I actually think that a lot of romance novel covers make a bad example of "this is what ladies like, right? And it's showing the same stuff as what's in comics/videogames/whatever!" Because I think too many romance novel covers are just as weirdly misogynistic as comic book covers. They still show a male power fantasy and a busty female showing a lot of skin. I'm not saying that isn't some women's idea of a romantic fantasy, but it still feels like "as a man, this is what I think women fantasize about."
If you want to look at an industry that is laser pointed at the female demographic, and is wildly popular with females, I'd say look at shojo manga covers. Because for some reason Japan, bless them, is not threatened by the possibility of making a buck on what ladies actually want to look at.
What do sexualized dudes in shojo manga look like? This:
He's fit, but he isn't super bulking cut the way superheros are. Additionally, his face and hair are way more feminine than anything you'd ever see directed at females in the west.
I'm not saying that Japan doesn't have it's own problems (rape being a "thing" that gets couples together in shojo is just one of the worst things ever conceived to feed to teenage girls). But at least visually, manga is less about "make sure the male power fantasy gets featured on that cover of a book aimed at women!" and more about "what do women actually want to look at?"
Except the sales of romance or it's various ilk pretty much show that yes, women DO actually like the way romance and it's covers objectify men.
Almost all romance novels are in some way serialized so most ladies don't even actually bother with the cover they're just looking at what subgenre/number it is (romance practically has more subgenres than fiction has genres). If anything the covers might actually push some people away because they're so unbelievably kitsch, but the stories sell like you won't believe. Not to get all 'don't judge a book by its cover' but Romance is incredibly content driven. Almost uniquely so.
I'm not saying that Japan doesn't have it's own problems (rape being a "thing" that gets couples together in shojo is just one of the worst things ever conceived to feed to teenage girls). But at least visually, manga is less about "make sure the male power fantasy gets featured on that cover of a book aimed at women!" and more about "what do women actually want to look at?"
Some ladies actually want beefcake, though. Which is another facet of societal misogyny/misandry that tends to get overlooked. The plethora of forms that make up the vast spectrum of beautiful people. This typically gets narrowed to maybe 3 approved forms of beauty to be commercialized and if they don't give you a constant hard on then there's something wrong with you. This is starting to improve thanks to the internet exploding the number of niche markets you can target, but it is definitely still a thing. And it needlessly takes a toll on anyone who is drawn to a non-traditional form of beauty.
it doesn't help that some non traditional forms of beauty are really out there
I'm not quite clear on what point you're trying to make.
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
I actually think that a lot of romance novel covers make a bad example of "this is what ladies like, right? And it's showing the same stuff as what's in comics/videogames/whatever!" Because I think too many romance novel covers are just as weirdly misogynistic as comic book covers. They still show a male power fantasy and a busty female showing a lot of skin. I'm not saying that isn't some women's idea of a romantic fantasy, but it still feels like "as a man, this is what I think women fantasize about."
If you want to look at an industry that is laser pointed at the female demographic, and is wildly popular with females, I'd say look at shojo manga covers. Because for some reason Japan, bless them, is not threatened by the possibility of making a buck on what ladies actually want to look at.
What do sexualized dudes in shojo manga look like? This:
He's fit, but he isn't super bulking cut the way superheros are. Additionally, his face and hair are way more feminine than anything you'd ever see directed at females in the west.
I'm not saying that Japan doesn't have it's own problems (rape being a "thing" that gets couples together in shojo is just one of the worst things ever conceived to feed to teenage girls). But at least visually, manga is less about "make sure the male power fantasy gets featured on that cover of a book aimed at women!" and more about "what do women actually want to look at?"
Except the sales of romance or it's various ilk pretty much show that yes, women DO actually like the way romance and it's covers objectify men.
The thing is, I do read romance novels and have bought a few. I've never liked the covers, and actually the first hurtle towards making me buy a romance novel at all was how the awful the covers all are.
Basically women buy these things because they're kinda the only fiction made exclusively for women (until shojo started being imported, at least). So even if it's still representing a male view point in a lot of ways, it's all we got.
You are taking your own tastes and applying them to all women without any reason to do so.
YOU may think the covers are awful, but I'm thinking you are in the minority here given the continued success of the current marketing strategy.
I'm not saying that all women automatically want the same type of body. What I'm saying is that 1) far, far less women like "insanely unrealistic muscle-bound freak" than men like it as a power fantasy, and 2) the other types that women like are never shown in western fiction. Because males don't see what's to like in those depictions, so they don't represented. And further, you can't use "it must be what women want, because it's selling" as a point in your favor, because there's no choice given to women as to what kind of covers the literature directed towards them has.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
I actually think that a lot of romance novel covers make a bad example of "this is what ladies like, right? And it's showing the same stuff as what's in comics/videogames/whatever!" Because I think too many romance novel covers are just as weirdly misogynistic as comic book covers. They still show a male power fantasy and a busty female showing a lot of skin. I'm not saying that isn't some women's idea of a romantic fantasy, but it still feels like "as a man, this is what I think women fantasize about."
If you want to look at an industry that is laser pointed at the female demographic, and is wildly popular with females, I'd say look at shojo manga covers. Because for some reason Japan, bless them, is not threatened by the possibility of making a buck on what ladies actually want to look at.
What do sexualized dudes in shojo manga look like? This:
He's fit, but he isn't super bulking cut the way superheros are. Additionally, his face and hair are way more feminine than anything you'd ever see directed at females in the west.
I'm not saying that Japan doesn't have it's own problems (rape being a "thing" that gets couples together in shojo is just one of the worst things ever conceived to feed to teenage girls). But at least visually, manga is less about "make sure the male power fantasy gets featured on that cover of a book aimed at women!" and more about "what do women actually want to look at?"
Except the sales of romance or it's various ilk pretty much show that yes, women DO actually like the way romance and it's covers objectify men.
The thing is, I do read romance novels and have bought a few. I've never liked the covers, and actually the first hurtle towards making me buy a romance novel at all was how the awful the covers all are.
Basically women buy these things because they're kinda the only fiction made exclusively for women (until shojo started being imported, at least). So even if it's still representing a male view point in a lot of ways, it's all we got.
You are taking your own tastes and applying them to all women without any reason to do so.
YOU may think the covers are awful, but I'm thinking you are in the minority here given the continued success of the current marketing strategy.
Eh..
Most women could find them ridiculous and even mildly offensive, that probably isn't going to change the fact that the current covers(probably) draw the most eyes for the longest period of time.
They don't have to like to covers to buy them, they do have to notice them on the shelf.
I'm not saying that Japan doesn't have it's own problems (rape being a "thing" that gets couples together in shojo is just one of the worst things ever conceived to feed to teenage girls). But at least visually, manga is less about "make sure the male power fantasy gets featured on that cover of a book aimed at women!" and more about "what do women actually want to look at?"
Some ladies actually want beefcake, though. Which is another facet of societal misogyny/misandry that tends to get overlooked. The plethora of forms that make up the vast spectrum of beautiful people. This typically gets narrowed to maybe 3 approved forms of beauty to be commercialized and if they don't give you a constant hard on then there's something wrong with you. This is starting to improve thanks to the internet exploding the number of niche markets you can target, but it is definitely still a thing. And it needlessly takes a toll on anyone who is drawn to a non-traditional form of beauty.
it doesn't help that some non traditional forms of beauty are really out there
I'm not quite clear on what point you're trying to make.
no point, just got reminded of six breasted lizard female I happened to see yesterday
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.
the big difference is everyone agrees that going out and blowing away eighty-seven people with a high-powered assault rifle is a bad thing and should not be emulated.
the whole "treating women as sexual objects and not as people" thing? ehhhh not so much. as a result, the objectification in fiction continues to reinforce existing beliefs, which then play a role in creating more fiction, which reinforces existing beliefs, etc etc etc
To echo your own statement above about not making assumptions without data, do you have anything that links consumption of fictional media that sexually objectifies woman with increased violence and/or discrimination and/or statements indicative of bias against women?
Shadowhope on
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
0
Options
ButtlordFornicusLord of Bondage and PainRegistered Userregular
the big difference is everyone agrees that going out and blowing away eighty-seven people with a high-powered assault rifle is a bad thing and should not be emulated.
the whole "treating women as sexual objects and not as people" thing? ehhhh not so much. as a result, the objectification in fiction continues to reinforce existing beliefs, which then play a role in creating more fiction, which reinforces existing beliefs, etc etc etc
To echo your own statement above about not making assumptions without data, do you have anything that links consumption of fictional media that sexually objectifies woman with increased violence and/or discrimination and/or statements indicative of bias against women?
this is an insanely loaded question and you know it
unless you honestly don't think that consumption of media has any effect on the way you look at things in which case i don't know what the fuck to tell you
(also i wasn't asking for cites about the number of sociopaths, the thing he was saying was absolutely farcical and bullshit and i was calling him on it)
(also also the comparison to violent media is a pretty bad one to make because, again, it's widely agreed that you shouldn't go on wild shooting sprees that end in a mound of corpses)
I actually think that a lot of romance novel covers make a bad example of "this is what ladies like, right? And it's showing the same stuff as what's in comics/videogames/whatever!" Because I think too many romance novel covers are just as weirdly misogynistic as comic book covers. They still show a male power fantasy and a busty female showing a lot of skin. I'm not saying that isn't some women's idea of a romantic fantasy, but it still feels like "as a man, this is what I think women fantasize about."
If you want to look at an industry that is laser pointed at the female demographic, and is wildly popular with females, I'd say look at shojo manga covers. Because for some reason Japan, bless them, is not threatened by the possibility of making a buck on what ladies actually want to look at.
What do sexualized dudes in shojo manga look like? This:
He's fit, but he isn't super bulking cut the way superheros are. Additionally, his face and hair are way more feminine than anything you'd ever see directed at females in the west.
I'm not saying that Japan doesn't have it's own problems (rape being a "thing" that gets couples together in shojo is just one of the worst things ever conceived to feed to teenage girls). But at least visually, manga is less about "make sure the male power fantasy gets featured on that cover of a book aimed at women!" and more about "what do women actually want to look at?"
Except the sales of romance or it's various ilk pretty much show that yes, women DO actually like the way romance and it's covers objectify men.
Almost all romance novels are in some way serialized so most ladies don't even actually bother with the cover they're just looking at what subgenre/number it is (romance practically has more subgenres than fiction has genres). If anything the covers might actually push some people away because they're so unbelievably kitsch, but the stories sell like you won't believe. Not to get all 'don't judge a book by its cover' but Romance is incredibly content driven. Almost uniquely so.
This. Having read some romance novels (though I don't do so now, and never did in public entirely due to the ridiculousness of the covers), I will agree that romance novel sales has very little to do with the covers. In fact, Danielle Steel novels almost all have plain covers, maybe with a clip art picture of an object on them or a picture of a normal couple kissing or standing about on a beach, and she's arguably one of the highest selling and most famous romance novelists alive. I don't have the cite for this, but I recall reading recently that the rise in eraders has actually increased the sales in romance novels because of the fact that you no longer have to carry torrid-looking books around.
Almost all romance novels are in some way serialized so most ladies don't even actually bother with the cover they're just looking at what subgenre/number it is (romance practically has more subgenres than fiction has genres). If anything the covers might actually push some people away because they're so unbelievably kitsch, but the stories sell like you won't believe. Not to get all 'don't judge a book by its cover' but Romance is incredibly content driven. Almost uniquely so.
If the covers pushed enough people away to matter, they would be changed.
Saying "most ladies don't even actually bother with the cover" both isn't supported by anything and doesn't matter anyway because the people who don't care about the cover don't matter for when it comes to what's on the cover. By definition. The people who do care about the cover apparently like what they get. Or rather, enough of them do that it's still a good marketing strategy.
I actually think that a lot of romance novel covers make a bad example of "this is what ladies like, right? And it's showing the same stuff as what's in comics/videogames/whatever!" Because I think too many romance novel covers are just as weirdly misogynistic as comic book covers. They still show a male power fantasy and a busty female showing a lot of skin. I'm not saying that isn't some women's idea of a romantic fantasy, but it still feels like "as a man, this is what I think women fantasize about."
If you want to look at an industry that is laser pointed at the female demographic, and is wildly popular with females, I'd say look at shojo manga covers. Because for some reason Japan, bless them, is not threatened by the possibility of making a buck on what ladies actually want to look at.
What do sexualized dudes in shojo manga look like? This:
He's fit, but he isn't super bulking cut the way superheros are. Additionally, his face and hair are way more feminine than anything you'd ever see directed at females in the west.
I'm not saying that Japan doesn't have it's own problems (rape being a "thing" that gets couples together in shojo is just one of the worst things ever conceived to feed to teenage girls). But at least visually, manga is less about "make sure the male power fantasy gets featured on that cover of a book aimed at women!" and more about "what do women actually want to look at?"
Except the sales of romance or it's various ilk pretty much show that yes, women DO actually like the way romance and it's covers objectify men.
The thing is, I do read romance novels and have bought a few. I've never liked the covers, and actually the first hurtle towards making me buy a romance novel at all was how the awful the covers all are.
Basically women buy these things because they're kinda the only fiction made exclusively for women (until shojo started being imported, at least). So even if it's still representing a male view point in a lot of ways, it's all we got.
You are taking your own tastes and applying them to all women without any reason to do so.
YOU may think the covers are awful, but I'm thinking you are in the minority here given the continued success of the current marketing strategy.
I'm not saying that all women automatically want the same type of body. What I'm saying is that 1) far, far less women like "insanely unrealistic muscle-bound freak" than men like it as a power fantasy, and 2) the other types that women like are never shown in western fiction. Because males don't see what's to like in those depictions, so they don't represented. And further, you can't use "it must be what women want, because it's selling" as a point in your favor, because there's no choice given to women as to what kind of covers the literature directed towards them has.
Except point (1) is something you keep stating based on nothing except that's YOUR preference. Which leads to point (2) which is that the "other types" that women like simply aren't popular enough to overcome the power of the "romance cover lover" demographic. Or that those groups get their kicks elsewhere, like "urban fantasy" or "paranormal romance", which are more likely to have the less beefcake man on the cover. Or, even more often it seems, scantily clad women (which is a whole other kettle of sexual objectification in our culture fish)
And yes, saying "That's the way they market it" is a point in favour of what I'm saying because it's marketing is not fire and forget. They spend alot of money on this shit and making sure it works.
Which isn't to say they can't be wrong. But absent evidence to the contrary, the sales of romance or it's like and the ubiquity of the techniques leads to the default assumption that it's effective.
the big difference is everyone agrees that going out and blowing away eighty-seven people with a high-powered assault rifle is a bad thing and should not be emulated.
the whole "treating women as sexual objects and not as people" thing? ehhhh not so much. as a result, the objectification in fiction continues to reinforce existing beliefs, which then play a role in creating more fiction, which reinforces existing beliefs, etc etc etc
To echo your own statement above about not making assumptions without data, do you have anything that links consumption of fictional media that sexually objectifies woman with increased violence and/or discrimination and/or statements indicative of bias against women?
this is an insanely loaded question and you know it
unless you honestly don't think that consumption of media has any effect on the way you look at things in which case i don't know what the fuck to tell you
(also i wasn't asking for cites about the number of sociopaths, the thing he was saying was absolutely farcical and bullshit and i was calling him on it)
(also also the comparison to violent media is a pretty bad one to make because, again, it's widely agreed that you shouldn't go on wild shooting sprees that end in a mound of corpses)
I actually remember reading a study that showed frat aged males information videos about rape that did produce shifts in their definition of rape to better reflect legal norms
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.
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
Almost all romance novels are in some way serialized so most ladies don't even actually bother with the cover they're just looking at what subgenre/number it is (romance practically has more subgenres than fiction has genres). If anything the covers might actually push some people away because they're so unbelievably kitsch, but the stories sell like you won't believe. Not to get all 'don't judge a book by its cover' but Romance is incredibly content driven. Almost uniquely so.
If the covers pushed enough people away to matter, they would be changed.
Saying "most ladies don't even actually bother with the cover" both isn't supported by anything and doesn't matter anyway because the people who don't care about the cover don't matter for when it comes to what's on the cover. By definition. The people who do care about the cover apparently like what they get. Or rather, enough of them do that it's still a good marketing strategy.
I actually think that a lot of romance novel covers make a bad example of "this is what ladies like, right? And it's showing the same stuff as what's in comics/videogames/whatever!" Because I think too many romance novel covers are just as weirdly misogynistic as comic book covers. They still show a male power fantasy and a busty female showing a lot of skin. I'm not saying that isn't some women's idea of a romantic fantasy, but it still feels like "as a man, this is what I think women fantasize about."
If you want to look at an industry that is laser pointed at the female demographic, and is wildly popular with females, I'd say look at shojo manga covers. Because for some reason Japan, bless them, is not threatened by the possibility of making a buck on what ladies actually want to look at.
What do sexualized dudes in shojo manga look like? This:
He's fit, but he isn't super bulking cut the way superheros are. Additionally, his face and hair are way more feminine than anything you'd ever see directed at females in the west.
I'm not saying that Japan doesn't have it's own problems (rape being a "thing" that gets couples together in shojo is just one of the worst things ever conceived to feed to teenage girls). But at least visually, manga is less about "make sure the male power fantasy gets featured on that cover of a book aimed at women!" and more about "what do women actually want to look at?"
Except the sales of romance or it's various ilk pretty much show that yes, women DO actually like the way romance and it's covers objectify men.
The thing is, I do read romance novels and have bought a few. I've never liked the covers, and actually the first hurtle towards making me buy a romance novel at all was how the awful the covers all are.
Basically women buy these things because they're kinda the only fiction made exclusively for women (until shojo started being imported, at least). So even if it's still representing a male view point in a lot of ways, it's all we got.
You are taking your own tastes and applying them to all women without any reason to do so.
YOU may think the covers are awful, but I'm thinking you are in the minority here given the continued success of the current marketing strategy.
I'm not saying that all women automatically want the same type of body. What I'm saying is that 1) far, far less women like "insanely unrealistic muscle-bound freak" than men like it as a power fantasy, and 2) the other types that women like are never shown in western fiction. Because males don't see what's to like in those depictions, so they don't represented. And further, you can't use "it must be what women want, because it's selling" as a point in your favor, because there's no choice given to women as to what kind of covers the literature directed towards them has.
Except point (1) is something you keep stating based on nothing except that's YOUR preference. Which leads to point (2) which is that the "other types" that women like simply aren't popular enough to overcome the power of the "romance cover lover" demographic. Or that those groups get their kicks elsewhere, like "urban fantasy" or "paranormal romance", which are more likely to have the less beefcake man on the cover. Or, even more often it seems, scantily clad women (which is a whole other kettle of sexual objectification in our culture fish)
And yes, saying "That's the way they market it" is a point in favour of what I'm saying because it's marketing is not fire and forget. They spend alot of money on this shit and making sure it works.
Which isn't to say they can't be wrong. But absent evidence to the contrary, the sales of romance or it's like and the ubiquity of the techniques leads to the default assumption that it's effective.
Isn't the wild popularity of shojo, both in the country that conceived it as well as the west, enough of a counter argument that yes, there is an absolutely huge market for the alternative to "beefcake" style of masculinity, but that the west is so mired in sexism that it's unable to break free from the current model?
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
or a picture of a tie or whatever (making no statements about the quality of these books, much less how problematic they are)
Fifty Shades of Grey is obviously going for a more mainstream place in the bookstore. (not mainstream appeal since romance is itself mainstream, just not in a "front of the bookstore" kind of way. Like porn really)
Eh..
Most women could find them ridiculous and even mildly offensive, that probably isn't going to change the fact that the current covers(probably) draw the most eyes for the longest period of time.
They don't have to like to covers to buy them, they do have to notice them on the shelf.
All that counts is that they sell the most copies.
If women found them ridiculous or mildly offensive enough that they overcame the women who found their eyes drawn to the covers, the covers would very likely have changed.
The idea that an industry would continue to use covers that their readers find offensive or of-putting or what have you is a rather extraordinary claim that requires some extraordinary evidence.
if they covers are detrimental then you would think the number crunchers would have realized and changed the style
The publishing industry isn't known for its experimentation and markets aren't known for being rational. I don't have data to support this, just my near daily interaction and conversations with people in the library, so I can very well be wrong. However, given my experiences I would be rather surprised to learn that Fabio has a statistically significant impact on romance sales while holding all else equal. At the same time, this is getting rather thick in the weeds from the original point I was trying to make. Which is that what individuals find attractive is much broader than what is targeted commercially, and the institutional misogyny/misandry that exists to promote this narrowed view of beauty is detrimental to everybody.
Again, why is sexual objectification in fiction a bad thing?
Do you feel racism in fiction is a bad thing? No wait, let me rephrase that . . . do you feel the acceptance of racism in fiction is a bad thing? Would you be comfortable if someone gave you a computer game where every single protagonist was white and black people only appeared as gang members, drug dealers, and bad guys? How about if someone gave you ten computer games and, whoa, look at that, white people were the protagonists in all of them and black people only appeared as bad guys in all of them?
Almost all romance novels are in some way serialized so most ladies don't even actually bother with the cover they're just looking at what subgenre/number it is (romance practically has more subgenres than fiction has genres). If anything the covers might actually push some people away because they're so unbelievably kitsch, but the stories sell like you won't believe. Not to get all 'don't judge a book by its cover' but Romance is incredibly content driven. Almost uniquely so.
If the covers pushed enough people away to matter, they would be changed.
Saying "most ladies don't even actually bother with the cover" both isn't supported by anything and doesn't matter anyway because the people who don't care about the cover don't matter for when it comes to what's on the cover. By definition. The people who do care about the cover apparently like what they get. Or rather, enough of them do that it's still a good marketing strategy.
I actually think that a lot of romance novel covers make a bad example of "this is what ladies like, right? And it's showing the same stuff as what's in comics/videogames/whatever!" Because I think too many romance novel covers are just as weirdly misogynistic as comic book covers. They still show a male power fantasy and a busty female showing a lot of skin. I'm not saying that isn't some women's idea of a romantic fantasy, but it still feels like "as a man, this is what I think women fantasize about."
If you want to look at an industry that is laser pointed at the female demographic, and is wildly popular with females, I'd say look at shojo manga covers. Because for some reason Japan, bless them, is not threatened by the possibility of making a buck on what ladies actually want to look at.
What do sexualized dudes in shojo manga look like? This:
He's fit, but he isn't super bulking cut the way superheros are. Additionally, his face and hair are way more feminine than anything you'd ever see directed at females in the west.
I'm not saying that Japan doesn't have it's own problems (rape being a "thing" that gets couples together in shojo is just one of the worst things ever conceived to feed to teenage girls). But at least visually, manga is less about "make sure the male power fantasy gets featured on that cover of a book aimed at women!" and more about "what do women actually want to look at?"
Except the sales of romance or it's various ilk pretty much show that yes, women DO actually like the way romance and it's covers objectify men.
The thing is, I do read romance novels and have bought a few. I've never liked the covers, and actually the first hurtle towards making me buy a romance novel at all was how the awful the covers all are.
Basically women buy these things because they're kinda the only fiction made exclusively for women (until shojo started being imported, at least). So even if it's still representing a male view point in a lot of ways, it's all we got.
You are taking your own tastes and applying them to all women without any reason to do so.
YOU may think the covers are awful, but I'm thinking you are in the minority here given the continued success of the current marketing strategy.
I'm not saying that all women automatically want the same type of body. What I'm saying is that 1) far, far less women like "insanely unrealistic muscle-bound freak" than men like it as a power fantasy, and 2) the other types that women like are never shown in western fiction. Because males don't see what's to like in those depictions, so they don't represented. And further, you can't use "it must be what women want, because it's selling" as a point in your favor, because there's no choice given to women as to what kind of covers the literature directed towards them has.
Except point (1) is something you keep stating based on nothing except that's YOUR preference. Which leads to point (2) which is that the "other types" that women like simply aren't popular enough to overcome the power of the "romance cover lover" demographic. Or that those groups get their kicks elsewhere, like "urban fantasy" or "paranormal romance", which are more likely to have the less beefcake man on the cover. Or, even more often it seems, scantily clad women (which is a whole other kettle of sexual objectification in our culture fish)
And yes, saying "That's the way they market it" is a point in favour of what I'm saying because it's marketing is not fire and forget. They spend alot of money on this shit and making sure it works.
Which isn't to say they can't be wrong. But absent evidence to the contrary, the sales of romance or it's like and the ubiquity of the techniques leads to the default assumption that it's effective.
Isn't the wild popularity of shojo, both in the country that conceived it as well as the west, enough of a counter argument that yes, there is an absolutely huge market for the alternative to "beefcake" style of masculinity, but that the west is so mired in sexism that it's unable to break free from the current model?
1) No one has said tastes don't differ between countries/regions/etc. Japanese romance stuff is made by and for Japanese markets, so of course it's marketed differently. The Japanese are different from North Americans or Europeans or whatever.
2) You are making more unsupported assumptions about the popularity of said Japanese products in the West. Unless you've got some numbers showing comparitevely huge sales for this stuff compared to western romance novels, I'm doubting the market is as huge (again, comparitevely) as you are claiming.
3) You also have to consider the idea of cross-over between these 2 demographics. Basically, how many of these Japanese romance readers with differening preferences are even western romance readers in the first place. How many people turned off by these covers would even read romance?
0
Options
ButtlordFornicusLord of Bondage and PainRegistered Userregular
the big difference is everyone agrees that going out and blowing away eighty-seven people with a high-powered assault rifle is a bad thing and should not be emulated.
the whole "treating women as sexual objects and not as people" thing? ehhhh not so much. as a result, the objectification in fiction continues to reinforce existing beliefs, which then play a role in creating more fiction, which reinforces existing beliefs, etc etc etc
To echo your own statement above about not making assumptions without data, do you have anything that links consumption of fictional media that sexually objectifies woman with increased violence and/or discrimination and/or statements indicative of bias against women?
this is an insanely loaded question and you know it
unless you honestly don't think that consumption of media has any effect on the way you look at things in which case i don't know what the fuck to tell you
(also i wasn't asking for cites about the number of sociopaths, the thing he was saying was absolutely farcical and bullshit and i was calling him on it)
(also also the comparison to violent media is a pretty bad one to make because, again, it's widely agreed that you shouldn't go on wild shooting sprees that end in a mound of corpses)
I actually remember reading a study that showed frat aged males information videos about rape that did produce shifts in their definition of rape to better reflect legal norms
the big difference is everyone agrees that going out and blowing away eighty-seven people with a high-powered assault rifle is a bad thing and should not be emulated.
the whole "treating women as sexual objects and not as people" thing? ehhhh not so much. as a result, the objectification in fiction continues to reinforce existing beliefs, which then play a role in creating more fiction, which reinforces existing beliefs, etc etc etc
To echo your own statement above about not making assumptions without data, do you have anything that links consumption of fictional media that sexually objectifies woman with increased violence and/or discrimination and/or statements indicative of bias against women?
this is an insanely loaded question and you know it
unless you honestly don't think that consumption of media has any effect on the way you look at things in which case i don't know what the fuck to tell you
(also i wasn't asking for cites about the number of sociopaths, the thing he was saying was absolutely farcical and bullshit and i was calling him on it)
(also also the comparison to violent media is a pretty bad one to make because, again, it's widely agreed that you shouldn't go on wild shooting sprees that end in a mound of corpses)
I actually remember reading a study that showed frat aged males information videos about rape that did produce shifts in their definition of rape to better reflect legal norms
this is kind of a "no shit" thing though
Well, it's worth stating though, because it's surprising how many people think they are so autonomous that whatever they see doesn't effect them, because they will make up their minds THEMSELVES, darn it, with no outside influence! (Sort of like how everyone assumes they are an above average driver.)
So you get the whole argument that goes, "The government actually WASTED MONEY putting up billboards against drinking and driving?? Oh right, like anyone pays attention to THOSE!" Whereas in reality when there are billboards or commercials against drunk driving or encouraging people to use their seatbelt or whatnot, it does result in statistically noticeable shifts in behavior.
0
Options
RhalloTonnyOf the BrownlandsRegistered Userregular
edited June 2012
Context and awareness are the big key issues.
Most people know that when they play a violent game that they are performing these actions within the confines of a game, and duplicating the actions in the real world have moral, ethical, and legal consequences.
Unfortunately, it isn't (overwhelmingly) common sense for "this woman isn't here solely for your sexual needs," or the promotion that "good" women have ___ traits, while "bad" have _____.
Another big difference is that objectification of women occurs in weird and indirect ways. Objectifying a woman in the broadest sense isn't completely sexual. There's a whole ownership thing, denying a person's agency, etc. Misogyny can creep in strange ways that aren't aren't explicitly apparent to people that aren't observing- and that in turn influences people to think of that as normal or baseline since it's not out-there in-your-face giant boobs and hips.
I guess the idea is that it's not so much the porn elements, it's the sexist stuff snuck in under the idea that it is normal and to be expected. Which, really, just depends on how aware the consumer is, and their already defined ideas about what is sexist or not, but at the same time when it's everywhere it's not unreasonable to think that it can creep in and reinforce existing problems with viewing women as complete people.
RhalloTonny on
!
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
First of all, I apologize Buttlord, my remark about facts and figures comes from Incenjur's post at the bottom of page 3, not something you yourself said. For some reason I conflated your identities.
the big difference is everyone agrees that going out and blowing away eighty-seven people with a high-powered assault rifle is a bad thing and should not be emulated.
the whole "treating women as sexual objects and not as people" thing? ehhhh not so much. as a result, the objectification in fiction continues to reinforce existing beliefs, which then play a role in creating more fiction, which reinforces existing beliefs, etc etc etc
To echo your own statement above about not making assumptions without data, do you have anything that links consumption of fictional media that sexually objectifies woman with increased violence and/or discrimination and/or statements indicative of bias against women?
this is an insanely loaded question and you know it
unless you honestly don't think that consumption of media has any effect on the way you look at things in which case i don't know what the fuck to tell you
It is an insanely loaded question, I won't dispute that. I also think that it's also a valid one. Yes, in America,* you can see a lot of women in a lot of states of undress quickly and easily. And yes, violence against women definitely occurs far too often in America. But in countries with less access to that modern media showing sexually objectified women and/or women having to cover up significantly more in public you'll also tend to find more violence and discrimination against women. In the Western world in general right now, woman are probably both closer to true equality than they've been at any point in history and also more sexually objectified than at any point in history.
A cynic says that continued objectification of women in fiction holds back equality. An optimist says it might just give men an outlet that allows for easier acceptance of equality. I'm an optimist, you seem to be a cynic, and as far as I know neither of us have any proof to back up our theories.
I believe that people make their own choices. I don't think you can blame discrimination against women on women wearing hot pants, no more than you can blame taking up drug dealing on rap music. I am disputing that women being overtly sexual leads to further violence or other discrimination against women. To wit, I don't think that Madonna or Lady Gaga has set back Women's Lib.
I disagree with your statement that violence is a bad comparison to make. Violence isn't just killing dudes with a gun. It's also punching, kicking, and otherwise beating people for various reasons. Turn on the TV to a hockey game and you get people dropping the gloves and fighting due to slights real and imagined. Change the channel and watch a TV show featuring a drug dealer selling narcotics to people. Go to a kids channel and you can probably find a cartoon easily enough that involves problem solving through beating up bad guys. Despite GI Joe, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, He-Man, Transformers, and Thundercats being on TV in the 1980s, those kids grew up to a lower crime rate than the previous generation. Maybe you're right, and the media that they consumed did have a negative effect on the crime rate and we'd have even less crime if they watched more Carebears and Jem and the Holograms. But as I said, I think that people make their own choices, and exposure an event in fiction does not necessarily mean that a person will incorporate it into his or her morality.
* I say America because I assume that most people on the board are Americans. I'm a Canadian living in Canada myself.
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
Almost all romance novels are in some way serialized so most ladies don't even actually bother with the cover they're just looking at what subgenre/number it is (romance practically has more subgenres than fiction has genres). If anything the covers might actually push some people away because they're so unbelievably kitsch, but the stories sell like you won't believe. Not to get all 'don't judge a book by its cover' but Romance is incredibly content driven. Almost uniquely so.
If the covers pushed enough people away to matter, they would be changed.
Conventions are hard to shake. I don't really see it as being that easy a change as you are suggesting, and in many ways the covers are actually changing. Fifty Shades of Grey being the most obvious, but a lot of new romance novels are coming out in hardback rather than soft, and the covers have a very different aesthetic. One that is much more "I'm not reading a romance novel!" if you will.
Saying "most ladies don't even actually bother with the cover" both isn't supported by anything and doesn't matter anyway because the people who don't care about the cover don't matter for when it comes to what's on the cover. By definition. The people who do care about the cover apparently like what they get. Or rather, enough of them do that it's still a good marketing strategy.
It's supported by the way in which romance covers were standardized by different publishers. Harlequin has 30 different series types, and all serials literally have a numeral on them. I can't think of any other type of genre with long running series that go to that extreme. Hell, Discworld doesn't even do that and it's pushing 40 books.
Also:
Readers and writers are also connected by their attempts to change the manner in which romance novels are published. Perhaps no other
set of readers has such a wide-ranging knowledge of the publishing industry. In the past, reader protests have affected the content of these novels, and readers are trying to change the covers. Many readers have long despised the “clinch” covers of scantily clad couples that make the novels embarrassing to read in public. Authors, too, have not always been happy with covers that are not representative of their work. One author indignantly recalls a meeting with a publisher where the only instructions about the cover art were to “make the Sisters of Sorts woman’s breasts prominent” (anonymous, qtd. in Gold, Issue 6). Readers are agitating for more scenic or floral covers, covers without people on them, and publishers are beginning to accommodate them. For example, when Laura Kinsale’s novel Midsummer Moon was originally published in 1987, the cover had a picture of a man and woman embracing on the rocks in front of a castle, but the 1997 reissue of the novel has a picture of a castle and some trees.
Struve L, STRUVE L. Sisters of Sorts: Reading Romantic Fiction and the Bonds Among Female Readers. Journal Of Popular Culture [serial online]. December 2011;44(6):1289-1306. Available from: Academic Search Premier, Ipswich, MA. Accessed June 3, 2012.
0
Options
RhalloTonnyOf the BrownlandsRegistered Userregular
But in countries with less access to that modern media showing sexually objectified women and/or women having to cover up significantly more in public you'll also tend to find more violence and discrimination against women.
I don't think it's a real tough sell to come to the conclusion that abuse against women happens more in these areas because there is still a tight psychological, religious, and legal control system on what these women can and cannot do, not that men just beat women regardless of whether they're in bikinis or not.
It is an insanely loaded question, I won't dispute that. I also think that it's also a valid one. Yes, in America,* you can see a lot of women in a lot of states of undress quickly and easily. And yes, violence against women definitely occurs far too often in America. But in countries with less access to that modern media showing sexually objectified women and/or women having to cover up significantly more in public you'll also tend to find more violence and discrimination against women. In the Western world in general right now, woman are probably both closer to true equality than they've been at any point in history and also more sexually objectified than at any point in history.
Forcing women to wear burqa's or other similar types of clothing is also objectification. So is reducing them to only being able to be wives and mothers or not being able to leave the house. Those countries don't have less objectification of women, they just have different objectification.
But in countries with less access to that modern media showing sexually objectified women and/or women having to cover up significantly more in public you'll also tend to find more violence and discrimination against women.
I don't think it's a real tough sell to come to the conclusion that abuse against women happens more in these areas because there is still a tight psychological and legal control system on what these women can and cannot do, not that men just beat women regardless of whether they're in bikinis or not.
Every country has media. Do you believe that the Middle East doesn't have television channels? The messages about gender and sexuality in those media are much less progressive than ours.
Secondly, women are not more objectified by our media now than in the past. How on earth could you think that?
I figure I could take a bear.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
It is an insanely loaded question, I won't dispute that. I also think that it's also a valid one. Yes, in America,* you can see a lot of women in a lot of states of undress quickly and easily. And yes, violence against women definitely occurs far too often in America. But in countries with less access to that modern media showing sexually objectified women and/or women having to cover up significantly more in public you'll also tend to find more violence and discrimination against women. In the Western world in general right now, woman are probably both closer to true equality than they've been at any point in history and also more sexually objectified than at any point in history.
Forcing women to wear burqa's or other similar types of clothing is also objectification. So is reducing them to only being able to be wives and mothers or not being able to leave the house. Those countries don't have less objectification of women, they just have different objectification.
Those countries have infinitely MORE objectification, because their cultures limit the roles of women to solely sexual objects to the point where it's suggested that even the slightest glimpse of a turned ankle will drive their poor helpless men into uncontrollable rape-frenzies.
It's the pinnacle of objectification, especially for societies where overt sexuality is frowned upon.
It is an insanely loaded question, I won't dispute that. I also think that it's also a valid one. Yes, in America,* you can see a lot of women in a lot of states of undress quickly and easily. And yes, violence against women definitely occurs far too often in America. But in countries with less access to that modern media showing sexually objectified women and/or women having to cover up significantly more in public you'll also tend to find more violence and discrimination against women. In the Western world in general right now, woman are probably both closer to true equality than they've been at any point in history and also more sexually objectified than at any point in history.
Forcing women to wear burqa's or other similar types of clothing is also objectification. So is reducing them to only being able to be wives and mothers or not being able to leave the house. Those countries don't have less objectification of women, they just have different objectification.
Those countries have infinitely MORE objectification, because their cultures limit the roles of women to solely sexual objects to the point where it's suggested that even the slightest glimpse of a turned ankle will drive their poor helpless men into uncontrollable rape-frenzies.
It's the pinnacle of objectification, especially for societies where overt sexuality is frowned upon.
would overt sexuality reduce the objectification of women?
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.
It is an insanely loaded question, I won't dispute that. I also think that it's also a valid one. Yes, in America,* you can see a lot of women in a lot of states of undress quickly and easily. And yes, violence against women definitely occurs far too often in America. But in countries with less access to that modern media showing sexually objectified women and/or women having to cover up significantly more in public you'll also tend to find more violence and discrimination against women. In the Western world in general right now, woman are probably both closer to true equality than they've been at any point in history and also more sexually objectified than at any point in history.
Women have been sexualized throughout history. It's not like there's a shortage of stories about the hero getting lots of sex. Shit was sanitized for religious reasons, and women being in control of their sexuality was more taboo than a man. Even going back to the Bible, Eve is painted as a temptress that damns all of humanity.
The key difference is that religion has lost a lot of control on behaviors, so the free market can jack up the sex we see on a regular basis. Because sex sells, not necessarily because women are getting a fair shake.
Oh, and inequality is still inequality. It's really shitty to say that women here should just shut up and be happy with an inherently unequal society because they aren't in the society that chucks rocks at them for not being covered head-to-toe.
I mentioned the ancient Greeks before . . . they were also obsessed with controlling women. They felt this was part of what made them civilized. In fact, the mythology surrounding the city of Athens was that Athena and Poseidon both wanted patronage of the then-unnamed city. The goddesses all voted for Athena because she was a woman. The gods voted for Poseidon because he was a man. Athena won. Poseidon threw a temper tantrum and flooded a different one of Athena's city, and the people from there all moved to Athens and named it after her. Then, the men of Athens took away the voting rights of the women of Athens, because women were clearly too emotional and irrational to vote.
Yeah, I didn't say it made sense. It seems especially odd since they were always gung ho about Athena in their other myths.
Anyway, the idea was that women were so filled with lust that they simply could not be trusted to be outside the house without a male relative to reign them in. Also a lot of comparisons to wild beasts that needed to be tamed. They were certainly objectified, being literally the property of their fathers and then, later, their husbands, an idea that carried across until relatively recently in Western civilization. If you recall the deal with Penelope, Odysseus' wife, in "The Odyssey", her problem was that her male relatives could legally force her to marry any one of her unwanted suitors.
You still see the idea of the woman as the Wicked Temptress who seduces innocent men, as Rorus Raz points out. I mean, that is pretty much Poison Ivy's whole schtick. Also Catwoman. She is sooo bad with her stealing, but Batman just CANNOT resist her wily ways! And so on.
LadyM on
0
Options
RhalloTonnyOf the BrownlandsRegistered Userregular
But in countries with less access to that modern media showing sexually objectified women and/or women having to cover up significantly more in public you'll also tend to find more violence and discrimination against women.
I don't think it's a real tough sell to come to the conclusion that abuse against women happens more in these areas because there is still a tight psychological and legal control system on what these women can and cannot do, not that men just beat women regardless of whether they're in bikinis or not.
Every country has media. Do you believe that the Middle East doesn't have television channels? The messages about gender and sexuality in those media are much less progressive than ours.
Secondly, women are not more objectified by our media now than in the past. How on earth could you think that?
I'm sorry, I don't understand your criticism. Mind explaining a bit?
I don't think I said/implied women are more objectified by our media than ever before, or that the Middle East doesn't have televisions, or that their messages about gender are more progressive?
It is an insanely loaded question, I won't dispute that. I also think that it's also a valid one. Yes, in America,* you can see a lot of women in a lot of states of undress quickly and easily. And yes, violence against women definitely occurs far too often in America. But in countries with less access to that modern media showing sexually objectified women and/or women having to cover up significantly more in public you'll also tend to find more violence and discrimination against women. In the Western world in general right now, woman are probably both closer to true equality than they've been at any point in history and also more sexually objectified than at any point in history.
Forcing women to wear burqa's or other similar types of clothing is also objectification. So is reducing them to only being able to be wives and mothers or not being able to leave the house. Those countries don't have less objectification of women, they just have different objectification.
Those countries have infinitely MORE objectification, because their cultures limit the roles of women to solely sexual objects to the point where it's suggested that even the slightest glimpse of a turned ankle will drive their poor helpless men into uncontrollable rape-frenzies.
It's the pinnacle of objectification, especially for societies where overt sexuality is frowned upon.
would overt sexuality reduce the objectification of women?
Has it in America?
I don't think we are at "overt sexuality" yet, but we are closer here than mayhaps in other countries. I think this is something to think about:
In the Western world in general right now, woman are probably both closer to true equality than they've been at any point in history and also more sexually objectified than at any point in history.
This may be hyperbole on both points, but I do think it is true that an increase in overt sexuality has made women more sexually objectified, or at least objectified in a different manner.
But I don't have data for this claim, so take it as you will.
Also note: "closer to true equality than any point in history" is a bit of a misleading phrase. It is certainly true, but it is a bit disingenuous. We are most certainly the closest to a truly equal society, but we still have a long ways to go. Hell, take a look at the vehemence of our Republican political party towards any discussion of birth control. Easy access to contraceptives is well-documented as the biggest factor in women's upward social mobility, and we have an entire political party that wants to make it more difficult for people to obtain these contraceptives and have control over their own reproduction.
So while we are "closer" to equality than anywhere else, sexism isn't over. Just like how racism isn't over now that we have a black president.
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.
0
Options
RhalloTonnyOf the BrownlandsRegistered Userregular
It is an insanely loaded question, I won't dispute that. I also think that it's also a valid one. Yes, in America,* you can see a lot of women in a lot of states of undress quickly and easily. And yes, violence against women definitely occurs far too often in America. But in countries with less access to that modern media showing sexually objectified women and/or women having to cover up significantly more in public you'll also tend to find more violence and discrimination against women. In the Western world in general right now, woman are probably both closer to true equality than they've been at any point in history and also more sexually objectified than at any point in history.
Forcing women to wear burqa's or other similar types of clothing is also objectification. So is reducing them to only being able to be wives and mothers or not being able to leave the house. Those countries don't have less objectification of women, they just have different objectification.
Those countries have infinitely MORE objectification, because their cultures limit the roles of women to solely sexual objects to the point where it's suggested that even the slightest glimpse of a turned ankle will drive their poor helpless men into uncontrollable rape-frenzies.
It's the pinnacle of objectification, especially for societies where overt sexuality is frowned upon.
would overt sexuality reduce the objectification of women?
Whether a woman is overtly sexualized or if she's dressed like a nun, I would guess that it's misogynistic if a woman is expected/forced to dress that way because that's how men decided she should dress.
Almost all romance novels are in some way serialized so most ladies don't even actually bother with the cover they're just looking at what subgenre/number it is (romance practically has more subgenres than fiction has genres). If anything the covers might actually push some people away because they're so unbelievably kitsch, but the stories sell like you won't believe. Not to get all 'don't judge a book by its cover' but Romance is incredibly content driven. Almost uniquely so.
If the covers pushed enough people away to matter, they would be changed.
Conventions are hard to shake. I don't really see it as being that easy a change as you are suggesting, and in many ways the covers are actually changing. Fifty Shades of Grey being the most obvious, but a lot of new romance novels are coming out in hardback rather than soft, and the covers have a very different aesthetic. One that is much more "I'm not reading a romance novel!" if you will.
Saying "most ladies don't even actually bother with the cover" both isn't supported by anything and doesn't matter anyway because the people who don't care about the cover don't matter for when it comes to what's on the cover. By definition. The people who do care about the cover apparently like what they get. Or rather, enough of them do that it's still a good marketing strategy.
It's supported by the way in which romance covers were standardized by different publishers. Harlequin has 30 different series types, and all serials literally have a numeral on them. I can't think of any other type of genre with long running series that go to that extreme. Hell, Discworld doesn't even do that and it's pushing 40 books.
Also:
Readers and writers are also connected by their attempts to change the manner in which romance novels are published. Perhaps no other
set of readers has such a wide-ranging knowledge of the publishing industry. In the past, reader protests have affected the content of these novels, and readers are trying to change the covers. Many readers have long despised the “clinch” covers of scantily clad couples that make the novels embarrassing to read in public. Authors, too, have not always been happy with covers that are not representative of their work. One author indignantly recalls a meeting with a publisher where the only instructions about the cover art were to “make the Sisters of Sorts woman’s breasts prominent” (anonymous, qtd. in Gold, Issue 6). Readers are agitating for more scenic or floral covers, covers without people on them, and publishers are beginning to accommodate them. For example, when Laura Kinsale’s novel Midsummer Moon was originally published in 1987, the cover had a picture of a man and woman embracing on the rocks in front of a castle, but the 1997 reissue of the novel has a picture of a castle and some trees.
Struve L, STRUVE L. Sisters of Sorts: Reading Romantic Fiction and the Bonds Among Female Readers. Journal Of Popular Culture [serial online]. December 2011;44(6):1289-1306. Available from: Academic Search Premier, Ipswich, MA. Accessed June 3, 2012.
Please, that just shows that women are embarrassed to read the books in public with the covers. Not that they don't like the covers. I am often embaressed to open a comic book when I'm in a coffee shop or whatever and wish they came in a plain cover edition too. Its content that counts and a lot of romance novels are way worse for gender relations than anything you'll see anywhere else (other than in weird porn). Romance novels are flat out word porn for women, the same rules of perversion apply as in porn targeted at men.
you can't even put male-oriented romance novels on shelves
because they're free on the internet
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.
wow, this thread has really exploded more than I expected it to. Thanks to everyone for all the great discussions and input, I've had a hectic weekend so I haven't had time to jump back in here and see whats going on until now. Spent the past 40 minutes reading and catching up on the thread and I would like to try and articulate my thoughts and reactions on some of the responses.
Firstly, I feel like Female and Male sexuality as seen by society are two separate things, they are quantified differently and have different standards. I'm not a psychologist, social scientist, or an expert on sexuality. So I can't say with any authority what defines Female sexuality vs Male sexuality and how people view it. However, a male in revealing clothing with his back arched and his arms out in a playful manner, emphasizing his chest and butt doesn't seem like something that would provoke a desirable sexual reaction in Females or Gay men. I could be wrong (I probably am). Yet if you have a female in the same situation, people would view that as sexually provocative. In contrast, if you have a male in revealing clothing with rippling biceps and a chiseled muscular physique striking an intimidating pose, people will probably be more likely to find that sexually appealing. Or perhaps a well groomed man in a business suit gazing longingly at you while offering you a glass of champagne? However, yet again, if you put a female in those situations, people aren't as likely to see it as sexual. At least these are what I've noticed in society's reactions.
So essentially what I'm getting at is society seems to view power and strength as defining sexuality for men.
Where as fertility, well endowed anatomy, and submissiveness seem to define sexuality for women.
This raises a few questions we should ask:
Is this equal? I don't believe it is as power and strength usually result in dominance, ability, and freedom and are generally traits that society seems to value. Then again, there are arguments that women's sexuality can be a powerful tool because it is deceptive and controlling (the femme fatale archetype or the lost little girl archetype).
Is this what society wants? This difference in sexual representation most likely is a result of a male dominated society, but that doesn't mean females have no say in how their sexuality is defined. Is EVERYONE in a society going to agree on everything? Of course not, but I believe its valuable to analyze how we want to be defined. Essentially... is this how men and women WANT their sexuality defined?
How do we change this? If we find this situation undesirable. How do we go about correcting it? I don't believe shunning and forbidding any material which reinforces these sexual stereotypes is fair. I also think it might be impossible altogether to change the perceptions of society, at least overnight. Rather... the only solution I can see is variety and more art. Men and Women represented equally in entertainment and media, or at the least given reverse roles. I feel we're already making progress towards this with the trends in our popular entertainment over the past few decades. It would have been unfathomable to see submissive flighty male homosexual characters on television in the past, as it would have been for successful, strong, capable outspoken females. So in this regard I feel society is making progress as we give younger generations and people at large access to variety which doesn't create unequal perceptions in their mind. Is our media perfect? No, far from it, but like I said I see progress by giving people the freedom to create and involve themselves in variety.
Now having said that... I feel I can move on to address some posts.
....not that your analogy is bad or anything, but I think Scalzi's recent post did a much better job explaining this
I like that article as it explains the concept of privilege very well.
I feel like privilege is very counter productive and adversarial to a constructive dialog about social issues. Privilege is a flawed concept to me because it assumes that others are not affected by the same or similar troubles as others. Its essentially saying "you inherently don't have the capacity to understand me and my view of the world" and throws variety or personal life experience out the window.
The majority opinion today is that most pornography and a lot of sexual imagery in general is misogynist but it is at least possible for a woman to pose for a sexy photo without it being intrinsically misogynist.
One of the ways that we can deal with that as the audience is to keep in mind that the subjects of photos and videos are human beings and try to consider what they were thinking or feeling at the time of the photograph. Just try to exercise your empathy for the person on the screen.
Well, when we're talking about fiction, we're usually talking about it as though the characters are people with motivations.
What is the goal of empathy for a representation though? This is sort of what my initial question was about. A person and a representation of a person are two separate things. Reason dictates that I would know how to treat a person differently than an image of a person.
So when a cartoon/videogame woman is acting or dressed in a provocative way on-screen, we can ask ourselves, "What was the purpose of that?" If it seems like the entire purpose was to titillate teenagers, with no plot or character relevance, that's a huge red flag.
In what way is it a huge red flag? In sexism or objectification? Once again, these are fictional characters and no one is being harmed. If ONLY the females are being objectified, then that is sexism and yes that should usually be disdained.
And to tie this back in to sexualization, again with Exploring Believability:
When female comics characters are almost unilaterally made into gorgeous women with unrealistically large breasts, it doesn't feel like it's empowering them, it feels like "that's what the male artists want them to look like".
My question to that though is why is the male comic artist not allowed to draw what he wants? If he is creating an inequality between the male and female characters, then I agree that is sexist.
It feels to me as if many people wish to regard the female gender as a disembodied concept that should be respected and treated a certain way at all times, even if no real person is involved. Which is strange to me, in that I feel no concept is sacred or inherently HAS to be treated a certain way. Only people have rights, concepts do not have rights. If the treatment of this concept is distasteful to people, I don't believe the solution is to forbid it, but rather to create something you do agree with.
Posts
Almost all romance novels are in some way serialized so most ladies don't even actually bother with the cover they're just looking at what subgenre/number it is (romance practically has more subgenres than fiction has genres). If anything the covers might actually push some people away because they're so unbelievably kitsch, but the stories sell like you won't believe. Not to get all 'don't judge a book by its cover' but Romance is incredibly content driven. Almost uniquely so.
I'm not quite clear on what point you're trying to make.
I'm not saying that all women automatically want the same type of body. What I'm saying is that 1) far, far less women like "insanely unrealistic muscle-bound freak" than men like it as a power fantasy, and 2) the other types that women like are never shown in western fiction. Because males don't see what's to like in those depictions, so they don't represented. And further, you can't use "it must be what women want, because it's selling" as a point in your favor, because there's no choice given to women as to what kind of covers the literature directed towards them has.
Eh..
Most women could find them ridiculous and even mildly offensive, that probably isn't going to change the fact that the current covers(probably) draw the most eyes for the longest period of time.
They don't have to like to covers to buy them, they do have to notice them on the shelf.
fabio-type dude, probably sans-shirt
or a picture of a tie or whatever (making no statements about the quality of these books, much less how problematic they are)
no point, just got reminded of six breasted lizard female I happened to see yesterday
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.
To echo your own statement above about not making assumptions without data, do you have anything that links consumption of fictional media that sexually objectifies woman with increased violence and/or discrimination and/or statements indicative of bias against women?
this is an insanely loaded question and you know it
unless you honestly don't think that consumption of media has any effect on the way you look at things in which case i don't know what the fuck to tell you
(also i wasn't asking for cites about the number of sociopaths, the thing he was saying was absolutely farcical and bullshit and i was calling him on it)
(also also the comparison to violent media is a pretty bad one to make because, again, it's widely agreed that you shouldn't go on wild shooting sprees that end in a mound of corpses)
This. Having read some romance novels (though I don't do so now, and never did in public entirely due to the ridiculousness of the covers), I will agree that romance novel sales has very little to do with the covers. In fact, Danielle Steel novels almost all have plain covers, maybe with a clip art picture of an object on them or a picture of a normal couple kissing or standing about on a beach, and she's arguably one of the highest selling and most famous romance novelists alive. I don't have the cite for this, but I recall reading recently that the rise in eraders has actually increased the sales in romance novels because of the fact that you no longer have to carry torrid-looking books around.
wish list
Steam wishlist
Etsy wishlist
you could release a Danielle Steele book with a picture of a turd on the cover and it will be #1 on the NYTimes bestseller list.
she is not an accurate representation of what marketers have to do to sell a standard product.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
If the covers pushed enough people away to matter, they would be changed.
Saying "most ladies don't even actually bother with the cover" both isn't supported by anything and doesn't matter anyway because the people who don't care about the cover don't matter for when it comes to what's on the cover. By definition. The people who do care about the cover apparently like what they get. Or rather, enough of them do that it's still a good marketing strategy.
Except point (1) is something you keep stating based on nothing except that's YOUR preference. Which leads to point (2) which is that the "other types" that women like simply aren't popular enough to overcome the power of the "romance cover lover" demographic. Or that those groups get their kicks elsewhere, like "urban fantasy" or "paranormal romance", which are more likely to have the less beefcake man on the cover. Or, even more often it seems, scantily clad women (which is a whole other kettle of sexual objectification in our culture fish)
And yes, saying "That's the way they market it" is a point in favour of what I'm saying because it's marketing is not fire and forget. They spend alot of money on this shit and making sure it works.
Which isn't to say they can't be wrong. But absent evidence to the contrary, the sales of romance or it's like and the ubiquity of the techniques leads to the default assumption that it's effective.
I actually remember reading a study that showed frat aged males information videos about rape that did produce shifts in their definition of rape to better reflect legal norms
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.
Isn't the wild popularity of shojo, both in the country that conceived it as well as the west, enough of a counter argument that yes, there is an absolutely huge market for the alternative to "beefcake" style of masculinity, but that the west is so mired in sexism that it's unable to break free from the current model?
Fifty Shades of Grey is obviously going for a more mainstream place in the bookstore. (not mainstream appeal since romance is itself mainstream, just not in a "front of the bookstore" kind of way. Like porn really)
The cover reflects this.
All that counts is that they sell the most copies.
If women found them ridiculous or mildly offensive enough that they overcame the women who found their eyes drawn to the covers, the covers would very likely have changed.
The idea that an industry would continue to use covers that their readers find offensive or of-putting or what have you is a rather extraordinary claim that requires some extraordinary evidence.
The publishing industry isn't known for its experimentation and markets aren't known for being rational. I don't have data to support this, just my near daily interaction and conversations with people in the library, so I can very well be wrong. However, given my experiences I would be rather surprised to learn that Fabio has a statistically significant impact on romance sales while holding all else equal. At the same time, this is getting rather thick in the weeds from the original point I was trying to make. Which is that what individuals find attractive is much broader than what is targeted commercially, and the institutional misogyny/misandry that exists to promote this narrowed view of beauty is detrimental to everybody.
Do you feel racism in fiction is a bad thing? No wait, let me rephrase that . . . do you feel the acceptance of racism in fiction is a bad thing? Would you be comfortable if someone gave you a computer game where every single protagonist was white and black people only appeared as gang members, drug dealers, and bad guys? How about if someone gave you ten computer games and, whoa, look at that, white people were the protagonists in all of them and black people only appeared as bad guys in all of them?
1) No one has said tastes don't differ between countries/regions/etc. Japanese romance stuff is made by and for Japanese markets, so of course it's marketed differently. The Japanese are different from North Americans or Europeans or whatever.
2) You are making more unsupported assumptions about the popularity of said Japanese products in the West. Unless you've got some numbers showing comparitevely huge sales for this stuff compared to western romance novels, I'm doubting the market is as huge (again, comparitevely) as you are claiming.
3) You also have to consider the idea of cross-over between these 2 demographics. Basically, how many of these Japanese romance readers with differening preferences are even western romance readers in the first place. How many people turned off by these covers would even read romance?
this is kind of a "no shit" thing though
Well, it's worth stating though, because it's surprising how many people think they are so autonomous that whatever they see doesn't effect them, because they will make up their minds THEMSELVES, darn it, with no outside influence! (Sort of like how everyone assumes they are an above average driver.)
So you get the whole argument that goes, "The government actually WASTED MONEY putting up billboards against drinking and driving?? Oh right, like anyone pays attention to THOSE!" Whereas in reality when there are billboards or commercials against drunk driving or encouraging people to use their seatbelt or whatnot, it does result in statistically noticeable shifts in behavior.
Most people know that when they play a violent game that they are performing these actions within the confines of a game, and duplicating the actions in the real world have moral, ethical, and legal consequences.
Unfortunately, it isn't (overwhelmingly) common sense for "this woman isn't here solely for your sexual needs," or the promotion that "good" women have ___ traits, while "bad" have _____.
Another big difference is that objectification of women occurs in weird and indirect ways. Objectifying a woman in the broadest sense isn't completely sexual. There's a whole ownership thing, denying a person's agency, etc. Misogyny can creep in strange ways that aren't aren't explicitly apparent to people that aren't observing- and that in turn influences people to think of that as normal or baseline since it's not out-there in-your-face giant boobs and hips.
I guess the idea is that it's not so much the porn elements, it's the sexist stuff snuck in under the idea that it is normal and to be expected. Which, really, just depends on how aware the consumer is, and their already defined ideas about what is sexist or not, but at the same time when it's everywhere it's not unreasonable to think that it can creep in and reinforce existing problems with viewing women as complete people.
It is an insanely loaded question, I won't dispute that. I also think that it's also a valid one. Yes, in America,* you can see a lot of women in a lot of states of undress quickly and easily. And yes, violence against women definitely occurs far too often in America. But in countries with less access to that modern media showing sexually objectified women and/or women having to cover up significantly more in public you'll also tend to find more violence and discrimination against women. In the Western world in general right now, woman are probably both closer to true equality than they've been at any point in history and also more sexually objectified than at any point in history.
A cynic says that continued objectification of women in fiction holds back equality. An optimist says it might just give men an outlet that allows for easier acceptance of equality. I'm an optimist, you seem to be a cynic, and as far as I know neither of us have any proof to back up our theories.
I believe that people make their own choices. I don't think you can blame discrimination against women on women wearing hot pants, no more than you can blame taking up drug dealing on rap music. I am disputing that women being overtly sexual leads to further violence or other discrimination against women. To wit, I don't think that Madonna or Lady Gaga has set back Women's Lib.
I disagree with your statement that violence is a bad comparison to make. Violence isn't just killing dudes with a gun. It's also punching, kicking, and otherwise beating people for various reasons. Turn on the TV to a hockey game and you get people dropping the gloves and fighting due to slights real and imagined. Change the channel and watch a TV show featuring a drug dealer selling narcotics to people. Go to a kids channel and you can probably find a cartoon easily enough that involves problem solving through beating up bad guys. Despite GI Joe, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, He-Man, Transformers, and Thundercats being on TV in the 1980s, those kids grew up to a lower crime rate than the previous generation. Maybe you're right, and the media that they consumed did have a negative effect on the crime rate and we'd have even less crime if they watched more Carebears and Jem and the Holograms. But as I said, I think that people make their own choices, and exposure an event in fiction does not necessarily mean that a person will incorporate it into his or her morality.
* I say America because I assume that most people on the board are Americans. I'm a Canadian living in Canada myself.
Oh certainly. You would expect that.
No matter how you design your cover, someone is going to be turned off or not want to be seen with it or something.
Conventions are hard to shake. I don't really see it as being that easy a change as you are suggesting, and in many ways the covers are actually changing. Fifty Shades of Grey being the most obvious, but a lot of new romance novels are coming out in hardback rather than soft, and the covers have a very different aesthetic. One that is much more "I'm not reading a romance novel!" if you will.
It's supported by the way in which romance covers were standardized by different publishers. Harlequin has 30 different series types, and all serials literally have a numeral on them. I can't think of any other type of genre with long running series that go to that extreme. Hell, Discworld doesn't even do that and it's pushing 40 books.
Also:
Struve L, STRUVE L. Sisters of Sorts: Reading Romantic Fiction and the Bonds Among Female Readers. Journal Of Popular Culture [serial online]. December 2011;44(6):1289-1306. Available from: Academic Search Premier, Ipswich, MA. Accessed June 3, 2012.
I don't think it's a real tough sell to come to the conclusion that abuse against women happens more in these areas because there is still a tight psychological, religious, and legal control system on what these women can and cannot do, not that men just beat women regardless of whether they're in bikinis or not.
Every country has media. Do you believe that the Middle East doesn't have television channels? The messages about gender and sexuality in those media are much less progressive than ours.
Secondly, women are not more objectified by our media now than in the past. How on earth could you think that?
Those countries have infinitely MORE objectification, because their cultures limit the roles of women to solely sexual objects to the point where it's suggested that even the slightest glimpse of a turned ankle will drive their poor helpless men into uncontrollable rape-frenzies.
It's the pinnacle of objectification, especially for societies where overt sexuality is frowned upon.
would overt sexuality reduce the objectification of women?
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.
The key difference is that religion has lost a lot of control on behaviors, so the free market can jack up the sex we see on a regular basis. Because sex sells, not necessarily because women are getting a fair shake.
Oh, and inequality is still inequality. It's really shitty to say that women here should just shut up and be happy with an inherently unequal society because they aren't in the society that chucks rocks at them for not being covered head-to-toe.
Yeah, I didn't say it made sense. It seems especially odd since they were always gung ho about Athena in their other myths.
Anyway, the idea was that women were so filled with lust that they simply could not be trusted to be outside the house without a male relative to reign them in. Also a lot of comparisons to wild beasts that needed to be tamed. They were certainly objectified, being literally the property of their fathers and then, later, their husbands, an idea that carried across until relatively recently in Western civilization. If you recall the deal with Penelope, Odysseus' wife, in "The Odyssey", her problem was that her male relatives could legally force her to marry any one of her unwanted suitors.
You still see the idea of the woman as the Wicked Temptress who seduces innocent men, as Rorus Raz points out. I mean, that is pretty much Poison Ivy's whole schtick. Also Catwoman. She is sooo bad with her stealing, but Batman just CANNOT resist her wily ways! And so on.
I'm sorry, I don't understand your criticism. Mind explaining a bit?
I don't think I said/implied women are more objectified by our media than ever before, or that the Middle East doesn't have televisions, or that their messages about gender are more progressive?
Has it in America?
I don't think we are at "overt sexuality" yet, but we are closer here than mayhaps in other countries. I think this is something to think about:
This may be hyperbole on both points, but I do think it is true that an increase in overt sexuality has made women more sexually objectified, or at least objectified in a different manner.
But I don't have data for this claim, so take it as you will.
Also note: "closer to true equality than any point in history" is a bit of a misleading phrase. It is certainly true, but it is a bit disingenuous. We are most certainly the closest to a truly equal society, but we still have a long ways to go. Hell, take a look at the vehemence of our Republican political party towards any discussion of birth control. Easy access to contraceptives is well-documented as the biggest factor in women's upward social mobility, and we have an entire political party that wants to make it more difficult for people to obtain these contraceptives and have control over their own reproduction.
So while we are "closer" to equality than anywhere else, sexism isn't over. Just like how racism isn't over now that we have a black president.
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.
Whether a woman is overtly sexualized or if she's dressed like a nun, I would guess that it's misogynistic if a woman is expected/forced to dress that way because that's how men decided she should dress.
Please, that just shows that women are embarrassed to read the books in public with the covers. Not that they don't like the covers. I am often embaressed to open a comic book when I'm in a coffee shop or whatever and wish they came in a plain cover edition too. Its content that counts and a lot of romance novels are way worse for gender relations than anything you'll see anywhere else (other than in weird porn). Romance novels are flat out word porn for women, the same rules of perversion apply as in porn targeted at men.
because they're free on the internet
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.
Firstly, I feel like Female and Male sexuality as seen by society are two separate things, they are quantified differently and have different standards. I'm not a psychologist, social scientist, or an expert on sexuality. So I can't say with any authority what defines Female sexuality vs Male sexuality and how people view it. However, a male in revealing clothing with his back arched and his arms out in a playful manner, emphasizing his chest and butt doesn't seem like something that would provoke a desirable sexual reaction in Females or Gay men. I could be wrong (I probably am). Yet if you have a female in the same situation, people would view that as sexually provocative. In contrast, if you have a male in revealing clothing with rippling biceps and a chiseled muscular physique striking an intimidating pose, people will probably be more likely to find that sexually appealing. Or perhaps a well groomed man in a business suit gazing longingly at you while offering you a glass of champagne? However, yet again, if you put a female in those situations, people aren't as likely to see it as sexual. At least these are what I've noticed in society's reactions.
So essentially what I'm getting at is society seems to view power and strength as defining sexuality for men.
Where as fertility, well endowed anatomy, and submissiveness seem to define sexuality for women.
This raises a few questions we should ask:
Now having said that... I feel I can move on to address some posts.
I like that article as it explains the concept of privilege very well.
I feel like privilege is very counter productive and adversarial to a constructive dialog about social issues. Privilege is a flawed concept to me because it assumes that others are not affected by the same or similar troubles as others. Its essentially saying "you inherently don't have the capacity to understand me and my view of the world" and throws variety or personal life experience out the window.
What is the goal of empathy for a representation though? This is sort of what my initial question was about. A person and a representation of a person are two separate things. Reason dictates that I would know how to treat a person differently than an image of a person.
In what way is it a huge red flag? In sexism or objectification? Once again, these are fictional characters and no one is being harmed. If ONLY the females are being objectified, then that is sexism and yes that should usually be disdained.
My question to that though is why is the male comic artist not allowed to draw what he wants? If he is creating an inequality between the male and female characters, then I agree that is sexist.
It feels to me as if many people wish to regard the female gender as a disembodied concept that should be respected and treated a certain way at all times, even if no real person is involved. Which is strange to me, in that I feel no concept is sacred or inherently HAS to be treated a certain way. Only people have rights, concepts do not have rights. If the treatment of this concept is distasteful to people, I don't believe the solution is to forbid it, but rather to create something you do agree with.
Meanwhile comic books put Starfire in a twine bikini and expect to be taken seriously.