The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
A question on sexism/misogyny
Black_Heart
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
The most recent PA strip got me thinking on the topic of misogyny and how there are concepts behind it that I don't understand, even after countless hours of internet research. I didn't know where else to go and I know there are some pretty smart people here on Debate and Discourse, so I just kind of wanted to ask a question on the topic and see if my understanding is correct or on the right path. I'm sorry if this is a forbidden topic or has a bad history.
My understanding of the word "Misogyny" is: the hatred or dislike of women or girls. One of the definitions associated with that is sexual discrimination, treating one gender differently than another based on their gender or fostering stereotypes that lead to it. This, I understand. It is unethical to treat or represent people differently based on their gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. In a perfect world, everyone should have equal representation and should be treated equally and fairly based on who they are, not what they are. I agree with this and support equality for all.
Another concept associated with misogyny is the sexual objectification of women. Which, in my understanding of it, is the practice of regarding or treating another person merely as an object of sexual gratification, thus disregarding their personality or sentience. This concept... I have more trouble with as it relates to media. Treating a person as a sexual object with disregard to their feelings or desires is abhorrent, disgusting, and immoral. I do not believe anyone should be treated in such a manner against their will.
However, I don't understand how an image or representation of a person can be turned into an object, when it is in fact an object and not a person. An image of a woman is an image and not the woman in question, thus it cannot be treated in any sort of ways as it has no feelings or personality. It is not a person. Yet, I see arguments on this subject that portraying an image of a woman sexually leads to objectification of real women or fosters an attitude in society that it is correct to objectify women. This I don't understand or agree with as I haven't seen any evidence or scientific studies that indicate how images of women are treated, are directly linked to how actual women are treated.
It seems to be the same kind of argument used to say that violent video games train people to be violent against real people. From my understanding of the subject there have been scientific studies that indicate there is no link between violent video games and violent behavior. Which I guess leads to my actual question: How does sexual imagery of women... train men to objectify real women? Is fighting against sexual imagery an attempt at thought control? I think its pretty disingenuous to believe that people cannot separate fantasy from reality, or to punish the majority of people for something the minority fail to do.
Please forgive my ignorance if there is anything obvious I've missed or conveyed incorrectly here.
My understanding of the word "Misogyny" is: the hatred or dislike of women or girls. One of the definitions associated with that is sexual discrimination, treating one gender differently than another based on their gender or fostering stereotypes that lead to it. This, I understand. It is unethical to treat or represent people differently based on their gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. In a perfect world, everyone should have equal representation and should be treated equally and fairly based on who they are, not what they are. I agree with this and support equality for all.
Another concept associated with misogyny is the sexual objectification of women. Which, in my understanding of it, is the practice of regarding or treating another person merely as an object of sexual gratification, thus disregarding their personality or sentience. This concept... I have more trouble with as it relates to media. Treating a person as a sexual object with disregard to their feelings or desires is abhorrent, disgusting, and immoral. I do not believe anyone should be treated in such a manner against their will.
However, I don't understand how an image or representation of a person can be turned into an object, when it is in fact an object and not a person. An image of a woman is an image and not the woman in question, thus it cannot be treated in any sort of ways as it has no feelings or personality. It is not a person. Yet, I see arguments on this subject that portraying an image of a woman sexually leads to objectification of real women or fosters an attitude in society that it is correct to objectify women. This I don't understand or agree with as I haven't seen any evidence or scientific studies that indicate how images of women are treated, are directly linked to how actual women are treated.
It seems to be the same kind of argument used to say that violent video games train people to be violent against real people. From my understanding of the subject there have been scientific studies that indicate there is no link between violent video games and violent behavior. Which I guess leads to my actual question: How does sexual imagery of women... train men to objectify real women? Is fighting against sexual imagery an attempt at thought control? I think its pretty disingenuous to believe that people cannot separate fantasy from reality, or to punish the majority of people for something the minority fail to do.
Please forgive my ignorance if there is anything obvious I've missed or conveyed incorrectly here.
Black_Heart on
0
Posts
http://www.surrey.ac.uk/mediacentre/press/2011/69535_are_sex_offenders_and_lads_mags_using_the_same_language.htm
If I can get some clarification here, are you asking "Can you sexually objectify a non-sentient representation of a woman if it's not actually a person?" and "If not, why is it suggested that such objectification can lead to real-world sexual misogyny and discrimination?"
Thank you. I watched the video and am still reading the article. Interesting study and good information, it raises a lot of other questions for me about language, magazines, and the possible correlation between them, sex offenders and normal people.
Yes. Somewhat.
Like I said, my understanding of sexual objectification is the practice of regarding or treating another person merely as an object of sexual gratification, thus disregarding their personality or sentience. How can that be done to an image or something that isn't a person? Is this definition incorrect/inaccurate?
Correct.
Why is it suggested that sexual imagery or representation of women, will lead to actual objectification of women, if other imagery in our media... doesn't lead to the same conclusions? If it is accepted that violent media doesn't lead to violent actions, that is.
However, my first thought in reaction to that, is it sounds a little incongruent and like advocating censorship. For instance, is murder or theft in our media a symptom of a larger cultural problem? If sexual objectification in our media is not the cause of misogyny but indicates and reinforces a larger cultural problem of it... then wouldn't it be reasonable to agree that most other negative acts in our media are as well?
Is misogyny different?
@Black_Heart
This right here, pretty much. Whether or not the female represented in the image is real or not, the objectification of females is still occurring. It's actually one of the bigger issues in comics/graphic novels right now, as there's a sharp backlash over the intrusion of blatant sexualized "cheesecake" illustrations showing up in books where sexuality is of little or no concern. Some examples:
Spider-Man:
Catwoman:
Starfire:
Those are not representations of real women, but they are images where objectification is the whole purpose of their existence, which reinforces the mindset that it's tolerable to treat women as empty eye-candy.
Does violence routinely harm one group of individuals over another?
I'm betting anyone in a public space (look around) will find a sexy image before they find an image of violence. I'm betting I can find an image of a "suggestive" woman before I can find one of "violence". The problem, misogyny, is wider in scope and particularly targets half of the world's population. Can you say the same thing about any other cultural problem?
In addition, violence is easily recognizable. Misogyny is so accepted and ingrained it sometimes can be difficult to understand when one is being sexist or not; again, that's a bigger issue and a more dangerous one because it's often times a silent issue.
I think the two are just too different to compare.
I think I'm starting to get a little confused now, haha.
I thought sexual objectification had to happen to a person. Is an image of a female, still a person? Or does gender exist independently of an actual individual?
Also, I feel there might be different levels here I didn't mention in my original post. What exactly constitutes sexual objectification? Is merely an image of a nude or lightly dressed female objectifying? There is a lot of unclear subtext here that I think I'm missing and is difficult to quantify objectively.
How are those images you posted objectifying?
I am Arch, and generally outspoken on Feminist Issues on this board, and I approve this post.
So I don't have to type it all out again, here is something I ripped from my tumblr.
As an aside, I think the PA newspost in relation to the Hitman comic is a patronizing piece of bullshit. I know the "privilege" word seems to be verboten on these boards sometimes, but jesus tap dancing christ there is no other way to describe that post.
Probably not. No. How is that relevant though? Is violence not as bad because it isn't as widespread? Does an act become more or less immoral based on how common it is?
No. However that doesn't seem relevant either. With misogyny and violence someone is ALWAYS being harmed, does the fact that misogyny only harms one group and violence harms everyone, make one paramount over the other?
So misogyny is a bigger issue than violence, because its more difficult to combat? Not because of the severity of its effects?
I'm sorry to sound like I'm only responding in questions. I'm not really trying to argue, I'm trying to understand. I hate sounding like I'm only asking questions.
Sexual objectification does not have to happen to a real person per se. Is an image of a female supermodel still a person? Here the answer is "Sort of, in that the person in the image is in fact a real person." What about a drawing? Maybe it isn't a real person being depicted, but does that really change anything? can one still objectify a drawing? Well, yes, pretty easily.
Gender is generally accepted to be a complicated and tricky thing, that is a messy combination of biological input and societal reinforcement/direction...and thankfully gender isn't something you need to really worry about to get a grasp on your original quandry. To actually answer your question though, I would say that "gender" in some way "exists"...but what constitutes "gender" is rather fluid and subject to the society you are investigating.
It is also important to note that not all sexy images are objectification, and objectification is not wrong on its face.
However, think about that Catwoman comic. Why was it necessary for the story to showcase her breasts? Are those human proportions? Are those poses people make all the time? And, more importantly, are her male counterparts depicted in the same manner?
There is a lot of discussion about these comics (specifically starfire's reboot, but catwoman to a lesser extent) that can easily be google searched, and they will handle the topic much better than I can.
Objectification is, in a nutshell, the depiction of an individual for the sole purpose of reducing them to a single (generally sexual) aspect.
To quote wikipedia, which is really quite good here
Let's examine the maryjanepost.jpg image.
What do you notice about MJ?
Here's what I notice.
MJ has a stylized hourglass figure--huge hips, huge breasts, tiny waist. Dimensions are unbelievable but they are unbelievable with the intent to over-pronounce the "sex" parts of a woman--hips (ass), tits. Shit, even the lips are huge. I also notice she's sitting in a way that further pronounces her sex by accentuating her tits.
Not only her herself displays this ridiculous notion of what it means to be a woman, but also what's around her. What magazines are next to her person? Fashion. Style. What is suggested by the pillow and blankets on the couch? Somewhere to sleep? Sex? A perfect woman waiting for her man to come home after a long day of work?
There's more. The pronounced red. The stylized curves (the smoke from the coffee). The eyes of Spiderman on her shirt acting as placeholder nipples--also acting as "eyes on tits".
None of this by itself necessarily means sexual objectification. But taken together and I come to an understanding that Mary Jane is just acting as some dude's sexual fantasy.
Thanks to everyone for their replies so far and please keep replying. I just didn't want anyone to think I was ignoring them or was done just because I'll be gone for a while. I'll read and research once I get back. This is very interesting and I feel like I've already learned a good bit. Its definitely more clear than it was and has given me food for thought so far.
YayyyY!
Imagine we have 2 dogs, they can talk and shit and they have adventures and are roommates. One of the dogs is a Husky, the other is a minpin. Now the husky is bigger, and he can reach the air conditioning so he is the one who can adjust the temperature, the minpin can't. The Husky has thick fur, so he sets the temperature the way he likes it, down to like 70 degrees and the minpin is always cold because of it. So one day the minpin asks the Husky if he can turn up the temperature, but the husky is just confused, the temperature is fine, it is not cold, it is the proper way for a temperature to be. He doesn't understand that this temperature is fine for him but pad for someone else because he has never thought about it.
Privilege is the same way. It is the fact that our society is set up with the assumption that the people in it are White Straight Males in good health. So when you are making a crosswalk and deciding how long the walk and don't walk signs will be on for you make the walk sign to be on for a reasonable time for you to cross the street, not for an old person in a walker. It is not because you hate old people, it is because you just didn't think about it. In the same way I can go days without having to think about my sexuality, my race, or my gender because society is built with the assumption that I am the default. It is not like that if you are not a SWM though. If you are a woman who plays video games you are constantly reminded that you are not the default. That this stuff is not being made with you in mind. A trailer like this is being all "Sex sells woooo!!!!" but imagine if you were a woman watching it, would this be a trialer that would be saying to you "We want you to buy this game." ? It is the same thing with the remarks about Arkham City where the enemies constantly call Catwoman a bitch. Now if I am playing it won't really bother me, but imagine if you were someone who had to put up with sexist shit in your real life, who gets called a bitch by coworkers or customers at your job. Would you really want to go play a game and get reminded about that?
Yikes! lol, that seems very hard to quantify and difficult to grasp. A very grey area.
Its easier for me to grasp things that I can view in simple yes/no terms. Its more logical and reasonable that way... the more vague, subjective, and situational something is, the more difficult it is so deal with.
I'll give you a full response later Arch, thanks again.
It sometimes helps your perspective to look at what was common a couple decades ago. I watch The Odd Couple reruns sometimes. I like the show, it's funny. But good god, it models a bunch of crappy gender roles from its era. "It's okay for Felix to date multiple women but 'bad' when his ex-wife dates one man," for example. It's not that the show's writers were terrible people. But they were "drinking the Kool Aid" of their era, so to speak. From our perspective that's easy to see. But it's harder to see what flavor of Kool Aid we ourselves our consuming. Make no mistake, though, we get bombarded with crappy messages about gender (and other issues) all the time and it's easy to ingest them and assume they are "okay" because everyone else does. You have to step back and think critically to see them.
Understandable, but the important thing to keep in mind is that yes, this is difficult for everyone, especially when you first encounter this stuff.
....not that your analogy is bad or anything, but I think Scalzi's recent post did a much better job explaining this
A representation of superficial female sexuality is still an avatar for objectification of women as sex objects.
Whether or not that avatar is a real person really only matters in the context of whether they can actually be offended by that objectification or not.
To answer all parts of this, I would argue that sexual objectification occurs when something or someone is sexualized in a context that calls for little or no sexualization. Or, as well, when overt and graphic sexuality is used to an unrealistic degree.
Even when there may be inherent nudity (like when Selena Kyle is dressing herself), nudity itself isn't inherent to sexuality, and the scene in which she appears exists in a narrative space that neither demands nor comments upon sexuality.
Similarly for Mary Jane there, the overt message of that scene is her (perhaps wistfully or worriedly) looking out a window at her significant other, Spider-Man. However, her pose in the scene, specifically the projection of her cleavage and the improbable geometry of her arching back, do not serve to impart that narrative message; they only serve as sexual imagery to the reader.
A great dynamic of this contrast, I feel, would be the way Darwyn Cooke draws female characters vs. the way others (like noted perv Adam Hughes) draws female characters.
Cooke:
Hughes:
Cooke's drawing is obviously suggestive of sexuality, but still rather chaste while conveying the intended information. Hughes' drawing, on the other hand, is loaded with sexuality despite nothing about the image needing or suggesting a sexual narrative.
Thanks for linking to that, I haven't seen that before. I liked the dog analogy too, though.
In either example, I'll reiterate that this isn't about those with privilege hating women/minorities/gays. Nor is it about "blaming" people for being white straight males. I don't want men to be wracked with guilt because they were born male; what good does that do anyone? I DO want them to help make society more equitable for marginalized people. But they cannot help make it better if they can't even perceive the inequalities that are reproduced by society, that are caused by assuming a straight, white, able male is "normal" or "default."
Something that really lit a light bulb above my head was this "Sexy Batman" series by Kate Beaton:
Women in comics are generally drawn in uber-sexualized poses by default; once you start having Batman act that way, it suddenly becomes apparent how weird and artificial it is.
I just wanted to post Scalzi's thing
This is a really difficult question and there isn't a good unanimous answer for that.
When we're talking about somebody being a sexual object, we're talking about either sexuality being projected onto them without their consent (think of the cliche of a beautiful woman walking down the street when a man slows down his car to whistle at her), or (and this is more difficult), an individual acting in an non-genuine sexual manner just as a way of getting attention from other people.
There's a lot of feminist writing about sexuality and objectification, grappling with the basic question of (paraphrased) 'how can a woman have genuine, personal sexual desires in a world that wants to project other people's desires onto her?'
In a historical perspective, this theme has been a major component of feminist writing since before "feminist" was a term, but it started to catch momentum with the publication of Simone de Beauvoir's book The Second Sex and really exploded with a book called The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan. (I recommend reading both books, but I will forewarn you that a lot of feminist literature is hard to read, and much of it assumes that you've already read what came before it. Annotated copies and/or Sparknotes are good things to have.)
To a certain degree, this conversation requires men to back off and be quiet and listen. The general feeling that those two books portrayed was of women whose inner thoughts had, to some degree, been drowned out by the messages of their culture to be good housewives, good mothers, good sexual partners for men. So for me (or any other man) to try to interpret these books for you is a little bit of a cop-out. I would be putting my own spin on them, and the whole point is that women have voices that men really need to listen to.
I can give you my perspective, though. I think the reality is pretty complicated, because sex is a reciprocal thing. People (of all genders) get genuine pleasure out of giving pleasure, and our sexual expectations are inevitably shaped by the people around us. Asking, "what would a person's sexual schema look like in the absence of other people's expectations" is a little bit like asking "what is the sound of one hand clapping?" But because sex is reciprocal, it can't all be about one side's desires. So if one party is simply doing things she doesn't really enjoy doing just because it's the easiest way to get attention or social status or money, that's a problem.
There are a handful of feminists that argue that all pornography (and all sexual imagery) is intrinsically objectification, because photographs are by definition objects. (Catherine MacKinnon, Andrea Dworkin, to a lesser degree Gertrude Stein). They're right about that, but the idea that all sexual imagery feeds inevitably into a culture of misogyny is a minority opinion. 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. The way to deal with that as an artist is to be respectful and honest to everybody involved.
When it comes to fictional characters, especially fictional characters who are completely artificial constructs (like a video game character or a cartoon)... well, read on:
Well, when we're talking about fiction, we're usually talking about it as though the characters are people with motivations. If a character in a TV show suddenly acts in a manner contrary to their prior behavior, we might say, "But Peter Parker wouldn't do that! He wouldn't start dancing around and singing in public!" (Just to use an example.) We're imagining that the character has motivations and desires - and audiences have a general expectation that those motivations and desires should be at least consistent, if not realistic.
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. Lemme give an example from League of Legends, because that game has come under fire for overly sexualized female characters. This is Morgana:
Why is she wearing a bikini top that looks like it's painted on? Why are her breasts twice as large as her waist? Well, she's a fallen angel, and demonesses are traditionally portrayed in a highly sexualized manner, so okay I guess it would be understandable that a fallen angel might look a bit slutty. As long as that's the only such character with impossible boobs and more skin than clothing...
oh wait
um
Alright, so it's not just that Morgana's a succubus, it's that Riot Games likes to have female characters with cleavage and bare midriffs. There's really no point to designing these characters this way except to titillate. (No pun intended.)
In Riot's defense, they also have women in full armor and a few others who aren't particularly sexualized:
But, oddly, they don't have any beefcakey men. All of their dudes are either fully clothed or aren't particularly classically attractive.
There's an anecdote from a video game developer that I have lost the source for, sadly, so I'm going to have to paraphrase it. A female developer and a male developer were working alongside each other for the first time, and the female developer noticed that the male developer kept increasing the breast sizes of all the female characters until they were unrealistic. The female developer pointed it out and the male developer said, "Well, I want the characters to look good." He had trouble conceiving of an interesting female character who either 1) wasn't deliberately sexualized or 2) was attractive in a multidimensional way besides just having big boobs.
To a certain degree, gamers and geeks have just become accustomed to cheesecakey women. It's just standard fare for a female character in a comic or cartoon or video game to rush into battle in a metal halter top, even if that kind of armor would be completely absurd.
When we're talking about the way a character acts rather than just how the character dresses, the problem's a little more subtle but similar. Why did that character do that? In some games and movies and other stories, there will be a female character who never shows believable agency on her own, but spends the entire time reacting to, and subordinate to, the motivations of a male character. A classic example of this is Alyx from Half-Life, as described by Exploring Believability: http://exploringbelievability.blogspot.com/2012/04/how-to-write-empowering-female.html
She's not explicitly sexualized (though she does get awkwardly flirtatious in the last installment), but she doesn't really serve a purpose except as a man's sidekick.
Alternatively, there are female characters who act with personal agency but in a way that, in the narrative structure, only serves a purpose in the context of a male experience. To quote Feminist Frequency on the Manic Pixie Dream Girl cliche: http://www.feministfrequency.com/2011/03/tropes-vs-women-1-the-manic-pixie-dream-girl/
So while the MPDG might show independence or agency when she, for example, runs out into the rain and dances around, in a narrative context the author is only having her do so to teach the male character that it's fun to dance in the rain sometimes.
What does Feminist Frequency want? It's really simple.
And to tie this back in to sexualization, again with Exploring Believability:
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Well, on most subjects actually, but this one in particular you are a marvelous poster about.
You also manage to discuss feminist issues without making gender a binary, and I really appreciate that :P
Because it's a really blatant example . . .
Look at the male heroes' poses. Now compare Black Widow's pose. And it's not like this is unusual. This is par for course.
Meanwhile, in a faraway alternate universe . . .
First of all, LadyM, I totally get the joke in that image. But I also think there's more to it than that. I see the first image as being designed to appeal to women. What T/A are to products aimed at men, abs, pecs and biceps are for products aimed at women. In the first image, Iron Man, Captain America, and Hawkeye are shown in such a way as to show off their flat, hard chests. Meanwhile, Thor and Hulk are showing off inhuman biceps. Just look at those monsters on Hulk. Meanwhile, Black Widow is put well off into the background. The sexuality of Black Widow is not the sexuality that's primarily being sold on that movie poster.
Romance novels had $1.358 billion in sales in America in 2010, compared to $559 million in sales for science fiction and fantasy, or $682 million for mystery. It's a pretty big industry, dwarfing the comic book industry. It's also every bit as guilty of objectifying people.
Just look at these covers (spoiling due to image size):
I could go on, but it goes on just as long as sexy cheesecake images of women in comics and video games - i.e., forever.
In all fairness, the men in romance novels aren't all successful billionaires. Some are brooding highland lords. Some are swashbuckling pirate captains. Some have boring jobs just like every else as doctors, airline pilots, ace reporters, university professors, or as veteran soldiers. Veteran soldiers are the most down to earth of the typical men of romance novels, and they tend to suffer from the scars of war that only She can help him get over.
This isn't at all limited to the romance genre. Just take a look at urban fantasy. I'm fascinated by how urban fantasy covers play towards male misogyny (take a look down this list and see how much T/A appears on covers), the actual novels themselves are more heavily influenced by the romance genre than the fantasy genre. Read the descriptions. You generally can't get through the back cover of such a novel without seeing something like her "sexy next-door neighbor is a werewolf" or that he "is turning out to be as tempting as any man with a heartbeat" or that she's "got a very "human "problem: dealing with a stubborn, attractive cop who makes her long for everything she knows she can't have."
Male and female sexuality often are a little different, but they can be similar too, and I don't see problem with people enjoying the stuff that they enjoy. Crazy thought, I know.
Saying that comic book T/A misogyny is bad isn't really that much different than saying that romance novel misogyny is bad. I recognize that you can find fault with one and not the other, I just don't see any point in that sort of selective fault finding. The image of a sexy and acrobatic female cat burglar dressed up in skin-tight leather playing fast and loose with morality, a novel about a brooding kilted highland lord with washboard abs and soulful eyes that needs the right woman to love him, both satisfy sexual fantasies, they just do it for different genders. One isn't better or worse than the other. They're just different, and have the same purpose.
And now I leave you with a misogynistic image.
This is not to contest that the women in LoL are represented in a generally cynical manner.
Alyx mostly holds her own up until Ep 2. I definitely wouldn't class her as a sidekick.
Like, there's a certain amount of mental gymastics involved here, because players were always going to end up being Gordon and Gordon was always going to be the lead character. So by definition anybody he meets probably isn't going to be as important.
But at the same time, that doesn't stop them from being capable individuals in their own rights, which I would say Alyx certainly was in 2 and Ep 1, and even in bits of Ep 2 (despite, as you mentioned, the writers taking a really stupid fangirl approach to writing her character in that episode).
Um, yeah. Stacked as those fellows may be, I see them more as archetypes of aggression and formidablility. Notice how not one of those guys actually has an exposed face, for starters. Big blindfold, darkened helmet with angry red eyes, big helmet and angry green eyes. Plus, the physical emphasis is off too. The 'monk' is emphasizing his knee more than how totally rockin' his pecs are. If you dig sculpted knees in baggy pants, I'm sure that's a direct hit. Check the 'centurion.' See how big his shield is! So how he grips the shaft of his spear and how rigid he is in his posture! No one will ever hurt him!
Ok, ok. Different sort of fantasy there, more the Young, Insecure, Overcompensating Male version, but, actually still a male fantasy, for what it's worth.
The jade-toned guy could be the exception, but again, note the conspicuous elbow placement. I'd actually go so far as to suggest the artist who made this one actually had a different pose in mind but for space reasons or something else, was forced to completely change up the positioning of that left arm. Plus, again, a posture of revulsion and/or disgust. You can almost hear him saying, "Eeeeew."
Misogyny is towards women, misandry is the equivalent towards men. I think :S.
Those books tend to be sexual/romantic fantasies for people that are into that kinda thang. I don't think it is wrong for those to present ridiculously sexy men on the covers, as I feel they are the literary equivalent to the visual porn I enjoy.
Now, I may be completely wrong, but I assume like others reading this thread, that I'm coming to all of this with an open mind and that (hopefully) any statements made aren't about pointing fingers or accusing people, but out of a genuine desire to learn and discuss. Standard "not trying to be a dick" introduction done.
The way I've heard it explained is that
1. Romance novels may objectify men in a fantasy world, but that's one subset of a specific industry, as opposed to things like institutional bureaucracy, society/family roles, and government (The difficulties women face are bigger and more fundamental).
2. Overtly sexualized men on covers of magazines and books are a relatively recent thing in human history, most of which has been completely awful about oppressing and objectifying women until relatively recently (It's been going on longer, and even now it's nowhere near perfect).
3. Just because they're doing it too, it doesn't even the score (two wrongs don't make a right). And even if it did,
4. There are still buttloads of other, more subtle and insidious objectification actions that go on without us even really thinking about it (there are more difficulties that are presented as normal as opposed to book porn).
So really, women have faced more problems, bigger problems, and have been forced to deal with them for longer, so that if there's some beefcakey dude on a cover of a magazine or lit-porn, yeah, it's objectifying, I guess, but that doesn't make it okay for dude game developers to keep on pressing the "enlarge breasts" button in almost all video games.
Like I said, this is just as I've heard it explained, so I may not be repeating it correctly. Grain of salt and whatnot.
As a guy, I appreciate the term exists, but, holy shit are there a lot of assholes that invoke it as some kind of free pass for their continuing assholedom.
I love these types of conversations. I'm really fascinated by the topic of gender, gender roles, personification vs. objectification, etc. Basically topics that swim around the idea of "Who are we?" or "What does this mean?" And when I say "we" and "this", I mean human beings and human behavior respectively. To me it's all just one giant grey quagmire of us trying desperately to define ourselves. But I'm don't know if many would agree.
One thing that always irritates/puzzles is me is why some are so adamant about structuring these discussions from a singular perspective (or at least it seems that they are doing so, maybe I'm wrong). And before I go any further, I realize that this topic is in regards to misogyny specifically, so it's not, in and of itself, a clear example of what I mean. However it seems to me that, largely, whenever the topic objectification comes up, it is in regards to women. Perhaps it is just something particular about these last few generations. Maybe it will change eventually.
In my mind, many of these discussions have a pronoun problem. I do agree that women are sexually objectified (the world over, not just in western society). That seems like an perfectly undeniable provable fact. I also agree female sexual objectification is very prevalent, but here is where things get fuzzy. Sexual objectification is very prevalent, period. After that it genuinely seems to me like some people are splitting hairs, and their views tend to become very narrow. The countering idea is often that female objectification is far more prevalent than male objectification, and that it has more societal acceptance. Supposing that is true (and I do personally believe it is), I fail to understand why that is relevant.
I'm with Black_Heart in his (I'm assuming, sorry if you stated otherwise) question of why does that matter. If your argument is that only female objectification has consequences or is a problem, or that it's only a problem because it's more prevalent; I fail to see your logic. Shouldn't the argument be that sexual objectification itself has consequences? Also, here it's even been stated (and agreed with) that some sexual objectification is normal and/or natural. Does the goal then merely become to make both male and female sexual objectification equal? If so I fail to see why Tycho's argument that the answer is more art (i.e. putting your hat in the ring) isn't a valid one.
The way I boil it down is that sexual objectification is, at its base, part of natural human behavior. One that if taken to an extreme (in any direction) can become a destructive issue for society. This is true of any human behavior however. The arguments and ideas presented here (and elsewhere) appear very valid in a vacuum. Once they are taken out and applied functionally to the real society however, much of the sway is lost in my opinion.
How do you achieve the desired outcome of these discussions? Or, what exactly is the desired outcome? I'm not against debates/discussions. I love debates/discussions. But I agree more than a little with people who say, "Ok, what now?". Drawing attention to an issue like this is important. Having a discussion is important. Be that as it may, I find it has little to no practical application for a solution beyond having those ideas spread and become more generally accepted by future generations. If that is indeed the goal, to simply let future generations phase out -isms of the world; I find that to be a rather lack luster goal.
I can't think of any further coherent things to add at the moment and I need to sleep for work tomorrow. I look forward to reading the additional posts tomorrow. Nite all.
I think there's a distinction to be made between ridiculous body image standards--which are indeed spreading to men, and which are amply exhibited in that poster--and overt sexualization. Linespider5 does a good job of separating the two in his post, for instance, by pointing out that the male body can be rock-hard without being overtly sexualized, as for instance, when the composition of the image indicates that its focus is not on the sexual elements. This is evident not only in the League of Legends heroes he discusses, but also in the composition of that Avengers poster. The way that Captain America and Thor are lit draws the eye directly to their shield and hammer, respectively, which are dynamic action elements and symbols of badassery, whereas the lighting on Black Widow draws the eye directly to her ass.
Edit: and with regard to what the problem is, I would imagine that it's less that some women are objectified in media (Romance is indeed an interesting example of many of those phenomena running in the other direction: the fantasy of a rich, sexy man, whose sole purpose in life is to sweep the female protagonist off her feet--thanks for bringing it up, because I hadn't thought of it); but rather, the problem is the dearth of non-objectified women. The Avengers is not ostensibly about sexual fantasy: if anything it's about a very PG-13 sort of action/adventure fantasy. And yet its women are shot and directed in this sexualized way, because that's simply the norm for presentation of women in popular media.
A particularly egregious example, I thought, was the scene where:
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods