I find arguments about who is or isn't a feminist to be spectacularly unimportant, as the term is largely self-defined. Those who aren't feminists ascribe beliefs or views they dislike to the term and reject it, those who are feminists collect an assortment of opinions and resources they consider valid and discard the rest.
One might as well argue which flavor of ice cream is most valid.
I think that's true. I really mentioned the word because of Regina stating that as he was not a feminist he did not care about women's rights.
I figure I could take a bear.
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
Implying that the person with the different opinion is irrational is a very common patriarchal tactic. That's just a fact. Why are you doing it? God knows.
It's a very common tactic in general for anything ever. The identification of the tactic with the patriarchy is a little unhelpful.
Man, it's kind of confusing that we have three threads on this. but SKFM is the resident concern troll for the [War on Women] thread. Frankiedarling is the concern troll for this one. Luckily the third thread doesn't seem to have gotten it's own concern troll yet.
What you say does apply to Frankiedarling, however.
So is anyone who disagrees with your position on sexism in media is a "concern troll" who is lying about their motivations? Or are there those who disagree with you who aren't concern trolls? How are you differentiating the concern trolls from the people who have legitimate disagreements with you?
Just to be clear, I think there is a world of difference between someone great like Cambiata saying that she? isn't a feminist, essentially for semantic reasons, and some of the people like Regina, SKFM, Frankie and others here saying they aren't feminists because they have no interest in women's rights.
I don't think a single person in this thread has said that they have no interest in women's rights, or that they don't believe in the central goals of feminism.
It must be very strange to live in a world where you are constantly under attack by imaginary neanderthals.
All three threads have people saying this kind of thing.
That is a pretty standard patriarchal tactic by the way - telling people they are just imagining things.
Yes, yes, all those evil male dogs telling you they're all in your head.
Just to be clear, I think there is a world of difference between someone great like Cambiata saying that she? isn't a feminist, essentially for semantic reasons, and some of the people like Regina, SKFM, Frankie and others here saying they aren't feminists because they have no interest in women's rights.
I don't think a single person in this thread has said that they have no interest in women's rights, or that they don't believe in the central goals of feminism.
It must be very strange to live in a world where you are constantly under attack by imaginary neanderthals.
All three threads have people saying this kind of thing.
That is a pretty standard patriarchal tactic by the way - telling people they are just imagining things.
Well, if you're convinced that everyone who disagrees with you on any women's issue is lying about their motivations and a tool of the patriarchy, I can see why you would find it hard to have a conversation about these issues.
There's probably material that explains it better, but this is what I was able to find in a few minutes and I think it gets the point across clearly and quickly.
I'm not sure how the specifics of the cabal he says is doing it in any way matters to the ridiculousness of the allegation that telling someone he's full of shit is yet more proof that he's right.
I find arguments about who is or isn't a feminist to be spectacularly unimportant, as the term is largely self-defined. Those who aren't feminists ascribe beliefs or views they dislike to the term and reject it, those who are feminists collect an assortment of opinions and resources they consider valid and discard the rest.
One might as well argue which flavor of ice cream is most valid.
I think that's true. I really mentioned the word because of Regina stating that as he was not a feminist he did not care about women's rights.
"I don't care about women's rights SO HARD that I feel it necessary to constantly post in threads about them."
On a more serious note, I suspect many (if not most) arguments or conflicts regarding who "is or isn't" a feminist is largely about whether the term is meant as a compliment or insult, much like "conservative" or "liberal" or, in less contemporary terms, "vigilante," "iconoclast," "skeptic," etc.
Two goats enter, one car leaves
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
Man, it's kind of confusing that we have three threads on this. but SKFM is the resident concern troll for the [War on Women] thread. Frankiedarling is the concern troll for this one. Luckily the third thread doesn't seem to have gotten it's own concern troll yet.
What you say does apply to Frankiedarling, however.
So is anyone who disagrees with your position on sexism in media is a "concern troll" who is lying about their motivations? Or are there those who disagree with you who aren't concern trolls? How are you differentiating the concern trolls from the people who have legitimate disagreements with you?
I didn't call you a concern troll, did I? Frankie is the only one in this thread that created an account on Penny Arcade for the express purpose of denying that sexism is a really a bad thing after all.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
Implying that the person with the different opinion is irrational is a very common patriarchal tactic. That's just a fact. Why are you doing it? God knows.
It's a very common tactic in general for anything ever. The identification of the tactic with the patriarchy is a little unhelpful.
I think it is very commonly used by sexists. We all know the history of the term 'hysteria', after all. It tends to be less used by homophobes and racists, for example. Gay people are often told that they are a danger, or they are attacking heterosexual culture somehow, or that they are not actually discriminated against.
The tactics are different. And I am not sure why the term patriarchy would get much attention, unless we're back to the tiresome 'sexism doesn't exist' thing.
Man, it's kind of confusing that we have three threads on this. but SKFM is the resident concern troll for the [War on Women] thread. Frankiedarling is the concern troll for this one. Luckily the third thread doesn't seem to have gotten it's own concern troll yet.
What you say does apply to Frankiedarling, however.
So is anyone who disagrees with your position on sexism in media is a "concern troll" who is lying about their motivations? Or are there those who disagree with you who aren't concern trolls? How are you differentiating the concern trolls from the people who have legitimate disagreements with you?
This is a tremendously passive-aggressive post. As an adult, I am sure you are better than this.
Man, it's kind of confusing that we have three threads on this. but SKFM is the resident concern troll for the [War on Women] thread. Frankiedarling is the concern troll for this one. Luckily the third thread doesn't seem to have gotten it's own concern troll yet.
What you say does apply to Frankiedarling, however.
So is anyone who disagrees with your position on sexism in media is a "concern troll" who is lying about their motivations? Or are there those who disagree with you who aren't concern trolls? How are you differentiating the concern trolls from the people who have legitimate disagreements with you?
I didn't call you a concern troll, did I? Frankie is the only one in this thread that created an account on Penny Arcade for the express purpose of denying that sexism is a really a bad thing after all.
I don't think anyone's posted that. The closest I've seen is denial that an alleged case of sexism is harmful.
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
Man, it's kind of confusing that we have three threads on this. but SKFM is the resident concern troll for the [War on Women] thread. Frankiedarling is the concern troll for this one. Luckily the third thread doesn't seem to have gotten it's own concern troll yet.
What you say does apply to Frankiedarling, however.
So is anyone who disagrees with your position on sexism in media is a "concern troll" who is lying about their motivations? Or are there those who disagree with you who aren't concern trolls? How are you differentiating the concern trolls from the people who have legitimate disagreements with you?
I didn't call you a concern troll, did I? Frankie is the only one in this thread that created an account on Penny Arcade for the express purpose of denying that sexism is a really a bad thing after all.
I don't think anyone's posted that. The closest I've seen is denial that an alleged case of sexism is harmful.
Actually, our little concern troll has been somewhat open about the fact that he doesn't think sexism is all that big of a deal:
In all honesty, Cambiata, I've been arguing from the perspective that it is highly overblown. I won't lie there, I feel the entire thing is blown way out of proportion. That's not an attack on you or how you feel, that's just how I feel. This is the internet. I'm not worried about outing myself or receiving shame from people I don't know.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
Man, it's kind of confusing that we have three threads on this. but SKFM is the resident concern troll for the [War on Women] thread. Frankiedarling is the concern troll for this one. Luckily the third thread doesn't seem to have gotten it's own concern troll yet.
What you say does apply to Frankiedarling, however.
So is anyone who disagrees with your position on sexism in media is a "concern troll" who is lying about their motivations? Or are there those who disagree with you who aren't concern trolls? How are you differentiating the concern trolls from the people who have legitimate disagreements with you?
This is a tremendously passive-aggressive post. As an adult, I am sure you are better than this.
The point I'm trying to make is that there is a meme in this thread that anyone who disagrees that a particular piece of media is harmful is someone who believes that sexism, as a whole, is not harmful or does not exist. This meme seems to persist throughout a great deal of discourse about women's portrayal in media on these forums, often to the point where it becomes very difficult to talk at all. I was accused several times upthread of thinking that sexism "doesn't exist", despite having never said any such thing and making repeated assertions to the contrary. Unless I missed a post where they confess to being against feminism or women's rights, Frankie and SKFM seems to be getting the same treatment.
This discussion isn't going to work if we're ascribing hidden motives to each other. At some point, you have to take the things that people say at face value. Writing them off as "concern trolls" who actually just want to go back to the good old days when women stayed in the kitchen is nothing more than an easy way out of actually talking about these issues.
If anything, I think the fact that Frankie made an account to discuss this indicates that he does care. If he didn't care it would have been easy enough not to wade into this and just keep enjoying the things he enjoys.
Yeah, maybe take a look at the post right above yours. I'm pretty surr he's the only one who actually got accused of thinking sexism isn't real. At least I've only accused him of that.
Man, it's kind of confusing that we have three threads on this. but SKFM is the resident concern troll for the [War on Women] thread. Frankiedarling is the concern troll for this one. Luckily the third thread doesn't seem to have gotten it's own concern troll yet.
What you say does apply to Frankiedarling, however.
So is anyone who disagrees with your position on sexism in media is a "concern troll" who is lying about their motivations? Or are there those who disagree with you who aren't concern trolls? How are you differentiating the concern trolls from the people who have legitimate disagreements with you?
I didn't call you a concern troll, did I? Frankie is the only one in this thread that created an account on Penny Arcade for the express purpose of denying that sexism is a really a bad thing after all.
I don't think anyone's posted that. The closest I've seen is denial that an alleged case of sexism is harmful.
Actually, our little concern troll has been somewhat open about the fact that he doesn't think sexism is all that big of a deal:
In all honesty, Cambiata, I've been arguing from the perspective that it is highly overblown. I won't lie there, I feel the entire thing is blown way out of proportion. That's not an attack on you or how you feel, that's just how I feel. This is the internet. I'm not worried about outing myself or receiving shame from people I don't know.
Could you maybe give what he's responding to? "It" could be anything from the shoah to a puppy.
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
And yet, you cannot point to a single example, in any media, of sexism. So it must be over now, musn't it?
Why am I searching out sexist media, again?
What's to search? It doesn't exist.
This is my point entirely, really. You like to say "oh, I know sexism still exists!" so you don't out yourself, but the reality is that you don't believe that sexism still exists. That is the position you've been arguing from.
Also the @ function doesn't work if you only put it in after an edit.
Well... if you say so?
In all honesty, Cambiata, I've been arguing from the perspective that it is highly overblown. I won't lie there, I feel the entire thing is blown way out of proportion. That's not an attack on you or how you feel, that's just how I feel. This is the internet. I'm not worried about outing myself or receiving shame from people I don't know. I don't have an ulterior motive here, and I think ascribing one to my intentions does no one any good.
There's also a post somewhere of him calling sexism "a PC boogeyman", but I'm not going to take the time to search it out.
Cambiata on
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
Man, it's kind of confusing that we have three threads on this. but SKFM is the resident concern troll for the [War on Women] thread. Frankiedarling is the concern troll for this one. Luckily the third thread doesn't seem to have gotten it's own concern troll yet.
What you say does apply to Frankiedarling, however.
So is anyone who disagrees with your position on sexism in media is a "concern troll" who is lying about their motivations? Or are there those who disagree with you who aren't concern trolls? How are you differentiating the concern trolls from the people who have legitimate disagreements with you?
This is a tremendously passive-aggressive post. As an adult, I am sure you are better than this.
The point I'm trying to make is that there is a meme in this thread that anyone who disagrees that a particular piece of media is harmful is someone who believes that sexism, as a whole, is not harmful or does not exist. This meme seems to persist throughout a great deal of discourse about women's portrayal in media on these forums, often to the point where it becomes very difficult to talk at all. I was accused several times upthread of thinking that sexism "doesn't exist", despite having never said any such thing and making repeated assertions to the contrary. Unless I missed a post where they confess to being against feminism or women's rights, Frankie and SKFM seems to be getting the same treatment.
This discussion isn't going to work if we're ascribing hidden motives to each other. At some point, you have to take the things that people say at face value. Writing them off as "concern trolls" who actually just want to go back to the good old days when women stayed in the kitchen is nothing more than an easy way out of actually talking about these issues.
If anything, I think the fact that Frankie made an account to discuss this indicates that he does care. If he didn't care it would have been easy enough not to wade into this and just keep enjoying the things he enjoys.
I think this is simply a result of the following cycle:
- assume that some people in the thread don't believe sexism is a thing in the media, or think that it shouldn't/can't be dealt with
- post example to illustrate the problem and hope people will be able to extrapolate from it
- have people argue that the example isn't sexist
- based on the arguments that are presented for why the example isn't sexist, assume that they don't believe sexism is a thing in the media, or think that it shouldn't/can't be dealt with
And yet, you cannot point to a single example, in any media, of sexism. So it must be over now, musn't it?
Why am I searching out sexist media, again?
What's to search? It doesn't exist.
This is my point entirely, really. You like to say "oh, I know sexism still exists!" so you don't out yourself, but the reality is that you don't believe that sexism still exists. That is the position you've been arguing from.
Also the @ function doesn't work if you only put it in after an edit.
Well... if you say so?
In all honesty, Cambiata, I've been arguing from the perspective that it is highly overblown. I won't lie there, I feel the entire thing is blown way out of proportion. That's not an attack on you or how you feel, that's just how I feel. This is the internet. I'm not worried about outing myself or receiving shame from people I don't know. I don't have an ulterior motive here, and I think ascribing one to my intentions does no one any good.
There's also a post somewhere of him calling sexism "a PC boogeyman", but I'm not going to take the time to search it out.
He doesn't seem to be saying whatever he's talking about doesn't exist, but that it is exaggerated. Beyond that, though, it only looks like "Well... if you say so" is in response to what you've bolded, while the paragraph you're focusing on is about the main issue of the thread/discussion, which, if I know which thread is which, would have been that zombie video game.
Just to be clear, I think there is a world of difference between someone great like Cambiata saying that she? isn't a feminist, essentially for semantic reasons, and some of the people like Regina, SKFM, Frankie and others here saying they aren't feminists because they have no interest in women's rights.
Oh, you.
Don't make me defend my stance on women's rights.
Rights aren't really up for debate in this thread. No one has a right to feel great, or a right to look on a shelf and see all the media they want to consume, and little to none of the media they dislike or feel is degrading to them.
Just to be clear, I think there is a world of difference between someone great like Cambiata saying that she? isn't a feminist, essentially for semantic reasons, and some of the people like Regina, SKFM, Frankie and others here saying they aren't feminists because they have no interest in women's rights.
Oh, you.
Don't make me defend my stance on women's rights.
Rights aren't really up for debate in this thread. No one has a right to feel great, or a right to look on a shelf and see all the media they want to consume, and little to none of the media they dislike or feel is degrading to them.
Talk about fucking strawman arguments.
And yet that is exactly what white, straight, men have. Lots and lots of media we want telling stories by, for, and about us. The worst we have to complain about is apparently sitcoms think we are clueless as husbands/father figures.
We don't have the right, but I guess we have the privilege.
wtf is a feminist? I don't even know if they like porn or not anymore.
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
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
Implying that the person with the different opinion is irrational is a very common patriarchal tactic. That's just a fact. Why are you doing it? God knows.
It's a very common tactic in general for anything ever. The identification of the tactic with the patriarchy is a little unhelpful.
I think it is very commonly used by sexists. We all know the history of the term 'hysteria', after all. It tends to be less used by homophobes and racists, for example. Gay people are often told that they are a danger, or they are attacking heterosexual culture somehow, or that they are not actually discriminated against.
The tactics are different. And I am not sure why the term patriarchy would get much attention, unless we're back to the tiresome 'sexism doesn't exist' thing.
Sorry, I was imprecise - it's a common "tactic" used to smear the minority group by any orthodoxy against the heterodoxy.
It would therefore have little to do with the patriachy qua the patriarchy but rather its orthodoxy. Which says nothing of the existence of sexism or insidious nature of the patriarchy.
It's also the tactic of those who think their interlocutor is being irrational.
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
Man, it's kind of confusing that we have three threads on this. but SKFM is the resident concern troll for the [War on Women] thread. Frankiedarling is the concern troll for this one. Luckily the third thread doesn't seem to have gotten it's own concern troll yet.
What you say does apply to Frankiedarling, however.
So is anyone who disagrees with your position on sexism in media is a "concern troll" who is lying about their motivations? Or are there those who disagree with you who aren't concern trolls? How are you differentiating the concern trolls from the people who have legitimate disagreements with you?
This is a tremendously passive-aggressive post. As an adult, I am sure you are better than this.
The point I'm trying to make is that there is a meme in this thread that anyone who disagrees that a particular piece of media is harmful is someone who believes that sexism, as a whole, is not harmful or does not exist. This meme seems to persist throughout a great deal of discourse about women's portrayal in media on these forums, often to the point where it becomes very difficult to talk at all. I was accused several times upthread of thinking that sexism "doesn't exist", despite having never said any such thing and making repeated assertions to the contrary. Unless I missed a post where they confess to being against feminism or women's rights, Frankie and SKFM seems to be getting the same treatment.
This discussion isn't going to work if we're ascribing hidden motives to each other. At some point, you have to take the things that people say at face value. Writing them off as "concern trolls" who actually just want to go back to the good old days when women stayed in the kitchen is nothing more than an easy way out of actually talking about these issues.
If anything, I think the fact that Frankie made an account to discuss this indicates that he does care. If he didn't care it would have been easy enough not to wade into this and just keep enjoying the things he enjoys.
I think this is simply a result of the following cycle:
- assume that some people in the thread don't believe sexism is a thing in the media, or think that it shouldn't/can't be dealt with
- post example to illustrate the problem and hope people will be able to extrapolate from it
- have people argue that the example isn't sexist
- based on the arguments that are presented for why the example isn't sexist, assume that they don't believe sexism is a thing in the media, or think that it shouldn't/can't be dealt with
If we're speaking of cycles, it seems to me we're also seeing a confusion because some are arguing "It's not about any particular examples" and then those some people, or those who would align themselves with their position then proceed to focus on a number of specific examples.
Man, it's kind of confusing that we have three threads on this. but SKFM is the resident concern troll for the [War on Women] thread. Frankiedarling is the concern troll for this one. Luckily the third thread doesn't seem to have gotten it's own concern troll yet.
What you say does apply to Frankiedarling, however.
So is anyone who disagrees with your position on sexism in media is a "concern troll" who is lying about their motivations? Or are there those who disagree with you who aren't concern trolls? How are you differentiating the concern trolls from the people who have legitimate disagreements with you?
This is a tremendously passive-aggressive post. As an adult, I am sure you are better than this.
The point I'm trying to make is that there is a meme in this thread that anyone who disagrees that a particular piece of media is harmful is someone who believes that sexism, as a whole, is not harmful or does not exist. This meme seems to persist throughout a great deal of discourse about women's portrayal in media on these forums, often to the point where it becomes very difficult to talk at all. I was accused several times upthread of thinking that sexism "doesn't exist", despite having never said any such thing and making repeated assertions to the contrary. Unless I missed a post where they confess to being against feminism or women's rights, Frankie and SKFM seems to be getting the same treatment.
This discussion isn't going to work if we're ascribing hidden motives to each other. At some point, you have to take the things that people say at face value. Writing them off as "concern trolls" who actually just want to go back to the good old days when women stayed in the kitchen is nothing more than an easy way out of actually talking about these issues.
If anything, I think the fact that Frankie made an account to discuss this indicates that he does care. If he didn't care it would have been easy enough not to wade into this and just keep enjoying the things he enjoys.
I think this is simply a result of the following cycle:
- assume that some people in the thread don't believe sexism is a thing in the media, or think that it shouldn't/can't be dealt with
- post example to illustrate the problem and hope people will be able to extrapolate from it
- have people argue that the example isn't sexist
- based on the arguments that are presented for why the example isn't sexist, assume that they don't believe sexism is a thing in the media, or think that it shouldn't/can't be dealt with
If we're speaking of cycles, it seems to me we're also seeing a confusion because some are arguing "It's not about any particular examples" and then those some people, or those who would align themselves with their position then proceed to focus on a number of specific examples.
I know I'm guilty of it. Speaking in concrete examples is just easier, especially when one has already been linked and is actively being discussed.
Implying that the person with the different opinion is irrational is a very common patriarchal tactic. That's just a fact. Why are you doing it? God knows.
It's a very common tactic in general for anything ever. The identification of the tactic with the patriarchy is a little unhelpful.
I think it is very commonly used by sexists. We all know the history of the term 'hysteria', after all. It tends to be less used by homophobes and racists, for example. Gay people are often told that they are a danger, or they are attacking heterosexual culture somehow, or that they are not actually discriminated against.
The tactics are different. And I am not sure why the term patriarchy would get much attention, unless we're back to the tiresome 'sexism doesn't exist' thing.
Sorry, I was imprecise - it's a common "tactic" used to smear the minority group by any orthodoxy against the heterodoxy.
It would therefore have little to do with the patriachy qua the patriarchy but rather its orthodoxy. Which says nothing of the existence of sexism or insidious nature of the patriarchy.
It's also the tactic of those who think their interlocutor is being irrational.
I'm not sure what's worse, the idea that gays aren't told that they aren't discriminated against when that's the legal argument behind every ban on gay marriage, or the fact that black and gays aren't making shit up means that women are thought of as irrational.
Let's be frank: every incident starts with the obvious analysis and dispute over there's an issue or just noise, but only poshniallo has been accused of making shit up because he's the only one making shit up.
Found a new question: does the total lack of Ramadan, Chanukh@, and Kwanzaa movies and TV specials in the US (and the fact that Christmass special always fail to acknowledge other religions and implication that anyone who doesn't celebrate the Christian holiday is lacking) mean that anyone making or watching Christmass specials is an antisemite?
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
Found a new question: does the total lack of Ramadan, Chanukh@, and Kwanzaa movies and TV specials in the US (and the fact that Christmass special always fail to acknowledge other religions and implication that anyone who doesn't celebrate the Christian holiday is lacking) mean that anyone making or watching Christmass specials is an antisemite?
No, it makes them an asshole.
I would say your focus with this question is off: Why is a nation that claims to be a secular democratic republic taking government holidays for christian holy days.
mrt144 on
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
Found a new question: does the total lack of Ramadan, Chanukh@, and Kwanzaa movies and TV specials in the US (and the fact that Christmass special always fail to acknowledge other religions and implication that anyone who doesn't celebrate the Christian holiday is lacking) mean that anyone making or watching Christmass specials is an antisemite?
This doesn't really apply since holidays and religions are not people.
If we're using it in the context of human beings, to bring it in to this discussion one might ask: If a TV show has one Muslim character, and that character is portrayed as a fanatic, is the TV show being harmfully prejudicial? My answer to that would be yes.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Sidestepping a page and a half of stupid to address some substantive argument...
At least the comics from DC and marvel are. Women seem to be happy sticking to webcomics. I'm also not sure those examples would completely count as porn. I think my confusion is over why a writer in a marketplace dominated by men shouldn't cater to their tastes and sexuality.
There are several answers to that. Pick one or all.
A: One argument says the marketplace is only dominated by men because previous writers went, "Well, the marketplace is dominated by men, might as well target them only". It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, not a truth about universal attitudes towards sequential art.
B: It's possible to target men without insulting women. This is the "you know, men enjoy well-written female characters with agency, too" argument, along with the "some men are insulted by the implication that they need titties in their literature in order to enjoy it".
C: Mainstream media has no more business pandering to sexists than they do pandering to racists, regardless of whether or not said pandering actually works. This is the "you have a moral obligation not to cater blindly to humanity's worst impulses" discussion.
The discussion also needs to learn the difference between "here's what a writer should do, ethically/craft-wise", "here's what corporate should do" and "here's what the rest of us should do about it".
There are works showing women with agency, even from the big two DC publishes Y, Animal Man, and Wonder Women. It also produces more titillating stuff. Some of why there's little titillation for women is probably the cycle issue (original writers and audience were mostly male, the next generation of writers comes from that male audience and is better at selling to a male audience...), some might be men not knowing the subtle things that titillate women (femal writers might not even know, and it's just a big case of drawing drafts until it "seems right"), and some of it might be that women can already get what they want from more female-tergetted firms like the BL publishers and the internet comics.
If by "Y" you mean Y: The Last Man, that comic ended.
Part of the problem is that there's not enough titillation for women; part of the problem is that titillation and "characters that don't make me ashamed of my gender" are not mutually exclusive. Y is actually a perfect example of a comic that had sexy topless female characters on a frequent basis AND female characters with personalities and agency AND they were the same characters. As a dude I enjoyed both the more liberated nature of a comic portraying sex and nudity and the anti-sexism themes and the well-drawn, often bad-ass female characters. I would love more comics like that.
As for men or women not knowing what women want, agitating for change seems like a great way to tell them.
If women could already get what they want, this thread wouldn't exist. Especially if "what they want" is to be able to look at a newsstand rack of mainstream comics without feeling like a medium they love is shitting all over them.
I'm not sure why the big two can't target a certain demographic, as it's not like there isn't a power bar company founded to sell to women, clothing companies designed to sell to "urban" audiences, or price point targeting out there. Hell, even wineries are pretty unsubtle about how they are advertizing to a given gender.
I'd argue that in a monopoly situation, the corporations with all of the power and access have increased moral obligations to provide products for society as a whole and to not abuse their influence (ala my C up there); I'd also argue that the fact that they don't (unlike television, movies, or books) indicates that there are institutional problems that need to be identified and uprooted.
I don't think DC actually sat down one day and said "Boys like comics, so we need to focus on making sure any girl who picks up a comic is disgusted and doesn't buy it"; I think there's a cyclical bias that influences individual decisions ("should I hire this artist even though his main strength is cheesecake?" "should I reboot Starfire in this direction or that?"), and while it might be lessening slowly, the recent comics we've been discussing makes it clear that the bias is alive and well.
I'm also not sure why one comic having eye candy means that you have to stop buying all the publisher's comics. Are you boycotting Dove over AXE commercials (you probably should be over the company's history and the blatant hypocrisy of the Dove commercials, but that's separate).
I would say an effective way to try and get DC to change would be to buy comics they have that you like that aren't sexist, not buy the ones that are sexist, and explain in a public forum that and why you are doing it.
I'm not sure where you're getting C. Is appreciating the female form sexist, now? If lacking main characters from a certain demographic is prejudiced, then Girls and Sex in the City are incredibly racist and we should be asking what's wrong with female TV viewers.
The bar for sexism in an individual work is higher than in multiple works or in a medium as a whole. "Not featuring this demographic" doesn't clear the bar in an individual work, becomes problematic over a career (to the point where I go, "Frank Miller is a genius, but has a clear issue writing women who aren't offensive"), and becomes super important over an industry ("I just realized every single character this company puts out is a stripper").
My C was for more extreme cases where sexism is apparently in the individual work... Basically my standard for an individual work is that there has to be a missing/objectified/vilified demographic for no reason. As in, both Girls and Glengarry Glen Ross are stories about very specific groups of people that do not realistically include a lot of racial minorities (Girls) or females (GGR). I'm not going to be concerned about Lena Dunham or David Mamet as racist/sexist unless they make individual works that don't have good reasons to exclude/objectify/vilify, or unless they make a bunch of works that just happen to have reasons to do those things. If the next 8 works from Lena Dunham are all about white people who just happen to only hang out with other white people because that just makes sense for the story, I'm going to say she has a problem with race.
I find arguments about who is or isn't a feminist to be spectacularly unimportant, as the term is largely self-defined. Those who aren't feminists ascribe beliefs or views they dislike to the term and reject it, those who are feminists collect an assortment of opinions and resources they consider valid and discard the rest.
One might as well argue which flavor of ice cream is most valid.
I think that's true. I really mentioned the word because of Regina stating that as he was not a feminist he did not care about women's rights.
I never said that.
I'm not a feminist because while I happen to believe that women deserve equal rights in every single possible respect under the law, I do not agree with a lot of the things I hear coming from other feminists. These points of disagreement do not concern legal rights and standing under the law, and deal with "the patriarchy" gender norms, and other social concerns which are outside the law.
You are in this thread QQing about concern trolls and people being dishonest, but as usual you are a key offender.
At least this one time you have hung out in the thread to respond to people, instead of your usual MO of drive-by attacking people and then vanishing from the thread.
Doesn't Girls take place in an area that's fairly racially integrated? Of course, it's also semi-biographical, so maybe the author just chooses not to associate with black people... which probably isn't better.
And what you call 'drive-by posting', I call 'having many other demands on my time'.
When I do have time, sometimes there are people posting so hatefully or hypocritically that I know there's no point addressing them. I stand by my right to choose who to bother talking to.
For example, the equal rights thing? Everyone knows that black people gaining equal legal rights did not end racism. Everyone knows that a common attack on gay marriage is that gay people have the 'equal right' to marry members of the opposite sex. There is much more to a culture than the law.
So I figure you have heard these things too, as you have heard the sun rises in the east and water is wet, and choose to ignore them. God knows why. So why bang my head against the brick wall of your disbelief in the existence of sexism? I don't bother arguing with Flat-Earthers or Holocaust Deniers.
poshniallo on
I figure I could take a bear.
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
Found a new question: does the total lack of Ramadan, Chanukh@, and Kwanzaa movies and TV specials in the US (and the fact that Christmass special always fail to acknowledge other religions and implication that anyone who doesn't celebrate the Christian holiday is lacking) mean that anyone making or watching Christmass specials is an antisemite?
This doesn't really apply since holidays and religions are not people.
If we're using it in the context of human beings, to bring it in to this discussion one might ask: If a TV show has one Muslim character, and that character is portrayed as a fanatic, is the TV show being harmfully prejudicial? My answer to that would be yes.
wtf is a feminist? I don't even know if they like porn or not anymore.
Feminism is a pretty complex group of ideas and systems. I personally have only a very very basic understanding of it. Webster's version applies pretty cleanly here:
And what you call 'drive-by posting', I call 'having many other demands on my time'.
When I do have time, sometimes there are people posting so hatefully or hypocritically that I know there's no point addressing them. I stand by my right to choose who to bother talking to.
For example, the equal rights thing? Everyone knows that black people gaining equal legal rights did not end racism. Everyone knows that a common attack on gay marriage is that gay people have the 'equal right' to marry members of the opposite sex. There is much more to a culture than the law.
So I figure you have heard these things too, as you have heard the sun rises in the east and water is wet, and choose to ignore them. God knows why. So why bang my head against the brick wall of your disbelief in the existence of sexism? I don't bother arguing with Flat-Earthers or Holocaust Deniers.
You're still doing it. I'm just reporting you and moving on. You are absolutely not an honest debater, whatever you may personally believe.
Doesn't Girls take place in an area that's fairly racially integrated? Of course, it's also semi-biographical, so maybe the author just chooses not to associate with black people... which probably isn't better.
Part of it's that, while New York contains people of many races and origins, upper-class white people are mostly going to hang out with upper-class white people. Part of it is that Dunham didn't feel that she could properly write people of color, and decided that no portrayal was better than a dishonest portrayal. She's at least aware of the issue and presumably taking steps to correct it (apparently the next season will have some non-white characters in it).
Actually the whole situation (barring my sense that some of the racial issue was brought up as the result of sexism) was a good example of how to deal with an individual work that may be problematic. No censorship or Title IX-ing need be involved.
Doesn't Girls take place in an area that's fairly racially integrated? Of course, it's also semi-biographical, so maybe the author just chooses not to associate with black people... which probably isn't better.
Part of it's that, while New York contains people of many races and origins, upper-class white people are mostly going to hang out with upper-class white people. Part of it is that Dunham didn't feel that she could properly write people of color, and decided that no portrayal was better than a dishonest portrayal. She's at least aware of the issue and presumably taking steps to correct it (apparently the next season will have some non-white characters in it).
Actually the whole situation (barring my sense that some of the racial issue was brought up as the result of sexism) was a good example of how to deal with an individual work that may be problematic. No censorship or Title IX-ing need be involved.
Well, at least part of it was how it was hailed as the voice of this generation's women, and either the writer or someone else involved responded fairly offensively to the question of where all the black people were. Plus, naming the show "Girls" is both mock-ably presumptuous and really asking for the renaming "Rich White Girls." At least it seems there's some religions diversity.
Just to be clear, I think there is a world of difference between someone great like Cambiata saying that she? isn't a feminist, essentially for semantic reasons, and some of the people like Regina, SKFM, Frankie and others here saying they aren't feminists because they have no interest in women's rights.
Wait what? I have a great interest in women's rights, human rights in general. Apparently disagreeing about aspects of sexism in media means I have no interest in women's rights?
You have no idea what I've done with my life or the things I hold to be important. Stop spewing unsubstantiated insults at me. Thank you.
Man, it's kind of confusing that we have three threads on this. but SKFM is the resident concern troll for the [War on Women] thread. Frankiedarling is the concern troll for this one. Luckily the third thread doesn't seem to have gotten it's own concern troll yet.
What you say does apply to Frankiedarling, however.
So is anyone who disagrees with your position on sexism in media is a "concern troll" who is lying about their motivations? Or are there those who disagree with you who aren't concern trolls? How are you differentiating the concern trolls from the people who have legitimate disagreements with you?
I didn't call you a concern troll, did I? Frankie is the only one in this thread that created an account on Penny Arcade for the express purpose of denying that sexism is a really a bad thing after all.
I created an account for the express purpose of discussing the issue of sexism in media, not that sexism is not a thing or that it's not a bad thing.
What is it with you people and your attacks on my character? Sweet Zombie Jesus.
Actually, our little concern troll has been somewhat open about the fact that he doesn't think sexism is all that big of a deal:
"In all honesty, Cambiata, I've been arguing from the perspective that it is highly overblown. I won't lie there, I feel the entire thing is blown way out of proportion. That's not an attack on you or how you feel, that's just how I feel. This is the internet. I'm not worried about outing myself or receiving shame from people I don't know."
I'm arguing about perceived sexism in media as seen behind every D+ bra size. Of course I think the whole bloody thing is overblown. I 100% think the effects of sexism in a freaking fantasy world are overblown.
That does not mean sexism itself does not happen or is not bad.
Can we stop the bloody adhominems now?
Edit: Thank you, those who took the time to post on my behalf.
Posts
I think that's true. I really mentioned the word because of Regina stating that as he was not a feminist he did not care about women's rights.
It's a very common tactic in general for anything ever. The identification of the tactic with the patriarchy is a little unhelpful.
So is anyone who disagrees with your position on sexism in media is a "concern troll" who is lying about their motivations? Or are there those who disagree with you who aren't concern trolls? How are you differentiating the concern trolls from the people who have legitimate disagreements with you?
I'm not sure how the specifics of the cabal he says is doing it in any way matters to the ridiculousness of the allegation that telling someone he's full of shit is yet more proof that he's right.
"I don't care about women's rights SO HARD that I feel it necessary to constantly post in threads about them."
On a more serious note, I suspect many (if not most) arguments or conflicts regarding who "is or isn't" a feminist is largely about whether the term is meant as a compliment or insult, much like "conservative" or "liberal" or, in less contemporary terms, "vigilante," "iconoclast," "skeptic," etc.
I didn't call you a concern troll, did I? Frankie is the only one in this thread that created an account on Penny Arcade for the express purpose of denying that sexism is a really a bad thing after all.
I think it is very commonly used by sexists. We all know the history of the term 'hysteria', after all. It tends to be less used by homophobes and racists, for example. Gay people are often told that they are a danger, or they are attacking heterosexual culture somehow, or that they are not actually discriminated against.
The tactics are different. And I am not sure why the term patriarchy would get much attention, unless we're back to the tiresome 'sexism doesn't exist' thing.
This is a tremendously passive-aggressive post. As an adult, I am sure you are better than this.
I don't think anyone's posted that. The closest I've seen is denial that an alleged case of sexism is harmful.
Actually, our little concern troll has been somewhat open about the fact that he doesn't think sexism is all that big of a deal:
The point I'm trying to make is that there is a meme in this thread that anyone who disagrees that a particular piece of media is harmful is someone who believes that sexism, as a whole, is not harmful or does not exist. This meme seems to persist throughout a great deal of discourse about women's portrayal in media on these forums, often to the point where it becomes very difficult to talk at all. I was accused several times upthread of thinking that sexism "doesn't exist", despite having never said any such thing and making repeated assertions to the contrary. Unless I missed a post where they confess to being against feminism or women's rights, Frankie and SKFM seems to be getting the same treatment.
This discussion isn't going to work if we're ascribing hidden motives to each other. At some point, you have to take the things that people say at face value. Writing them off as "concern trolls" who actually just want to go back to the good old days when women stayed in the kitchen is nothing more than an easy way out of actually talking about these issues.
If anything, I think the fact that Frankie made an account to discuss this indicates that he does care. If he didn't care it would have been easy enough not to wade into this and just keep enjoying the things he enjoys.
Could you maybe give what he's responding to? "It" could be anything from the shoah to a puppy.
There's also a post somewhere of him calling sexism "a PC boogeyman", but I'm not going to take the time to search it out.
I think this is simply a result of the following cycle:
- assume that some people in the thread don't believe sexism is a thing in the media, or think that it shouldn't/can't be dealt with
- post example to illustrate the problem and hope people will be able to extrapolate from it
- have people argue that the example isn't sexist
- based on the arguments that are presented for why the example isn't sexist, assume that they don't believe sexism is a thing in the media, or think that it shouldn't/can't be dealt with
He doesn't seem to be saying whatever he's talking about doesn't exist, but that it is exaggerated. Beyond that, though, it only looks like "Well... if you say so" is in response to what you've bolded, while the paragraph you're focusing on is about the main issue of the thread/discussion, which, if I know which thread is which, would have been that zombie video game.
Oh, you.
Don't make me defend my stance on women's rights.
Rights aren't really up for debate in this thread. No one has a right to feel great, or a right to look on a shelf and see all the media they want to consume, and little to none of the media they dislike or feel is degrading to them.
Talk about fucking strawman arguments.
And yet that is exactly what white, straight, men have. Lots and lots of media we want telling stories by, for, and about us. The worst we have to complain about is apparently sitcoms think we are clueless as husbands/father figures.
We don't have the right, but I guess we have the privilege.
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.
Sorry, I was imprecise - it's a common "tactic" used to smear the minority group by any orthodoxy against the heterodoxy.
It would therefore have little to do with the patriachy qua the patriarchy but rather its orthodoxy. Which says nothing of the existence of sexism or insidious nature of the patriarchy.
It's also the tactic of those who think their interlocutor is being irrational.
If we're speaking of cycles, it seems to me we're also seeing a confusion because some are arguing "It's not about any particular examples" and then those some people, or those who would align themselves with their position then proceed to focus on a number of specific examples.
I know I'm guilty of it. Speaking in concrete examples is just easier, especially when one has already been linked and is actively being discussed.
I'm not sure what's worse, the idea that gays aren't told that they aren't discriminated against when that's the legal argument behind every ban on gay marriage, or the fact that black and gays aren't making shit up means that women are thought of as irrational.
Let's be frank: every incident starts with the obvious analysis and dispute over there's an issue or just noise, but only poshniallo has been accused of making shit up because he's the only one making shit up.
No, it makes them an asshole.
I would say your focus with this question is off: Why is a nation that claims to be a secular democratic republic taking government holidays for christian holy days.
This doesn't really apply since holidays and religions are not people.
If we're using it in the context of human beings, to bring it in to this discussion one might ask: If a TV show has one Muslim character, and that character is portrayed as a fanatic, is the TV show being harmfully prejudicial? My answer to that would be yes.
If by "Y" you mean Y: The Last Man, that comic ended.
Part of the problem is that there's not enough titillation for women; part of the problem is that titillation and "characters that don't make me ashamed of my gender" are not mutually exclusive. Y is actually a perfect example of a comic that had sexy topless female characters on a frequent basis AND female characters with personalities and agency AND they were the same characters. As a dude I enjoyed both the more liberated nature of a comic portraying sex and nudity and the anti-sexism themes and the well-drawn, often bad-ass female characters. I would love more comics like that.
As for men or women not knowing what women want, agitating for change seems like a great way to tell them.
If women could already get what they want, this thread wouldn't exist. Especially if "what they want" is to be able to look at a newsstand rack of mainstream comics without feeling like a medium they love is shitting all over them.
I'd argue that in a monopoly situation, the corporations with all of the power and access have increased moral obligations to provide products for society as a whole and to not abuse their influence (ala my C up there); I'd also argue that the fact that they don't (unlike television, movies, or books) indicates that there are institutional problems that need to be identified and uprooted.
I don't think DC actually sat down one day and said "Boys like comics, so we need to focus on making sure any girl who picks up a comic is disgusted and doesn't buy it"; I think there's a cyclical bias that influences individual decisions ("should I hire this artist even though his main strength is cheesecake?" "should I reboot Starfire in this direction or that?"), and while it might be lessening slowly, the recent comics we've been discussing makes it clear that the bias is alive and well.
I would say an effective way to try and get DC to change would be to buy comics they have that you like that aren't sexist, not buy the ones that are sexist, and explain in a public forum that and why you are doing it.
The bar for sexism in an individual work is higher than in multiple works or in a medium as a whole. "Not featuring this demographic" doesn't clear the bar in an individual work, becomes problematic over a career (to the point where I go, "Frank Miller is a genius, but has a clear issue writing women who aren't offensive"), and becomes super important over an industry ("I just realized every single character this company puts out is a stripper").
My C was for more extreme cases where sexism is apparently in the individual work... Basically my standard for an individual work is that there has to be a missing/objectified/vilified demographic for no reason. As in, both Girls and Glengarry Glen Ross are stories about very specific groups of people that do not realistically include a lot of racial minorities (Girls) or females (GGR). I'm not going to be concerned about Lena Dunham or David Mamet as racist/sexist unless they make individual works that don't have good reasons to exclude/objectify/vilify, or unless they make a bunch of works that just happen to have reasons to do those things. If the next 8 works from Lena Dunham are all about white people who just happen to only hang out with other white people because that just makes sense for the story, I'm going to say she has a problem with race.
I never said that.
I'm not a feminist because while I happen to believe that women deserve equal rights in every single possible respect under the law, I do not agree with a lot of the things I hear coming from other feminists. These points of disagreement do not concern legal rights and standing under the law, and deal with "the patriarchy" gender norms, and other social concerns which are outside the law.
You are in this thread QQing about concern trolls and people being dishonest, but as usual you are a key offender.
At least this one time you have hung out in the thread to respond to people, instead of your usual MO of drive-by attacking people and then vanishing from the thread.
Baby steps, I guess.
And what you call 'drive-by posting', I call 'having many other demands on my time'.
When I do have time, sometimes there are people posting so hatefully or hypocritically that I know there's no point addressing them. I stand by my right to choose who to bother talking to.
For example, the equal rights thing? Everyone knows that black people gaining equal legal rights did not end racism. Everyone knows that a common attack on gay marriage is that gay people have the 'equal right' to marry members of the opposite sex. There is much more to a culture than the law.
So I figure you have heard these things too, as you have heard the sun rises in the east and water is wet, and choose to ignore them. God knows why. So why bang my head against the brick wall of your disbelief in the existence of sexism? I don't bother arguing with Flat-Earthers or Holocaust Deniers.
Depends on the feminist you ask
Feminism is a pretty complex group of ideas and systems. I personally have only a very very basic understanding of it. Webster's version applies pretty cleanly here:
"The theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminism
This conversation would be the "social equality" part of that.
Some of us like porn. Some of us do not. Most of us like some porn but not other porn.
You're still doing it. I'm just reporting you and moving on. You are absolutely not an honest debater, whatever you may personally believe.
Part of it's that, while New York contains people of many races and origins, upper-class white people are mostly going to hang out with upper-class white people. Part of it is that Dunham didn't feel that she could properly write people of color, and decided that no portrayal was better than a dishonest portrayal. She's at least aware of the issue and presumably taking steps to correct it (apparently the next season will have some non-white characters in it).
Actually the whole situation (barring my sense that some of the racial issue was brought up as the result of sexism) was a good example of how to deal with an individual work that may be problematic. No censorship or Title IX-ing need be involved.
Well, at least part of it was how it was hailed as the voice of this generation's women, and either the writer or someone else involved responded fairly offensively to the question of where all the black people were. Plus, naming the show "Girls" is both mock-ably presumptuous and really asking for the renaming "Rich White Girls." At least it seems there's some religions diversity.
Wait what? I have a great interest in women's rights, human rights in general. Apparently disagreeing about aspects of sexism in media means I have no interest in women's rights?
You have no idea what I've done with my life or the things I hold to be important. Stop spewing unsubstantiated insults at me. Thank you.
I created an account for the express purpose of discussing the issue of sexism in media, not that sexism is not a thing or that it's not a bad thing.
What is it with you people and your attacks on my character? Sweet Zombie Jesus.
"In all honesty, Cambiata, I've been arguing from the perspective that it is highly overblown. I won't lie there, I feel the entire thing is blown way out of proportion. That's not an attack on you or how you feel, that's just how I feel. This is the internet. I'm not worried about outing myself or receiving shame from people I don't know."
I'm arguing about perceived sexism in media as seen behind every D+ bra size. Of course I think the whole bloody thing is overblown. I 100% think the effects of sexism in a freaking fantasy world are overblown.
That does not mean sexism itself does not happen or is not bad.
Can we stop the bloody adhominems now?
Edit: Thank you, those who took the time to post on my behalf.