Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

A Thread About Sexist Tropes

1111214161722

Posts

  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Well h
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Talking about art as harmful and seeking ways to eliminate said harm falls under the umbrella for me with room to spare.

    It's not, regardless of whether you believe it is.

    Well hey, debate over, you win. Cause you said so, apparently.

    There was no debate. You were wrong on a matter of fact, and you were corrected. Maybe take some time to reflect on your error and how to avoid making it again in the future.

    No, nothing was proven. Someone made a statement and seemed to think that was it. Odd way to debate.

    Please allow me to elaborate:

    "Censorship", in the way we are concerned with, has a fairly concrete definition, a necessary element of which is the exercise of authority to prevent the dissemination of speech. The criticism and media advocacy at issue in this thread presumably do not involve such exercise of authority (and if you had evidence it did, I surely hope you would present it forthrightly). You may disagree with this criticism, or be uncomfortable with its goals or methodology. But that cannot transform it into censorship. To argue otherwise is, frankly disingenuous and dishonest. "You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts", as the saying goes.

    censorship is a red herring. The limitation of an expression of ideas due to anything other than the merit of the idea is a better fish to fry.

    The idea of wonder woman looking like a contorted unrealistic woman designed to display boobs and butt is stupid and sexist, and I would prefer if they used another artist that did not depict her that way.

    Which is why I'm buying all the Chiang books and will not be buying the future books by the new guy.

    Is this okay? Or too censory for ya?

    Do you think this differs from a person who has never/will never by comic books chastising someone who wants to by the future books for buying sexist comics as if it was a moral wrong? Or chastising the author for creating the sexist comic as if they are amoral for doing so? Should those people (the author/customer) feel bad for what they have done?

    Calling out a depiction as sexist or part of a sexist tradition of art in comics is not equivalent of morally judging the artist. They should not "feel bad" ideally they should educate themselves and recognize the sexist ideas or images represented in their art, and if they truly educate themselves, work to avoid those in the future. The goal of calling these things out is to get the artist (or the audience) to RECOGNIZE some shit is going on. See: Pony's post.

    Or they can just shrug their shoulders knowing that the right way to depict a human being doesn't really exist. That's also a possibility.

    Fortunately no one said the bolded.

    But a good artist? They'll listen to constructive criticism, see how it compares to what it is they're trying to express, and apply it to future creations.

    Andy Joe
  • AtomikaAtomika not a robot. does not eat bugs!Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Atomika wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Well h
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Talking about art as harmful and seeking ways to eliminate said harm falls under the umbrella for me with room to spare.

    It's not, regardless of whether you believe it is.

    Well hey, debate over, you win. Cause you said so, apparently.

    There was no debate. You were wrong on a matter of fact, and you were corrected. Maybe take some time to reflect on your error and how to avoid making it again in the future.

    No, nothing was proven. Someone made a statement and seemed to think that was it. Odd way to debate.

    Please allow me to elaborate:

    "Censorship", in the way we are concerned with, has a fairly concrete definition, a necessary element of which is the exercise of authority to prevent the dissemination of speech. The criticism and media advocacy at issue in this thread presumably do not involve such exercise of authority (and if you had evidence it did, I surely hope you would present it forthrightly). You may disagree with this criticism, or be uncomfortable with its goals or methodology. But that cannot transform it into censorship. To argue otherwise is, frankly disingenuous and dishonest. "You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts", as the saying goes.

    censorship is a red herring. The limitation of an expression of ideas due to anything other than the merit of the idea is a better fish to fry.

    The idea of wonder woman looking like a contorted unrealistic woman designed to display boobs and butt is stupid and sexist, and I would prefer if they used another artist that did not depict her that way.

    Which is why I'm buying all the Chiang books and will not be buying the future books by the new guy.

    Is this okay? Or too censory for ya?

    Do you think this differs from a person who has never/will never by comic books chastising someone who wants to by the future books for buying sexist comics as if it was a moral wrong? Or chastising the author for creating the sexist comic as if they are amoral for doing so? Should those people (the author/customer) feel bad for what they have done?

    Calling out a depiction as sexist or part of a sexist tradition of art in comics is not equivalent of morally judging the artist. They should not "feel bad" ideally they should educate themselves and recognize the sexist ideas or images represented in their art, and if they truly educate themselves, work to avoid those in the future. The goal of calling these things out is to get the artist (or the audience) to RECOGNIZE some shit is going on. See: Pony's post.

    Or they can just shrug their shoulders knowing that the right way to depict a human being doesn't really exist. That's also a possibility.

    Here's the thing: if you prefer certain expressions of the human form, then for you that is the "right way." Everyone has a "right way," or multiple versions thereof, whether you're conscious of this or not (and most are not, I'd wager).

    The trick is acknowledging this and gaining that self-awareness, and then deconstructing your preferences, and then ultimately deciding on whether or not these preferences line up with your stated moral beliefs.



    For example, Jim Lee is without contestation a talented artist. I do not prefer his style, however, because I do not think that he understands the narrative role of character design.

    Individual tastes pair with individual rationality, and being unable to reconcile them using a single strict method allows art freedom from progressivism - art does not get better over time, merely different as each era explores itself in a unique way. If I prefer art someone else deems inferior, it cannot be automatically assumed that I have a lower understanding of my preferences or how they reflect on my beliefs. It may be true, but it also may not.

    Are we talking about individual preferences or are we talking about experiences so congruent and consistent to be called tropes?

    The Bechdel Test isn't a metric on a case-by-case basis.

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Quid wrote: »
    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.
    I recently watched Yes Man and Garden State...
    So It Goes wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Apparently a new person will be drawing her later this year, here's a comparison of styles.

    chiangfinch.png?w=500&h=321

    Sigh.
    Enc wrote: »
    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.
    Atomika wrote: »
    See: Transformers 4, Hardcore, every dad character in everything ever
    the scene from Wedding Crashers where a man is tied to a bed and forced into sex, complains that he was raped the next day, and then later admits that he likes it?
    Astaereth wrote: »
    I mean, ideally people bitch at Marvel for not doing a female superhero movie, and the result is Marvel does one instead of its next male superhero movie.
    Oh, and that reminds me of another sexist trope I loathe - the "lightswitch" model of the male libido.
    I look at it this way. There's no way in hell I would let my kids watch South Park.
    So It Goes wrote: »
    The idea of wonder woman looking like a contorted unrealistic woman designed to display boobs and butt is stupid and sexist, and I would prefer if they used another artist that did not depict her that way.

    That sure is a lot of single pieces of media, for a conversation that is not about pointing at single pieces of media.



    As racial attitudes in America changed, it became less and less acceptable to do stuff like blackface and Magical Negro or mammy stereotypes. Would you say that racist art was "suppressed" in America?

    Exactly. We did not limit blackface, Magical Negro, or mammy stereotypes. We manifest a situation in which the cultural norms were such that those representations were not appreciated, or profitable. Don't point at South Park, or Wedding Crashers, or Transformers, or Wonder Woman, or clothing size charts, or the movie Marvel didn't make. Because the claim, as I understand it, is against general ideas and attitudes towards groups, not particular things.

    If you dislike how women are portrayed in media, then talk about how women are portrayed in media. Don't point at how Artist-B17 draws Wonder Woman. Because the problem is not how Artist B-17 draws Wonder Woman.

    The problem is that any artist would have the idea of a need or desire to portray any woman in that way.

    Allegedly.

    Apothe0sis
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Atomika wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Atomika wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Well h
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Talking about art as harmful and seeking ways to eliminate said harm falls under the umbrella for me with room to spare.

    It's not, regardless of whether you believe it is.

    Well hey, debate over, you win. Cause you said so, apparently.

    There was no debate. You were wrong on a matter of fact, and you were corrected. Maybe take some time to reflect on your error and how to avoid making it again in the future.

    No, nothing was proven. Someone made a statement and seemed to think that was it. Odd way to debate.

    Please allow me to elaborate:

    "Censorship", in the way we are concerned with, has a fairly concrete definition, a necessary element of which is the exercise of authority to prevent the dissemination of speech. The criticism and media advocacy at issue in this thread presumably do not involve such exercise of authority (and if you had evidence it did, I surely hope you would present it forthrightly). You may disagree with this criticism, or be uncomfortable with its goals or methodology. But that cannot transform it into censorship. To argue otherwise is, frankly disingenuous and dishonest. "You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts", as the saying goes.

    censorship is a red herring. The limitation of an expression of ideas due to anything other than the merit of the idea is a better fish to fry.

    The idea of wonder woman looking like a contorted unrealistic woman designed to display boobs and butt is stupid and sexist, and I would prefer if they used another artist that did not depict her that way.

    Which is why I'm buying all the Chiang books and will not be buying the future books by the new guy.

    Is this okay? Or too censory for ya?

    Do you think this differs from a person who has never/will never by comic books chastising someone who wants to by the future books for buying sexist comics as if it was a moral wrong? Or chastising the author for creating the sexist comic as if they are amoral for doing so? Should those people (the author/customer) feel bad for what they have done?

    Calling out a depiction as sexist or part of a sexist tradition of art in comics is not equivalent of morally judging the artist. They should not "feel bad" ideally they should educate themselves and recognize the sexist ideas or images represented in their art, and if they truly educate themselves, work to avoid those in the future. The goal of calling these things out is to get the artist (or the audience) to RECOGNIZE some shit is going on. See: Pony's post.

    Or they can just shrug their shoulders knowing that the right way to depict a human being doesn't really exist. That's also a possibility.

    Here's the thing: if you prefer certain expressions of the human form, then for you that is the "right way." Everyone has a "right way," or multiple versions thereof, whether you're conscious of this or not (and most are not, I'd wager).

    The trick is acknowledging this and gaining that self-awareness, and then deconstructing your preferences, and then ultimately deciding on whether or not these preferences line up with your stated moral beliefs.



    For example, Jim Lee is without contestation a talented artist. I do not prefer his style, however, because I do not think that he understands the narrative role of character design.

    Individual tastes pair with individual rationality, and being unable to reconcile them using a single strict method allows art freedom from progressivism - art does not get better over time, merely different as each era explores itself in a unique way. If I prefer art someone else deems inferior, it cannot be automatically assumed that I have a lower understanding of my preferences or how they reflect on my beliefs. It may be true, but it also may not.

    Are we talking about individual preferences or are we talking about experiences so congruent and consistent to be called tropes?

    The Bechdel Test isn't a metric on a case-by-case basis.

    Volume does not equal power. This becomes more true as access increases.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    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.
    I recently watched Yes Man and Garden State...
    So It Goes wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Apparently a new person will be drawing her later this year, here's a comparison of styles.

    chiangfinch.png?w=500&h=321

    Sigh.
    Enc wrote: »
    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.
    Atomika wrote: »
    See: Transformers 4, Hardcore, every dad character in everything ever
    the scene from Wedding Crashers where a man is tied to a bed and forced into sex, complains that he was raped the next day, and then later admits that he likes it?
    Astaereth wrote: »
    I mean, ideally people bitch at Marvel for not doing a female superhero movie, and the result is Marvel does one instead of its next male superhero movie.
    Oh, and that reminds me of another sexist trope I loathe - the "lightswitch" model of the male libido.
    I look at it this way. There's no way in hell I would let my kids watch South Park.
    So It Goes wrote: »
    The idea of wonder woman looking like a contorted unrealistic woman designed to display boobs and butt is stupid and sexist, and I would prefer if they used another artist that did not depict her that way.

    That sure is a lot of single pieces of media, for a conversation that is not about pointing at single pieces of media.



    As racial attitudes in America changed, it became less and less acceptable to do stuff like blackface and Magical Negro or mammy stereotypes. Would you say that racist art was "suppressed" in America?

    Exactly. We did not limit blackface, Magical Negro, or mammy stereotypes. We manifest a situation in which the cultural norms were such that those representations were not appreciated, or profitable. Don't point at South Park, or Wedding Crashers, or Transformers, or Wonder Woman, or clothing size charts, or the movie Marvel didn't make. Because the claim, as I understand it, is against general ideas and attitudes towards groups, not particular things.

    If you dislike how women are portrayed in media, then talk about how women are portrayed in media. Don't point at how Artist-B17 draws Wonder Woman. Because the problem is not how Artist B-17 draws Wonder Woman.

    The problem is that any artist would have the idea of a need or desire to portray any woman in that way.

    Allegedly.

    In order to talk about how women are portrayed in the media, we need to give individual examples that represent the things we are talking about.

    Like I don't even

    SurfpossumAndy JoeAngelHedgieCambiataPotatoNinjarockrngeriTunesIsEvilKristmas KthulhushrykeceresTubularLuggageJeedanThorn413Kid PresentableArdolFCD
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Well h
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Talking about art as harmful and seeking ways to eliminate said harm falls under the umbrella for me with room to spare.

    It's not, regardless of whether you believe it is.

    Well hey, debate over, you win. Cause you said so, apparently.

    There was no debate. You were wrong on a matter of fact, and you were corrected. Maybe take some time to reflect on your error and how to avoid making it again in the future.

    No, nothing was proven. Someone made a statement and seemed to think that was it. Odd way to debate.

    Please allow me to elaborate:

    "Censorship", in the way we are concerned with, has a fairly concrete definition, a necessary element of which is the exercise of authority to prevent the dissemination of speech. The criticism and media advocacy at issue in this thread presumably do not involve such exercise of authority (and if you had evidence it did, I surely hope you would present it forthrightly). You may disagree with this criticism, or be uncomfortable with its goals or methodology. But that cannot transform it into censorship. To argue otherwise is, frankly disingenuous and dishonest. "You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts", as the saying goes.

    censorship is a red herring. The limitation of an expression of ideas due to anything other than the merit of the idea is a better fish to fry.

    The idea of wonder woman looking like a contorted unrealistic woman designed to display boobs and butt is stupid and sexist, and I would prefer if they used another artist that did not depict her that way.

    Which is why I'm buying all the Chiang books and will not be buying the future books by the new guy.

    Is this okay? Or too censory for ya?

    Do you think this differs from a person who has never/will never by comic books chastising someone who wants to by the future books for buying sexist comics as if it was a moral wrong? Or chastising the author for creating the sexist comic as if they are amoral for doing so? Should those people (the author/customer) feel bad for what they have done?

    Calling out a depiction as sexist or part of a sexist tradition of art in comics is not equivalent of morally judging the artist. They should not "feel bad" ideally they should educate themselves and recognize the sexist ideas or images represented in their art, and if they truly educate themselves, work to avoid those in the future. The goal of calling these things out is to get the artist (or the audience) to RECOGNIZE some shit is going on. See: Pony's post.

    Or they can just shrug their shoulders knowing that the right way to depict a human being doesn't really exist. That's also a possibility.

    Fortunately no one said the bolded.

    But a good artist? They'll listen to constructive criticism, see how it compares to what it is they're trying to express, and apply it to future creations.

    They'll listen to what people have to say and use their brains to interpret what this means to their work. What behavior this may elicit is hard to predict.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • AstaerethAstaereth In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
    Atomika wrote: »
    Astaereth wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Well h
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Talking about art as harmful and seeking ways to eliminate said harm falls under the umbrella for me with room to spare.

    It's not, regardless of whether you believe it is.

    Well hey, debate over, you win. Cause you said so, apparently.

    There was no debate. You were wrong on a matter of fact, and you were corrected. Maybe take some time to reflect on your error and how to avoid making it again in the future.

    No, nothing was proven. Someone made a statement and seemed to think that was it. Odd way to debate.

    Please allow me to elaborate:

    "Censorship", in the way we are concerned with, has a fairly concrete definition, a necessary element of which is the exercise of authority to prevent the dissemination of speech. The criticism and media advocacy at issue in this thread presumably do not involve such exercise of authority (and if you had evidence it did, I surely hope you would present it forthrightly). You may disagree with this criticism, or be uncomfortable with its goals or methodology. But that cannot transform it into censorship. To argue otherwise is, frankly disingenuous and dishonest. "You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts", as the saying goes.

    censorship is a red herring. The limitation of an expression of ideas due to anything other than the merit of the idea is a better fish to fry.

    The idea of wonder woman looking like a contorted unrealistic woman designed to display boobs and butt is stupid and sexist, and I would prefer if they used another artist that did not depict her that way.

    Which is why I'm buying all the Chiang books and will not be buying the future books by the new guy.

    Is this okay? Or too censory for ya?

    I feel like I may have gotten bottom of the page'd on this (or maybe everybody just ignored me, thread has been moving fast)... Isn't the desired end result of this kind of behavior that Wonder Woman no longer be drawn in this style? And if so, do you see how that can feel like censorship to people who like it when Wonder Woman is drawn in that style? Technicalities about the definition of censorship aside, what this kind of criticism is saying to those fans is, "What you like is wrong, and I will work to create a world in which the thing you like does not exist." If you have no sympathy for that viewpoint, all I can say is, imagine if people spent this much time deriding your favorite genre or mode of artistic expression.

    I'm not arguing that you're obligated to make or not make certain purchases, or say or not say certain things. Just that people on this side of the argument are kind of hiding behind the fact that this isn't censorship. It's not censorship, but it's still a concerted effort to alter the media landscape in a preferred direction by pressuring creators to alter or cease their self-expression. Those who disagree with your direction are going to be upset with this, and it's okay if your reaction is "well, fuck those guys," but you should be aware that that is in fact what you're saying.

    (Kind of a general "you" there. Not picking on you, SIG.)

    There's no such thing as abject morality, I suppose, but sexual objectification tends to get frowned upon in progressive circles. Ergo, if the consistent progressive consensus is making well-articulated arguments for or against the proliferation of certain types of imagery and representation, I think the discourse is less "well, fuck those guys," and more, "those guys are wrong, here's why, and at the very least people should be cognizant of these facts if they choose to continue their patronage."

    I appreciate that sentiment and I probably agree with it; but at the same time that sentiment is rarely expressed in these discussions (and other critical discussions). I mean, people don't tend to go, "This depiction of sexist behavior is awful, but it's okay to be a fan as long as you know what you're watching."

    I guess I would say the focus in these discussions is too heavily based on what is wrong with existing media and not on what is right with existing media ("such and such movie shows how strong female characters should work") or how we encourage new media that fits with our worldview. "Man, I hate when TV shows have a dumb schlub of a husband married to a beautiful, intelligent, long-suffering wife. But I really liked this other show with a strong father role model in a realistic spousal relationship. That showrunner really seems to know where it's at when it comes to this issue, I hope NBC makes more of her shows."

    ACsTqqK.jpg
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited September 2014
    _J_ wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    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.
    I recently watched Yes Man and Garden State...
    So It Goes wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Apparently a new person will be drawing her later this year, here's a comparison of styles.

    chiangfinch.png?w=500&h=321

    Sigh.
    Enc wrote: »
    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.
    Atomika wrote: »
    See: Transformers 4, Hardcore, every dad character in everything ever
    the scene from Wedding Crashers where a man is tied to a bed and forced into sex, complains that he was raped the next day, and then later admits that he likes it?
    Astaereth wrote: »
    I mean, ideally people bitch at Marvel for not doing a female superhero movie, and the result is Marvel does one instead of its next male superhero movie.
    Oh, and that reminds me of another sexist trope I loathe - the "lightswitch" model of the male libido.
    I look at it this way. There's no way in hell I would let my kids watch South Park.
    So It Goes wrote: »
    The idea of wonder woman looking like a contorted unrealistic woman designed to display boobs and butt is stupid and sexist, and I would prefer if they used another artist that did not depict her that way.

    That sure is a lot of single pieces of media, for a conversation that is not about pointing at single pieces of media.
    claimed any single piece of media leads to murderous psychopaths

    I know you hate context but stop with this already, man. You're making zero effort here.

    Just because you single out posts about specific media does not mean those posts are advocating that specific media turned people in to murderous psychopaths.

    Quid on
    Surfpossum
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    Astaereth wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Well h
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Talking about art as harmful and seeking ways to eliminate said harm falls under the umbrella for me with room to spare.

    It's not, regardless of whether you believe it is.

    Well hey, debate over, you win. Cause you said so, apparently.

    There was no debate. You were wrong on a matter of fact, and you were corrected. Maybe take some time to reflect on your error and how to avoid making it again in the future.

    No, nothing was proven. Someone made a statement and seemed to think that was it. Odd way to debate.

    Please allow me to elaborate:

    "Censorship", in the way we are concerned with, has a fairly concrete definition, a necessary element of which is the exercise of authority to prevent the dissemination of speech. The criticism and media advocacy at issue in this thread presumably do not involve such exercise of authority (and if you had evidence it did, I surely hope you would present it forthrightly). You may disagree with this criticism, or be uncomfortable with its goals or methodology. But that cannot transform it into censorship. To argue otherwise is, frankly disingenuous and dishonest. "You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts", as the saying goes.

    censorship is a red herring. The limitation of an expression of ideas due to anything other than the merit of the idea is a better fish to fry.

    The idea of wonder woman looking like a contorted unrealistic woman designed to display boobs and butt is stupid and sexist, and I would prefer if they used another artist that did not depict her that way.

    Which is why I'm buying all the Chiang books and will not be buying the future books by the new guy.

    Is this okay? Or too censory for ya?

    I feel like I may have gotten bottom of the page'd on this (or maybe everybody just ignored me, thread has been moving fast)... Isn't the desired end result of this kind of behavior that Wonder Woman no longer be drawn in this style? And if so, do you see how that can feel like censorship to people who like it when Wonder Woman is drawn in that style? Technicalities about the definition of censorship aside, what this kind of criticism is saying to those fans is, "What you like is wrong, and I will work to create a world in which the thing you like does not exist." If you have no sympathy for that viewpoint, all I can say is, imagine if people spent this much time deriding your favorite genre or mode of artistic expression.

    I'm not arguing that you're obligated to make or not make certain purchases, or say or not say certain things. Just that people on this side of the argument are kind of hiding behind the fact that this isn't censorship. It's not censorship, but it's still a concerted effort to alter the media landscape in a preferred direction by pressuring creators to alter or cease their self-expression. Those who disagree with your direction are going to be upset with this, and it's okay if your reaction is "well, fuck those guys," but you should be aware that that is in fact what you're saying.

    (Kind of a general "you" there. Not picking on you, SIG.)

    I agree that this fear is likely behind the false claims of censorship, but until someone actually claims this position, it's hard to address it meaningfully.

    So It GoesQuidCambiata
  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    edited September 2014
    Astaereth wrote: »
    Atomika wrote: »
    Astaereth wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Well h
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Talking about art as harmful and seeking ways to eliminate said harm falls under the umbrella for me with room to spare.

    It's not, regardless of whether you believe it is.

    Well hey, debate over, you win. Cause you said so, apparently.

    There was no debate. You were wrong on a matter of fact, and you were corrected. Maybe take some time to reflect on your error and how to avoid making it again in the future.

    No, nothing was proven. Someone made a statement and seemed to think that was it. Odd way to debate.

    Please allow me to elaborate:

    "Censorship", in the way we are concerned with, has a fairly concrete definition, a necessary element of which is the exercise of authority to prevent the dissemination of speech. The criticism and media advocacy at issue in this thread presumably do not involve such exercise of authority (and if you had evidence it did, I surely hope you would present it forthrightly). You may disagree with this criticism, or be uncomfortable with its goals or methodology. But that cannot transform it into censorship. To argue otherwise is, frankly disingenuous and dishonest. "You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts", as the saying goes.

    censorship is a red herring. The limitation of an expression of ideas due to anything other than the merit of the idea is a better fish to fry.

    The idea of wonder woman looking like a contorted unrealistic woman designed to display boobs and butt is stupid and sexist, and I would prefer if they used another artist that did not depict her that way.

    Which is why I'm buying all the Chiang books and will not be buying the future books by the new guy.

    Is this okay? Or too censory for ya?

    I feel like I may have gotten bottom of the page'd on this (or maybe everybody just ignored me, thread has been moving fast)... Isn't the desired end result of this kind of behavior that Wonder Woman no longer be drawn in this style? And if so, do you see how that can feel like censorship to people who like it when Wonder Woman is drawn in that style? Technicalities about the definition of censorship aside, what this kind of criticism is saying to those fans is, "What you like is wrong, and I will work to create a world in which the thing you like does not exist." If you have no sympathy for that viewpoint, all I can say is, imagine if people spent this much time deriding your favorite genre or mode of artistic expression.

    I'm not arguing that you're obligated to make or not make certain purchases, or say or not say certain things. Just that people on this side of the argument are kind of hiding behind the fact that this isn't censorship. It's not censorship, but it's still a concerted effort to alter the media landscape in a preferred direction by pressuring creators to alter or cease their self-expression. Those who disagree with your direction are going to be upset with this, and it's okay if your reaction is "well, fuck those guys," but you should be aware that that is in fact what you're saying.

    (Kind of a general "you" there. Not picking on you, SIG.)

    There's no such thing as abject morality, I suppose, but sexual objectification tends to get frowned upon in progressive circles. Ergo, if the consistent progressive consensus is making well-articulated arguments for or against the proliferation of certain types of imagery and representation, I think the discourse is less "well, fuck those guys," and more, "those guys are wrong, here's why, and at the very least people should be cognizant of these facts if they choose to continue their patronage."

    I appreciate that sentiment and I probably agree with it; but at the same time that sentiment is rarely expressed in these discussions (and other critical discussions). I mean, people don't tend to go, "This depiction of sexist behavior is awful, but it's okay to be a fan as long as you know what you're watching."

    I guess I would say the focus in these discussions is too heavily based on what is wrong with existing media and not on what is right with existing media ("such and such movie shows how strong female characters should work") or how we encourage new media that fits with our worldview. "Man, I hate when TV shows have a dumb schlub of a husband married to a beautiful, intelligent, long-suffering wife. But I really liked this other show with a strong father role model in a realistic spousal relationship. That showrunner really seems to know where it's at when it comes to this issue, I hope NBC makes more of her shows."

    Check out my post about The Fall for a post about a show I think doesn't adhere to tropes as much as other cop shows. I think others have made some mentions here as well. Or provide some examples to shift the focus!

    The problem for me is I kinda have to wrack my brain, cause there aren't a lot.

    So It Goes on
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Well h
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Talking about art as harmful and seeking ways to eliminate said harm falls under the umbrella for me with room to spare.

    It's not, regardless of whether you believe it is.

    Well hey, debate over, you win. Cause you said so, apparently.

    There was no debate. You were wrong on a matter of fact, and you were corrected. Maybe take some time to reflect on your error and how to avoid making it again in the future.

    No, nothing was proven. Someone made a statement and seemed to think that was it. Odd way to debate.

    Please allow me to elaborate:

    "Censorship", in the way we are concerned with, has a fairly concrete definition, a necessary element of which is the exercise of authority to prevent the dissemination of speech. The criticism and media advocacy at issue in this thread presumably do not involve such exercise of authority (and if you had evidence it did, I surely hope you would present it forthrightly). You may disagree with this criticism, or be uncomfortable with its goals or methodology. But that cannot transform it into censorship. To argue otherwise is, frankly disingenuous and dishonest. "You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts", as the saying goes.

    censorship is a red herring. The limitation of an expression of ideas due to anything other than the merit of the idea is a better fish to fry.

    The idea of wonder woman looking like a contorted unrealistic woman designed to display boobs and butt is stupid and sexist, and I would prefer if they used another artist that did not depict her that way.

    Which is why I'm buying all the Chiang books and will not be buying the future books by the new guy.

    Is this okay? Or too censory for ya?

    Do you think this differs from a person who has never/will never by comic books chastising someone who wants to by the future books for buying sexist comics as if it was a moral wrong? Or chastising the author for creating the sexist comic as if they are amoral for doing so? Should those people (the author/customer) feel bad for what they have done?

    Calling out a depiction as sexist or part of a sexist tradition of art in comics is not equivalent of morally judging the artist. They should not "feel bad" ideally they should educate themselves and recognize the sexist ideas or images represented in their art, and if they truly educate themselves, work to avoid those in the future. The goal of calling these things out is to get the artist (or the audience) to RECOGNIZE some shit is going on. See: Pony's post.

    Or they can just shrug their shoulders knowing that the right way to depict a human being doesn't really exist. That's also a possibility.

    Fortunately no one said the bolded.

    But a good artist? They'll listen to constructive criticism, see how it compares to what it is they're trying to express, and apply it to future creations.

    They'll listen to what people have to say and use their brains to interpret what this means to their work. What behavior this may elicit is hard to predict.

    So?

    Kristmas Kthulhu
  • programjunkieprogramjunkie Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    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..

    Earth's gravity and Saturn's gravity are pulling on both of us right now. Which one is more relevant? Which one can safely be disregard?

    Access to media which could reasonably be called infrastructure development could absolutely be a different thing than worrying about minutiae like physically implausible poses.

    It wasn't exposure to a new media that changed things. It was exposure to different ideas by that media. So please demonstrate what makes your culture so different that it's unaffected by media if you want to claim it isn't affected.

    The responsibility to refute claims that American romcoms make people more sexist is not on the people claiming that introduction of cable to rural India is not sufficient, comprehensive proof of that claim.

    Do violent video games, which routinely feature and laud violence being done by the player themselves, encourage violent crime in society?

    Nobody has said a single piece of media makes people sexist or violent.

    Please stop trying to claim that and actually address the statements people make.

    I'm not saying anyone is claiming, "Jimmy was a perfect boy before he played GTA5, then 30 minutes later, he beat up a prostitute and stole a car," but it sure sounds like people are arguing that in general, more violent video games ought cause more violence, unless they are taking the side door around claiming things that are obviously untrue by saying sexist games exacerbate sexism (in general, again, not on a 1:1 basis), but violent video games don't exacerbate violence.
    shryke wrote: »
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Why do these kind of discussions always end up in the same place, which people apparently unable to understand that criticism is not censorship?

    It really comes off feeling like some people can't even accept criticism of things they like.

    Because there is a slippery slope with a few fine lines involved.

    1. Criticism of media to make others aware of potential negative tropes. The problem is that potential negative tropes can be very subjective and the actual negative effects are hard to define.
    2. Supporting perceived positive tropes in media. Depending on the level of support given to positive tropes, this can turn into de facto censorship of peceived negative tropes.
    3. Once something gets labeled as badwrong, certain groups of people take it on themselves to rid the world of it. For a great example of this, see smoking. While rational people may agree that smoking should be allowed, there is still a strong push toward virtual prohibition.

    Name me a single piece of general media, wherein no harm actually occurs to anyone, that has been banned in the U.S.

    Cause I can name tons of media that is frowned upon far, far worse than the romantic comedy dreck that gets pushed out every year and yet is under no threat of being banned.
    Note the words "de facto" in #2. As for #3, just because people have thus far failed at banning things in the US does not mean they haven't tried.

    So name the de facto bans then.

    Any video game rated AO. Any movie rated NC 17. Which, I might add, disproportionately affects pro-woman and pro-minority views of sexuality.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Film_Is_Not_Yet_Rated

    Despite what someone briefly skimming my posts in this forum and making a +/- check in their mind might believe, I want to see more females in better roles in video games, and I want to be able to play a protagonist with my same sexuality outside of a very few entries. What I do take exception to is the unsubstantiated claims of substantial negative influence on society, when really, it's the other way around. When prominent religious organizations take orphans hostage to hurt gay people and largely get away with it, it's not the fact that too many FPS protagonists are straight that is having an undue negative effect on society.

    You're right, that is actually bullshit. And you even had people like Leland Yee agree on that point.

    Wait, the guy who wanted to ban violent video games was against the AO ban?

    Yes, actually. Turns out this media thing is a lot more complicated than you think.

    It's not all that complicated, in Yee's case. That was actual censorship, which is why it got shot down, and rightfully so.

    Also, Yee is probably a bad example, as his credibility on the sort of thing that damages society is not the best after being arrested for corruption and gun trafficking.

    Wicked Demiurge in most games. Solacus is my main in GW2.
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Well h
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Talking about art as harmful and seeking ways to eliminate said harm falls under the umbrella for me with room to spare.

    It's not, regardless of whether you believe it is.

    Well hey, debate over, you win. Cause you said so, apparently.

    There was no debate. You were wrong on a matter of fact, and you were corrected. Maybe take some time to reflect on your error and how to avoid making it again in the future.

    No, nothing was proven. Someone made a statement and seemed to think that was it. Odd way to debate.

    Please allow me to elaborate:

    "Censorship", in the way we are concerned with, has a fairly concrete definition, a necessary element of which is the exercise of authority to prevent the dissemination of speech. The criticism and media advocacy at issue in this thread presumably do not involve such exercise of authority (and if you had evidence it did, I surely hope you would present it forthrightly). You may disagree with this criticism, or be uncomfortable with its goals or methodology. But that cannot transform it into censorship. To argue otherwise is, frankly disingenuous and dishonest. "You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts", as the saying goes.

    censorship is a red herring. The limitation of an expression of ideas due to anything other than the merit of the idea is a better fish to fry.

    The idea of wonder woman looking like a contorted unrealistic woman designed to display boobs and butt is stupid and sexist, and I would prefer if they used another artist that did not depict her that way.

    Which is why I'm buying all the Chiang books and will not be buying the future books by the new guy.

    Is this okay? Or too censory for ya?

    Do you think this differs from a person who has never/will never by comic books chastising someone who wants to by the future books for buying sexist comics as if it was a moral wrong? Or chastising the author for creating the sexist comic as if they are amoral for doing so? Should those people (the author/customer) feel bad for what they have done?

    Calling out a depiction as sexist or part of a sexist tradition of art in comics is not equivalent of morally judging the artist. They should not "feel bad" ideally they should educate themselves and recognize the sexist ideas or images represented in their art, and if they truly educate themselves, work to avoid those in the future. The goal of calling these things out is to get the artist (or the audience) to RECOGNIZE some shit is going on. See: Pony's post.

    Or they can just shrug their shoulders knowing that the right way to depict a human being doesn't really exist. That's also a possibility.

    Fortunately no one said the bolded.

    But a good artist? They'll listen to constructive criticism, see how it compares to what it is they're trying to express, and apply it to future creations.

    They'll listen to what people have to say and use their brains to interpret what this means to their work. What behavior this may elicit is hard to predict.

    So?

    Bringing it back, a skillful artist may not come to the conclusion that sexist work is something they must grow out of. There are several points in that concept from which they may diverge from common opinion.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • MuddypawsMuddypaws Registered User regular
    edited September 2014
    _J_ wrote: »



    If you dislike how women are portrayed in media, then talk about how women are portrayed in media. Don't point at how Artist-B17 draws Wonder Woman. Because the problem is not how Artist B-17 draws Wonder Woman.

    The problem is that any artist would have the idea of a need or desire to portray any woman in that way.

    Allegedly.

    How the hell is talking about how women are portrayed in media somehow allowed but talking about how a particular artist portrays women in comic books NOT allowed? They are exactly the same thing! Are comic books not included under the media umbrella or is this another carefully crafted J definition that has nothing to do with reality?

    And Blackface went through decades of "Dude, that shit is messed up. What are you doing?" style peer pressure and scorn, it didn't fade away like an untended bloom with no people interaction. Was that censorship? Eye rolling at a friend when he buys 'Nazi White Chicks Monthly', is that censorship? Me criticising you, is THAT censorship? What exactly do the J Laws of Debate allow if they remove talking about individual instances of problematic art along with broader themes.

    Muddypaws on
    Kristmas Kthulhu
  • FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    Ok, time to try to be more comprehensive for 15 minutes or so. Stupid phone.

    First, because this is interesting to me:
    I look at it this way.

    There's no way in hell I would let my kids watch South Park. Even if I was sitting with them the entire time and explaining things to them, putting the sexual content into context, and telling them not to say that word at school.

    As a parent, I am controlling what they watch. But that's the obvious stuff. How do you sit with a child and explain to them that the guy just got raped on Wedding Crashers and that no matter what the TV is telling them, that wasn't an okay thing to do?

    I'm not saying all media should conform to something a child can watch. But if you wouldn't let your 3-year-old watch The Human Centipede, unsupervised or not, you might want to ask yourself why. And if the answer you arrive at is that people actually are affected by media to a certain extent...

    Well, I don't know why we would necessarily think that ceases at a certain age. Becomes less likely or slows down, maybe, but how many people do you know who don't even give that Wedding Crashers rape scene a second thought?

    This here is about the divide between reality and fiction. This is something children learn as they grow, and something most adults are supposed to have a solid hold of. It's why you don't show your child Human Centipede, because at a younger age they don't have the wherewithall to separate what they're seeing from the reality they live in. Same with South Park, a kid doesn't understand where a lot of the humor comes from, how what makes it funny is also what makes it so inappropriate.

    I'd say adults are expected to do this, and rightly so. An adult should have the wherewithall to know and understand these things. They're expected to learn their limits (not watch horror movies, maybe), and that's a good thing. It allows for people who like horror movies (like human centipede) to watch them and those who do not to not watch them. I'd say this is an optimal state of being.


    So, the suppression of art is a bad thing. I believe that, and I suppose you do as well - even given different definitions of suppression. I won't put words into your mouth, but I believe that art is one of our most powerful forms of speech; those who can ban it are often the establishment that has the most prestige to lose from art denigrating it. I don't know why you care so much about its suppression, given that you think it's something that doesn't matters - well, I guess just did put a couple of words in your mouth, but feel free to take them out.

    Do you believe art to be simultaneously sacrosanct and unimportant? I'm not sure I can square your vehement support for art with my perceived view that you think it's all words in the wind. Why do you care if art is suppressed or not?

    This because I think I can answer a lot of the posts going on with me with this one.

    Elki, you and i agree that art is powerful. Or rather, I agree it can be powerful. I may feel more strongly on this issue than some because I've spent a lot of time in it, and am connected to it. Many of my friend work in art of some kind, earn their livelihoods off it (as do I, to a certain extent).

    The two things I feel are very important in regards to this:

    1. That art have the potential and freedom to surprise, shock or offend.
    2. That people have free access to the art that speaks to them.

    Really that's the core of it. I don't argue that all art is powerful, there is a multitude of trash out there. But that is simultaneously the sort of system that allows great and surprising art to flourish.

    In addition to that, I am strongly for free and unfettered access to art. The current system doesn't really allow money-making like I dreamed of going up but I like it. It's available. People can get to it and I think that's a good thing.

    To me, the suppression of any art is the suppression of all art. Some will argue slippery slope and fine, but if you can suppress a certain piece of art for X Moral Reason than any piece of art can be suppressed. That's as simple as I can put it. There is plenty of art out there I object to, or find objectionable. But I leave it alone because I know that if something is truly valuable, if something is of true worth it will shock someone, it will offend someone, it will do something. Make you laugh or cry or make you angry, but it will cause a reaction, it will be controversial. And that sort of art needs the ability to survive X group making a fuss because X offended them.

    Moving on from the more dramatic, we reach the more mundane: escapist art. This is where I'll put comics and other such stuff. Here I'm all for variety of expression for the aforementioned reason, but also because I know there is far too much disagreement in the world for everyone to get only the media they want. The compromise is to get all the media, for everyone, and people get to view the things they want to view. Here I'm somewhat sensitive because this is the the thing I and my friends have run into. One of my best friends does art that most people in this thread would be very, very unhappy with. Some of you actually have complained about it in past threads, but meh. Stuff like that gets to me, because I know her and I know her fans. I understand how much her art means to her and much it makes her happy, and how much it makes her fans happy, and when someone sees and goes "ugh, make it go away" I want to tell them to fuck off right to their goddamn face. Obviously, though, that would be bad :). But yeah, it gets me a little hot. Because I don't hate that person and I want them to have art they like. I just don't get why they can't leave well enough alone and be happy those people have art they like and that the artist is happy and fulfilled in doing what she loves.

    I'm hoping I got around to what you were wondering in there. To close, no, all art is not powerful, but it can be, and we need to make sure it can be. Always. I feel we need to trust people to read Pulp Book X and understand that it's different from Life in the Iron Mills, or what have you. And I feel we need to understand that some people need Pulp Book X because it fills something in their life that Life in the Iron Mills cant and was never meant to fill.

    Can art cause harm? Arguably yes. I think all things can cause harm. You can eat yourself to fucking death. But as someone brought up the big mac earlier, it is that person's right to eat that big mac. Do they eat it every goddamn day? Maybe. Is it their reward for a month of healthy eating? Maybe. You don't know, and it's none of your business.

    But in the end, the harm art causes is like having a few thistles in a field. Maybe I'd feel more kindly towards this theory if the proposed harm were more solid, but it's just not. The causation link is so weak I can't really get it.

  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    I'm not saying anyone is claiming, "Jimmy was a perfect boy before he played GTA5, then 30 minutes later, he beat up a prostitute and stole a car," but it sure sounds like people are arguing that in general, more violent video games ought cause more violence, unless they are taking the side door around claiming things that are obviously untrue by saying sexist games exacerbate sexism (in general, again, not on a 1:1 basis), but violent video games don't exacerbate violence.

    Stop trying to point at something else though. This is talking about sexism and specifically sexism.

    If you do not believe people learn from fiction then say so and we can work from there.

    If you do not believe sexism is taught then say so and we can work from there.

    If you do not believe sexism permeates our media then say so and we can work from there.

    But there's nothing to work with when you try to insist we justify your analogies.

  • FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Well h
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Talking about art as harmful and seeking ways to eliminate said harm falls under the umbrella for me with room to spare.

    It's not, regardless of whether you believe it is.

    Well hey, debate over, you win. Cause you said so, apparently.

    There was no debate. You were wrong on a matter of fact, and you were corrected. Maybe take some time to reflect on your error and how to avoid making it again in the future.

    No, nothing was proven. Someone made a statement and seemed to think that was it. Odd way to debate.

    Please allow me to elaborate:

    "Censorship", in the way we are concerned with, has a fairly concrete definition, a necessary element of which is the exercise of authority to prevent the dissemination of speech. The criticism and media advocacy at issue in this thread presumably do not involve such exercise of authority (and if you had evidence it did, I surely hope you would present it forthrightly). You may disagree with this criticism, or be uncomfortable with its goals or methodology. But that cannot transform it into censorship. To argue otherwise is, frankly, disingenuous and dishonest. "You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts", as the saying goes.

    I haven't argued about censorship, as rigidly defined as the government censoring things. I haven't brought the government into it at all, and have attempted to use the word Suppression to differentiate, and to show I'm talking about a broader issue than Jack Booted Thugs, etc.

    Perhaps reading my posts in that light will illuminate some things?

  • MuddypawsMuddypaws Registered User regular
    edited September 2014
    So a Southern gent of middle years no longer feeling he can yell 'N-ding' at passers by because he might come under negative attention, that is suppression? If so can it be a good thing or is it bad regardless of context? What are the boundaries here?

    Muddypaws on
    Kristmas Kthulhu
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited September 2014
    I'm not saying anyone is claiming, "Jimmy was a perfect boy before he played GTA5, then 30 minutes later, he beat up a prostitute and stole a car," but it sure sounds like people are arguing that in general, more violent video games ought cause more violence, unless they are taking the side door around claiming things that are obviously untrue by saying sexist games exacerbate sexism (in general, again, not on a 1:1 basis), but violent video games don't exacerbate violence.

    As I pointed out earlier, human beings are more complicated than that.

    Internalizing something does not automatically lead to direct mimicry. We're not monkeys (we're damned dirty apes).

    Exposure to violence might lead you to be more comfortable with violence as a concept, possibly making you more comfortable with more aggressive responses to armed conflicts or criminal behavior. Exposure to sexism might lead you to be more comfortable with cracking jokes about things you would never actually advocate, like that guy who ticked off a lot of people by making an implied rape joke during the presentation of the Xbox One.

    Incenjucar on
    Julius
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    Shadowhope wrote: »
    Some thoughts about sexist tropes that I've been thinking about all day, centred around a deep, dark secret or two about me that not even my immediate family knows:

    In my younger days, working as a bartender, one of the other bartenders tended to leave her Harlequin romance novels lying around the bar. I love reading, and I'm willing to give just about anything from any genre a try, and I read at least a dozen of those things. The tropes there ended up annoying the heck out of me, and when I no longer had semi-abandoned books left sitting around within reach for me to snag and read on the bus home, I didn't bother reading much more of the genre.

    The women tended to be described as plain, many of them had a child already of various ages, and they tended towards early to mid thirties. They tended not to have much higher education, or if they did they were underemployed. The men tended to be handsome, successful globe trotters, who could have had any women in the room with a crook of their fingers. They had busy professional lives, and a tendency towards having experienced personal tragedy in their past that had scarred them and made it difficult for them to get close to people. The Plain Jane protagonist would melt the heart of the brooding guy, and after some almost tragedy she'd teach him to love and he'd whisk her out of her mundane life of drudgery.

    I think this might have been due more to that bartender's preferences; of the two hundred or so I've read, maybe two female protagonists fit that description. Most were self-described to be at least moderately attractive, and while some had children, many had younger siblings or no dependents at all, and the men had a fairly similar distribution here. Almost all had decent jobs, though when part of the plot was the professional conflict between the protagonists, the women sacrificed for the man pretty much all but once. Intimacy issues were fairly common as reasons for the relationship to be complicated, but I don't think they were predominantly present in either sex.

    Now, on the men being tall, dark and handsome, that I'll very much give you, and as a short homely guy it kinda irritates me. But while romance novels are formulaic, the formula isn't nearly as specific as you've detailed.

  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    Can art cause harm? Arguably yes. I think all things can cause harm. You can eat yourself to fucking death. But as someone brought up the big mac earlier, it is that person's right to eat that big mac. Do they eat it every goddamn day? Maybe. Is it their reward for a month of healthy eating? Maybe. You don't know, and it's none of your business.

    It's my business if there's a forum topic about Big Macs and how they affect health. It's my business when it comes to what I spend my money on. It's my business when it comes to what I don't spend my money on. Are you suggesting these things suppress McDonalds?

    But I guess in the end, unlike sexism the harm my actions cause is like having a few thistles in a field. Maybe I'd feel more kindly towards this theory if the proposed harm were more solid, but it's just not. The causation link is so weak I can't really get it.

    AngelHedgieKristmas Kthulhu
  • FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Well h
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Talking about art as harmful and seeking ways to eliminate said harm falls under the umbrella for me with room to spare.

    It's not, regardless of whether you believe it is.

    Well hey, debate over, you win. Cause you said so, apparently.

    It's been explained why your premise is defective several times in this thread.

    Apparently, though I am yet to be convinced of it. It's still just nebulous claims of harm used as justification to promote the removal of said harm all disguised as some sort of "simple criticism". It's the same old thing, from everyone who was outraged about something, ever. Plus, you don't agree with my premise that art is essentially sacrosanct and should not be suppressed (yes, suppressed, that's what's being advocated as evidenced by the motion of proving harm through to removing harm) under pretty much any circumstance. If it's legal to make it, I support it, and I think our disagreement really stems from there.


    These claims aren't nebulous. We have a study right here showing media influencing culture.

    And this whole time you've been criticizing other people's posts. Does this mean you want the government to censor them? Of course not. So stop insisting that's what others want. It's dishonest.

    You're the only one taking about the government, mate. But we are essentially both doing the same thing and it's not criticizing. We are attempting to find evidence of harm and from there are trying to prevent said harm. I think my causation link is much more direct and far more provable.

    You haven't shown any causation.

    You've gone from "You're against the overall sexist portrayal of people that permeates every form of media" to "You want to censor people."

    Yet no one has argued for censorship. Instead of addressing people's actual statements you're insisting you know what they really mean and want. It's insulting and disrespectful.

    I've asked many times for someone to finish this chain, but no one has satisfactory.

    In this thread people complain about things they find harmful, than work to show said harm, and then......

    Than what? If I assume you're a decent human being, my assumption is that the next step is removing harm. When the harm in question is art I will have a problem with that, thus I am debating.

    If the next step is "grumble about harm" than I'm still interested because it's a topic that means a lot to me.

    So please, someone, finish the chain. You feel something is harmful, you try to prove the harm, and then what? I feel it's not crazy for me to suggest that the end of that logic chain the the thought that harm should be removed. If I am totally wrong and offpoint I apologize, but my mind is failing me a bit here on where else that logic train goes.

  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    Your post seems to posit that merely critiquing art suppresses it. If not, what do you mean by suppress?


    AngelHedgieQuidCambiatajoshofalltradesshrykeLoveIsUnityEncArdol
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited September 2014
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Well h
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Talking about art as harmful and seeking ways to eliminate said harm falls under the umbrella for me with room to spare.

    It's not, regardless of whether you believe it is.

    Well hey, debate over, you win. Cause you said so, apparently.

    It's been explained why your premise is defective several times in this thread.

    Apparently, though I am yet to be convinced of it. It's still just nebulous claims of harm used as justification to promote the removal of said harm all disguised as some sort of "simple criticism". It's the same old thing, from everyone who was outraged about something, ever. Plus, you don't agree with my premise that art is essentially sacrosanct and should not be suppressed (yes, suppressed, that's what's being advocated as evidenced by the motion of proving harm through to removing harm) under pretty much any circumstance. If it's legal to make it, I support it, and I think our disagreement really stems from there.


    These claims aren't nebulous. We have a study right here showing media influencing culture.

    And this whole time you've been criticizing other people's posts. Does this mean you want the government to censor them? Of course not. So stop insisting that's what others want. It's dishonest.

    You're the only one taking about the government, mate. But we are essentially both doing the same thing and it's not criticizing. We are attempting to find evidence of harm and from there are trying to prevent said harm. I think my causation link is much more direct and far more provable.

    You haven't shown any causation.

    You've gone from "You're against the overall sexist portrayal of people that permeates every form of media" to "You want to censor people."

    Yet no one has argued for censorship. Instead of addressing people's actual statements you're insisting you know what they really mean and want. It's insulting and disrespectful.

    I've asked many times for someone to finish this chain, but no one has satisfactory.

    In this thread people complain about things they find harmful, than work to show said harm, and then......

    Than what? If I assume you're a decent human being, my assumption is that the next step is removing harm. When the harm in question is art I will have a problem with that, thus I am debating.

    If the next step is "grumble about harm" than I'm still interested because it's a topic that means a lot to me.

    So please, someone, finish the chain. You feel something is harmful, you try to prove the harm, and then what? I feel it's not crazy for me to suggest that the end of that logic chain the the thought that harm should be removed. If I am totally wrong and offpoint I apologize, but my mind is failing me a bit here on where else that logic train goes.

    Removing that harm doesn't require suppressing people.

    Saying it does does not make it the case.

    If I say "That is sexist and am not going to give you money for it" I am not suppressing anyone.

    Quid on
    AngelHedgieCambiataJihadJesusKristmas KthulhuEncArdol
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Muddypaws wrote: »
    How the hell is talking about how women are portrayed in media somehow allowed but talking about how a particular artist portrays women in comic books NOT allowed? They are exactly the same thing! Are comic books not included under the media umbrella or is this another carefully crafted J definition that has nothing to do with reality?

    They are not the same thing. "how women are portrayed" is a vague, general concept. "how Artist-B17 draws Wonder Woman" is a particular example. One is the forest, the other is a tree.

    There are some people in the thread who claim their intent is to eliminate...I don't know what it would be in the metaphor. Something produced by the forest. But then they try to yell at the forest, usually by yelling at a particular tree.

    1) Sexism
    2) Sexist tropes in media
    3) How this guy draws Wonder Woman

    Those are different things. I am completely on board with eliminating sexism. But I'm not going to yell at the tree. Because we have yet to prove that the tree is a cause, rather than a symptom.

    See:
    Do violent video games cause people to be violent, or do violent people play violent video games.
    Do sexist video games cause people to be sexist, or do sexist people play sexist video games.

    Apothe0sis
  • PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    Astaereth wrote: »
    I feel like I may have gotten bottom of the page'd on this (or maybe everybody just ignored me, thread has been moving fast)... Isn't the desired end result of this kind of behavior that Wonder Woman no longer be drawn in this style?

    Not necessarily. Arguably earlier "waves" of feminism were more focused on specifically fighting against misogynistic media (among other things), although that's a gross oversimplification. Very generally speaking, most modern thought on the subject is not "Wonder Woman can't have big boobs" but "Why does every female superhero need to be a sex object, including (as an example) Wonder Woman?" Again, these are very broad (rimshot) generalizations.

    Objectification and stereotype require a certain amount of repetition and reinforcement to become an issue. The complaint is not that Wonder Woman (or any particular random character) has a skimpy outfit or whatever. The complaint is that a particular character is another example in a very long list of women being treated like objects, less than human.

    In Star Trek, being a nameless crew member in a red shirt denotes your importance and role in the story. The issue here is that women are often forced into a similar (but not identical) position, they exist not to be fully fleshed out characters and to carry their own stories, but instead as a medium for the delivery of awkwardly constructed and unrealistic tits and asses.

    This doesn't really touch on the related but separate issues of body image and mandatory sexualization, which also merit discussion but are getting kind of off point for this post.

    Indirectly, its true that if you take a zero-sum mentality to the production of art, production of good female characters arguably requires less bad female characters (in the same way that production of more good videogames requires the production of less bad videogames, which is kind of silly when you say it like that). This doesn't require that a specific trope related to women characters disappear, but it does require that characters be allowed to exist outside said trope.

    This is all criticism and not censorship, and any definition of censorship which encompasses "complaining about something you don't like in art" is functionally useless. I have no objection to women being allowed to inhabit a wide variety of roles, including badass protagonist, tragic villain, confused wanderer, and sexy pinup, along with all sorts of other roles.

    All that said, I see no artistic merit and no worthwhile purpose to defending the current state of affairs. The comic book industry can thrive with fewer ass/boob contortionists. Video games can tell better stories by treating both genders as worthy of depth. Movies can expand their horizons by allowing women and men to play interesting and unique characters who aren't limited by their sex or gender.

    Two goats enter, one car leaves
    Kristmas KthulhuHacksaw
  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    edited September 2014
    _J_ wrote: »
    Muddypaws wrote: »
    How the hell is talking about how women are portrayed in media somehow allowed but talking about how a particular artist portrays women in comic books NOT allowed? They are exactly the same thing! Are comic books not included under the media umbrella or is this another carefully crafted J definition that has nothing to do with reality?

    They are not the same thing. "how women are portrayed" is a vague, general concept. "how Artist-B17 draws Wonder Woman" is a particular example. One is the forest, the other is a tree.

    There are some people in the thread who claim their intent is to eliminate...I don't know what it would be in the metaphor. Something produced by the forest. But then they try to yell at the forest, usually by yelling at a particular tree.

    1) Sexism
    2) Sexist tropes in media
    3) How this guy draws Wonder Woman

    Those are different things. I am completely on board with eliminating sexism. But I'm not going to yell at the tree. Because we have yet to prove that the tree is a cause, rather than a symptom.

    See:
    Do violent video games cause people to be violent, or do violent people play violent video games.
    Do sexist video games cause people to be sexist, or do sexist people play sexist video games.

    let's get obtuse up in here!


    How this guy draws WW is an EXAMPLE of sexist tropes in media, why are we not allowed to talk about it? Wtf even is your point.

    So It Goes on
    MuddypawsAngelHedgieIncenjucarAndy Joe
  • FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Can art cause harm? Arguably yes. I think all things can cause harm. You can eat yourself to fucking death. But as someone brought up the big mac earlier, it is that person's right to eat that big mac. Do they eat it every goddamn day? Maybe. Is it their reward for a month of healthy eating? Maybe. You don't know, and it's none of your business.

    It's my business if there's a forum topic about Big Macs and how they affect health. It's my business when it comes to what I spend my money on. It's my business when it comes to what I don't spend my money on. Are you suggesting these things suppress McDonalds?

    But I guess in the end, unlike sexism the harm my actions cause is like having a few thistles in a field. Maybe I'd feel more kindly towards this theory if the proposed harm were more solid, but it's just not. The causation link is so weak I can't really get it.

    Stop copies me! (insert Dethklok meme here please)

    But hey, care to guess my opinion about the Big Mac thread? It's right there in my post. It's why arguments on this forum are so much fun, we agree on nothing!

  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    So you're saying I am suppressing McDonalds by not buying their food?

    AngelHedgieCambiataKid Presentable
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Well h
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Talking about art as harmful and seeking ways to eliminate said harm falls under the umbrella for me with room to spare.

    It's not, regardless of whether you believe it is.

    Well hey, debate over, you win. Cause you said so, apparently.

    There was no debate. You were wrong on a matter of fact, and you were corrected. Maybe take some time to reflect on your error and how to avoid making it again in the future.

    No, nothing was proven. Someone made a statement and seemed to think that was it. Odd way to debate.

    Please allow me to elaborate:

    "Censorship", in the way we are concerned with, has a fairly concrete definition, a necessary element of which is the exercise of authority to prevent the dissemination of speech. The criticism and media advocacy at issue in this thread presumably do not involve such exercise of authority (and if you had evidence it did, I surely hope you would present it forthrightly). You may disagree with this criticism, or be uncomfortable with its goals or methodology. But that cannot transform it into censorship. To argue otherwise is, frankly disingenuous and dishonest. "You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts", as the saying goes.

    censorship is a red herring. The limitation of an expression of ideas due to anything other than the merit of the idea is a better fish to fry.

    The idea of wonder woman looking like a contorted unrealistic woman designed to display boobs and butt is stupid and sexist, and I would prefer if they used another artist that did not depict her that way.

    Which is why I'm buying all the Chiang books and will not be buying the future books by the new guy.

    Is this okay? Or too censory for ya?

    Do you think this differs from a person who has never/will never by comic books chastising someone who wants to by the future books for buying sexist comics as if it was a moral wrong? Or chastising the author for creating the sexist comic as if they are amoral for doing so? Should those people (the author/customer) feel bad for what they have done?

    Calling out a depiction as sexist or part of a sexist tradition of art in comics is not equivalent of morally judging the artist. They should not "feel bad" ideally they should educate themselves and recognize the sexist ideas or images represented in their art, and if they truly educate themselves, work to avoid those in the future. The goal of calling these things out is to get the artist (or the audience) to RECOGNIZE some shit is going on. See: Pony's post.

    Or they can just shrug their shoulders knowing that the right way to depict a human being doesn't really exist. That's also a possibility.

    Fortunately no one said the bolded.

    But a good artist? They'll listen to constructive criticism, see how it compares to what it is they're trying to express, and apply it to future creations.

    They'll listen to what people have to say and use their brains to interpret what this means to their work. What behavior this may elicit is hard to predict.

    So?

    Bringing it back, a skillful artist may not come to the conclusion that sexist work is something they must grow out of. There are several points in that concept from which they may diverge from common opinion.

    There are feminists who make in faux misogynist art. Thing is that they tend to label it so nobody mistakes the roleplayed misogyny fetish for something normalized.

  • Jebus314Jebus314 Registered User regular
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Well h
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Talking about art as harmful and seeking ways to eliminate said harm falls under the umbrella for me with room to spare.

    It's not, regardless of whether you believe it is.

    Well hey, debate over, you win. Cause you said so, apparently.

    There was no debate. You were wrong on a matter of fact, and you were corrected. Maybe take some time to reflect on your error and how to avoid making it again in the future.

    No, nothing was proven. Someone made a statement and seemed to think that was it. Odd way to debate.

    Please allow me to elaborate:

    "Censorship", in the way we are concerned with, has a fairly concrete definition, a necessary element of which is the exercise of authority to prevent the dissemination of speech. The criticism and media advocacy at issue in this thread presumably do not involve such exercise of authority (and if you had evidence it did, I surely hope you would present it forthrightly). You may disagree with this criticism, or be uncomfortable with its goals or methodology. But that cannot transform it into censorship. To argue otherwise is, frankly disingenuous and dishonest. "You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts", as the saying goes.

    censorship is a red herring. The limitation of an expression of ideas due to anything other than the merit of the idea is a better fish to fry.

    The idea of wonder woman looking like a contorted unrealistic woman designed to display boobs and butt is stupid and sexist, and I would prefer if they used another artist that did not depict her that way.

    Which is why I'm buying all the Chiang books and will not be buying the future books by the new guy.

    Is this okay? Or too censory for ya?

    Do you think this differs from a person who has never/will never by comic books chastising someone who wants to by the future books for buying sexist comics as if it was a moral wrong? Or chastising the author for creating the sexist comic as if they are amoral for doing so? Should those people (the author/customer) feel bad for what they have done?

    Calling out a depiction as sexist or part of a sexist tradition of art in comics is not equivalent of morally judging the artist. They should not "feel bad" ideally they should educate themselves and recognize the sexist ideas or images represented in their art, and if they truly educate themselves, work to avoid those in the future. The goal of calling these things out is to get the artist (or the audience) to RECOGNIZE some shit is going on. See: Pony's post.

    Those seem like contradictory thoughts though. Why do they need to educate themselves and work to avoid them in the future if they have nothing to feel bad about?

    To be clear I am largely ok with the idea that you might want to point out how certain things can be sexist in an effort to get more artists to create work that is not. That's certainly a laudable goal. But I think it's important to distinguish general calling out of sexist works to increase public understanding and shaming a particular artist who would rather create something like big boobed wonder woman anyway.

    From your posts it certainly seems like you fall on the side of just wanting to educate people on how their works might be interpreted, and I totally support that. But there are many people who would vilify an artist who understands that big boobed, arched backed wonder woman is a sort of sexist trope but decided to create one anyway because it's still a perfectly valid male fantasy comic. I'm not sure I'm ok with the latter case.

    "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
  • PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    Is it ok to criticize an artist for having shit art? How about criticizing a writer for being terrible? Can I criticize a game for crashing constantly?

    Is it ok to criticize an artist for relying on repetitive and misogynistic tropes in their character design?

    What kind of mindset is required to think criticism can include "levels take too long to load" but can't include "this character is a sexualized cardboard cutout."

    Two goats enter, one car leaves
    CambiataKristmas KthulhuHacksaw
  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    edited September 2014
    Mark Twain made the argument that the popularity of romantic literature (particularly Sir Walter Scott's work) in the South that glorified chivalry was one of the factors that led to the Civil War.
    There, the genuine and wholesome civilization of the nineteenth century is curiously confused and commingled with the Walter Scott Middle-Age sham civilization; and so you have practical, common-sense, progressive ideas, and progressive works, mixed up with the duel, the inflated speech, and the jejune romanticism of an absurd past that is dead, and out of charity ought to be buried. But for the Sir Walter disease, the character of the Southerner–or Southron, according to Sir Walter’s starchier way of phrasing it–would be wholly modern, in place of modern and mediaeval mixed, and the South would be fully a generation further advanced than it is. It was Sir Walter that made every gentleman in the South a Major or a Colonel, or a General or a Judge, before the war; and it was he, also, that made these gentlemen value these bogus decorations. For it was he that created rank and caste down there, and also reverence for rank and caste, and pride and pleasure in them. Enough is laid on slavery, without fathering upon it these creations and contributions of Sir Walter.

    So they were having the same argument 150 years ago we're having on the internet now.

    Which is kind of awesome.

    Jephery on
    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
    QuidjoshofalltradesAngelHedgieIncenjucarKristmas KthulhuHacksawceresElvenshaeKid Presentable
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Wtf even is your point.

    I'm trying to get at the conversation about sexist tropes in media by starting from the commonly held notion (at least on these forums) that exposure to violent media does not make people violent.

    In those conversations, people are completely comfortable drawing lines between reality and fiction, actual acts vs. virtual acts, etc. They will cite studies, share anecdotes, etc. with the foregone conclusion that you can shoot aliens without it resulting in your shooting people.

    But when we get to the conversation about sexism in media, people are happy to jump from Wonder Woman's tits to sexism. If kids are raised seeing women portrayed as victims in cartoons, they will think of women as victims, in general.

    That seems like a strange inconsistency.

    I'm trying to get people to look at that inconsistency, because it could very well undermine a significant number of the opinions being put forth in this conversation.

    Does violent media cause violence?
    Does sexist media cause sexism?

    Yes to both, or no to both.

  • FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    So you're saying I am suppressing McDonalds by not buying their food?

    Art and fast food are not the same thing. Occasionally good for analogies though.

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    If shooting aliens does not make us violent towards humans, then why do we think cartoons about busty Amazons makes us sexist towards humans?

  • AstaerethAstaereth In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
    Astaereth wrote: »
    I feel like I may have gotten bottom of the page'd on this (or maybe everybody just ignored me, thread has been moving fast)... Isn't the desired end result of this kind of behavior that Wonder Woman no longer be drawn in this style?

    Not necessarily. Arguably earlier "waves" of feminism were more focused on specifically fighting against misogynistic media (among other things), although that's a gross oversimplification. Very generally speaking, most modern thought on the subject is not "Wonder Woman can't have big boobs" but "Why does every female superhero need to be a sex object, including (as an example) Wonder Woman?" Again, these are very broad (rimshot) generalizations.

    Objectification and stereotype require a certain amount of repetition and reinforcement to become an issue. The complaint is not that Wonder Woman (or any particular random character) has a skimpy outfit or whatever. The complaint is that a particular character is another example in a very long list of women being treated like objects, less than human.

    In Star Trek, being a nameless crew member in a red shirt denotes your importance and role in the story. The issue here is that women are often forced into a similar (but not identical) position, they exist not to be fully fleshed out characters and to carry their own stories, but instead as a medium for the delivery of awkwardly constructed and unrealistic tits and asses.

    This doesn't really touch on the related but separate issues of body image and mandatory sexualization, which also merit discussion but are getting kind of off point for this post.

    Indirectly, its true that if you take a zero-sum mentality to the production of art, production of good female characters arguably requires less bad female characters (in the same way that production of more good videogames requires the production of less bad videogames, which is kind of silly when you say it like that). This doesn't require that a specific trope related to women characters disappear, but it does require that characters be allowed to exist outside said trope.

    This is all criticism and not censorship, and any definition of censorship which encompasses "complaining about something you don't like in art" is functionally useless. I have no objection to women being allowed to inhabit a wide variety of roles, including badass protagonist, tragic villain, confused wanderer, and sexy pinup, along with all sorts of other roles.

    All that said, I see no artistic merit and no worthwhile purpose to defending the current state of affairs. The comic book industry can thrive with fewer ass/boob contortionists. Video games can tell better stories by treating both genders as worthy of depth. Movies can expand their horizons by allowing women and men to play interesting and unique characters who aren't limited by their sex or gender.

    Imagine that a creator comes out and says, "I know the last thing I did, people said it was sexist. As a result of that discussion, my next thing will attempt to not be sexist. There will be no sexy pinup girls, even though that's what I want to do, because apparently that makes people angry." Would this be considered a good thing?

    ACsTqqK.jpg
  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    Some people in here are acting as if trying to get the artist to maybe think about their shit a little differently is some oppressive fucking sin.

    I guess it's Story Time with Uncle Pony again?

    Alright, so, once upon a time my aspirations for getting out the horrid shit-hurricane that was my life included becoming a professional writer. I had middling success with it. Some published work with small-time RPG companies, some minor short story and poetry stuff, a script that got bought but never developed, etc. Nothing I could like, quit my day job over, but I had enough going I was trying to like, make something of it.

    I met these two dudes who were making a comic book series out of Toronto that was being published by this small indie press. It was about organized crime and street gangs and stuff but it also had a supernatural element to it (vampires and werewolves and shit like that). It was pretty decent, the artist was really good. But the big problem with it was these were two young guys from the nice part of Etobicoke who kinda... didn't know a whole lot about street crime or organized crime and their writing reflected a very Hollywood understanding of these concepts clearly gleaned from entertainment media.

    Which was fine, I guess, but I got into a conversation with them when they had read some of my writing and were talking to me about possibly writing for their comic about... where I come from and my background and how I could add a little more write what you know to their thing (at least when it came to one half, not the vampires and werewolves part). They were pretty stoked about it! I worked on it for about eight months and it was a good time, then it sorta petered out for its own reasons which don't matter for this story.

    Anyway, during that time they had a livejournal community for fans of the comic (which really dates this story, obviously). Nothing more than like, a hundred some odd people, but hey, they had fans so that's pretty cool. I largely steered clear of it because I find interacting with fans terrifying. But I did have a LJ account and was ostensibly part of the community and people knew I was a writer on the book so one day someone sent me a direct message over LJ to talk to me about some things.

    She (and she identifies herself as a female fan, because this becomes relevant shortly) wants to draw my attention to a discussion that is being had in the community that I've not noticed (because I didn't read the community's posts) about some of the characters in the comic, specifically some that I introduced while I was writing it. It was a discussion she had initiated about how she felt some of the female characters, one in particular, were kind of sexist and were sort of indicative of tired, sexist archetypes in these kinds of stories and while she generally likes this comic she doesn't like this character especially.

    She wanted to know what I thought of that discussion (everyone else, literally everyone else, was telling her she was wrong and a couple people were being really shitty, it was a completely unmoderated community and the other two dudes who created the comic weren't part of the conversation) and what I thought of her opinion, especially because she had also gone and read my LJ proper (which had been full of ranting screeds about racism, sexism, class inequality, and other kinds of shit early twentysomethings scrawl on their Livejournals about)

    My first instinct was to get kinda defensive, not only because I disagreed with her but of course, because it was my writing and my character. So, I did what a lot of people who get defensive about objectionable content int he media they enjoy do: I tried to contextualize it. I tried to be like "Well, see, it's not actually sexist, because..." and brought up stuff in other issues, or things in upcoming issues, or elements of the character's backstory, or ways the character is otherwise defiant of sexual stereotypes, or something.

    And she was like "Mhm yeah but none of that matters, because you're having to explain it. It's not being conveyed. How you are making me feel, how I am perceiving your character, as a woman, is this is sexist. Is this is another character in a long line of characters of this sexist stereotype. You telling me how it's not doesn't make it any different on the page, and it doesn't make me feel any different when I read the comic. You might mean for it to be something else, you might mean for her to be something else, but she's not coming across like that, she's coming across, to me, like this. And like this, she's a sexist character."

    Now, does this woman represent The Monolyth of Wo-Mahn, Who Speaketh For All Womankind? No, of course not. She's one woman, with an opinion, and other women who read the comic might feel differently. Some might not feel the character is sexist at all. Some might feel it's even worse than she does, and might be even less charitable than my attempts to contextualize or explain it.

    The point is, until this woman said this to me, it did not even occur to me that this character could be seen as sexist by anyone, let alone a woman. Why? Because, well... I'm not a sexist.

    I'm not. It's a thing I feel comfortable saying about myself. There's plenty of negative words I could use to describe myself, but sexist isn't one of them. I feel pretty comfortable saying "I'm not sexist" without having to justify it to anyone. Yet, what I have come to learn and understand, and what I think a lot of people grapple with, is the idea that you can as a person not be sexist, and yet still do or say sexist things.

    So, I had to self-examine. Had I, unwittingly and with no malice of forethought, created a sexist character? This did not mean I was a sexist, but it may have meant I had created a sexist character, and I had to remember those two things were not the same. Was this woman being oversensitive, or was her argument that any kind of contextualizing of the character that wouldn't make them sexist wasn't being reasonably portrayed?

    This troubled me, so I ended up asking other people whose opinions I respected what they thought. I asked the two dudes who created the comic, and their opinion was that she was an oversensitive fan and to ignore her. I asked another friend of mine who was a fellow writer who worked on a webcomic what he thought, and while he vaguely saw her point, he also felt that it was "not a big deal" and not something worth trying to change the character over or really trying to correct or do anything about, that it was a minor issue. I asked another friend of mine, who was a RPG writer that worked for the same small company I had published with, and she furrowed her brow and was like "Ehhhhh.... it's a problem, but not one you could easily fix with that character in particular without like, a really sloppy retcon or something. Just like... don't write like that in the future, dude. Don't go back to that well, it's a bad one." Another friend of mine, who was a film student and aspirant screen-writer, her opinion was that it was awful and was kind of aghast that I'd use that kind of sloppy stock hackery in my writing. She was most critical of all.

    And it kinda went on like that. I think all in all I asked about a dozen people their opinions because it kinda bothered me a lot, and the more people whose opinions I got the more the thorn kinda dug in there rather than coming out like I had hoped. The people whose opinions I sought out were all folks I knew who were writers, artists, or people involved creatively in storytelling in some capacity, so folks whose opinions I would respect on the subject. And the split I found happened along gendered lines: Men thought it was no big deal, if they even recognized a problem at all (most didn't). Women universally recognized a problem, and their response to the problem ran from "Meh, just don't repeat the mistake" to kinda visibly losing a little respect for me over it.

    In the end, I didn't really end up doing anything about that character specifically. As the RPG writer friend of mine pointed out, it wasn't something I could really "fix" without a retcon of the character, so I just sorta "wrote her out" and minimized her importance with the intention of her just vanishing from the story as no big deal and forgetting her as an old shame, and just not writing characters like that in the future. I stopped writing for the comic before that ever happened, but that was my intention. I never did end up using that particular sort of character again, or elements of that sort of character.

    The experience of a fan saying "Hey, this isn't cool, I don't like this" made me go to my peers and say "What do you think?"

    Had I exclusively had male peers, and not been the sort of person to take gender issues kinda seriously, I might've just taken my male peers nonchalantness towards it to heart and not given a shit and carried forward doing that same sexist thing. But I didn't, and given the input of my female peers I was given pause to think about my shit and it changed how I wrote.

    The point of this story, for you "Teal Deer" types out there, is two-fold: Trying to convince an artist to take a second look at their product and change what they produce is not the worst thing in the world and can actually benefit not just the world but actually the artist themselves, and also that doing a sexist thing does not necessarily make you a sexist, but not being a sexist doesn't make you immune to doing sexist things.

    So It GoesCambiataAngelHedgieIncenjucarKristmas KthulhuJihadJesusshrykeRMS OceanicElvenshaeArdolKid PresentableFCD
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    Does violent media cause violence?
    Does sexist media cause sexism?

    Yes to both, or no to both.

    Why

    Where are you getting the idea that those are even remotely the same thing

    Unless you're going with the radfem idea that all misogyny is inherently violence, but I doubt it somehow

    So It GoesSurfpossum
  • Jebus314Jebus314 Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    So you're saying I am suppressing McDonalds by not buying their food?

    You seem to get really caught up in personal behavior. You can do whatever you want and no one has claimed otherwise. When you start trying to convince other people to do the same you are trying to suppress something (if what your trying to convince them to do is not use/buy/support a certain thing). Suppression also isn't inherently bad. Being a dick isn't illegal but I fully support you in trying to suppress people being dicks.

    Where things run afoul is when you try and suppress things that aren't inherently bad. In this case a particular art style. You may believe that the harms of that art style make it inherently bad. Other people have said that there is not enough evidence to support your position and so trying to suppress said art style is not ok in their view.

    At the very least please stop posting about how you can do whatever you want with your money. That gets old so fast.

    "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
    Peter EbelJulius
This discussion has been closed.