The thing is that the idea that comic books are harmful also comes directly from the media, which has a vested interest in stoking the fires of gender war (since controversy and outrage = clicks.)
So yeah, I'll agree that the media can affect people, quite a lot. But the 24/7 outrage machine seems to be about 100 times better at getting inside people's heads than niche picture books about superheroes.
The stuff happens 24/7. People don't keep all of their discrimination to a specified holiday, so action against it isn't going to be either.
Is 'action' in this case synonymous with 'talking about these problems in the media'?
It seems to me that the primary beneficiary of that action is not women, but the media.
Why does it seem that way to you? Which media? Is CNN talking about Wonder Woman's impossible skeleton?
How did you hear that comics are doing these bad things to society? Or did you come up with the idea independently?
My awareness of it has definitely been heightened by reading other people talk about it in these forums, blogs, that one time I took a class on English literature and they told me to read a book, etc. I'm not sure what your point is, though. That you are a man with independent ideas arguing against the automatons of mass media? I mean, I guess, but dismissal of people's concerns about sexism isn't some niche idea. Everywhere you can find people espousing the view that it's no big deal. Is the idea here that people who don't care about this arrived at their views completely independently? They never heard anyone say "c'mon, they're just comic books. For a bit of fun"?
How convenient it is, when our ideas are not only the correct ones, but also completely independent. Arrived at after careful thought and deliberation. Not like those dingbats who read about it in some blog.
I mean, for the most part I share the idea that such things should be left alone as "just a bit of fun". No good, in my mind, ever came of a crusade against artistic content certain groups feel are morally objectionable or harmful.
Comic books and pulp of their ilk are simply there for "a bit of fun", the trouble is in taking them to be more than that in any respect.
I don't do much questioning why people read the things they do. I read some incredibly weird and different things, for all kinds of reasons; I'm in no position to judge. But I'm not going to pretend that I arrived at my broad opinions on the media I consume as a unique snowflake, who never saw anything like the opinions I hold before I adopted them as my own.
You do not think people are influenced by the ideas their culture teaches them?
Of course culture influences people, but higher culture influences them more. Expose a person to a world of culture, and you'll find they can cherry pick the best fruits over the most abundant ones as well as anybody.
The thing is that the idea that comic books are harmful also comes directly from the media, which has a vested interest in stoking the fires of gender war (since controversy and outrage = clicks.)
So yeah, I'll agree that the media can affect people, quite a lot. But the 24/7 outrage machine seems to be about 100 times better at getting inside people's heads than niche picture books about superheroes.
The stuff happens 24/7. People don't keep all of their discrimination to a specified holiday, so action against it isn't going to be either.
Is 'action' in this case synonymous with 'talking about these problems in the media'?
It seems to me that the primary beneficiary of that action is not women, but the media.
Why does it seem that way to you? Which media? Is CNN talking about Wonder Woman's impossible skeleton?
How did you hear that comics are doing these bad things to society? Or did you come up with the idea independently?
My awareness of it has definitely been heightened by reading other people talk about it in these forums, blogs, that one time I took a class on English literature and they told me to read a book, etc. I'm not sure what your point is, though. That you are a man with independent ideas arguing against the automatons of mass media? I mean, I guess, but dismissal of people's concerns about sexism isn't some niche idea. Everywhere you can find people espousing the view that it's no big deal. Is the idea here that people who don't care about this arrived at their views completely independently? They never heard anyone say "c'mon, they're just comic books. For a bit of fun"?
How convenient it is, when our ideas are not only the correct ones, but also completely independent. Arrived at after careful thought and deliberation. Not like those dingbats who read about it in some blog.
I mean, for the most part I share the idea that such things should be left alone as "just a bit of fun". No good, in my mind, ever came of a crusade against artistic content certain groups feel are morally objectionable or harmful.
Comic books and pulp of their ilk are simply there for "a bit of fun", the trouble is in taking them to be more than that in any respect.
Somehow, I don't see Maus being "a bit of fun." Despite what you think, comics are a form of art and culture, and as such are open to legitimate analysis and criticism. Frankly, it's your position that is the more harmful one, as you seek to ghettoize comics into triviality in the name of "saving" them.
l
I'm not ghettoizing anything. Personally I've never seen any good come from one group or another attempting to suppress art they find objectionable, be it the Catholic Church or feminists on the internet. I'm just generally against analysis and criticism used as a cover for making things you dislike go away.
There is a huge difference between suppressing art (as in: "comic books are the devil, ban them from our communities!") and calling art out for it's flaws (which is what is happening here). Look at comic books with a critical lens is a useful and interesting exercise. Making more widespread the lack of sense in body types throughout comic books as a whole is a useful and worthwhile discussion. There is no such thing a "bit of bun" art or other throw-away terms.
The Dragonlance books were something I would say were "trash fiction" back in the 90s, harmless fun that wouldn't ever make for a solid peer reviewed critique. But at the same time TSR and TOR were producing a lot of books, and I (and others) read a lot of them. They were filled with horrible stereotypes (from "empowered" women never passing a bechdel test to racist tendencies in how ethnicity was depicted, and worse). Yes, they werent high-culture things but when an entire generation of young men were reading them during their formative years problems begin to emerge.
No medium should be void of criticism on it's content. All media consumes affects our lives and tints our perception of the world, even subtlely.
So what's your conclusion here? Pulp exists for a reason. If you believe pulp to be harmful (I disagree but whatevs for the hypothetical) than where do you go from there? Where is this line of thought taking you? Because I assure you that there always has been some form of pulp, most likely always will be. Folks will always find it attractive for reasons you can't suppress or condition out of a culture, because it changes to suit the culture.
I'm not saying pulp is bad or harmful, only that tropes in pulp should be taken just as seriously as tropes in any other media. The post was in response to the idea that pulp somehow is above criticism as being "a bit of fun" and not worth reviewing and not remarkable upon impact. Which is really not true at all. If anything, pulp is typically more impactful as more people casually consume it without critical thought compared to other forms of media perceived to have "higher" cultural value.
Pulp should be viewed with a critical eye as well as anything else. Everyone should be an educated and aware consumer of media. There is a ton of good in pulp as well, from offering an affordable escape from reality for those who need it to typically emphasizing themes of good, honest characters triumphing over self-serving destructive ones. There are neutral and problematic areas as well beyond racism and sexism (the need for violence and killing as the universal solution, for example), but pulp is a mixed bag. Identifying why it is mixed is important for being a self-actualized person.
Engaging pulp with a critical eye gets you.... somewhere, but not really where you're supposed to go. You can deconstruct the fuck out of something like Sin City, but if you're reading Sin City to make yourself a more self-actualized person or are relying on it to inform you on how to live your life you might just be barking up the wrong tree.
This also addresses the post asking me why I'm calling all comics pulp. Really I'm not, but there is a lot of pulp there and a lot of what gets raged at does seem to me to fall under the category of good harmless fun, stuff that melts under the harsh light of fierce dissection but is, in the moment, distraction and joy. I'm honestly less concerned about this than I am the focus at stories and tropes at large, but this is odd to me. Cathartic and escspist media will always exist, I'm not worried about feminism squashing the fun out of it, but treating it deadly serious like we are is kinda ironic, no?
What about a piece of work like, say, The Human Centipede? Is it okay to get distraction and joy from such a wretched movie conceit, or is it okay to be disgusted at the concept?
Is it good harmless fun, or is it worrisome in some way?
It depends. Is there a broad social tendency for people to abduct other people and sew them together end to end?
Engaging pulp with a critical eye gets you.... somewhere, but not really where you're supposed to go. You can deconstruct the fuck out of something like Sin City, but if you're reading Sin City to make yourself a more self-actualized person or are relying on it to inform you on how to live your life you might just be barking up the wrong tree.
Once art is published it gets dissected by the audience, nothing is spared from criticism. If a work has elements that are problematic they will be discussed, people will get upset and talk about it. This is not only about feminists, bigots do that from their side of the argument too. The only way to escape this is not to let the public see your art.
This also addresses the post asking me why I'm calling all comics pulp. Really I'm not, but there is a lot of pulp there and a lot of what gets raged at does seem to me to fall under the category of good harmless fun, stuff that melts under the harsh light of fierce dissection but is, in the moment, distraction and joy. I'm honestly less concerned about this than I am the focus at stories and tropes at large, but this is odd to me. Cathartic and escspist media will always exist, I'm not worried about feminism squashing the fun out of it, but treating it deadly serious like we are is kinda ironic, no?
Pulp doesn't have to be made for straight white men, everyone can enjoy it. That's what people are are wanting the media to be inclusive, not a niche market where nothing changes that's hoarded by neckbeards. The original pulp, like The Shadow, wasn't dumb boring shit readers didn't analyze. The magazine had complex plots, similar to crime shows and techno-thriller movies today, with strong female characters that weren't only there to be The Shadow's love object. The writing was tight, pulled no punches and was made on insane deadlines.
- The "Fixer Upper" sequence from Frozen where a bunch of rock trolls sing about how they want their adopted son to get married and, as part of the sequence, stage a mock wedding, is playing for laughs what is essentially "the closest Disney animation will ever get to showing us a rape" (from "The Problem With False Feminism""). If it weren't for the rest of the article I would have assumed this was an attempt at anti-Feminist satire.
It's funny, because as soon as I read this I named about five.
That article seems like the author is trying really hard to move the goal posts on each of those topics and failing. I'm not saying Frozen is a perfect film or anything, but most of her criticism seems to be formulated to fit a pre-conceived position rather than what the movie was doing.
The article's not bad once you get past her stupid tables. She makes several good points:
1- Disney films are not as backwards as you think they are, and the notion of the traditional Disney movie/romance is built on a handful of movies from the company's first decade or two. People shouldn't be praising Frozen for being so much better than Sleeping Beauty (1959) or Cinderella (1950), they should be comparing it to Mulan (1998), The Little Mermaid (1989), and The Princess and the Frog (2009), all of which are arguably more progressive and feminist than Frozen.
2- The plot of Frozen is ridiculously, awfully contrived, and the main fulcrum of contrivance are those stupid, offensive trolls (who are somehow positioned as both charmingly regressive and the voice of all plot wisdom).
3- It's kind of ridiculous that the main character's stated goal is romance, especially after the author lists a half-dozen other female Disney leads who begin by wanting something else (freedom, worldliness, humanity, honor) and happen to fall in love along the way to achieving their other goals.
I mean those are certainly reasons to think Frozen isn't as progressive as other disney movies, but the author starts the article talking about how they HATE frozen. I'm not seeing any compelling reasons to hate it, or to claim it isn't progressive.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
+1
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
The thing is that the idea that comic books are harmful also comes directly from the media, which has a vested interest in stoking the fires of gender war (since controversy and outrage = clicks.)
So yeah, I'll agree that the media can affect people, quite a lot. But the 24/7 outrage machine seems to be about 100 times better at getting inside people's heads than niche picture books about superheroes.
The stuff happens 24/7. People don't keep all of their discrimination to a specified holiday, so action against it isn't going to be either.
Is 'action' in this case synonymous with 'talking about these problems in the media'?
It seems to me that the primary beneficiary of that action is not women, but the media.
Why does it seem that way to you? Which media? Is CNN talking about Wonder Woman's impossible skeleton?
How did you hear that comics are doing these bad things to society? Or did you come up with the idea independently?
My awareness of it has definitely been heightened by reading other people talk about it in these forums, blogs, that one time I took a class on English literature and they told me to read a book, etc. I'm not sure what your point is, though. That you are a man with independent ideas arguing against the automatons of mass media? I mean, I guess, but dismissal of people's concerns about sexism isn't some niche idea. Everywhere you can find people espousing the view that it's no big deal. Is the idea here that people who don't care about this arrived at their views completely independently? They never heard anyone say "c'mon, they're just comic books. For a bit of fun"?
How convenient it is, when our ideas are not only the correct ones, but also completely independent. Arrived at after careful thought and deliberation. Not like those dingbats who read about it in some blog.
I mean, for the most part I share the idea that such things should be left alone as "just a bit of fun". No good, in my mind, ever came of a crusade against artistic content certain groups feel are morally objectionable or harmful.
Comic books and pulp of their ilk are simply there for "a bit of fun", the trouble is in taking them to be more than that in any respect.
I don't do much questioning why people read the things they do. I read some incredibly weird and different things, for all kinds of reasons; I'm in no position to judge. But I'm not going to pretend that I arrived at my broad opinions on the media I consume as a unique snowflake, who never saw anything like the opinions I hold before I adopted them as my own.
You do not think people are influenced by the ideas their culture teaches them?
Of course culture influences people, but higher culture influences them more. Expose a person to a world of culture, and you'll find they can cherry pick the best fruits over the most abundant ones as well as anybody.
The thing is that the idea that comic books are harmful also comes directly from the media, which has a vested interest in stoking the fires of gender war (since controversy and outrage = clicks.)
So yeah, I'll agree that the media can affect people, quite a lot. But the 24/7 outrage machine seems to be about 100 times better at getting inside people's heads than niche picture books about superheroes.
The stuff happens 24/7. People don't keep all of their discrimination to a specified holiday, so action against it isn't going to be either.
Is 'action' in this case synonymous with 'talking about these problems in the media'?
It seems to me that the primary beneficiary of that action is not women, but the media.
Why does it seem that way to you? Which media? Is CNN talking about Wonder Woman's impossible skeleton?
How did you hear that comics are doing these bad things to society? Or did you come up with the idea independently?
My awareness of it has definitely been heightened by reading other people talk about it in these forums, blogs, that one time I took a class on English literature and they told me to read a book, etc. I'm not sure what your point is, though. That you are a man with independent ideas arguing against the automatons of mass media? I mean, I guess, but dismissal of people's concerns about sexism isn't some niche idea. Everywhere you can find people espousing the view that it's no big deal. Is the idea here that people who don't care about this arrived at their views completely independently? They never heard anyone say "c'mon, they're just comic books. For a bit of fun"?
How convenient it is, when our ideas are not only the correct ones, but also completely independent. Arrived at after careful thought and deliberation. Not like those dingbats who read about it in some blog.
I mean, for the most part I share the idea that such things should be left alone as "just a bit of fun". No good, in my mind, ever came of a crusade against artistic content certain groups feel are morally objectionable or harmful.
Comic books and pulp of their ilk are simply there for "a bit of fun", the trouble is in taking them to be more than that in any respect.
Somehow, I don't see Maus being "a bit of fun." Despite what you think, comics are a form of art and culture, and as such are open to legitimate analysis and criticism. Frankly, it's your position that is the more harmful one, as you seek to ghettoize comics into triviality in the name of "saving" them.
l
I'm not ghettoizing anything. Personally I've never seen any good come from one group or another attempting to suppress art they find objectionable, be it the Catholic Church or feminists on the internet. I'm just generally against analysis and criticism used as a cover for making things you dislike go away.
There is a huge difference between suppressing art (as in: "comic books are the devil, ban them from our communities!") and calling art out for it's flaws (which is what is happening here). Look at comic books with a critical lens is a useful and interesting exercise. Making more widespread the lack of sense in body types throughout comic books as a whole is a useful and worthwhile discussion. There is no such thing a "bit of bun" art or other throw-away terms.
The Dragonlance books were something I would say were "trash fiction" back in the 90s, harmless fun that wouldn't ever make for a solid peer reviewed critique. But at the same time TSR and TOR were producing a lot of books, and I (and others) read a lot of them. They were filled with horrible stereotypes (from "empowered" women never passing a bechdel test to racist tendencies in how ethnicity was depicted, and worse). Yes, they werent high-culture things but when an entire generation of young men were reading them during their formative years problems begin to emerge.
No medium should be void of criticism on it's content. All media consumes affects our lives and tints our perception of the world, even subtlely.
So what's your conclusion here? Pulp exists for a reason. If you believe pulp to be harmful (I disagree but whatevs for the hypothetical) than where do you go from there? Where is this line of thought taking you? Because I assure you that there always has been some form of pulp, most likely always will be. Folks will always find it attractive for reasons you can't suppress or condition out of a culture, because it changes to suit the culture.
I'm not saying pulp is bad or harmful, only that tropes in pulp should be taken just as seriously as tropes in any other media. The post was in response to the idea that pulp somehow is above criticism as being "a bit of fun" and not worth reviewing and not remarkable upon impact. Which is really not true at all. If anything, pulp is typically more impactful as more people casually consume it without critical thought compared to other forms of media perceived to have "higher" cultural value.
Pulp should be viewed with a critical eye as well as anything else. Everyone should be an educated and aware consumer of media. There is a ton of good in pulp as well, from offering an affordable escape from reality for those who need it to typically emphasizing themes of good, honest characters triumphing over self-serving destructive ones. There are neutral and problematic areas as well beyond racism and sexism (the need for violence and killing as the universal solution, for example), but pulp is a mixed bag. Identifying why it is mixed is important for being a self-actualized person.
Engaging pulp with a critical eye gets you.... somewhere, but not really where you're supposed to go. You can deconstruct the fuck out of something like Sin City, but if you're reading Sin City to make yourself a more self-actualized person or are relying on it to inform you on how to live your life you might just be barking up the wrong tree.
This also addresses the post asking me why I'm calling all comics pulp. Really I'm not, but there is a lot of pulp there and a lot of what gets raged at does seem to me to fall under the category of good harmless fun, stuff that melts under the harsh light of fierce dissection but is, in the moment, distraction and joy. I'm honestly less concerned about this than I am the focus at stories and tropes at large, but this is odd to me. Cathartic and escspist media will always exist, I'm not worried about feminism squashing the fun out of it, but treating it deadly serious like we are is kinda ironic, no?
Maybe other people are doing so, but when I say "critical eye" I don't mean going in to deconstructionism or dismantling something that is fun. That is something professional critics do, but not the common viewer. Being aware with a critical eye is understanding that "Hey, Sin City is really violent and while this is entertaining I should be aware that this is not positive patterned behavior." It is watching something like a Michael Bay film and thinking "I really enjoy giant robots breaking stuff, but maybe there should be more to something like this than just giant robots and half naked Megan Fox." It is watching the film and recognizing what it is doing in addition to just enjoying the ride.
Arguing that you aren't supposed to look critically at pulp just because "it's not meant for it" is like saying you aren't supposed to know the calorie count of a Big Mac because you don't eat it to be healthy. Of course you don't! But that doesn't mean you shouldn't know just how bad for you it can be when you make the choice to eat one.
Going back to comics, feminism isn't trying to slash the fun out of your experience, only to point out that what you are considering fun may have more levels and may not be as harmless as you think. If Wonder Woman were depicted as a strong, muscular woman with a pear shaped body, but still went on the same zany, action-packed adventures would your fun be lessened? Hopefully no! You are along for the ride for "good harmless fun" right? So why shouldn't she look like that? Or be any number of other body types?
If her being an hourglass waif is requisite for your "good harmless fun" then perhaps it isn't harmless at all.
Cathartic and escapist doesn't mean negative body image or ridiculous violence. Those things are fine to have here and there, just like a Big Mac, but when every meal is a Big Mac you die of diabetes or heart disease. When every comic is one, in the same fashion problems are evident.
+3
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
That these trends don't seem problematic to a lot of people, and that they're generally not given a lot of thought, is kind of the point.
Most sexism doesn't happen because someone decides "I'm going to say/do something sexist!". It's usually a lack of realization.
A good way of stating this that I've seen is that, rather than say 'this person is sexist', the discussion should focus on 'this particular thing a person said/did is sexist'. It's very possible that someone who is generally a good, thoughtful person, could still say or do something sexist, likely because they don't realize that it is. It's perfectly alright to bring this to their attention. A lot of the times, more awareness goes a long way.
No one is saying "you can't create media with 'such and such' content in it". What's being said is "maybe we should put more thought into media that's being put out there, and try to make it less toxic for a substantial portion of the population".
There is no censorship here. Criticism and analysis is part of the whole free speech thing.
When someone says "There's a trend in a lot of this media that I find hurtful", replying with "Well it's just dumb fun, get over it" suggests that the person's views are unimportant. It's marginalizing someone who has already been marginalized. No one is blaming you if you simply haven't considered a certain perspective before. It's not a personal attack on you. It's also completely possible to enjoy a piece of media while recognizing that some of its content is problematic.
No one is trying to take your comics/games etc away. They just want you to consider that there are a lot of trends in media that they find incredibly toxic.
I guess I didn't write the reply I did early, but this post is a great example of the issue. The words "problematic" and "toxic" are thrown around a lot, without ever actually quantifying them. "Toxic" is not being used quite literally, but when it is, we have LD50 values for a reason, so we can conclude that arsenic (say, Arsenic pentoxide to be specific) is more toxic than water. Similarly, "problematic" is thrown around a lot without actually quantifying the exact scope and magnitude of the problems.
Literary critique is dangerously unmoored from any sort of actual obligation to have evidence. If you want to claim comics do have an undue influence, show it with data, particularly the strongest effects and longest terms.
I'm willing to be open to the idea, but as of right now, there is not a strong, evidence supported consensus that fictional works written and consumed for entertainment rather than deliberate political or propaganda reasons (i.e. Atlus Shrugged), have a meaningful negative effect on society as a whole.
We've been to this rodeo many times before, and I think it's not coincidence that, having failed to convince people that media is going to turn everyone into serial murderers when if anything, the opposite is true, we've moved on to another avenue, which is far harder to refute. It's no coincidence that, the obvious lack of Satanic conspiracies or body counts having scuttled previous efforts in the past, the best those who enjoy attacking media have to offer is vague claims of penumbra influences, like the post last page which suggests sexist media is not making sexism worse, but merely slowing it from getting better as fast as hypothetically possible. That's an impressively vague and difficult to refute claim.
Literally all of media backs this position with basic, casual observation.
Cathartic and escspist media will always exist, I'm not worried about feminism squashing the fun out of it, but treating it deadly serious like we are is kinda ironic, no?
Maybe if your idea of cathartic and escapist media is things where women are routinely objectified, exploited, and violently abused to no greater end or commentary, maybe you're a really, really awful person.
Obviously, I'm generalizing here.
Or am I?
well, my idea of cathartic and escapist media is things where all of the digital persons/animals/objects can be objectified, exploited, and violently abused (sandbox games, particularly bethesda's)
I'm not sure if they would be improved by making women either not present or invulnerable
I'm willing to be open to the idea, but as of right now, there is not a strong, evidence supported consensus that fictional works written and consumed for entertainment rather than deliberate political or propaganda reasons (i.e. Atlus Shrugged), have a meaningful negative effect on society as a whole.
That these trends don't seem problematic to a lot of people, and that they're generally not given a lot of thought, is kind of the point.
Most sexism doesn't happen because someone decides "I'm going to say/do something sexist!". It's usually a lack of realization.
A good way of stating this that I've seen is that, rather than say 'this person is sexist', the discussion should focus on 'this particular thing a person said/did is sexist'. It's very possible that someone who is generally a good, thoughtful person, could still say or do something sexist, likely because they don't realize that it is. It's perfectly alright to bring this to their attention. A lot of the times, more awareness goes a long way.
No one is saying "you can't create media with 'such and such' content in it". What's being said is "maybe we should put more thought into media that's being put out there, and try to make it less toxic for a substantial portion of the population".
There is no censorship here. Criticism and analysis is part of the whole free speech thing.
When someone says "There's a trend in a lot of this media that I find hurtful", replying with "Well it's just dumb fun, get over it" suggests that the person's views are unimportant. It's marginalizing someone who has already been marginalized. No one is blaming you if you simply haven't considered a certain perspective before. It's not a personal attack on you. It's also completely possible to enjoy a piece of media while recognizing that some of its content is problematic.
No one is trying to take your comics/games etc away. They just want you to consider that there are a lot of trends in media that they find incredibly toxic.
I guess I didn't write the reply I did early, but this post is a great example of the issue. The words "problematic" and "toxic" are thrown around a lot, without ever actually quantifying them. "Toxic" is not being used quite literally, but when it is, we have LD50 values for a reason, so we can conclude that arsenic (say, Arsenic pentoxide to be specific) is more toxic than water. Similarly, "problematic" is thrown around a lot without actually quantifying the exact scope and magnitude of the problems.
Literary critique is dangerously unmoored from any sort of actual obligation to have evidence. If you want to claim comics do have an undue influence, show it with data, particularly the strongest effects and longest terms.
I'm willing to be open to the idea, but as of right now, there is not a strong, evidence supported consensus that fictional works written and consumed for entertainment rather than deliberate political or propaganda reasons (i.e. Atlus Shrugged), have a meaningful negative effect on society as a whole.
We've been to this rodeo many times before, and I think it's not coincidence that, having failed to convince people that media is going to turn everyone into serial murderers when if anything, the opposite is true, we've moved on to another avenue, which is far harder to refute. It's no coincidence that, the obvious lack of Satanic conspiracies or body counts having scuttled previous efforts in the past, the best those who enjoy attacking media have to offer is vague claims of penumbra influences, like the post last page which suggests sexist media is not making sexism worse, but merely slowing it from getting better as fast as hypothetically possible. That's an impressively vague and difficult to refute claim.
The problem with your argument is that the line that you want to draw between media and propaganda doesn't exist, for a few reasons. For one, we don't "consume" propaganda explicitly - that would be "preaching to the choir". Instead, propaganda works by being media with an explicit message that is consumed. Second, the reason you aren't seeing an explicit movement is because since our culture is sexist, sexist media is reinforcing the existing paradigm. That, by its very nature, will not be as visible as a shift in paradigm.
Sexist Imagery causes Sexist acts.
Murder Imagery cause Murder acts.
Either both of those are true, or neither is true.
And we thought Jack Thompson was a silly goose, therefore...
You're a really big fan of making people choose your own poor arguments.
When you state the above, you imply people here regardless of context think a single poorly drawn Wonder Woman image will turn anyone in to a sexist monster.
Which no one, at any point, has claimed.
Do lots of violent video games make someone more violent?
Is there any research showing that the content of a game makes someone more violent, misogynistic, etc
The thing is that the idea that comic books are harmful also comes directly from the media, which has a vested interest in stoking the fires of gender war (since controversy and outrage = clicks.)
So yeah, I'll agree that the media can affect people, quite a lot. But the 24/7 outrage machine seems to be about 100 times better at getting inside people's heads than niche picture books about superheroes.
The stuff happens 24/7. People don't keep all of their discrimination to a specified holiday, so action against it isn't going to be either.
Is 'action' in this case synonymous with 'talking about these problems in the media'?
It seems to me that the primary beneficiary of that action is not women, but the media.
Why does it seem that way to you? Which media? Is CNN talking about Wonder Woman's impossible skeleton?
How did you hear that comics are doing these bad things to society? Or did you come up with the idea independently?
My awareness of it has definitely been heightened by reading other people talk about it in these forums, blogs, that one time I took a class on English literature and they told me to read a book, etc. I'm not sure what your point is, though. That you are a man with independent ideas arguing against the automatons of mass media? I mean, I guess, but dismissal of people's concerns about sexism isn't some niche idea. Everywhere you can find people espousing the view that it's no big deal. Is the idea here that people who don't care about this arrived at their views completely independently? They never heard anyone say "c'mon, they're just comic books. For a bit of fun"?
How convenient it is, when our ideas are not only the correct ones, but also completely independent. Arrived at after careful thought and deliberation. Not like those dingbats who read about it in some blog.
I mean, for the most part I share the idea that such things should be left alone as "just a bit of fun". No good, in my mind, ever came of a crusade against artistic content certain groups feel are morally objectionable or harmful.
Comic books and pulp of their ilk are simply there for "a bit of fun", the trouble is in taking them to be more than that in any respect.
I don't do much questioning why people read the things they do. I read some incredibly weird and different things, for all kinds of reasons; I'm in no position to judge. But I'm not going to pretend that I arrived at my broad opinions on the media I consume as a unique snowflake, who never saw anything like the opinions I hold before I adopted them as my own.
You do not think people are influenced by the ideas their culture teaches them?
Of course culture influences people, but higher culture influences them more. Expose a person to a world of culture, and you'll find they can cherry pick the best fruits over the most abundant ones as well as anybody.
The thing is that the idea that comic books are harmful also comes directly from the media, which has a vested interest in stoking the fires of gender war (since controversy and outrage = clicks.)
So yeah, I'll agree that the media can affect people, quite a lot. But the 24/7 outrage machine seems to be about 100 times better at getting inside people's heads than niche picture books about superheroes.
The stuff happens 24/7. People don't keep all of their discrimination to a specified holiday, so action against it isn't going to be either.
Is 'action' in this case synonymous with 'talking about these problems in the media'?
It seems to me that the primary beneficiary of that action is not women, but the media.
Why does it seem that way to you? Which media? Is CNN talking about Wonder Woman's impossible skeleton?
How did you hear that comics are doing these bad things to society? Or did you come up with the idea independently?
My awareness of it has definitely been heightened by reading other people talk about it in these forums, blogs, that one time I took a class on English literature and they told me to read a book, etc. I'm not sure what your point is, though. That you are a man with independent ideas arguing against the automatons of mass media? I mean, I guess, but dismissal of people's concerns about sexism isn't some niche idea. Everywhere you can find people espousing the view that it's no big deal. Is the idea here that people who don't care about this arrived at their views completely independently? They never heard anyone say "c'mon, they're just comic books. For a bit of fun"?
How convenient it is, when our ideas are not only the correct ones, but also completely independent. Arrived at after careful thought and deliberation. Not like those dingbats who read about it in some blog.
I mean, for the most part I share the idea that such things should be left alone as "just a bit of fun". No good, in my mind, ever came of a crusade against artistic content certain groups feel are morally objectionable or harmful.
Comic books and pulp of their ilk are simply there for "a bit of fun", the trouble is in taking them to be more than that in any respect.
Somehow, I don't see Maus being "a bit of fun." Despite what you think, comics are a form of art and culture, and as such are open to legitimate analysis and criticism. Frankly, it's your position that is the more harmful one, as you seek to ghettoize comics into triviality in the name of "saving" them.
l
I'm not ghettoizing anything. Personally I've never seen any good come from one group or another attempting to suppress art they find objectionable, be it the Catholic Church or feminists on the internet. I'm just generally against analysis and criticism used as a cover for making things you dislike go away.
There is a huge difference between suppressing art (as in: "comic books are the devil, ban them from our communities!") and calling art out for it's flaws (which is what is happening here). Look at comic books with a critical lens is a useful and interesting exercise. Making more widespread the lack of sense in body types throughout comic books as a whole is a useful and worthwhile discussion. There is no such thing a "bit of bun" art or other throw-away terms.
The Dragonlance books were something I would say were "trash fiction" back in the 90s, harmless fun that wouldn't ever make for a solid peer reviewed critique. But at the same time TSR and TOR were producing a lot of books, and I (and others) read a lot of them. They were filled with horrible stereotypes (from "empowered" women never passing a bechdel test to racist tendencies in how ethnicity was depicted, and worse). Yes, they werent high-culture things but when an entire generation of young men were reading them during their formative years problems begin to emerge.
No medium should be void of criticism on it's content. All media consumes affects our lives and tints our perception of the world, even subtlely.
So what's your conclusion here? Pulp exists for a reason. If you believe pulp to be harmful (I disagree but whatevs for the hypothetical) than where do you go from there? Where is this line of thought taking you? Because I assure you that there always has been some form of pulp, most likely always will be. Folks will always find it attractive for reasons you can't suppress or condition out of a culture, because it changes to suit the culture.
I'm not saying pulp is bad or harmful, only that tropes in pulp should be taken just as seriously as tropes in any other media. The post was in response to the idea that pulp somehow is above criticism as being "a bit of fun" and not worth reviewing and not remarkable upon impact. Which is really not true at all. If anything, pulp is typically more impactful as more people casually consume it without critical thought compared to other forms of media perceived to have "higher" cultural value.
Pulp should be viewed with a critical eye as well as anything else. Everyone should be an educated and aware consumer of media. There is a ton of good in pulp as well, from offering an affordable escape from reality for those who need it to typically emphasizing themes of good, honest characters triumphing over self-serving destructive ones. There are neutral and problematic areas as well beyond racism and sexism (the need for violence and killing as the universal solution, for example), but pulp is a mixed bag. Identifying why it is mixed is important for being a self-actualized person.
Engaging pulp with a critical eye gets you.... somewhere, but not really where you're supposed to go. You can deconstruct the fuck out of something like Sin City, but if you're reading Sin City to make yourself a more self-actualized person or are relying on it to inform you on how to live your life you might just be barking up the wrong tree.
This also addresses the post asking me why I'm calling all comics pulp. Really I'm not, but there is a lot of pulp there and a lot of what gets raged at does seem to me to fall under the category of good harmless fun, stuff that melts under the harsh light of fierce dissection but is, in the moment, distraction and joy. I'm honestly less concerned about this than I am the focus at stories and tropes at large, but this is odd to me. Cathartic and escspist media will always exist, I'm not worried about feminism squashing the fun out of it, but treating it deadly serious like we are is kinda ironic, no?
Maybe other people are doing so, but when I say "critical eye" I don't mean going in to deconstructionism or dismantling something that is fun. That is something professional critics do, but not the common viewer. Being aware with a critical eye is understanding that "Hey, Sin City is really violent and while this is entertaining I should be aware that this is not positive patterned behavior." It is watching something like a Michael Bay film and thinking "I really enjoy giant robots breaking stuff, but maybe there should be more to something like this than just giant robots and half naked Megan Fox." It is watching the film and recognizing what it is doing in addition to just enjoying the ride.
Arguing that you aren't supposed to look critically at pulp just because "it's not meant for it" is like saying you aren't supposed to know the calorie count of a Big Mac because you don't eat it to be healthy. Of course you don't! But that doesn't mean you shouldn't know just how bad for you it can be when you make the choice to eat one.
Going back to comics, feminism isn't trying to slash the fun out of your experience, only to point out that what you are considering fun may have more levels and may not be as harmless as you think. If Wonder Woman were depicted as a strong, muscular woman with a pear shaped body, but still went on the same zany, action-packed adventures would your fun be lessened? Hopefully no! You are along for the ride for "good harmless fun" right? So why shouldn't she look like that? Or be any number of other body types?
If her being an hourglass waif is requisite for your "good harmless fun" then perhaps it isn't harmless at all.
Cathartic and escapist doesn't mean negative body image or ridiculous violence. Those things are fine to have here and there, just like a Big Mac, but when every meal is a Big Mac you die of diabetes or heart disease. When every comic is one, in the same fashion problems are evident.
Well personally I'm still of the mind that attempts at "showing harm" are lacking in many respects, so that particular argument won't go too far with me. I'm also not friendly to the idea of any artistic media being suppressed on moral grounds.
I think I need a longer post to address a bunch of stuf, but on my phone at work won't cut it. In the words of that lovy robot, I'll be back.
That these trends don't seem problematic to a lot of people, and that they're generally not given a lot of thought, is kind of the point.
Most sexism doesn't happen because someone decides "I'm going to say/do something sexist!". It's usually a lack of realization.
A good way of stating this that I've seen is that, rather than say 'this person is sexist', the discussion should focus on 'this particular thing a person said/did is sexist'. It's very possible that someone who is generally a good, thoughtful person, could still say or do something sexist, likely because they don't realize that it is. It's perfectly alright to bring this to their attention. A lot of the times, more awareness goes a long way.
No one is saying "you can't create media with 'such and such' content in it". What's being said is "maybe we should put more thought into media that's being put out there, and try to make it less toxic for a substantial portion of the population".
There is no censorship here. Criticism and analysis is part of the whole free speech thing.
When someone says "There's a trend in a lot of this media that I find hurtful", replying with "Well it's just dumb fun, get over it" suggests that the person's views are unimportant. It's marginalizing someone who has already been marginalized. No one is blaming you if you simply haven't considered a certain perspective before. It's not a personal attack on you. It's also completely possible to enjoy a piece of media while recognizing that some of its content is problematic.
No one is trying to take your comics/games etc away. They just want you to consider that there are a lot of trends in media that they find incredibly toxic.
I guess I didn't write the reply I did early, but this post is a great example of the issue. The words "problematic" and "toxic" are thrown around a lot, without ever actually quantifying them. "Toxic" is not being used quite literally, but when it is, we have LD50 values for a reason, so we can conclude that arsenic (say, Arsenic pentoxide to be specific) is more toxic than water. Similarly, "problematic" is thrown around a lot without actually quantifying the exact scope and magnitude of the problems.
Literary critique is dangerously unmoored from any sort of actual obligation to have evidence. If you want to claim comics do have an undue influence, show it with data, particularly the strongest effects and longest terms.
I'm willing to be open to the idea, but as of right now, there is not a strong, evidence supported consensus that fictional works written and consumed for entertainment rather than deliberate political or propaganda reasons (i.e. Atlus Shrugged), have a meaningful negative effect on society as a whole.
We've been to this rodeo many times before, and I think it's not coincidence that, having failed to convince people that media is going to turn everyone into serial murderers when if anything, the opposite is true, we've moved on to another avenue, which is far harder to refute. It's no coincidence that, the obvious lack of Satanic conspiracies or body counts having scuttled previous efforts in the past, the best those who enjoy attacking media have to offer is vague claims of penumbra influences, like the post last page which suggests sexist media is not making sexism worse, but merely slowing it from getting better as fast as hypothetically possible. That's an impressively vague and difficult to refute claim.
Literally all of media backs this position with basic, casual observation.
Qualitative, peer reviewed analysis of portrayals of women in all facets of media, from news to TV to Video Games as it stands on a 2013-2014 cycle.
That report is only statistics on female representation in media. It says nothing about what the effects of under representation might be (if anything), or anything at all about sexist portrayals.
I think this quote really gets at what programjunkie was saying:
“Without female representation in journalism and media, I don’t think we will see adequate representation in any other sector,” said Tiffani Lennon, chair of Colorado Women’s College’s law and society department. “I can’t say it’s a direct causation—and those variables would be all but impossible to isolate. But there’s a ... correlation between the visibility of women in media and the visibility of women in other sectors. And this is part of the point of the [actor] Geena Davis’ work because media is so heavily embedded in our consciousness, in our daily lives. It’s likely that what we see in other sectors, in many ways, reflects the kinds of media roles women are playing.”
Looking at the bolded part it seems likely there is very little proof of the kind of influence the rest of the quote is basically taking for granted.
Jebus314 on
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
Sexist Imagery causes Sexist acts.
Murder Imagery cause Murder acts.
Either both of those are true, or neither is true.
And we thought Jack Thompson was a silly goose, therefore...
You're a really big fan of making people choose your own poor arguments.
When you state the above, you imply people here regardless of context think a single poorly drawn Wonder Woman image will turn anyone in to a sexist monster.
Which no one, at any point, has claimed.
So lots of violent games make someone more violent?
Please address any actual statement I've made or try someone else. I've never claimed any single piece of media leads to murderous psychopaths. In fact, no one in this thread has.
Now, if you'd like to claim that people are not informed and influenced by their culture and its media, by all means go ahead.
Well personally I'm still of the mind that attempts at "showing harm" are lacking in many respects, so that particular argument won't go too far with me. I'm also not friendly to the idea of any artistic media being suppressed on moral grounds.
I think I need a longer post to address a bunch of stuf, but on my phone at work won't cut it. In the words of that lovy robot, I'll be back.
You don't believe sexism harms people?
+5
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
Sexist Imagery causes Sexist acts.
Murder Imagery cause Murder acts.
Either both of those are true, or neither is true.
And we thought Jack Thompson was a silly goose, therefore...
You're a really big fan of making people choose your own poor arguments.
When you state the above, you imply people here regardless of context think a single poorly drawn Wonder Woman image will turn anyone in to a sexist monster.
Which no one, at any point, has claimed.
Do lots of violent video games make someone more violent?
Is there any research showing that the content of a game makes someone more violent, misogynistic, etc
There actually is a growing base of quantitative data and studies backing desensitization of violence through habitual violent media. This is just one of about forty journal articles I found though my University database published within the last five years backing this: http://rcgd.isr.umich.edu/aggr/articles/Huesmann/2011.Krahé et al.Desentization.JPSP.pdf
3- It's kind of ridiculous that the main character's stated goal is romance, especially after the author lists a half-dozen other female Disney leads who begin by wanting something else (freedom, worldliness, humanity, honor) and happen to fall in love along the way to achieving their other goals.
I don't know that they could have told a story about true love being something to work towards as a reward rather then a prize dropped in your lap without that being her goal tho.
Sexist Imagery causes Sexist acts.
Murder Imagery cause Murder acts.
Either both of those are true, or neither is true.
And we thought Jack Thompson was a silly goose, therefore...
You're a really big fan of making people choose your own poor arguments.
When you state the above, you imply people here regardless of context think a single poorly drawn Wonder Woman image will turn anyone in to a sexist monster.
Which no one, at any point, has claimed.
So lots of violent games make someone more violent?
Please address any actual statement I've made or try someone else. I've never claimed any single piece of media leads to murderous psychopaths. In fact, no one in this thread has.
Now, if you'd like to claim that people are not informed and influenced by their culture and its media, by all means go ahead.
People are obviously informed and influenced by culture.
I got a lot of my sense of humor from watching comedies/comedians/etc. growing up. Humor is not something you're born with; I have never met a kid who innately "gets" even the simplest joke. It has to be explained and learned over time. Taste in humor is something you develop from exposure to comedy, too.
Does that mean watching George Lopez one time will make you criminally unfunny for the rest of your life? No! But if all you watch is George Lopez, Dane Cook, Carlos Mencia and Carrot Top*, you might be more likely to gear your sense of humor in that direction and to find comedians who are actually entertaining less so, because you aren't accustomed to that style of humor.
*Apologies to people who like Lopez, Cook, Mencia or Carrot Top
The thing is that the idea that comic books are harmful also comes directly from the media, which has a vested interest in stoking the fires of gender war (since controversy and outrage = clicks.)
So yeah, I'll agree that the media can affect people, quite a lot. But the 24/7 outrage machine seems to be about 100 times better at getting inside people's heads than niche picture books about superheroes.
The stuff happens 24/7. People don't keep all of their discrimination to a specified holiday, so action against it isn't going to be either.
Is 'action' in this case synonymous with 'talking about these problems in the media'?
It seems to me that the primary beneficiary of that action is not women, but the media.
Why does it seem that way to you? Which media? Is CNN talking about Wonder Woman's impossible skeleton?
How did you hear that comics are doing these bad things to society? Or did you come up with the idea independently?
My awareness of it has definitely been heightened by reading other people talk about it in these forums, blogs, that one time I took a class on English literature and they told me to read a book, etc. I'm not sure what your point is, though. That you are a man with independent ideas arguing against the automatons of mass media? I mean, I guess, but dismissal of people's concerns about sexism isn't some niche idea. Everywhere you can find people espousing the view that it's no big deal. Is the idea here that people who don't care about this arrived at their views completely independently? They never heard anyone say "c'mon, they're just comic books. For a bit of fun"?
How convenient it is, when our ideas are not only the correct ones, but also completely independent. Arrived at after careful thought and deliberation. Not like those dingbats who read about it in some blog.
I mean, for the most part I share the idea that such things should be left alone as "just a bit of fun". No good, in my mind, ever came of a crusade against artistic content certain groups feel are morally objectionable or harmful.
Comic books and pulp of their ilk are simply there for "a bit of fun", the trouble is in taking them to be more than that in any respect.
I don't do much questioning why people read the things they do. I read some incredibly weird and different things, for all kinds of reasons; I'm in no position to judge. But I'm not going to pretend that I arrived at my broad opinions on the media I consume as a unique snowflake, who never saw anything like the opinions I hold before I adopted them as my own.
You do not think people are influenced by the ideas their culture teaches them?
Of course culture influences people, but higher culture influences them more. Expose a person to a world of culture, and you'll find they can cherry pick the best fruits over the most abundant ones as well as anybody.
The thing is that the idea that comic books are harmful also comes directly from the media, which has a vested interest in stoking the fires of gender war (since controversy and outrage = clicks.)
So yeah, I'll agree that the media can affect people, quite a lot. But the 24/7 outrage machine seems to be about 100 times better at getting inside people's heads than niche picture books about superheroes.
The stuff happens 24/7. People don't keep all of their discrimination to a specified holiday, so action against it isn't going to be either.
Is 'action' in this case synonymous with 'talking about these problems in the media'?
It seems to me that the primary beneficiary of that action is not women, but the media.
Why does it seem that way to you? Which media? Is CNN talking about Wonder Woman's impossible skeleton?
How did you hear that comics are doing these bad things to society? Or did you come up with the idea independently?
My awareness of it has definitely been heightened by reading other people talk about it in these forums, blogs, that one time I took a class on English literature and they told me to read a book, etc. I'm not sure what your point is, though. That you are a man with independent ideas arguing against the automatons of mass media? I mean, I guess, but dismissal of people's concerns about sexism isn't some niche idea. Everywhere you can find people espousing the view that it's no big deal. Is the idea here that people who don't care about this arrived at their views completely independently? They never heard anyone say "c'mon, they're just comic books. For a bit of fun"?
How convenient it is, when our ideas are not only the correct ones, but also completely independent. Arrived at after careful thought and deliberation. Not like those dingbats who read about it in some blog.
I mean, for the most part I share the idea that such things should be left alone as "just a bit of fun". No good, in my mind, ever came of a crusade against artistic content certain groups feel are morally objectionable or harmful.
Comic books and pulp of their ilk are simply there for "a bit of fun", the trouble is in taking them to be more than that in any respect.
Somehow, I don't see Maus being "a bit of fun." Despite what you think, comics are a form of art and culture, and as such are open to legitimate analysis and criticism. Frankly, it's your position that is the more harmful one, as you seek to ghettoize comics into triviality in the name of "saving" them.
l
I'm not ghettoizing anything. Personally I've never seen any good come from one group or another attempting to suppress art they find objectionable, be it the Catholic Church or feminists on the internet. I'm just generally against analysis and criticism used as a cover for making things you dislike go away.
There is a huge difference between suppressing art (as in: "comic books are the devil, ban them from our communities!") and calling art out for it's flaws (which is what is happening here). Look at comic books with a critical lens is a useful and interesting exercise. Making more widespread the lack of sense in body types throughout comic books as a whole is a useful and worthwhile discussion. There is no such thing a "bit of bun" art or other throw-away terms.
The Dragonlance books were something I would say were "trash fiction" back in the 90s, harmless fun that wouldn't ever make for a solid peer reviewed critique. But at the same time TSR and TOR were producing a lot of books, and I (and others) read a lot of them. They were filled with horrible stereotypes (from "empowered" women never passing a bechdel test to racist tendencies in how ethnicity was depicted, and worse). Yes, they werent high-culture things but when an entire generation of young men were reading them during their formative years problems begin to emerge.
No medium should be void of criticism on it's content. All media consumes affects our lives and tints our perception of the world, even subtlely.
So what's your conclusion here? Pulp exists for a reason. If you believe pulp to be harmful (I disagree but whatevs for the hypothetical) than where do you go from there? Where is this line of thought taking you? Because I assure you that there always has been some form of pulp, most likely always will be. Folks will always find it attractive for reasons you can't suppress or condition out of a culture, because it changes to suit the culture.
I'm not saying pulp is bad or harmful, only that tropes in pulp should be taken just as seriously as tropes in any other media. The post was in response to the idea that pulp somehow is above criticism as being "a bit of fun" and not worth reviewing and not remarkable upon impact. Which is really not true at all. If anything, pulp is typically more impactful as more people casually consume it without critical thought compared to other forms of media perceived to have "higher" cultural value.
Pulp should be viewed with a critical eye as well as anything else. Everyone should be an educated and aware consumer of media. There is a ton of good in pulp as well, from offering an affordable escape from reality for those who need it to typically emphasizing themes of good, honest characters triumphing over self-serving destructive ones. There are neutral and problematic areas as well beyond racism and sexism (the need for violence and killing as the universal solution, for example), but pulp is a mixed bag. Identifying why it is mixed is important for being a self-actualized person.
Engaging pulp with a critical eye gets you.... somewhere, but not really where you're supposed to go. You can deconstruct the fuck out of something like Sin City, but if you're reading Sin City to make yourself a more self-actualized person or are relying on it to inform you on how to live your life you might just be barking up the wrong tree.
This also addresses the post asking me why I'm calling all comics pulp. Really I'm not, but there is a lot of pulp there and a lot of what gets raged at does seem to me to fall under the category of good harmless fun, stuff that melts under the harsh light of fierce dissection but is, in the moment, distraction and joy. I'm honestly less concerned about this than I am the focus at stories and tropes at large, but this is odd to me. Cathartic and escspist media will always exist, I'm not worried about feminism squashing the fun out of it, but treating it deadly serious like we are is kinda ironic, no?
Maybe other people are doing so, but when I say "critical eye" I don't mean going in to deconstructionism or dismantling something that is fun. That is something professional critics do, but not the common viewer. Being aware with a critical eye is understanding that "Hey, Sin City is really violent and while this is entertaining I should be aware that this is not positive patterned behavior." It is watching something like a Michael Bay film and thinking "I really enjoy giant robots breaking stuff, but maybe there should be more to something like this than just giant robots and half naked Megan Fox." It is watching the film and recognizing what it is doing in addition to just enjoying the ride.
Arguing that you aren't supposed to look critically at pulp just because "it's not meant for it" is like saying you aren't supposed to know the calorie count of a Big Mac because you don't eat it to be healthy. Of course you don't! But that doesn't mean you shouldn't know just how bad for you it can be when you make the choice to eat one.
Going back to comics, feminism isn't trying to slash the fun out of your experience, only to point out that what you are considering fun may have more levels and may not be as harmless as you think. If Wonder Woman were depicted as a strong, muscular woman with a pear shaped body, but still went on the same zany, action-packed adventures would your fun be lessened? Hopefully no! You are along for the ride for "good harmless fun" right? So why shouldn't she look like that? Or be any number of other body types?
If her being an hourglass waif is requisite for your "good harmless fun" then perhaps it isn't harmless at all.
Cathartic and escapist doesn't mean negative body image or ridiculous violence. Those things are fine to have here and there, just like a Big Mac, but when every meal is a Big Mac you die of diabetes or heart disease. When every comic is one, in the same fashion problems are evident.
Well personally I'm still of the mind that attempts at "showing harm" are lacking in many respects, so that particular argument won't go too far with me. I'm also not friendly to the idea of any artistic media being suppressed on moral grounds.
I think I need a longer post to address a bunch of stuf, but on my phone at work won't cut it. In the words of that lovy robot, I'll be back.
Channeling Zoidberg and telling someone "your art is bad and you should feel bad" is not, and will never be suppression.
The thing is that the idea that comic books are harmful also comes directly from the media, which has a vested interest in stoking the fires of gender war (since controversy and outrage = clicks.)
So yeah, I'll agree that the media can affect people, quite a lot. But the 24/7 outrage machine seems to be about 100 times better at getting inside people's heads than niche picture books about superheroes.
The stuff happens 24/7. People don't keep all of their discrimination to a specified holiday, so action against it isn't going to be either.
Is 'action' in this case synonymous with 'talking about these problems in the media'?
It seems to me that the primary beneficiary of that action is not women, but the media.
Why does it seem that way to you? Which media? Is CNN talking about Wonder Woman's impossible skeleton?
How did you hear that comics are doing these bad things to society? Or did you come up with the idea independently?
My awareness of it has definitely been heightened by reading other people talk about it in these forums, blogs, that one time I took a class on English literature and they told me to read a book, etc. I'm not sure what your point is, though. That you are a man with independent ideas arguing against the automatons of mass media? I mean, I guess, but dismissal of people's concerns about sexism isn't some niche idea. Everywhere you can find people espousing the view that it's no big deal. Is the idea here that people who don't care about this arrived at their views completely independently? They never heard anyone say "c'mon, they're just comic books. For a bit of fun"?
How convenient it is, when our ideas are not only the correct ones, but also completely independent. Arrived at after careful thought and deliberation. Not like those dingbats who read about it in some blog.
I mean, for the most part I share the idea that such things should be left alone as "just a bit of fun". No good, in my mind, ever came of a crusade against artistic content certain groups feel are morally objectionable or harmful.
Comic books and pulp of their ilk are simply there for "a bit of fun", the trouble is in taking them to be more than that in any respect.
I don't do much questioning why people read the things they do. I read some incredibly weird and different things, for all kinds of reasons; I'm in no position to judge. But I'm not going to pretend that I arrived at my broad opinions on the media I consume as a unique snowflake, who never saw anything like the opinions I hold before I adopted them as my own.
You do not think people are influenced by the ideas their culture teaches them?
Of course culture influences people, but higher culture influences them more. Expose a person to a world of culture, and you'll find they can cherry pick the best fruits over the most abundant ones as well as anybody.
The thing is that the idea that comic books are harmful also comes directly from the media, which has a vested interest in stoking the fires of gender war (since controversy and outrage = clicks.)
So yeah, I'll agree that the media can affect people, quite a lot. But the 24/7 outrage machine seems to be about 100 times better at getting inside people's heads than niche picture books about superheroes.
The stuff happens 24/7. People don't keep all of their discrimination to a specified holiday, so action against it isn't going to be either.
Is 'action' in this case synonymous with 'talking about these problems in the media'?
It seems to me that the primary beneficiary of that action is not women, but the media.
Why does it seem that way to you? Which media? Is CNN talking about Wonder Woman's impossible skeleton?
How did you hear that comics are doing these bad things to society? Or did you come up with the idea independently?
My awareness of it has definitely been heightened by reading other people talk about it in these forums, blogs, that one time I took a class on English literature and they told me to read a book, etc. I'm not sure what your point is, though. That you are a man with independent ideas arguing against the automatons of mass media? I mean, I guess, but dismissal of people's concerns about sexism isn't some niche idea. Everywhere you can find people espousing the view that it's no big deal. Is the idea here that people who don't care about this arrived at their views completely independently? They never heard anyone say "c'mon, they're just comic books. For a bit of fun"?
How convenient it is, when our ideas are not only the correct ones, but also completely independent. Arrived at after careful thought and deliberation. Not like those dingbats who read about it in some blog.
I mean, for the most part I share the idea that such things should be left alone as "just a bit of fun". No good, in my mind, ever came of a crusade against artistic content certain groups feel are morally objectionable or harmful.
Comic books and pulp of their ilk are simply there for "a bit of fun", the trouble is in taking them to be more than that in any respect.
Somehow, I don't see Maus being "a bit of fun." Despite what you think, comics are a form of art and culture, and as such are open to legitimate analysis and criticism. Frankly, it's your position that is the more harmful one, as you seek to ghettoize comics into triviality in the name of "saving" them.
l
I'm not ghettoizing anything. Personally I've never seen any good come from one group or another attempting to suppress art they find objectionable, be it the Catholic Church or feminists on the internet. I'm just generally against analysis and criticism used as a cover for making things you dislike go away.
There is a huge difference between suppressing art (as in: "comic books are the devil, ban them from our communities!") and calling art out for it's flaws (which is what is happening here). Look at comic books with a critical lens is a useful and interesting exercise. Making more widespread the lack of sense in body types throughout comic books as a whole is a useful and worthwhile discussion. There is no such thing a "bit of bun" art or other throw-away terms.
The Dragonlance books were something I would say were "trash fiction" back in the 90s, harmless fun that wouldn't ever make for a solid peer reviewed critique. But at the same time TSR and TOR were producing a lot of books, and I (and others) read a lot of them. They were filled with horrible stereotypes (from "empowered" women never passing a bechdel test to racist tendencies in how ethnicity was depicted, and worse). Yes, they werent high-culture things but when an entire generation of young men were reading them during their formative years problems begin to emerge.
No medium should be void of criticism on it's content. All media consumes affects our lives and tints our perception of the world, even subtlely.
So what's your conclusion here? Pulp exists for a reason. If you believe pulp to be harmful (I disagree but whatevs for the hypothetical) than where do you go from there? Where is this line of thought taking you? Because I assure you that there always has been some form of pulp, most likely always will be. Folks will always find it attractive for reasons you can't suppress or condition out of a culture, because it changes to suit the culture.
I'm not saying pulp is bad or harmful, only that tropes in pulp should be taken just as seriously as tropes in any other media. The post was in response to the idea that pulp somehow is above criticism as being "a bit of fun" and not worth reviewing and not remarkable upon impact. Which is really not true at all. If anything, pulp is typically more impactful as more people casually consume it without critical thought compared to other forms of media perceived to have "higher" cultural value.
Pulp should be viewed with a critical eye as well as anything else. Everyone should be an educated and aware consumer of media. There is a ton of good in pulp as well, from offering an affordable escape from reality for those who need it to typically emphasizing themes of good, honest characters triumphing over self-serving destructive ones. There are neutral and problematic areas as well beyond racism and sexism (the need for violence and killing as the universal solution, for example), but pulp is a mixed bag. Identifying why it is mixed is important for being a self-actualized person.
Engaging pulp with a critical eye gets you.... somewhere, but not really where you're supposed to go. You can deconstruct the fuck out of something like Sin City, but if you're reading Sin City to make yourself a more self-actualized person or are relying on it to inform you on how to live your life you might just be barking up the wrong tree.
This also addresses the post asking me why I'm calling all comics pulp. Really I'm not, but there is a lot of pulp there and a lot of what gets raged at does seem to me to fall under the category of good harmless fun, stuff that melts under the harsh light of fierce dissection but is, in the moment, distraction and joy. I'm honestly less concerned about this than I am the focus at stories and tropes at large, but this is odd to me. Cathartic and escspist media will always exist, I'm not worried about feminism squashing the fun out of it, but treating it deadly serious like we are is kinda ironic, no?
What about a piece of work like, say, The Human Centipede? Is it okay to get distraction and joy from such a wretched movie conceit, or is it okay to be disgusted at the concept?
Is it good harmless fun, or is it worrisome in some way?
You can like it or hate it, but the choice to watch it is yours. I don't think we really get to judge peoples tastes that way, on all spectrums up to the legal line. Some people are disgusted and outraged at BDSM, but they don't get to decide if I watch that sort of porn or engage in that sort of activity. I'd think a forum so on board with alternative lifestyles and interests would be less quick to jump on the whole "X causes harm and outrages/disgusts me and thus is wrong" bandwagon, or at least see how easy it is to confise things you dislike with things that cause harm.
The thing is that the idea that comic books are harmful also comes directly from the media, which has a vested interest in stoking the fires of gender war (since controversy and outrage = clicks.)
So yeah, I'll agree that the media can affect people, quite a lot. But the 24/7 outrage machine seems to be about 100 times better at getting inside people's heads than niche picture books about superheroes.
The stuff happens 24/7. People don't keep all of their discrimination to a specified holiday, so action against it isn't going to be either.
Is 'action' in this case synonymous with 'talking about these problems in the media'?
It seems to me that the primary beneficiary of that action is not women, but the media.
Why does it seem that way to you? Which media? Is CNN talking about Wonder Woman's impossible skeleton?
How did you hear that comics are doing these bad things to society? Or did you come up with the idea independently?
My awareness of it has definitely been heightened by reading other people talk about it in these forums, blogs, that one time I took a class on English literature and they told me to read a book, etc. I'm not sure what your point is, though. That you are a man with independent ideas arguing against the automatons of mass media? I mean, I guess, but dismissal of people's concerns about sexism isn't some niche idea. Everywhere you can find people espousing the view that it's no big deal. Is the idea here that people who don't care about this arrived at their views completely independently? They never heard anyone say "c'mon, they're just comic books. For a bit of fun"?
How convenient it is, when our ideas are not only the correct ones, but also completely independent. Arrived at after careful thought and deliberation. Not like those dingbats who read about it in some blog.
I mean, for the most part I share the idea that such things should be left alone as "just a bit of fun". No good, in my mind, ever came of a crusade against artistic content certain groups feel are morally objectionable or harmful.
Comic books and pulp of their ilk are simply there for "a bit of fun", the trouble is in taking them to be more than that in any respect.
I don't do much questioning why people read the things they do. I read some incredibly weird and different things, for all kinds of reasons; I'm in no position to judge. But I'm not going to pretend that I arrived at my broad opinions on the media I consume as a unique snowflake, who never saw anything like the opinions I hold before I adopted them as my own.
You do not think people are influenced by the ideas their culture teaches them?
Of course culture influences people, but higher culture influences them more. Expose a person to a world of culture, and you'll find they can cherry pick the best fruits over the most abundant ones as well as anybody.
The thing is that the idea that comic books are harmful also comes directly from the media, which has a vested interest in stoking the fires of gender war (since controversy and outrage = clicks.)
So yeah, I'll agree that the media can affect people, quite a lot. But the 24/7 outrage machine seems to be about 100 times better at getting inside people's heads than niche picture books about superheroes.
The stuff happens 24/7. People don't keep all of their discrimination to a specified holiday, so action against it isn't going to be either.
Is 'action' in this case synonymous with 'talking about these problems in the media'?
It seems to me that the primary beneficiary of that action is not women, but the media.
Why does it seem that way to you? Which media? Is CNN talking about Wonder Woman's impossible skeleton?
How did you hear that comics are doing these bad things to society? Or did you come up with the idea independently?
My awareness of it has definitely been heightened by reading other people talk about it in these forums, blogs, that one time I took a class on English literature and they told me to read a book, etc. I'm not sure what your point is, though. That you are a man with independent ideas arguing against the automatons of mass media? I mean, I guess, but dismissal of people's concerns about sexism isn't some niche idea. Everywhere you can find people espousing the view that it's no big deal. Is the idea here that people who don't care about this arrived at their views completely independently? They never heard anyone say "c'mon, they're just comic books. For a bit of fun"?
How convenient it is, when our ideas are not only the correct ones, but also completely independent. Arrived at after careful thought and deliberation. Not like those dingbats who read about it in some blog.
I mean, for the most part I share the idea that such things should be left alone as "just a bit of fun". No good, in my mind, ever came of a crusade against artistic content certain groups feel are morally objectionable or harmful.
Comic books and pulp of their ilk are simply there for "a bit of fun", the trouble is in taking them to be more than that in any respect.
Somehow, I don't see Maus being "a bit of fun." Despite what you think, comics are a form of art and culture, and as such are open to legitimate analysis and criticism. Frankly, it's your position that is the more harmful one, as you seek to ghettoize comics into triviality in the name of "saving" them.
l
I'm not ghettoizing anything. Personally I've never seen any good come from one group or another attempting to suppress art they find objectionable, be it the Catholic Church or feminists on the internet. I'm just generally against analysis and criticism used as a cover for making things you dislike go away.
There is a huge difference between suppressing art (as in: "comic books are the devil, ban them from our communities!") and calling art out for it's flaws (which is what is happening here). Look at comic books with a critical lens is a useful and interesting exercise. Making more widespread the lack of sense in body types throughout comic books as a whole is a useful and worthwhile discussion. There is no such thing a "bit of bun" art or other throw-away terms.
The Dragonlance books were something I would say were "trash fiction" back in the 90s, harmless fun that wouldn't ever make for a solid peer reviewed critique. But at the same time TSR and TOR were producing a lot of books, and I (and others) read a lot of them. They were filled with horrible stereotypes (from "empowered" women never passing a bechdel test to racist tendencies in how ethnicity was depicted, and worse). Yes, they werent high-culture things but when an entire generation of young men were reading them during their formative years problems begin to emerge.
No medium should be void of criticism on it's content. All media consumes affects our lives and tints our perception of the world, even subtlely.
So what's your conclusion here? Pulp exists for a reason. If you believe pulp to be harmful (I disagree but whatevs for the hypothetical) than where do you go from there? Where is this line of thought taking you? Because I assure you that there always has been some form of pulp, most likely always will be. Folks will always find it attractive for reasons you can't suppress or condition out of a culture, because it changes to suit the culture.
I'm not saying pulp is bad or harmful, only that tropes in pulp should be taken just as seriously as tropes in any other media. The post was in response to the idea that pulp somehow is above criticism as being "a bit of fun" and not worth reviewing and not remarkable upon impact. Which is really not true at all. If anything, pulp is typically more impactful as more people casually consume it without critical thought compared to other forms of media perceived to have "higher" cultural value.
Pulp should be viewed with a critical eye as well as anything else. Everyone should be an educated and aware consumer of media. There is a ton of good in pulp as well, from offering an affordable escape from reality for those who need it to typically emphasizing themes of good, honest characters triumphing over self-serving destructive ones. There are neutral and problematic areas as well beyond racism and sexism (the need for violence and killing as the universal solution, for example), but pulp is a mixed bag. Identifying why it is mixed is important for being a self-actualized person.
Engaging pulp with a critical eye gets you.... somewhere, but not really where you're supposed to go. You can deconstruct the fuck out of something like Sin City, but if you're reading Sin City to make yourself a more self-actualized person or are relying on it to inform you on how to live your life you might just be barking up the wrong tree.
This also addresses the post asking me why I'm calling all comics pulp. Really I'm not, but there is a lot of pulp there and a lot of what gets raged at does seem to me to fall under the category of good harmless fun, stuff that melts under the harsh light of fierce dissection but is, in the moment, distraction and joy. I'm honestly less concerned about this than I am the focus at stories and tropes at large, but this is odd to me. Cathartic and escspist media will always exist, I'm not worried about feminism squashing the fun out of it, but treating it deadly serious like we are is kinda ironic, no?
Maybe other people are doing so, but when I say "critical eye" I don't mean going in to deconstructionism or dismantling something that is fun. That is something professional critics do, but not the common viewer. Being aware with a critical eye is understanding that "Hey, Sin City is really violent and while this is entertaining I should be aware that this is not positive patterned behavior." It is watching something like a Michael Bay film and thinking "I really enjoy giant robots breaking stuff, but maybe there should be more to something like this than just giant robots and half naked Megan Fox." It is watching the film and recognizing what it is doing in addition to just enjoying the ride.
Arguing that you aren't supposed to look critically at pulp just because "it's not meant for it" is like saying you aren't supposed to know the calorie count of a Big Mac because you don't eat it to be healthy. Of course you don't! But that doesn't mean you shouldn't know just how bad for you it can be when you make the choice to eat one.
Going back to comics, feminism isn't trying to slash the fun out of your experience, only to point out that what you are considering fun may have more levels and may not be as harmless as you think. If Wonder Woman were depicted as a strong, muscular woman with a pear shaped body, but still went on the same zany, action-packed adventures would your fun be lessened? Hopefully no! You are along for the ride for "good harmless fun" right? So why shouldn't she look like that? Or be any number of other body types?
If her being an hourglass waif is requisite for your "good harmless fun" then perhaps it isn't harmless at all.
Cathartic and escapist doesn't mean negative body image or ridiculous violence. Those things are fine to have here and there, just like a Big Mac, but when every meal is a Big Mac you die of diabetes or heart disease. When every comic is one, in the same fashion problems are evident.
Well personally I'm still of the mind that attempts at "showing harm" are lacking in many respects, so that particular argument won't go too far with me. I'm also not friendly to the idea of any artistic media being suppressed on moral grounds.
I think I need a longer post to address a bunch of stuf, but on my phone at work won't cut it. In the words of that lovy robot, I'll be back.
Channeling Zoidberg and telling someone "your art is bad and you should feel bad" is not, and will never be suppression.
Talking about art as harmful and seeking ways to eliminate said harm falls under the umbrella for me with room to spare.
That these trends don't seem problematic to a lot of people, and that they're generally not given a lot of thought, is kind of the point.
Most sexism doesn't happen because someone decides "I'm going to say/do something sexist!". It's usually a lack of realization.
A good way of stating this that I've seen is that, rather than say 'this person is sexist', the discussion should focus on 'this particular thing a person said/did is sexist'. It's very possible that someone who is generally a good, thoughtful person, could still say or do something sexist, likely because they don't realize that it is. It's perfectly alright to bring this to their attention. A lot of the times, more awareness goes a long way.
No one is saying "you can't create media with 'such and such' content in it". What's being said is "maybe we should put more thought into media that's being put out there, and try to make it less toxic for a substantial portion of the population".
There is no censorship here. Criticism and analysis is part of the whole free speech thing.
When someone says "There's a trend in a lot of this media that I find hurtful", replying with "Well it's just dumb fun, get over it" suggests that the person's views are unimportant. It's marginalizing someone who has already been marginalized. No one is blaming you if you simply haven't considered a certain perspective before. It's not a personal attack on you. It's also completely possible to enjoy a piece of media while recognizing that some of its content is problematic.
No one is trying to take your comics/games etc away. They just want you to consider that there are a lot of trends in media that they find incredibly toxic.
I guess I didn't write the reply I did early, but this post is a great example of the issue. The words "problematic" and "toxic" are thrown around a lot, without ever actually quantifying them. "Toxic" is not being used quite literally, but when it is, we have LD50 values for a reason, so we can conclude that arsenic (say, Arsenic pentoxide to be specific) is more toxic than water. Similarly, "problematic" is thrown around a lot without actually quantifying the exact scope and magnitude of the problems.
Literary critique is dangerously unmoored from any sort of actual obligation to have evidence. If you want to claim comics do have an undue influence, show it with data, particularly the strongest effects and longest terms.
I'm willing to be open to the idea, but as of right now, there is not a strong, evidence supported consensus that fictional works written and consumed for entertainment rather than deliberate political or propaganda reasons (i.e. Atlus Shrugged), have a meaningful negative effect on society as a whole.
We've been to this rodeo many times before, and I think it's not coincidence that, having failed to convince people that media is going to turn everyone into serial murderers when if anything, the opposite is true, we've moved on to another avenue, which is far harder to refute. It's no coincidence that, the obvious lack of Satanic conspiracies or body counts having scuttled previous efforts in the past, the best those who enjoy attacking media have to offer is vague claims of penumbra influences, like the post last page which suggests sexist media is not making sexism worse, but merely slowing it from getting better as fast as hypothetically possible. That's an impressively vague and difficult to refute claim.
Literally all of media backs this position with basic, casual observation.
I'm willing to be open to the idea, but as of right now, there is not a strong, evidence supported consensus that fictional works written and consumed for entertainment rather than deliberate political or propaganda reasons (i.e. Atlus Shrugged), have a meaningful negative effect on society as a whole.
It shows the position of women being positively affected when the population as a whole was exposed to more positive media.
And you singled out comics specifically again despite, as far as I know, everyone else talking about media in general.
It's an interesting point, but it's neither an overwhelming consensus, nor is it precisely applicable here. Going from being barbarians to part of the modern world is less than directly applicable to, to use a non-comic example, female RPG characters wearing bikini armor (which is terrible and people who like it should feel bad. If you're going to use eye candy, at the very least justify it in universe, you sexist hack fucks),
It's also worth noting that media may have likely contained a substantial amount of the sexist tropes mentioned in this thread.
You can like it or hate it, but the choice to watch it is yours. I don't think we really get to judge peoples tastes that way, on all spectrums up to the legal line. Some people are disgusted and outraged at BDSM, but they don't get to decide if I watch that sort of porn or engage in that sort of activity. I'd think a forum so on board with alternative lifestyles and interests would be less quick to jump on the whole "X causes harm and outrages/disgusts me and thus is wrong" bandwagon, or at least see how easy it is to confise things you dislike with things that cause harm.
Being inclusive has limits. Media with sexism and racism that's encouraged in art forms isn't one of them.
The thing is that the idea that comic books are harmful also comes directly from the media, which has a vested interest in stoking the fires of gender war (since controversy and outrage = clicks.)
So yeah, I'll agree that the media can affect people, quite a lot. But the 24/7 outrage machine seems to be about 100 times better at getting inside people's heads than niche picture books about superheroes.
The stuff happens 24/7. People don't keep all of their discrimination to a specified holiday, so action against it isn't going to be either.
Is 'action' in this case synonymous with 'talking about these problems in the media'?
It seems to me that the primary beneficiary of that action is not women, but the media.
Why does it seem that way to you? Which media? Is CNN talking about Wonder Woman's impossible skeleton?
How did you hear that comics are doing these bad things to society? Or did you come up with the idea independently?
My awareness of it has definitely been heightened by reading other people talk about it in these forums, blogs, that one time I took a class on English literature and they told me to read a book, etc. I'm not sure what your point is, though. That you are a man with independent ideas arguing against the automatons of mass media? I mean, I guess, but dismissal of people's concerns about sexism isn't some niche idea. Everywhere you can find people espousing the view that it's no big deal. Is the idea here that people who don't care about this arrived at their views completely independently? They never heard anyone say "c'mon, they're just comic books. For a bit of fun"?
How convenient it is, when our ideas are not only the correct ones, but also completely independent. Arrived at after careful thought and deliberation. Not like those dingbats who read about it in some blog.
I mean, for the most part I share the idea that such things should be left alone as "just a bit of fun". No good, in my mind, ever came of a crusade against artistic content certain groups feel are morally objectionable or harmful.
Comic books and pulp of their ilk are simply there for "a bit of fun", the trouble is in taking them to be more than that in any respect.
I don't do much questioning why people read the things they do. I read some incredibly weird and different things, for all kinds of reasons; I'm in no position to judge. But I'm not going to pretend that I arrived at my broad opinions on the media I consume as a unique snowflake, who never saw anything like the opinions I hold before I adopted them as my own.
You do not think people are influenced by the ideas their culture teaches them?
Of course culture influences people, but higher culture influences them more. Expose a person to a world of culture, and you'll find they can cherry pick the best fruits over the most abundant ones as well as anybody.
The thing is that the idea that comic books are harmful also comes directly from the media, which has a vested interest in stoking the fires of gender war (since controversy and outrage = clicks.)
So yeah, I'll agree that the media can affect people, quite a lot. But the 24/7 outrage machine seems to be about 100 times better at getting inside people's heads than niche picture books about superheroes.
The stuff happens 24/7. People don't keep all of their discrimination to a specified holiday, so action against it isn't going to be either.
Is 'action' in this case synonymous with 'talking about these problems in the media'?
It seems to me that the primary beneficiary of that action is not women, but the media.
Why does it seem that way to you? Which media? Is CNN talking about Wonder Woman's impossible skeleton?
How did you hear that comics are doing these bad things to society? Or did you come up with the idea independently?
My awareness of it has definitely been heightened by reading other people talk about it in these forums, blogs, that one time I took a class on English literature and they told me to read a book, etc. I'm not sure what your point is, though. That you are a man with independent ideas arguing against the automatons of mass media? I mean, I guess, but dismissal of people's concerns about sexism isn't some niche idea. Everywhere you can find people espousing the view that it's no big deal. Is the idea here that people who don't care about this arrived at their views completely independently? They never heard anyone say "c'mon, they're just comic books. For a bit of fun"?
How convenient it is, when our ideas are not only the correct ones, but also completely independent. Arrived at after careful thought and deliberation. Not like those dingbats who read about it in some blog.
I mean, for the most part I share the idea that such things should be left alone as "just a bit of fun". No good, in my mind, ever came of a crusade against artistic content certain groups feel are morally objectionable or harmful.
Comic books and pulp of their ilk are simply there for "a bit of fun", the trouble is in taking them to be more than that in any respect.
Somehow, I don't see Maus being "a bit of fun." Despite what you think, comics are a form of art and culture, and as such are open to legitimate analysis and criticism. Frankly, it's your position that is the more harmful one, as you seek to ghettoize comics into triviality in the name of "saving" them.
l
I'm not ghettoizing anything. Personally I've never seen any good come from one group or another attempting to suppress art they find objectionable, be it the Catholic Church or feminists on the internet. I'm just generally against analysis and criticism used as a cover for making things you dislike go away.
There is a huge difference between suppressing art (as in: "comic books are the devil, ban them from our communities!") and calling art out for it's flaws (which is what is happening here). Look at comic books with a critical lens is a useful and interesting exercise. Making more widespread the lack of sense in body types throughout comic books as a whole is a useful and worthwhile discussion. There is no such thing a "bit of bun" art or other throw-away terms.
The Dragonlance books were something I would say were "trash fiction" back in the 90s, harmless fun that wouldn't ever make for a solid peer reviewed critique. But at the same time TSR and TOR were producing a lot of books, and I (and others) read a lot of them. They were filled with horrible stereotypes (from "empowered" women never passing a bechdel test to racist tendencies in how ethnicity was depicted, and worse). Yes, they werent high-culture things but when an entire generation of young men were reading them during their formative years problems begin to emerge.
No medium should be void of criticism on it's content. All media consumes affects our lives and tints our perception of the world, even subtlely.
So what's your conclusion here? Pulp exists for a reason. If you believe pulp to be harmful (I disagree but whatevs for the hypothetical) than where do you go from there? Where is this line of thought taking you? Because I assure you that there always has been some form of pulp, most likely always will be. Folks will always find it attractive for reasons you can't suppress or condition out of a culture, because it changes to suit the culture.
I'm not saying pulp is bad or harmful, only that tropes in pulp should be taken just as seriously as tropes in any other media. The post was in response to the idea that pulp somehow is above criticism as being "a bit of fun" and not worth reviewing and not remarkable upon impact. Which is really not true at all. If anything, pulp is typically more impactful as more people casually consume it without critical thought compared to other forms of media perceived to have "higher" cultural value.
Pulp should be viewed with a critical eye as well as anything else. Everyone should be an educated and aware consumer of media. There is a ton of good in pulp as well, from offering an affordable escape from reality for those who need it to typically emphasizing themes of good, honest characters triumphing over self-serving destructive ones. There are neutral and problematic areas as well beyond racism and sexism (the need for violence and killing as the universal solution, for example), but pulp is a mixed bag. Identifying why it is mixed is important for being a self-actualized person.
Engaging pulp with a critical eye gets you.... somewhere, but not really where you're supposed to go. You can deconstruct the fuck out of something like Sin City, but if you're reading Sin City to make yourself a more self-actualized person or are relying on it to inform you on how to live your life you might just be barking up the wrong tree.
This also addresses the post asking me why I'm calling all comics pulp. Really I'm not, but there is a lot of pulp there and a lot of what gets raged at does seem to me to fall under the category of good harmless fun, stuff that melts under the harsh light of fierce dissection but is, in the moment, distraction and joy. I'm honestly less concerned about this than I am the focus at stories and tropes at large, but this is odd to me. Cathartic and escspist media will always exist, I'm not worried about feminism squashing the fun out of it, but treating it deadly serious like we are is kinda ironic, no?
What about a piece of work like, say, The Human Centipede? Is it okay to get distraction and joy from such a wretched movie conceit, or is it okay to be disgusted at the concept?
Is it good harmless fun, or is it worrisome in some way?
You can like it or hate it, but the choice to watch it is yours. I don't think we really get to judge peoples tastes that way, on all spectrums up to the legal line. Some people are disgusted and outraged at BDSM, but they don't get to decide if I watch that sort of porn or engage in that sort of activity. I'd think a forum so on board with alternative lifestyles and interests would be less quick to jump on the whole "X causes harm and outrages/disgusts me and thus is wrong" bandwagon, or at least see how easy it is to confise things you dislike with things that cause harm.
BDSM is entirely consensual, though.
If someone's fetish was girls under the statutory age and only watched porn geared towards that, whether it involved the actual exploitation of girls that age or finding girls who just turned 18 and dressing them up to look younger, I would call that unhealthy, for example.
But completely consensual BDSM porn? I don't see the harm.
You're right, the choice to watch is yours. All of it. Which means that you have to accept what that choice says to other people.
And, since you brought it up, the attitude you describe actually causes a lot of problems in kink, because it's used too often to cover up actual abuse.
they don't get to decide if I watch that sort of porn or engage in that sort of activity.
No one has suggested this happen at any point in this thread.
We've talked about demonstrating harm and working to eliminate said harm. If the point isn't to get rid of or change the things you find harmful, than what are you getting at?
0
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
The thing is that the idea that comic books are harmful also comes directly from the media, which has a vested interest in stoking the fires of gender war (since controversy and outrage = clicks.)
So yeah, I'll agree that the media can affect people, quite a lot. But the 24/7 outrage machine seems to be about 100 times better at getting inside people's heads than niche picture books about superheroes.
The stuff happens 24/7. People don't keep all of their discrimination to a specified holiday, so action against it isn't going to be either.
Is 'action' in this case synonymous with 'talking about these problems in the media'?
It seems to me that the primary beneficiary of that action is not women, but the media.
Why does it seem that way to you? Which media? Is CNN talking about Wonder Woman's impossible skeleton?
How did you hear that comics are doing these bad things to society? Or did you come up with the idea independently?
My awareness of it has definitely been heightened by reading other people talk about it in these forums, blogs, that one time I took a class on English literature and they told me to read a book, etc. I'm not sure what your point is, though. That you are a man with independent ideas arguing against the automatons of mass media? I mean, I guess, but dismissal of people's concerns about sexism isn't some niche idea. Everywhere you can find people espousing the view that it's no big deal. Is the idea here that people who don't care about this arrived at their views completely independently? They never heard anyone say "c'mon, they're just comic books. For a bit of fun"?
How convenient it is, when our ideas are not only the correct ones, but also completely independent. Arrived at after careful thought and deliberation. Not like those dingbats who read about it in some blog.
I mean, for the most part I share the idea that such things should be left alone as "just a bit of fun". No good, in my mind, ever came of a crusade against artistic content certain groups feel are morally objectionable or harmful.
Comic books and pulp of their ilk are simply there for "a bit of fun", the trouble is in taking them to be more than that in any respect.
I don't do much questioning why people read the things they do. I read some incredibly weird and different things, for all kinds of reasons; I'm in no position to judge. But I'm not going to pretend that I arrived at my broad opinions on the media I consume as a unique snowflake, who never saw anything like the opinions I hold before I adopted them as my own.
You do not think people are influenced by the ideas their culture teaches them?
Of course culture influences people, but higher culture influences them more. Expose a person to a world of culture, and you'll find they can cherry pick the best fruits over the most abundant ones as well as anybody.
The thing is that the idea that comic books are harmful also comes directly from the media, which has a vested interest in stoking the fires of gender war (since controversy and outrage = clicks.)
So yeah, I'll agree that the media can affect people, quite a lot. But the 24/7 outrage machine seems to be about 100 times better at getting inside people's heads than niche picture books about superheroes.
The stuff happens 24/7. People don't keep all of their discrimination to a specified holiday, so action against it isn't going to be either.
Is 'action' in this case synonymous with 'talking about these problems in the media'?
It seems to me that the primary beneficiary of that action is not women, but the media.
Why does it seem that way to you? Which media? Is CNN talking about Wonder Woman's impossible skeleton?
How did you hear that comics are doing these bad things to society? Or did you come up with the idea independently?
My awareness of it has definitely been heightened by reading other people talk about it in these forums, blogs, that one time I took a class on English literature and they told me to read a book, etc. I'm not sure what your point is, though. That you are a man with independent ideas arguing against the automatons of mass media? I mean, I guess, but dismissal of people's concerns about sexism isn't some niche idea. Everywhere you can find people espousing the view that it's no big deal. Is the idea here that people who don't care about this arrived at their views completely independently? They never heard anyone say "c'mon, they're just comic books. For a bit of fun"?
How convenient it is, when our ideas are not only the correct ones, but also completely independent. Arrived at after careful thought and deliberation. Not like those dingbats who read about it in some blog.
I mean, for the most part I share the idea that such things should be left alone as "just a bit of fun". No good, in my mind, ever came of a crusade against artistic content certain groups feel are morally objectionable or harmful.
Comic books and pulp of their ilk are simply there for "a bit of fun", the trouble is in taking them to be more than that in any respect.
Somehow, I don't see Maus being "a bit of fun." Despite what you think, comics are a form of art and culture, and as such are open to legitimate analysis and criticism. Frankly, it's your position that is the more harmful one, as you seek to ghettoize comics into triviality in the name of "saving" them.
l
I'm not ghettoizing anything. Personally I've never seen any good come from one group or another attempting to suppress art they find objectionable, be it the Catholic Church or feminists on the internet. I'm just generally against analysis and criticism used as a cover for making things you dislike go away.
There is a huge difference between suppressing art (as in: "comic books are the devil, ban them from our communities!") and calling art out for it's flaws (which is what is happening here). Look at comic books with a critical lens is a useful and interesting exercise. Making more widespread the lack of sense in body types throughout comic books as a whole is a useful and worthwhile discussion. There is no such thing a "bit of bun" art or other throw-away terms.
The Dragonlance books were something I would say were "trash fiction" back in the 90s, harmless fun that wouldn't ever make for a solid peer reviewed critique. But at the same time TSR and TOR were producing a lot of books, and I (and others) read a lot of them. They were filled with horrible stereotypes (from "empowered" women never passing a bechdel test to racist tendencies in how ethnicity was depicted, and worse). Yes, they werent high-culture things but when an entire generation of young men were reading them during their formative years problems begin to emerge.
No medium should be void of criticism on it's content. All media consumes affects our lives and tints our perception of the world, even subtlely.
So what's your conclusion here? Pulp exists for a reason. If you believe pulp to be harmful (I disagree but whatevs for the hypothetical) than where do you go from there? Where is this line of thought taking you? Because I assure you that there always has been some form of pulp, most likely always will be. Folks will always find it attractive for reasons you can't suppress or condition out of a culture, because it changes to suit the culture.
I'm not saying pulp is bad or harmful, only that tropes in pulp should be taken just as seriously as tropes in any other media. The post was in response to the idea that pulp somehow is above criticism as being "a bit of fun" and not worth reviewing and not remarkable upon impact. Which is really not true at all. If anything, pulp is typically more impactful as more people casually consume it without critical thought compared to other forms of media perceived to have "higher" cultural value.
Pulp should be viewed with a critical eye as well as anything else. Everyone should be an educated and aware consumer of media. There is a ton of good in pulp as well, from offering an affordable escape from reality for those who need it to typically emphasizing themes of good, honest characters triumphing over self-serving destructive ones. There are neutral and problematic areas as well beyond racism and sexism (the need for violence and killing as the universal solution, for example), but pulp is a mixed bag. Identifying why it is mixed is important for being a self-actualized person.
Engaging pulp with a critical eye gets you.... somewhere, but not really where you're supposed to go. You can deconstruct the fuck out of something like Sin City, but if you're reading Sin City to make yourself a more self-actualized person or are relying on it to inform you on how to live your life you might just be barking up the wrong tree.
This also addresses the post asking me why I'm calling all comics pulp. Really I'm not, but there is a lot of pulp there and a lot of what gets raged at does seem to me to fall under the category of good harmless fun, stuff that melts under the harsh light of fierce dissection but is, in the moment, distraction and joy. I'm honestly less concerned about this than I am the focus at stories and tropes at large, but this is odd to me. Cathartic and escspist media will always exist, I'm not worried about feminism squashing the fun out of it, but treating it deadly serious like we are is kinda ironic, no?
Maybe other people are doing so, but when I say "critical eye" I don't mean going in to deconstructionism or dismantling something that is fun. That is something professional critics do, but not the common viewer. Being aware with a critical eye is understanding that "Hey, Sin City is really violent and while this is entertaining I should be aware that this is not positive patterned behavior." It is watching something like a Michael Bay film and thinking "I really enjoy giant robots breaking stuff, but maybe there should be more to something like this than just giant robots and half naked Megan Fox." It is watching the film and recognizing what it is doing in addition to just enjoying the ride.
Arguing that you aren't supposed to look critically at pulp just because "it's not meant for it" is like saying you aren't supposed to know the calorie count of a Big Mac because you don't eat it to be healthy. Of course you don't! But that doesn't mean you shouldn't know just how bad for you it can be when you make the choice to eat one.
Going back to comics, feminism isn't trying to slash the fun out of your experience, only to point out that what you are considering fun may have more levels and may not be as harmless as you think. If Wonder Woman were depicted as a strong, muscular woman with a pear shaped body, but still went on the same zany, action-packed adventures would your fun be lessened? Hopefully no! You are along for the ride for "good harmless fun" right? So why shouldn't she look like that? Or be any number of other body types?
If her being an hourglass waif is requisite for your "good harmless fun" then perhaps it isn't harmless at all.
Cathartic and escapist doesn't mean negative body image or ridiculous violence. Those things are fine to have here and there, just like a Big Mac, but when every meal is a Big Mac you die of diabetes or heart disease. When every comic is one, in the same fashion problems are evident.
Well personally I'm still of the mind that attempts at "showing harm" are lacking in many respects, so that particular argument won't go too far with me. I'm also not friendly to the idea of any artistic media being suppressed on moral grounds.
I think I need a longer post to address a bunch of stuf, but on my phone at work won't cut it. In the words of that lovy robot, I'll be back.
No one is suppressing art on moral grounds. I haven't even used morality in any of my posts because honestly that is a shitty, loaded word that isn't useful for any degree of discussing. Recognizing that all women are being depicted as supermodels and saying "you can't make art" is not what anyone here is saying but you. Recognizing patterns isn't morality.
Another point here is regardless of how you perceive "harm," harm is occurring and people are noticing it. You remaining unconvinced is unfortunate and ultimately means this discussion isn't as useful has it could have been, but that doesn't change the reality of the thing. Harm doesn't have to be direct bodily. For example:
And my point is that, yes, we can decrease SM. Or, we can increase SQ. For some reason, that is a difficult idea for many of you to grasp.
We can decrease instances of Magical Pixie Dream Girls in media. Or we can mock and punish silly geese who get expect real women in the real world to act like Magical Pixie Dream Girls.
I like escapism in media.
So, let’s increase SQ, instead of decreasing SM.
This conversation really should not be this difficult.
You really, really didn't need the algebra to get to the point of "We discourage violence not through policing violent media but through discouraging violence legally and socially. Why not do the same for sexism?"
Anyway, your proposal lacks nuance. Do you lump all forms of sexism in media under "escapism"? Does this include the overall lack of representation for women as characters? Can we seek to fight certain kinds of sexism in media but not others? Can we do that and also at the same time work in the social sphere?
It also ignores that there is an upper limit to the amount of acceptable VQ and SQ. On the VQ front, there already exists a disturbing trend to criminalize legitimate self-defense(IE zero tolerance policies that suspend all kids in a fight regardless of how or why the fight started). We need to empower people to look out for people who are weaker or in need of help without just giving people a pass to just assume that all X are weaker and need protection. For example, I don't think all "White Knight" tendencies are necessarily sexist, but there is a distinct subset that is sexist. The problem is that at some point, the social squashing of sexist "White Knight" tendencies can leads us into a situation where no guy wants to help a woman in obvious need because of the fear of receiving social stigma.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Maybe if your idea of cathartic and escapist media is things where women are routinely objectified, exploited, and violently abused to no greater end or commentary, maybe you're a really, really awful person.
Probably worth remembering that in most of the games/comics, even if they depict women negatively, the player character/protagonist is not the one violently abusing them, and is often in a hero role that involves saving those women.
And while the situation of the women in those games/comic is problematic when it's the dominant theme, as a player narrative or a protagonist you're supposed to see as a role model, saving people is good and heroic, and yes, cathartic and escapist.
But cathartic escapist scenarios that reward heroism while still presenting a context of dangerous stereotypes aren't really all that much better; it's just patting yourself on the back for casting yourself as the "good guy" in those scenarios.
Flip it a different way and change the scenery: if you took escapist pleasure from playing games where your "hero" ran around rescuing kidnapped objectified women from African cannibals or Arab slave traders, is it still just as harmless?
It's an interesting point, but it's neither an overwhelming consensus, nor is it precisely applicable here. Going from being barbarians to part of the modern world is less than directly applicable to, to use a non-comic example, female RPG characters wearing bikini armor (which is terrible and people who like it should feel bad. If you're going to use eye candy, at the very least justify it in universe, you sexist hack fucks),
It's also worth noting that media may have likely contained a substantial amount of the sexist tropes mentioned in this thread.
No kindly keep your goalposts where they were. Media influences culture. Culture influences people. There is not some upper limit where this ceases to be true.
Also, calling Indians without cable TV barbarians is grossly insulting.
The thing is that the idea that comic books are harmful also comes directly from the media, which has a vested interest in stoking the fires of gender war (since controversy and outrage = clicks.)
So yeah, I'll agree that the media can affect people, quite a lot. But the 24/7 outrage machine seems to be about 100 times better at getting inside people's heads than niche picture books about superheroes.
The stuff happens 24/7. People don't keep all of their discrimination to a specified holiday, so action against it isn't going to be either.
Is 'action' in this case synonymous with 'talking about these problems in the media'?
It seems to me that the primary beneficiary of that action is not women, but the media.
Why does it seem that way to you? Which media? Is CNN talking about Wonder Woman's impossible skeleton?
How did you hear that comics are doing these bad things to society? Or did you come up with the idea independently?
My awareness of it has definitely been heightened by reading other people talk about it in these forums, blogs, that one time I took a class on English literature and they told me to read a book, etc. I'm not sure what your point is, though. That you are a man with independent ideas arguing against the automatons of mass media? I mean, I guess, but dismissal of people's concerns about sexism isn't some niche idea. Everywhere you can find people espousing the view that it's no big deal. Is the idea here that people who don't care about this arrived at their views completely independently? They never heard anyone say "c'mon, they're just comic books. For a bit of fun"?
How convenient it is, when our ideas are not only the correct ones, but also completely independent. Arrived at after careful thought and deliberation. Not like those dingbats who read about it in some blog.
I mean, for the most part I share the idea that such things should be left alone as "just a bit of fun". No good, in my mind, ever came of a crusade against artistic content certain groups feel are morally objectionable or harmful.
Comic books and pulp of their ilk are simply there for "a bit of fun", the trouble is in taking them to be more than that in any respect.
I don't do much questioning why people read the things they do. I read some incredibly weird and different things, for all kinds of reasons; I'm in no position to judge. But I'm not going to pretend that I arrived at my broad opinions on the media I consume as a unique snowflake, who never saw anything like the opinions I hold before I adopted them as my own.
You do not think people are influenced by the ideas their culture teaches them?
Of course culture influences people, but higher culture influences them more. Expose a person to a world of culture, and you'll find they can cherry pick the best fruits over the most abundant ones as well as anybody.
The thing is that the idea that comic books are harmful also comes directly from the media, which has a vested interest in stoking the fires of gender war (since controversy and outrage = clicks.)
So yeah, I'll agree that the media can affect people, quite a lot. But the 24/7 outrage machine seems to be about 100 times better at getting inside people's heads than niche picture books about superheroes.
The stuff happens 24/7. People don't keep all of their discrimination to a specified holiday, so action against it isn't going to be either.
Is 'action' in this case synonymous with 'talking about these problems in the media'?
It seems to me that the primary beneficiary of that action is not women, but the media.
Why does it seem that way to you? Which media? Is CNN talking about Wonder Woman's impossible skeleton?
How did you hear that comics are doing these bad things to society? Or did you come up with the idea independently?
My awareness of it has definitely been heightened by reading other people talk about it in these forums, blogs, that one time I took a class on English literature and they told me to read a book, etc. I'm not sure what your point is, though. That you are a man with independent ideas arguing against the automatons of mass media? I mean, I guess, but dismissal of people's concerns about sexism isn't some niche idea. Everywhere you can find people espousing the view that it's no big deal. Is the idea here that people who don't care about this arrived at their views completely independently? They never heard anyone say "c'mon, they're just comic books. For a bit of fun"?
How convenient it is, when our ideas are not only the correct ones, but also completely independent. Arrived at after careful thought and deliberation. Not like those dingbats who read about it in some blog.
I mean, for the most part I share the idea that such things should be left alone as "just a bit of fun". No good, in my mind, ever came of a crusade against artistic content certain groups feel are morally objectionable or harmful.
Comic books and pulp of their ilk are simply there for "a bit of fun", the trouble is in taking them to be more than that in any respect.
Somehow, I don't see Maus being "a bit of fun." Despite what you think, comics are a form of art and culture, and as such are open to legitimate analysis and criticism. Frankly, it's your position that is the more harmful one, as you seek to ghettoize comics into triviality in the name of "saving" them.
l
I'm not ghettoizing anything. Personally I've never seen any good come from one group or another attempting to suppress art they find objectionable, be it the Catholic Church or feminists on the internet. I'm just generally against analysis and criticism used as a cover for making things you dislike go away.
There is a huge difference between suppressing art (as in: "comic books are the devil, ban them from our communities!") and calling art out for it's flaws (which is what is happening here). Look at comic books with a critical lens is a useful and interesting exercise. Making more widespread the lack of sense in body types throughout comic books as a whole is a useful and worthwhile discussion. There is no such thing a "bit of bun" art or other throw-away terms.
The Dragonlance books were something I would say were "trash fiction" back in the 90s, harmless fun that wouldn't ever make for a solid peer reviewed critique. But at the same time TSR and TOR were producing a lot of books, and I (and others) read a lot of them. They were filled with horrible stereotypes (from "empowered" women never passing a bechdel test to racist tendencies in how ethnicity was depicted, and worse). Yes, they werent high-culture things but when an entire generation of young men were reading them during their formative years problems begin to emerge.
No medium should be void of criticism on it's content. All media consumes affects our lives and tints our perception of the world, even subtlely.
So what's your conclusion here? Pulp exists for a reason. If you believe pulp to be harmful (I disagree but whatevs for the hypothetical) than where do you go from there? Where is this line of thought taking you? Because I assure you that there always has been some form of pulp, most likely always will be. Folks will always find it attractive for reasons you can't suppress or condition out of a culture, because it changes to suit the culture.
I'm not saying pulp is bad or harmful, only that tropes in pulp should be taken just as seriously as tropes in any other media. The post was in response to the idea that pulp somehow is above criticism as being "a bit of fun" and not worth reviewing and not remarkable upon impact. Which is really not true at all. If anything, pulp is typically more impactful as more people casually consume it without critical thought compared to other forms of media perceived to have "higher" cultural value.
Pulp should be viewed with a critical eye as well as anything else. Everyone should be an educated and aware consumer of media. There is a ton of good in pulp as well, from offering an affordable escape from reality for those who need it to typically emphasizing themes of good, honest characters triumphing over self-serving destructive ones. There are neutral and problematic areas as well beyond racism and sexism (the need for violence and killing as the universal solution, for example), but pulp is a mixed bag. Identifying why it is mixed is important for being a self-actualized person.
Engaging pulp with a critical eye gets you.... somewhere, but not really where you're supposed to go. You can deconstruct the fuck out of something like Sin City, but if you're reading Sin City to make yourself a more self-actualized person or are relying on it to inform you on how to live your life you might just be barking up the wrong tree.
This also addresses the post asking me why I'm calling all comics pulp. Really I'm not, but there is a lot of pulp there and a lot of what gets raged at does seem to me to fall under the category of good harmless fun, stuff that melts under the harsh light of fierce dissection but is, in the moment, distraction and joy. I'm honestly less concerned about this than I am the focus at stories and tropes at large, but this is odd to me. Cathartic and escspist media will always exist, I'm not worried about feminism squashing the fun out of it, but treating it deadly serious like we are is kinda ironic, no?
Maybe other people are doing so, but when I say "critical eye" I don't mean going in to deconstructionism or dismantling something that is fun. That is something professional critics do, but not the common viewer. Being aware with a critical eye is understanding that "Hey, Sin City is really violent and while this is entertaining I should be aware that this is not positive patterned behavior." It is watching something like a Michael Bay film and thinking "I really enjoy giant robots breaking stuff, but maybe there should be more to something like this than just giant robots and half naked Megan Fox." It is watching the film and recognizing what it is doing in addition to just enjoying the ride.
Arguing that you aren't supposed to look critically at pulp just because "it's not meant for it" is like saying you aren't supposed to know the calorie count of a Big Mac because you don't eat it to be healthy. Of course you don't! But that doesn't mean you shouldn't know just how bad for you it can be when you make the choice to eat one.
Going back to comics, feminism isn't trying to slash the fun out of your experience, only to point out that what you are considering fun may have more levels and may not be as harmless as you think. If Wonder Woman were depicted as a strong, muscular woman with a pear shaped body, but still went on the same zany, action-packed adventures would your fun be lessened? Hopefully no! You are along for the ride for "good harmless fun" right? So why shouldn't she look like that? Or be any number of other body types?
If her being an hourglass waif is requisite for your "good harmless fun" then perhaps it isn't harmless at all.
Cathartic and escapist doesn't mean negative body image or ridiculous violence. Those things are fine to have here and there, just like a Big Mac, but when every meal is a Big Mac you die of diabetes or heart disease. When every comic is one, in the same fashion problems are evident.
Well personally I'm still of the mind that attempts at "showing harm" are lacking in many respects, so that particular argument won't go too far with me. I'm also not friendly to the idea of any artistic media being suppressed on moral grounds.
I think I need a longer post to address a bunch of stuf, but on my phone at work won't cut it. In the words of that lovy robot, I'll be back.
yo dogg remember when I wrote a big long post about how talking about media suppression and censorship is a bullshit dog-whistle argument to deflect criticism
they don't get to decide if I watch that sort of porn or engage in that sort of activity.
No one has suggested this happen at any point in this thread.
We've talked about demonstrating harm and working to eliminate said harm. If the point isn't to get rid of or change the things you find harmful, than what are you getting at?
Mitigation is a thing.
Construction can be harmful! So we get hardhats and insurance and make sure everyone on the team understands what the lighting bolt sign means.
Super kinky sex can be harmful! So we figure out safewords and consent and emergency support.
Climbing can be harmful! So hey here is the right kind of rope and watch out for rocks like this and make sure you don't act crazy if you fall because you'll make it harder for the people you're attached to
That doesn't mean you ban houses, spankings, and heights.
they don't get to decide if I watch that sort of porn or engage in that sort of activity.
No one has suggested this happen at any point in this thread.
We've talked about demonstrating harm and working to eliminate said harm. If the point isn't to get rid of or change the things you find harmful, than what are you getting at?
Decreasing the rate at which the harmful media permeates society. Especially since odds are that once it's no longer mainstream it likely isn't especially harmful anymore.
This can be done via generally trying to avoid sexist media, supporting more positive media, and talking about the topic when it comes up like we are now.
It does not require summoning Wertham's ghost to protect the innocent.
The thing is that the idea that comic books are harmful also comes directly from the media, which has a vested interest in stoking the fires of gender war (since controversy and outrage = clicks.)
So yeah, I'll agree that the media can affect people, quite a lot. But the 24/7 outrage machine seems to be about 100 times better at getting inside people's heads than niche picture books about superheroes.
The stuff happens 24/7. People don't keep all of their discrimination to a specified holiday, so action against it isn't going to be either.
Is 'action' in this case synonymous with 'talking about these problems in the media'?
It seems to me that the primary beneficiary of that action is not women, but the media.
Why does it seem that way to you? Which media? Is CNN talking about Wonder Woman's impossible skeleton?
How did you hear that comics are doing these bad things to society? Or did you come up with the idea independently?
My awareness of it has definitely been heightened by reading other people talk about it in these forums, blogs, that one time I took a class on English literature and they told me to read a book, etc. I'm not sure what your point is, though. That you are a man with independent ideas arguing against the automatons of mass media? I mean, I guess, but dismissal of people's concerns about sexism isn't some niche idea. Everywhere you can find people espousing the view that it's no big deal. Is the idea here that people who don't care about this arrived at their views completely independently? They never heard anyone say "c'mon, they're just comic books. For a bit of fun"?
How convenient it is, when our ideas are not only the correct ones, but also completely independent. Arrived at after careful thought and deliberation. Not like those dingbats who read about it in some blog.
I mean, for the most part I share the idea that such things should be left alone as "just a bit of fun". No good, in my mind, ever came of a crusade against artistic content certain groups feel are morally objectionable or harmful.
Comic books and pulp of their ilk are simply there for "a bit of fun", the trouble is in taking them to be more than that in any respect.
I don't do much questioning why people read the things they do. I read some incredibly weird and different things, for all kinds of reasons; I'm in no position to judge. But I'm not going to pretend that I arrived at my broad opinions on the media I consume as a unique snowflake, who never saw anything like the opinions I hold before I adopted them as my own.
You do not think people are influenced by the ideas their culture teaches them?
Of course culture influences people, but higher culture influences them more. Expose a person to a world of culture, and you'll find they can cherry pick the best fruits over the most abundant ones as well as anybody.
The thing is that the idea that comic books are harmful also comes directly from the media, which has a vested interest in stoking the fires of gender war (since controversy and outrage = clicks.)
So yeah, I'll agree that the media can affect people, quite a lot. But the 24/7 outrage machine seems to be about 100 times better at getting inside people's heads than niche picture books about superheroes.
The stuff happens 24/7. People don't keep all of their discrimination to a specified holiday, so action against it isn't going to be either.
Is 'action' in this case synonymous with 'talking about these problems in the media'?
It seems to me that the primary beneficiary of that action is not women, but the media.
Why does it seem that way to you? Which media? Is CNN talking about Wonder Woman's impossible skeleton?
How did you hear that comics are doing these bad things to society? Or did you come up with the idea independently?
My awareness of it has definitely been heightened by reading other people talk about it in these forums, blogs, that one time I took a class on English literature and they told me to read a book, etc. I'm not sure what your point is, though. That you are a man with independent ideas arguing against the automatons of mass media? I mean, I guess, but dismissal of people's concerns about sexism isn't some niche idea. Everywhere you can find people espousing the view that it's no big deal. Is the idea here that people who don't care about this arrived at their views completely independently? They never heard anyone say "c'mon, they're just comic books. For a bit of fun"?
How convenient it is, when our ideas are not only the correct ones, but also completely independent. Arrived at after careful thought and deliberation. Not like those dingbats who read about it in some blog.
I mean, for the most part I share the idea that such things should be left alone as "just a bit of fun". No good, in my mind, ever came of a crusade against artistic content certain groups feel are morally objectionable or harmful.
Comic books and pulp of their ilk are simply there for "a bit of fun", the trouble is in taking them to be more than that in any respect.
Somehow, I don't see Maus being "a bit of fun." Despite what you think, comics are a form of art and culture, and as such are open to legitimate analysis and criticism. Frankly, it's your position that is the more harmful one, as you seek to ghettoize comics into triviality in the name of "saving" them.
l
I'm not ghettoizing anything. Personally I've never seen any good come from one group or another attempting to suppress art they find objectionable, be it the Catholic Church or feminists on the internet. I'm just generally against analysis and criticism used as a cover for making things you dislike go away.
There is a huge difference between suppressing art (as in: "comic books are the devil, ban them from our communities!") and calling art out for it's flaws (which is what is happening here). Look at comic books with a critical lens is a useful and interesting exercise. Making more widespread the lack of sense in body types throughout comic books as a whole is a useful and worthwhile discussion. There is no such thing a "bit of bun" art or other throw-away terms.
The Dragonlance books were something I would say were "trash fiction" back in the 90s, harmless fun that wouldn't ever make for a solid peer reviewed critique. But at the same time TSR and TOR were producing a lot of books, and I (and others) read a lot of them. They were filled with horrible stereotypes (from "empowered" women never passing a bechdel test to racist tendencies in how ethnicity was depicted, and worse). Yes, they werent high-culture things but when an entire generation of young men were reading them during their formative years problems begin to emerge.
No medium should be void of criticism on it's content. All media consumes affects our lives and tints our perception of the world, even subtlely.
So what's your conclusion here? Pulp exists for a reason. If you believe pulp to be harmful (I disagree but whatevs for the hypothetical) than where do you go from there? Where is this line of thought taking you? Because I assure you that there always has been some form of pulp, most likely always will be. Folks will always find it attractive for reasons you can't suppress or condition out of a culture, because it changes to suit the culture.
I'm not saying pulp is bad or harmful, only that tropes in pulp should be taken just as seriously as tropes in any other media. The post was in response to the idea that pulp somehow is above criticism as being "a bit of fun" and not worth reviewing and not remarkable upon impact. Which is really not true at all. If anything, pulp is typically more impactful as more people casually consume it without critical thought compared to other forms of media perceived to have "higher" cultural value.
Pulp should be viewed with a critical eye as well as anything else. Everyone should be an educated and aware consumer of media. There is a ton of good in pulp as well, from offering an affordable escape from reality for those who need it to typically emphasizing themes of good, honest characters triumphing over self-serving destructive ones. There are neutral and problematic areas as well beyond racism and sexism (the need for violence and killing as the universal solution, for example), but pulp is a mixed bag. Identifying why it is mixed is important for being a self-actualized person.
Engaging pulp with a critical eye gets you.... somewhere, but not really where you're supposed to go. You can deconstruct the fuck out of something like Sin City, but if you're reading Sin City to make yourself a more self-actualized person or are relying on it to inform you on how to live your life you might just be barking up the wrong tree.
This also addresses the post asking me why I'm calling all comics pulp. Really I'm not, but there is a lot of pulp there and a lot of what gets raged at does seem to me to fall under the category of good harmless fun, stuff that melts under the harsh light of fierce dissection but is, in the moment, distraction and joy. I'm honestly less concerned about this than I am the focus at stories and tropes at large, but this is odd to me. Cathartic and escspist media will always exist, I'm not worried about feminism squashing the fun out of it, but treating it deadly serious like we are is kinda ironic, no?
Maybe other people are doing so, but when I say "critical eye" I don't mean going in to deconstructionism or dismantling something that is fun. That is something professional critics do, but not the common viewer. Being aware with a critical eye is understanding that "Hey, Sin City is really violent and while this is entertaining I should be aware that this is not positive patterned behavior." It is watching something like a Michael Bay film and thinking "I really enjoy giant robots breaking stuff, but maybe there should be more to something like this than just giant robots and half naked Megan Fox." It is watching the film and recognizing what it is doing in addition to just enjoying the ride.
Arguing that you aren't supposed to look critically at pulp just because "it's not meant for it" is like saying you aren't supposed to know the calorie count of a Big Mac because you don't eat it to be healthy. Of course you don't! But that doesn't mean you shouldn't know just how bad for you it can be when you make the choice to eat one.
Going back to comics, feminism isn't trying to slash the fun out of your experience, only to point out that what you are considering fun may have more levels and may not be as harmless as you think. If Wonder Woman were depicted as a strong, muscular woman with a pear shaped body, but still went on the same zany, action-packed adventures would your fun be lessened? Hopefully no! You are along for the ride for "good harmless fun" right? So why shouldn't she look like that? Or be any number of other body types?
If her being an hourglass waif is requisite for your "good harmless fun" then perhaps it isn't harmless at all.
Cathartic and escapist doesn't mean negative body image or ridiculous violence. Those things are fine to have here and there, just like a Big Mac, but when every meal is a Big Mac you die of diabetes or heart disease. When every comic is one, in the same fashion problems are evident.
Well personally I'm still of the mind that attempts at "showing harm" are lacking in many respects, so that particular argument won't go too far with me. I'm also not friendly to the idea of any artistic media being suppressed on moral grounds.
I think I need a longer post to address a bunch of stuf, but on my phone at work won't cut it. In the words of that lovy robot, I'll be back.
Channeling Zoidberg and telling someone "your art is bad and you should feel bad" is not, and will never be suppression.
Talking about art as harmful and seeking ways to eliminate said harm falls under the umbrella for me with room to spare.
Then your umbrella is defective. Moreover, it's defective in a way that is designed to out and out stifle speech, under the guise of protecting it.
I always find the "shut up, you're endangering free speech" argument laughable.
they don't get to decide if I watch that sort of porn or engage in that sort of activity.
No one has suggested this happen at any point in this thread.
We've talked about demonstrating harm and working to eliminate said harm. If the point isn't to get rid of or change the things you find harmful, than what are you getting at?
Decreasing the rate at which the harmful media permeates society. Especially since odds are that once it's no longer mainstream it likely isn't especially harmful anymore.
This can be done via generally trying to avoid sexist media, supporting more positive media, and talking about the topic when it comes up like we are now.
It does not require summoning Wertham's ghost to protect the innocent.
Basically, being a voice that supports positive media tropes and calling out the use of tropes that people embrace without awareness.
Because a lot of people are molded by discussions on what is and is not acceptable in real life when talking about the tropes used in a movie/book/stage play/etc. I'm one of them! A lot of things I absorbed in ignorance were called out on these boards and I adapted by making a personal pledge to avoid such things in the future.
Maturity doesn't need to be enforced. Talking about these tropes is a good teaching/learning opportunity for everyone.
"Waaaaaaaaaah, my riiiiiiiiiiights" is the most intellectually dishonest argument to possibly make on this topic.
It's a shell-game.
I wrote over two thousand words on this subject in this very thread and I'm not going to restate this argument for frankiedarling or anyone else, I'm just going to link to it again and you can either address it or not and if you don't but persist with this malarkey then I'm going to assume you either didn't read it or you're opting not to respond to it because you can't.
It's akin to NRA-types trying to scream "THEY'RE TRYING TO TAKE OUR GUNS!" every time any issue even remotely related to gun law reform is brought up, no matter what form it takes (even when it comes from like, gun manufacturers themselves!)
It's bullshit, and I won't take it seriously, and if it's all you have in this conversation I won't take you seriously either. You need a new approach and you need to take the concerns being raised seriously and actually argue with them on their own merits and stop acting like someone is trying to slap your hands and take your toys away, or like the producers of the things you like are somehow the victims here.
Posts
It depends. Is there a broad social tendency for people to abduct other people and sew them together end to end?
(best inadvertent top of the page ever)
Once art is published it gets dissected by the audience, nothing is spared from criticism. If a work has elements that are problematic they will be discussed, people will get upset and talk about it. This is not only about feminists, bigots do that from their side of the argument too. The only way to escape this is not to let the public see your art.
Pulp doesn't have to be made for straight white men, everyone can enjoy it. That's what people are are wanting the media to be inclusive, not a niche market where nothing changes that's hoarded by neckbeards. The original pulp, like The Shadow, wasn't dumb boring shit readers didn't analyze. The magazine had complex plots, similar to crime shows and techno-thriller movies today, with strong female characters that weren't only there to be The Shadow's love object. The writing was tight, pulled no punches and was made on insane deadlines.
I mean those are certainly reasons to think Frozen isn't as progressive as other disney movies, but the author starts the article talking about how they HATE frozen. I'm not seeing any compelling reasons to hate it, or to claim it isn't progressive.
Maybe other people are doing so, but when I say "critical eye" I don't mean going in to deconstructionism or dismantling something that is fun. That is something professional critics do, but not the common viewer. Being aware with a critical eye is understanding that "Hey, Sin City is really violent and while this is entertaining I should be aware that this is not positive patterned behavior." It is watching something like a Michael Bay film and thinking "I really enjoy giant robots breaking stuff, but maybe there should be more to something like this than just giant robots and half naked Megan Fox." It is watching the film and recognizing what it is doing in addition to just enjoying the ride.
Arguing that you aren't supposed to look critically at pulp just because "it's not meant for it" is like saying you aren't supposed to know the calorie count of a Big Mac because you don't eat it to be healthy. Of course you don't! But that doesn't mean you shouldn't know just how bad for you it can be when you make the choice to eat one.
Going back to comics, feminism isn't trying to slash the fun out of your experience, only to point out that what you are considering fun may have more levels and may not be as harmless as you think. If Wonder Woman were depicted as a strong, muscular woman with a pear shaped body, but still went on the same zany, action-packed adventures would your fun be lessened? Hopefully no! You are along for the ride for "good harmless fun" right? So why shouldn't she look like that? Or be any number of other body types?
If her being an hourglass waif is requisite for your "good harmless fun" then perhaps it isn't harmless at all.
Cathartic and escapist doesn't mean negative body image or ridiculous violence. Those things are fine to have here and there, just like a Big Mac, but when every meal is a Big Mac you die of diabetes or heart disease. When every comic is one, in the same fashion problems are evident.
Literally all of media backs this position with basic, casual observation.
But ok, I'll bite:
http://www.womensmediacenter.com/pages/statistics
specifcially the current report:
http://wmc.3cdn.net/2e85f9517dc2bf164e_htm62xgan.pdf
Qualitative, peer reviewed analysis of portrayals of women in all facets of media, from news to TV to Video Games as it stands on a 2013-2014 cycle.
well, my idea of cathartic and escapist media is things where all of the digital persons/animals/objects can be objectified, exploited, and violently abused (sandbox games, particularly bethesda's)
I'm not sure if they would be improved by making women either not present or invulnerable
Shadowhope posted this earlier.
It shows the position of women being positively affected when the population as a whole was exposed to more positive media.
And you singled out comics specifically again despite, as far as I know, everyone else talking about media in general.
The problem with your argument is that the line that you want to draw between media and propaganda doesn't exist, for a few reasons. For one, we don't "consume" propaganda explicitly - that would be "preaching to the choir". Instead, propaganda works by being media with an explicit message that is consumed. Second, the reason you aren't seeing an explicit movement is because since our culture is sexist, sexist media is reinforcing the existing paradigm. That, by its very nature, will not be as visible as a shift in paradigm.
Do lots of violent video games make someone more violent?
Is there any research showing that the content of a game makes someone more violent, misogynistic, etc
Well personally I'm still of the mind that attempts at "showing harm" are lacking in many respects, so that particular argument won't go too far with me. I'm also not friendly to the idea of any artistic media being suppressed on moral grounds.
I think I need a longer post to address a bunch of stuf, but on my phone at work won't cut it. In the words of that lovy robot, I'll be back.
That report is only statistics on female representation in media. It says nothing about what the effects of under representation might be (if anything), or anything at all about sexist portrayals.
I think this quote really gets at what programjunkie was saying:
Looking at the bolded part it seems likely there is very little proof of the kind of influence the rest of the quote is basically taking for granted.
Please address any actual statement I've made or try someone else. I've never claimed any single piece of media leads to murderous psychopaths. In fact, no one in this thread has.
Now, if you'd like to claim that people are not informed and influenced by their culture and its media, by all means go ahead.
You don't believe sexism harms people?
There actually is a growing base of quantitative data and studies backing desensitization of violence through habitual violent media. This is just one of about forty journal articles I found though my University database published within the last five years backing this: http://rcgd.isr.umich.edu/aggr/articles/Huesmann/2011.Krahé et al.Desentization.JPSP.pdf
I don't know that they could have told a story about true love being something to work towards as a reward rather then a prize dropped in your lap without that being her goal tho.
People are obviously informed and influenced by culture.
I got a lot of my sense of humor from watching comedies/comedians/etc. growing up. Humor is not something you're born with; I have never met a kid who innately "gets" even the simplest joke. It has to be explained and learned over time. Taste in humor is something you develop from exposure to comedy, too.
Does that mean watching George Lopez one time will make you criminally unfunny for the rest of your life? No! But if all you watch is George Lopez, Dane Cook, Carlos Mencia and Carrot Top*, you might be more likely to gear your sense of humor in that direction and to find comedians who are actually entertaining less so, because you aren't accustomed to that style of humor.
*Apologies to people who like Lopez, Cook, Mencia or Carrot Top
Channeling Zoidberg and telling someone "your art is bad and you should feel bad" is not, and will never be suppression.
You can like it or hate it, but the choice to watch it is yours. I don't think we really get to judge peoples tastes that way, on all spectrums up to the legal line. Some people are disgusted and outraged at BDSM, but they don't get to decide if I watch that sort of porn or engage in that sort of activity. I'd think a forum so on board with alternative lifestyles and interests would be less quick to jump on the whole "X causes harm and outrages/disgusts me and thus is wrong" bandwagon, or at least see how easy it is to confise things you dislike with things that cause harm.
Talking about art as harmful and seeking ways to eliminate said harm falls under the umbrella for me with room to spare.
That shows disproportionately low numbers of women and women characters in media, not a substantial negative influence on viewers of said media.
It's an interesting point, but it's neither an overwhelming consensus, nor is it precisely applicable here. Going from being barbarians to part of the modern world is less than directly applicable to, to use a non-comic example, female RPG characters wearing bikini armor (which is terrible and people who like it should feel bad. If you're going to use eye candy, at the very least justify it in universe, you sexist hack fucks),
It's also worth noting that media may have likely contained a substantial amount of the sexist tropes mentioned in this thread.
No one has suggested this happen at any point in this thread.
Being inclusive has limits. Media with sexism and racism that's encouraged in art forms isn't one of them.
BDSM is entirely consensual, though.
If someone's fetish was girls under the statutory age and only watched porn geared towards that, whether it involved the actual exploitation of girls that age or finding girls who just turned 18 and dressing them up to look younger, I would call that unhealthy, for example.
But completely consensual BDSM porn? I don't see the harm.
And, since you brought it up, the attitude you describe actually causes a lot of problems in kink, because it's used too often to cover up actual abuse.
We've talked about demonstrating harm and working to eliminate said harm. If the point isn't to get rid of or change the things you find harmful, than what are you getting at?
No one is suppressing art on moral grounds. I haven't even used morality in any of my posts because honestly that is a shitty, loaded word that isn't useful for any degree of discussing. Recognizing that all women are being depicted as supermodels and saying "you can't make art" is not what anyone here is saying but you. Recognizing patterns isn't morality.
Another point here is regardless of how you perceive "harm," harm is occurring and people are noticing it. You remaining unconvinced is unfortunate and ultimately means this discussion isn't as useful has it could have been, but that doesn't change the reality of the thing. Harm doesn't have to be direct bodily. For example:
http://www.target.com/c/women-s-clothing/-/N-5xtcm
All women are same body type.
http://www.dillards.com/
All women are same body type.
http://www1.macys.com/shop/womens-clothing?id=118&edge=hybrid&cm_re=2014.09.17-_-HOMEPAGE_INCLUDE_1-_-CATEGORY+--+5125+--+118:women
All women are the same body type.
and finally:
http://www.jcpenney.com/women/dept.jump?id=dept20000013&cmJCP_T=G1&cmJCP_C=D4B
Which has one image in the rotation, a group shot, which has a single deviant body type.
It also ignores that there is an upper limit to the amount of acceptable VQ and SQ. On the VQ front, there already exists a disturbing trend to criminalize legitimate self-defense(IE zero tolerance policies that suspend all kids in a fight regardless of how or why the fight started). We need to empower people to look out for people who are weaker or in need of help without just giving people a pass to just assume that all X are weaker and need protection. For example, I don't think all "White Knight" tendencies are necessarily sexist, but there is a distinct subset that is sexist. The problem is that at some point, the social squashing of sexist "White Knight" tendencies can leads us into a situation where no guy wants to help a woman in obvious need because of the fear of receiving social stigma.
But cathartic escapist scenarios that reward heroism while still presenting a context of dangerous stereotypes aren't really all that much better; it's just patting yourself on the back for casting yourself as the "good guy" in those scenarios.
Flip it a different way and change the scenery: if you took escapist pleasure from playing games where your "hero" ran around rescuing kidnapped objectified women from African cannibals or Arab slave traders, is it still just as harmless?
No kindly keep your goalposts where they were. Media influences culture. Culture influences people. There is not some upper limit where this ceases to be true.
Also, calling Indians without cable TV barbarians is grossly insulting.
yo dogg remember when I wrote a big long post about how talking about media suppression and censorship is a bullshit dog-whistle argument to deflect criticism
and you clearly didn't fucking read it
yeah
Mitigation is a thing.
Construction can be harmful! So we get hardhats and insurance and make sure everyone on the team understands what the lighting bolt sign means.
Super kinky sex can be harmful! So we figure out safewords and consent and emergency support.
Climbing can be harmful! So hey here is the right kind of rope and watch out for rocks like this and make sure you don't act crazy if you fall because you'll make it harder for the people you're attached to
That doesn't mean you ban houses, spankings, and heights.
Decreasing the rate at which the harmful media permeates society. Especially since odds are that once it's no longer mainstream it likely isn't especially harmful anymore.
This can be done via generally trying to avoid sexist media, supporting more positive media, and talking about the topic when it comes up like we are now.
It does not require summoning Wertham's ghost to protect the innocent.
Ban the hell out of heights.
Then your umbrella is defective. Moreover, it's defective in a way that is designed to out and out stifle speech, under the guise of protecting it.
I always find the "shut up, you're endangering free speech" argument laughable.
It really comes off feeling like some people can't even accept criticism of things they like.
Basically, being a voice that supports positive media tropes and calling out the use of tropes that people embrace without awareness.
Because a lot of people are molded by discussions on what is and is not acceptable in real life when talking about the tropes used in a movie/book/stage play/etc. I'm one of them! A lot of things I absorbed in ignorance were called out on these boards and I adapted by making a personal pledge to avoid such things in the future.
Maturity doesn't need to be enforced. Talking about these tropes is a good teaching/learning opportunity for everyone.
But my kinky mountaintop pleasure shed.
It's a shell-game.
I wrote over two thousand words on this subject in this very thread and I'm not going to restate this argument for frankiedarling or anyone else, I'm just going to link to it again and you can either address it or not and if you don't but persist with this malarkey then I'm going to assume you either didn't read it or you're opting not to respond to it because you can't.
It's akin to NRA-types trying to scream "THEY'RE TRYING TO TAKE OUR GUNS!" every time any issue even remotely related to gun law reform is brought up, no matter what form it takes (even when it comes from like, gun manufacturers themselves!)
It's bullshit, and I won't take it seriously, and if it's all you have in this conversation I won't take you seriously either. You need a new approach and you need to take the concerns being raised seriously and actually argue with them on their own merits and stop acting like someone is trying to slap your hands and take your toys away, or like the producers of the things you like are somehow the victims here.