny days and ice cream, and they all get together to plan how they are going to be caring and share with one another. Hulk jumps into a tree to save a stuck kitten. And so on. They have a treehouse they go to after school is over and their chores are done. The treehouse is painted with signs indicating "no villains allowed" and "Spidey and Friends," with some of the N's painted backwards like ᴎ. Point is: these superheroes are supposed to be like, maybe, 6-year-old versions of themselves.

    Where am I going with this? Maybe you've guessed? Well, Hulk and Captain A. are all super-muscular in a way that no kid could be. But, you know, they are superheroes. The real kicker is Spider Girl. In addition to her cute little girlish pigtails, she wears lipstick and earrings. She has a small waist comapred to her full hips, and, yes, she has tig ol' bitties.

    I'm not even sure what to make of it, except that I don't think you'd find such a depiction anywhere except in a rendering of a superhero comic character. Heck, I didn't even notice it until I was on my third kid with this book, and my wife simply asked, "hey, is there anything strange about this page to you?" and it was instantly like "OMG!"

    It might be a post-barbie thing (Barbie was the first adult body doll). All the characters were clearly adults with stylized versions of their normal physiques, so it's not that surprising that the only woman had her normal build. I was half expecting her to be the only one with a child's body and complaints of how infantilizing that is.
    Sticks wrote: »
    Bagginses wrote: »
    Did they show many men head on? Drawing forward-perspective faces can be difficult, so it might just be that they could only get monsters to look right because monsters are supposed to be freaky.

    That seems like a silly question. If someone went to the time to categorize differences between males/females in ancient greek pottery, I rather doubt they would overlook something that obvious.

    edit: I just realized you said many and not any. What would be the hypothesis there, that if there very few then it's a small sample size and the ones of females with a forward perspective simply didn't survive? Or...?

    I think it was a general-purpose class on greek pottery and the gender dynamics were just an observation. I used "many" because of artistic individuality. Even if there is something against drawing women head-on, a few artists might try. If drawing men head on is extremely rare, then we can reach the same conclusion as there being none.

    I guess thats the problem, the other members of that toon line-up have clearly 'adult' bodies. However, being muscly is something we allow as a 'childlike ideal'. Even though you CANT have big muscles as a 8 year old, it's OK to wish you had them (as in, you wish you had them right now, not at some point in the future). The same is not true of 'other' characteristics like those given to spider girl. I guess what that exposes is that somehow we have defined heavy musculature as non sexual at many points (but sexual at other times), and breasts as almost always sexual (but sometimes not).

    Society is weird.

    Your puny weapons are useless against me
  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Bagginses wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    So, my sons have a couple of superhero comic board books aimed at the very young. Like, under 3. All three of my sons loved these books between the ages of like 1.5 and 2.5. They feature child versions of Spidey, Hulk, Cap'n Murca, etc. Banner turns into Hulk whenever he gets excited about sunny days and ice cream, and they all get together to plan how they are going to be caring and share with one another. Hulk jumps into a tree to save a stuck kitten. And so on. They have a treehouse they go to after school is over and their chores are done. The treehouse is painted with signs indicating "no villains allowed" and "Spidey and Friends," with some of the N's painted backwards like ᴎ. Point is: these superheroes are supposed to be like, maybe, 6-year-old versions of themselves.

    Where am I going with this? Maybe you've guessed? Well, Hulk and Captain A. are all super-muscular in a way that no kid could be. But, you know, they are superheroes. The real kicker is Spider Girl. In addition to her cute little girlish pigtails, she wears lipstick and earrings. She has a small waist comapred to her full hips, and, yes, she has tig ol' bitties.

    I'm not even sure what to make of it, except that I don't think you'd find such a depiction anywhere except in a rendering of a superhero comic character. Heck, I didn't even notice it until I was on my third kid with this book, and my wife simply asked, "hey, is there anything strange about this page to you?" and it was instantly like "OMG!"

    It might be a post-barbie thing (Barbie was the first adult body doll). All the characters were clearly adults with stylized versions of their normal physiques, so it's not that surprising that the only woman had her normal build. I was half expecting her to be the only one with a child's body and complaints of how infantilizing that is.
    Sticks wrote: »
    Bagginses wrote: »
    Did they show many men head on? Drawing forward-perspective faces can be difficult, so it might just be that they could only get monsters to look right because monsters are supposed to be freaky.

    That seems like a silly question. If someone went to the time to categorize differences between males/females in ancient greek pottery, I rather doubt they would overlook something that obvious.

    edit: I just realized you said many and not any. What would be the hypothesis there, that if there very few then it's a small sample size and the ones of females with a forward perspective simply didn't survive? Or...?

    I think it was a general-purpose class on greek pottery and the gender dynamics were just an observation. I used "many" because of artistic individuality. Even if there is something against drawing women head-on, a few artists might try. If drawing men head on is extremely rare, then we can reach the same conclusion as there being none.

    I guess thats the problem, the other members of that toon line-up have clearly 'adult' bodies. However, being muscly is something we allow as a 'childlike ideal'. Even though you CANT have big muscles as a 8 year old, it's OK to wish you had them (as in, you wish you had them right now, not at some point in the future). The same is not true of 'other' characteristics like those given to spider girl. I guess what that exposes is that somehow we have defined heavy musculature as non sexual at many points (but sexual at other times), and breasts as almost always sexual (but sometimes not).

    Society is weird.

    Well, muscle development is somewhat dimorphic, I guess.

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    mrt144 wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    So, my sons have a couple of superhero comic board books aimed at the very young. Like, under 3. All three of my sons loved these books between the ages of like 1.5 and 2.5. They feature child versions of Spidey, Hulk, Cap'n Murca, etc. Banner turns into Hulk whenever he gets excited about sunny days and ice cream, and they all get together to plan how they are going to be caring and share with one another. Hulk jumps into a tree to save a stuck kitten. And so on. They have a treehouse they go to after school is over and their chores are done. The treehouse is painted with signs indicating "no villains allowed" and "Spidey and Friends," with some of the N's painted backwards like ᴎ. Point is: these superheroes are supposed to be like, maybe, 6-year-old versions of themselves.

    Where am I going with this? Maybe you've guessed? Well, Hulk and Captain A. are all super-muscular in a way that no kid could be. But, you know, they are superheroes. The real kicker is Spider Girl. In addition to her cute little girlish pigtails, she wears lipstick and earrings. She has a small waist comapred to her full hips, and, yes, she has tig ol' bitties.

    I'm not even sure what to make of it, except that I don't think you'd find such a depiction anywhere except in a rendering of a superhero comic character. Heck, I didn't even notice it until I was on my third kid with this book, and my wife simply asked, "hey, is there anything strange about this page to you?" and it was instantly like "OMG!"

    Really need to see scans of this because I can not fucking believe it.

    Eh? Are you talking about the Superhero Squad? I don't see any pig tails on any of the women in that show. They very definitely have bosoms and lipstick though.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • TubeTube Says some shit Administrator, ClubPA admin
    They're not supposed to be 6-year olds, they're just super-deformed versions of superheroes who act goofily because it's a show for children.

Sign In or Register to comment.