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

11617182022

Posts

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    Cambiata wrote: »
    Hey TGS, do you have anything to say about sexism in media right now?

    vSR80iX.jpg

    D:

    Someone spent a lot of money for a nipple vore console stand.

    D:

    Aegeri
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited September 2014
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Sure, the human body can have a lot of variation, but I don't see the point. We could have lots of things. We could have superman with a beer belly. We could have a 300 pound Catwoman (or more prosaically a gymnast's body). But we're unlikely to find those designs appealing.

    The question is "why do people find certain body types unappealing?" Part of the answer is cultural. However, for every handful of people who are exclusively attracted to the popularly attractive body types depicted in media there are a few who somehow have developed more uncommon preferences.

    Mostly it's exposure. Freudian nonsense aside, a lot of people seek out someone who resembles their close relatives or other people they grew up around (or tastes that are counter to these, especially with bad experiences!). A lot of us/them stuff is related to this. Media is a form of exposure. For some people, a major one.

    Incenjucar on
  • Hexmage-PAHexmage-PA Registered User regular
    edited September 2014
    Just because I feel like it, have some historical photos and illustrations of professional strongwomen:
    7mvxkg0d1dyg.jpg
    soyzgspiis34.jpg
    m23bte1pswrn.jpg
    a12efy4jlsm7.jpg
    b5o7ib6dw9k4.jpg
    7sn61p2gk1h6.jpg
    sams3apl2zo3.jpg

    Hexmage-PA on
    Friend Code: 1590-5696-7916
    Friend Safari Type: Rock
    IncenjucarKristmas KthulhuHacksawEncAndy JoeCambiataElvenshaeArdolMuddypawsKid Presentable
  • KanaKana Registered User regular
    edited September 2014
    Cambiata wrote: »
    Hey TGS, do you have anything to say about sexism in media right now?

    [clip wtf boob window... things]

    I'm assuming this is from Japan?

    Like if you changed that image to about a 1000 other pictures from American cons I'd be right there agreeing with you, you're obviously correct on this

    But if we're discussing problems in our culture let's not use a different culture to illustrate them.

    (unless that's like, pax or wherever, in which case carry on)

    Kana on
    A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    edited September 2014
    Cambiata wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Squidget0 wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Squidget0 wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    I haven't read any Catwoman (haven't read comics in a long while) but isn't part of her actual character that she has intentional sex appeal, that she decided upon, and uses it purposefully to seduce people?

    Because seduction is a real thing that people attempt, so unrealistic drawings and body proportions/poses aside, there's a justification to sexualize that character.

    I would say the same is true of Black Widow as well. She actively uses her sexuality as a weapon, and often uses the fact that she is a woman to trick people into underestimating her. Is that sexist art or just art acknowledging the sexism present in the world?

    Sexist is not "a woman wears a sexy outfit to fight crime."

    Sexist is "women are much more likely to use sexy outfits to fight crime than men are."

    Actually, the sexism here is probably that men can't wear sexy outfits to fight crime, because the concept of a male 'sexy outfit' doesn't really exist in the public consciousness. Everyone always makes some joke about how sexy comics men would have giant codpieces, but I don't think those people are actually attracted to giant codpieces. If you ask 10 different people what a sexy man looks like you'll probably get 10 different answers.

    The idea of a 'sexy' male character is a lot more nebulous. When we see celebrities who get a lot of female attention and fans (say, a Tom Hiddleston or Benedict Cumberbatch), their attractiveness tends to rest more on their perceived personality than solely on their appearance or body type. This isn't because men are shallow, it's because as a society we've created different symbols for sexuality across the genders, and we interpret them in different ways. So even if lots of guys wear silly impractical things (like James Bond in a suit or whatever), it still won't get interpreted the same way as it would on a woman.

    If there were some combination of lines an artist could draw that the vast majority of straight women would interpret immediately as 'sexy guy', you'd probably see those lines drawn a lot. There are always artists willing to pander to an eager crowd. That sequence of lines doesn't exist right now, for a lot of really complicated reasons. It's ultimately a bit of a simplification to say that artists should draw something that we, as a society, have no concept for and haven't expressed any great interest in seeing.

    There's sexy male outfits. Something that's tight and shows off their physique is usually what's used.

    So like, spandex? Doesn't almost every male superhero wear that?

    Let's compare spandex worn by male and female super-heroes.

    superman-costume-456.jpg

    faf35-spider-woman_super.jpg?w=266&h=400

    See the difference?

    No.

    Just... just don't do this. Don't lie. It's embarrassing. I know you know what the Hawkeye initiative is. There is a clear and unambiguous difference between the way men and women pose in comic books. You know this.

    Like... I dunno man. Is it that the discussion you really want to have is that sexism doesn't exist or isn't as bad as people make it out to be? Is that why you do this stuff? If that's the argument you want to make then shoot, go ahead and do that. I would prefer that to this dog and pony show, personally.

    I'm not lying. The question was whether I saw a difference in the spandex worn by male and female superheroes, not how they were posed. I think it's somewhat odd because there is a difference - women might get leotards, unitards or swimsuit shapes, men get unitards full stop.

    As for my motivations, I don't think they're different in character to anyone else's in the thread - defense of one's opinions and preferences, criticism of one's stalking horses. If you're asking why I'm always a dissenter* in these threads it's a combination of many things and probably too long to post in general (and certainly too involved for me to articulate right now) - suffice to say I think the arguments and positions of the critics within the thread are inconsistent, incoherent or otherwise fail and I think that a lot of the behaviour within the thread by the aforesaid critics is self righteous bullying toward the dissenters. Mostly though I am quite averse to bad arguments and useless definitions and I think the critical side relies upon both.

    * Politically, I am a fellow traveler with most of the critical side when it comes to issues of sex and gender, in general**. We have the same goals, I think our difference is what we think affects those goals.
    ** Probably moreso than you given your anti-abortion stance.

    Apothe0sis on
    Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
    Es-annon NEVA 4GET
  • Alinius133Alinius133 Registered User regular
    edited September 2014
    Cambiata wrote: »
    Squidget, why do you think that every time - EVERY TIME - there is a lady politician in the news, there is commentary about the way she looks? There's plenty of old shriveled dudes in politics and no one ever discusses the way they look. Why do you think that is?

    Or what about TV shows like the truly great Breaking Bad... why does average looking Walter White have a sexpot wife like Skylar? Why does fat, sexist schlub Hank Schrader have a wife as hot as Marie Schrader? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying these women are supermodels... but compared to the overweight, completely average dudes they are married to, why are they so comparatively bangin'? And these are not an isolated case for TV wives/significant others.

    Why do you continually refuse to see the message that is sent in media that a woman is not a woman unless she's also pretty by society's standards?

    Wow, not exactly sure where to start there.

    First, I will point out that there is a correlation in politics between success and having a full head of hair for men. In politics, appearance matters regardless of gender. Appearance also matters more for young politicians trying to get started than with elder politicians, because when you are starting out, your appearance is often your only asset. A lot of those "old shriveled dudes" started out as young healthy looking men, after years in office that have amassed a record of serving their voters or a least benefit from 30+ years of name recognition. The real question is, if a woman has been in office for 30 years, will the voters care more about her appearance or her record? Appearance is currently more of a factor for women in politics, but lets not pretend that a man's appearance is not important.

    Second, I can think of several valid reasons to give Walt a hot wife. Given the nature of the show, having a hot wife is a signal that Walt has a good life. This serves to enhance the dramatic effect of Walt's later choices by leaving people wondering why Walt cannot be content with the life he has(hot wife included), and thus enhance the perceived illogic of his actions. Where you see an unrealistic female-male match, others see a man who doesn't realize the value of what he does have, because he obviously does not deserve her. Nice guys finish last is also trope and if the nice guy isn't getting the girl, then it means the not nice guy is, so maybe the author thinks they are being realistic. Maybe the author is projecting their desires, or maybe it is executive meddlingto pander for ratings.

    Third, society has standards for the appearance of men. Suits, power ties, well groomed hair, no long hair, muscles, etc. There are a ton of visual signals used in media to signal viewers that this is an attractive man. One major difference is that men's attractiveness is tied to things that are easier to change(clothes, hair style, etc), but a lot of it is tied to wealth(expensive clothes, watch, car, etc.) You could make a decent argument that the male obsession with using things at a means to appear more attractive is more damaging to society(based on the mountain of debt accumulated in the process) than unrealistic female body ideals.

    Finally, You are leveling a lot of personal value judgments about what is and isn't attractive is a very small space. "Walter White is average looking" "Fat, Sexist Hank Schrader" "Skylar and Marie are not hot, but definately above average". You obviously have preconceived notions about what kind of wife Hank deserves, and they seem to be based on your assessment of Hank's appearance.
    Cambiata wrote: »
    Well part of it is stuff like: Why do crowd scenes in film only have 17% women? Are you going to tell me that presenting the image that the world is majority male is an immutable artistic choice, and if we dared to make filmmakers more aware of it and they changed things so that crowd scenes were 50/50 that we'd be destroying art?

    It all depends on the reason. Just to throw out some possibilities.
    1. We want to hire more male extras because we are sexist.
    2. 85% of the people who showed up for extra casting were men.

    1 is wrong, but 2 seems way more likely than 1. If you are expecting films to pay more on their extras budget to meet some arbitrary male to female ratio in crowd scenes, then yes you would be destroying art.

    Alinius133 on
  • OptyOpty Registered User regular
    Maybe more men show up to extra casting because men are more likely to be picked as extras? It's like arguing that black people are more likely to be a criminal while ignoring that black people are more likely to be arrested for something that a white person would not.

    CambiataJulius
  • GnizmoGnizmo Registered User regular
    Opty wrote: »
    Maybe more men show up to extra casting because men are more likely to be picked as extras? It's like arguing that black people are more likely to be a criminal while ignoring that black people are more likely to be arrested for something that a white person would not.

    There is a definite chicken or egg deal here but I don't think we can crack it without more insight into the industry than this thread has offered.

    Incenjucar
  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    Literally spent a chunk of the last year working as, among other things, an extra and found that the majority of the sets I worked on like, bent over backwards to make their extras cast as diverse as possible, both racially and by gender.

    So, I dunno, man.

    I mean I'm not doubting Cambiata that maybe this is a thing in film and television, like maybe someone sat down and did a study and did a headcount of shit and was like "Wait a fucking second..." when they noticed the numbers were all fucked up.

    But in my experience, albeit limited, with Canadian film and television at least this was not really the case? At least not currently. Maybe it has been historically and it's something that only recently is actively being changed?

    I dunno.

    Nonetheless, it would not be especially difficult to correct, if it still really was a very prevalent issue. Union rules exist for this kind of shit, you don't even need to pass a law about it. There was, for example, at one time a union regulation for ACTRA (the Canadian equivalent to SAG) that essentially eased a lot of the union entry requirements for people of given ethnicities, in order to make the pool of unionized actors more diverse. Some people, largely white non-union actors, bitched a fucking storm about it at the time as basically a racist policy that discriminated against them. It was pretty much all the normal anti-"affirmative action" type arguments and there were literally people using the phrase "affirmative ACTRA"

    They ended that regulation some time ago because they felt the shift they were trying to make had been shifted, but it's an example of one way that kind of issue can be addressed.

  • AstaerethAstaereth In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
    I don't know what the reason for gender inequality in crowd scenes could be, but I can damn sure tell you it's not because somebody is actively pulling women out of the crowd. Extras are typically not vetted and positioned intentionally by the top level creatives; they're "wrangled" as a group by a casting or production assistant whose job it is to determine that they conform to a standard in terms of dress and behavior. That person is not going to disqualify people on any basis other than wardrobe and not doing what they're told. It's entirely possible that men are self-selecting for this specific type of work, because of the low pay, low glamor, intermittent nature of the gig. Or there's some other reason. But I would be surprised to find out that something overtly sexist was going on.

    ACsTqqK.jpg
  • Mr RayMr Ray Sarcasm sphereRegistered User regular
    Kana wrote: »
    Cambiata wrote: »
    Hey TGS, do you have anything to say about sexism in media right now?

    [clip wtf boob window... things]

    I'm assuming this is from Japan?

    Like if you changed that image to about a 1000 other pictures from American cons I'd be right there agreeing with you, you're obviously correct on this

    But if we're discussing problems in our culture let's not use a different culture to illustrate them.

    (unless that's like, pax or wherever, in which case carry on)

    Oh yeah... Japan's issues with gender and sexism are a whooooole other kettle of fish.

    Space.
  • OptyOpty Registered User regular
    Astaereth wrote: »
    I don't know what the reason for gender inequality in crowd scenes could be, but I can damn sure tell you it's not because somebody is actively pulling women out of the crowd. Extras are typically not vetted and positioned intentionally by the top level creatives; they're "wrangled" as a group by a casting or production assistant whose job it is to determine that they conform to a standard in terms of dress and behavior. That person is not going to disqualify people on any basis other than wardrobe and not doing what they're told. It's entirely possible that men are self-selecting for this specific type of work, because of the low pay, low glamor, intermittent nature of the gig. Or there's some other reason. But I would be surprised to find out that something overtly sexist was going on.

    You can't go "well no one's being cartoonishly overtly sexist, so there's no sexism here!" There's tons of layers to the pervasive levels of sexism in society and the industry that has a huge inertia and thus requires a lot of force to overcome. You need to examine more than the surface layer to see the whole picture. Something as simple as the director setting up the crowds so men are closer to the camera and obscure the women, to cartoonish overt sexism happening in the past and its effects still lingering mean a lower the female applicant pool and they have to go with what they get, or because society's standards of beauty mean more women are convinced they're not attractive they on average apply less than men who--no matter their build--find representation in media. Without an actual study looking into it we'll never know for sure, but it's extremely likely some of the ingrained sexism of society and the industry are helping cause this particular problem.

  • AstaerethAstaereth In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
    Opty wrote: »
    Astaereth wrote: »
    I don't know what the reason for gender inequality in crowd scenes could be, but I can damn sure tell you it's not because somebody is actively pulling women out of the crowd. Extras are typically not vetted and positioned intentionally by the top level creatives; they're "wrangled" as a group by a casting or production assistant whose job it is to determine that they conform to a standard in terms of dress and behavior. That person is not going to disqualify people on any basis other than wardrobe and not doing what they're told. It's entirely possible that men are self-selecting for this specific type of work, because of the low pay, low glamor, intermittent nature of the gig. Or there's some other reason. But I would be surprised to find out that something overtly sexist was going on.

    You can't go "well no one's being cartoonishly overtly sexist, so there's no sexism here!" There's tons of layers to the pervasive levels of sexism in society and the industry that has a huge inertia and thus requires a lot of force to overcome. You need to examine more than the surface layer to see the whole picture. Something as simple as the director setting up the crowds so men are closer to the camera and obscure the women, to cartoonish overt sexism happening in the past and its effects still lingering mean a lower the female applicant pool and they have to go with what they get, or because society's standards of beauty mean more women are convinced they're not attractive they on average apply less than men who--no matter their build--find representation in media. Without an actual study looking into it we'll never know for sure, but it's extremely likely some of the ingrained sexism of society and the industry are helping cause this particular problem.

    You can't go, "Well, there's gender inequality here. Obviously the problem is sexism." I mean, maybe you can if you trace it back far enough ("maybe women can't go to work on a set on short notice because they're more likely to have children and America doesn't have government provided childcare which is sexist") but that doesn't mean it's the industry's problem. It makes quite a bit of difference whether the director is saying "Anyone with a vagina, please step away from the camera" or women who would otherwise be extras are deciding not to be thanks to internalized beauty standards.

    If there's a point of failure in the system, it probably has to do with the handful of agencies that represent background actors. That doesn't necessarily mean they're turning away women. It may be as simple as women being more likely to be asked for specifically, with the result that when a production just needs a lot of warm bodies for crowd scenes, agencies send mostly men in order to give them their share of work.

    I'm not saying what it is either way, because I don't know. I'm just saying that the process of working with this type of actor is not one that necessarily has a lot of opportunities for rampant sexism.

    ACsTqqK.jpg
    Apothe0sis
  • CambiataCambiata Commander Shepard The likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered User regular
    Phone posting so can't reply much, but here's where the 17% statistic comes from:

    She might be talking about only animated film.

  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited September 2014
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    suffice to say I think the arguments and positions of the critics within the thread are inconsistent, incoherent or otherwise fail and I think that a lot of the behaviour within the thread by the aforesaid critics is self righteous bullying toward the dissenters. Mostly though I am quite averse to bad arguments and useless definitions and I think the critical side relies upon both.

    Then actually point out what's wrong with a person's statement. That would be really great for discussion! Don't just declare someone hates giant boobs and call it a day.

    Quid on
    EncHacksawCambiata
  • CambiataCambiata Commander Shepard The likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered User regular
    edited September 2014
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Cambiata wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Squidget0 wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Squidget0 wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    I haven't read any Catwoman (haven't read comics in a long while) but isn't part of her actual character that she has intentional sex appeal, that she decided upon, and uses it purposefully to seduce people?

    Because seduction is a real thing that people attempt, so unrealistic drawings and body proportions/poses aside, there's a justification to sexualize that character.

    I would say the same is true of Black Widow as well. She actively uses her sexuality as a weapon, and often uses the fact that she is a woman to trick people into underestimating her. Is that sexist art or just art acknowledging the sexism present in the world?

    Sexist is not "a woman wears a sexy outfit to fight crime."

    Sexist is "women are much more likely to use sexy outfits to fight crime than men are."

    Actually, the sexism here is probably that men can't wear sexy outfits to fight crime, because the concept of a male 'sexy outfit' doesn't really exist in the public consciousness. Everyone always makes some joke about how sexy comics men would have giant codpieces, but I don't think those people are actually attracted to giant codpieces. If you ask 10 different people what a sexy man looks like you'll probably get 10 different answers.

    The idea of a 'sexy' male character is a lot more nebulous. When we see celebrities who get a lot of female attention and fans (say, a Tom Hiddleston or Benedict Cumberbatch), their attractiveness tends to rest more on their perceived personality than solely on their appearance or body type. This isn't because men are shallow, it's because as a society we've created different symbols for sexuality across the genders, and we interpret them in different ways. So even if lots of guys wear silly impractical things (like James Bond in a suit or whatever), it still won't get interpreted the same way as it would on a woman.

    If there were some combination of lines an artist could draw that the vast majority of straight women would interpret immediately as 'sexy guy', you'd probably see those lines drawn a lot. There are always artists willing to pander to an eager crowd. That sequence of lines doesn't exist right now, for a lot of really complicated reasons. It's ultimately a bit of a simplification to say that artists should draw something that we, as a society, have no concept for and haven't expressed any great interest in seeing.

    There's sexy male outfits. Something that's tight and shows off their physique is usually what's used.

    So like, spandex? Doesn't almost every male superhero wear that?

    Let's compare spandex worn by male and female super-heroes.

    superman-costume-456.jpg

    faf35-spider-woman_super.jpg?w=266&h=400

    See the difference?

    No.

    Just... just don't do this. Don't lie. It's embarrassing. I know you know what the Hawkeye initiative is. There is a clear and unambiguous difference between the way men and women pose in comic books. You know this.

    Like... I dunno man. Is it that the discussion you really want to have is that sexism doesn't exist or isn't as bad as people make it out to be? Is that why you do this stuff? If that's the argument you want to make then shoot, go ahead and do that. I would prefer that to this dog and pony show, personally.

    I'm not lying. The question was whether I saw a difference in the spandex worn by male and female superheroes, not how they were posed. I think it's somewhat odd because there is a difference - women might get leotards, unitards or swimsuit shapes, men get unitards full stop.

    As for my motivations, I don't think they're different in character to anyone else's in the thread - defense of one's opinions and preferences, criticism of one's stalking horses. If you're asking why I'm always a dissenter* in these threads it's a combination of many things and probably too long to post in general (and certainly too involved for me to articulate right now) - suffice to say I think the arguments and positions of the critics within the thread are inconsistent, incoherent or otherwise fail and I think that a lot of the behaviour within the thread by the aforesaid critics is self righteous bullying toward the dissenters. Mostly though I am quite averse to bad arguments and useless definitions and I think the critical side relies upon both.

    Well I wasn't asking why you were a dissenter, but good, fine - say all that then! Debate, expound upon your own ideas or dissect other people's. Don't do this passive agressive one man show like the above - "Oh when you said difference I thought you were asking the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow, and since I didn't know that of course I said no." There's lots of ways for you to dissent without playing the game of deliberate misunderstanding! You could have said "Of course I see a difference, I'm not an idiot. I just don't find it meaningful" or "I don't think it's harmful" or "I don't care" or you know whatever actual argument you want to make!

    You did the same thing with the wonder woman picture. Her back is obviously broken in the second image. When someone said it looks painful, you chose to come to the noble-hearted defense of large boobs everywhere. When, again, the broken back is kind of an obvious thing now, it having been pointed out in numerous threads before.
    ** Probably moreso than you given your anti-abortion stance.

    A quick sidestep into Cambiata history: When I was growing up, I had no people in my life as examples of feminism. So all my ideas of what feminism was came from fiction, and I firmly believed that I would never be allowed to be called a feminist by anyone in the movement, because surely they'd reject me for not hating men, not thinking all sex is rape, but most importantly because I could never believe that abortion is OK. Once I got out into the business world myself and began to actually see that lack of equality affects me, affects my pay and even effects whether I can even be hired regardless of skill level, I began to realize that I wanted to be a feminist, but still believed that I wasn't "allowed" to be one and the real feminists would hate me. Of course speaking to real, actual feminists on this board is what made me understand that that was a load of horse shit.

    And now finally after all this time, I meet one of those feminist gatekeepers I had come to believe were fictional. So, cool I guess?

    Cambiata on
    EncQuidAndy JoeAegeriSo It GoesKristmas KthulhuKid Presentable
  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion The Land of Flowers (and Dragons)Registered User regular
    edited September 2014
    On Cambiata's point, it's important to remember when making these sweeping generalizations that everyone in the thread that disagrees with your point are on some kind of unified agenda of evil against you that the entire thesis of this is warped. Doubly so when making statements like:
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    suffice to say I think the arguments and positions of the critics within the thread are inconsistent, incoherent or otherwise fail and I think that a lot of the behaviour within the thread by the aforesaid critics is self righteous bullying toward the dissenters. Mostly though I am quite averse to bad arguments and useless definitions and I think the critical side relies upon both.

    There are multiple people here with multiple backgrounds and perspectives. Cambiata's stance on abortion is inconsistent with some people's definition of "feminism," but that doesn't mean she can't advance the cause of equality towards women because these terms are not defined by one group and are not subject to some sort of purity test in order to make a position valid. It also doesn't mean that Cambiata and someone who think abortion should be done can't agree and still have a valid point on another topic just because one item of the discussion has dissonance.

    Some people in this thread, such as myself, think that looking at media with a critical eye is important to ensure you are an informed consumer and are aware of what you are taking in for what it really is, with awareness both the good and bad parts of it. And that's all. Others here may seek to impact change towards unfair or destructive cultural norms, and feel informing the general public about a very real, and generally ignored, problem. Those positions are not at odds in identifying the concern, but how they use it varies.

    The difference between "self righteous bullying" and what I feel is happening in this thread is primarily rooted in narcissism (specifically refusal to accept there are other views beyond your own). The same way that one of the posters a few pages back said "there isn't a problem" and someone else said "well, whatever you choose to believe you are wrong here." He was wrong not because he didn't perceive a problem, but that he refused that there could be one. Which is a very important distinction to make in this and other social issues debates. You may see no worries, concerns, issues, and completely like the media you are getting. That's entirely fine and understandable. But that doesn't mean the media you are consuming isn't problematic to other people, or actively contributing to problems other people face in their daily lives.

    "There is a problem (or someone has a problem)" is a valid position because you have a problem with something. If you are negatively affected by something you can identify that there is a concern. That doesn't mean anyone has to agree with you that the problem is serious or that there is a driving need for change, but there should be a general consensus from others that you perceive a problem to exist and that it is important to the person who is asserting this. Understaning this is basic empathy. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, as I am white it doesn't effect me, but by putting myself in that person's shoes I can sort of see where he is coming from."

    "I don't personally see a problem" is a valid position, but it is a position of ignorance. You don't understand the problem and/or you choose to ignore the discussion here which seeks to explain the problem from the perspectives of the people who do actually have one. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, while being of a race that is allowed I don't see the problem because it doesn't effect me and I don't care to think outside of my own experience."

    "There isn't a problem" is not a valid position, because by default you can only assert your own perspective and, in doing so with this degree of authority, you are essentially stating anyone with a problem is wrong and should change. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, while being of a race that is allowed I don't see the problem because it doesn't effect me, therefore he is wrong and things are as they should be."

    What is important in discussions like this is if you can see that ~someone~ has a problem and try to understand what that someone thinks the problem is important. You may not agree (and that's fine!), but understanding others is the root to being a productive member of society. Pony and others have brought up the point of shutting down discussion and criticism as "suppression" is essentially a means to silence the other side. By reviewing something critically people are not stopping someone from doing that action. The person generating art can still do whatever they want and ignore the criticism. By stopping criticism you are silencing the observer and actually are suppressing discussion.

    Enc on
    CambiatajoshofalltradesQuidAndy JoeAegeriSo It GoesArdol
  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion The Land of Flowers (and Dragons)Registered User regular
    edited September 2014
    Also: if you are scared criticism will lead to suppression you are likely admitting to yourself that there is sufficient enough of a problem that open discussion will lead the majority of people to desire to resolve it by choosing not to consume that media in the future. That's not suppression, really, since the artist can still produce (and is not guaranteed an audience). But the fear that this action will occur is typically your subconsious telling you that deep down you know what is being said has an element of truth, otherwise you wouldn't have that worry in the first place.

    Enc on
  • VanguardVanguard Je suis le savant au fauteuil sombre. Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Enc wrote: »
    On Cambiata's point, it's important to remember when making these sweeping generalizations that everyone in the thread that disagrees with your point are on some kind of unified agenda of evil against you that the entire thesis of this is warped. Doubly so when making statements like:
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    suffice to say I think the arguments and positions of the critics within the thread are inconsistent, incoherent or otherwise fail and I think that a lot of the behaviour within the thread by the aforesaid critics is self righteous bullying toward the dissenters. Mostly though I am quite averse to bad arguments and useless definitions and I think the critical side relies upon both.

    There are multiple people here with multiple backgrounds and perspectives. Cambiata's stance on abortion is inconsistent with some people's definition of "feminism," but that doesn't mean she can't advance the cause of equality towards women because these terms are not defined by one group and are not subject to some sort of purity test in order to make a position valid. It also doesn't mean that Cambiata and someone who think abortion should be done can't agree and still have a valid point on another topic just because one item of the discussion has dissonance.

    Some people in this thread, such as myself, think that looking at media with a critical eye is important to ensure you are an informed consumer and are aware of what you are taking in for what it really is, with awareness both the good and bad parts of it. And that's all. Others here may seek to impact change towards unfair or destructive cultural norms, and feel informing the general public about a very real, and generally ignored, problem. Those positions are not at odds in identifying the concern, but how they use it varies.

    The difference between "self righteous bullying" and what I feel is happening in this thread is primarily rooted in narcissism (specifically refusal to accept there are other views beyond your own). The same way that one of the posters a few pages back said "there isn't a problem" and someone else said "well, whatever you choose to believe you are wrong here." He was wrong not because he didn't perceive a problem, but that he refused that there could be one. Which is a very important distinction to make in this and other social issues debates. You may see no worries, concerns, issues, and completely like the media you are getting. That's entirely fine and understandable. But that doesn't mean the media you are consuming isn't problematic to other people, or actively contributing to problems other people face in their daily lives.

    "There is a problem (or someone has a problem)" is a valid position because you have a problem with something. If you are negatively affected by something you can identify that there is a concern. That doesn't mean anyone has to agree with you that the problem is serious or that there is a driving need for change, but there should be a general consensus from others that you perceive a problem to exist and that it is important to the person who is asserting this. Understaning this is basic empathy. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, as I am white it doesn't effect me, but by putting myself in that person's shoes I can sort of see where he is coming from."

    "I don't personally see a problem" is a valid position, but it is a position of ignorance. You don't understand the problem and/or you choose to ignore the discussion here which seeks to explain the problem from the perspectives of the people who do actually have one. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, while being of a race that is allowed I don't see the problem because it doesn't effect me and I don't care to think outside of my own experience."

    "There isn't a problem" is not a valid position, because by default you can only assert your own perspective and, in doing so with this degree of authority, you are essentially stating anyone with a problem is wrong and should change. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, while being of a race that is allowed I don't see the problem because it doesn't effect me, therefore he is wrong and things are as they should be."

    What is important in discussions like this is if you can see that ~someone~ has a problem and try to understand what that someone thinks the problem is important. You may not agree (and that's fine!), but understanding others is the root to being a productive member of society. Pony and others have brought up the point of shutting down discussion and criticism as "suppression" is essentially a means to silence the other side. By reviewing something critically people are not stopping someone from doing that action. The person generating art can still do whatever they want and ignore the criticism. By stopping criticism you are silencing the observer and actually are suppressing discussion.

    Pretty much exactly this. The entire point of discussions like these are to have this conversation at all levels. If a particular piece of media is alienating some members of the audience, it's important for them to connect with other fans who feel the same way, other fans who don't feel the same way, and, because we live in the future, the creators. One of the difficulties of this conversation is that for a long time the response from the latter two groups was , "I don't see it as a problem." Things have gotten to the point where it is a generally acknowledged problem and there are creators/media trying to combat the sexist tropes, but there are still people (some within this very thread) who are hostile to the conversation at all.

    EncSo It Goes
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Stopping criticism = silencing discussion. That was the piece I was missing before.

    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.
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    Pony wrote: »
    Literally spent a chunk of the last year working as, among other things, an extra and found that the majority of the sets I worked on like, bent over backwards to make their extras cast as diverse as possible, both racially and by gender.

    So, I dunno, man.

    I mean I'm not doubting Cambiata that maybe this is a thing in film and television, like maybe someone sat down and did a study and did a headcount of shit and was like "Wait a fucking second..." when they noticed the numbers were all fucked up.

    It may very well not be a conscious thing on the part of the filmmakers. There has been research where people were asked to estimate the percentages of male vs female in crowds and groups of speakers and such, and people showed a heavy bias towards overestimating the presence of women. I'm not entirely sure, but I recall that if the percentage of women was like 20 or 30% people would guess it was about 50/50 and if it was actually 50/50 people would think there was a majority of females.

    So I think you would probably still see this bias even if you consciously made an effort to make your crowd diverse. When you think "yes this is an equal divide" you likely don't actually have an equal divide.

    Surfpossumshryke
  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    suffice to say I think the arguments and positions of the critics within the thread are inconsistent, incoherent or otherwise fail and I think that a lot of the behaviour within the thread by the aforesaid critics is self righteous bullying toward the dissenters. Mostly though I am quite averse to bad arguments and useless definitions and I think the critical side relies upon both.

    Then actually point out what's wrong with a person's statement. That would be really great for discussion! Don't just declare someone hates giant boobs and call it a day.

    I do point out what is wrong with a statement, argument or position. But thank you for the suggestion.

    Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
    Es-annon NEVA 4GET
  • TastyfishTastyfish Registered User regular
    I wonder if you get the same result if you phrase at as "what percentage of the crowd are men", whether it is a case where men are just considered the 'default' so having a noticeable number of alternative of an alternative means people will overestimate the numbers of that minority (so you're basing your estimation on the amount of time you're spending focused on each group, and taking a little bit longer to register a difference in the case of women or minorities) or if it's a case of people always overestimating that group that you ask them to count.

    Sure I've seen a similar thing brought up with regards to estimating percentages of race in crowds, but think it was again someone including a mention of these studies in the article rather than something detailing the studies themselves.

  • CambiataCambiata Commander Shepard The likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered User regular
    Cambiata wrote: »
    Phone posting so can't reply much, but here's where the 17% statistic comes from:

    She might be talking about only animated film.

    Ok looking further into it, the area of film they specifically study is films with a G, PG, or PG-13 rating, and not just animated film. I'm still looking for the specific data with the 17% statistic, but here is the one explaining the 1 female to every 3 male characters statistic.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited September 2014
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    Astaereth wrote: »
    There's a difference between "I didn't like this game because the graphics were bad" and "This game's bad graphics are indicative of an industry-wide cancer. We need more games with good graphics and fewer games with bad graphics. Artists who make games with bad graphics should be ashamed of themselves and we should all endeavor only to support games with good graphics."

    I see a little projection in your post and think you might want to look at the two hypothetical criticisms you've listed and ask yourself, honestly, if you represented both sides accurately.

    Regardless of "graphics are bad vs. I WILL BURN DOWN YOUR HOUSE," let's set that aside for a moment, I don't care that they are different. I want to know why one is OK to discuss critically and one isn't. Graphics are fair game. Story is fair game. Load times are fair game. Weapon realism is fair game. Representation of women is not. Why?

    Because sexism/racism/etc. has baggage that those other categories do not.

    Saying "You wrote a bad story" implies you did an inferior job.
    Saying "You wrote a sexist story" implies that you maligned half of the human race.

    So what do you suggest be done when someone writes a sexist story?

    That depend on a lot of factors.
    Is it real sexism or just perceived sexism?
    Did they knowingly or unknowingly write the sexism?
    Is there a good reason for the sexism?
    Are they acknowledging the sexism or celebrating it?

    There are so many thing to consider that I really doubt I could give you a concise response that wasn't a novel, but mainly charity, lots of charity. Remember that even good people make mistakes, so don't just assume that the author is a sexist scumbag. Pony's story shows that there isn't really a whole they could do without ruining their own story. Assume the best of others until you have proof otherwise.

    I agree.

    But what you seem to be missing is that several people in this thread are against saying anything at all.

    Who is saying that? I don't think anyone is saying that.

    J suggest put it in a book section and nothing else.

    Frankie calls it suppression.

    I think _J_ said that is what he would do but I think he probably believes anyone should be able to criticize art for any reason they want to. I also don't think Frankie would say that you shouldn't be critical, just that the sexism movement can sometimes go past criticism to trying to remove all forms of a particular art style or whatever.

    Until Frankie actually explains any of his beliefs I don't particularly care for your interpretation. By his reasoning I am currently suppressing McDonalds.

    Well there was the long post I made where I explained my beliefs, that's a good place to start. Except oh, you grabbed the last few sentences and tried to exploit an analogy. So yeah.

    I read all of it.

    Your last few sentences were just a good summary.

    You also haven't answered the question of when I'm suppressing artists.

    If that's what you got out of that whole fucking post, than damn. I'm not sure there's much more I can say on it. Either you absolutely don't get what I'm saying or you disagree to the point where it makes no bloody sense to you.

    As to the question, I'll say it's when you take it beyond individual criticism. Vote with your wallet, never read a comic/watch a movie by the guy or gal again. I don't care. Do whatever you please. But when you take it further and attempt to (by means of social pressure or other) put pressure on an artist, that's suppression. I know you don't like that sort of thing, because I had this exact argument with you about boycotts over the Chic-fil-a thingy. At a certain point, though, I feel you simply have to walk away and find something else to read/watch. Let the people who enjoy it enjoy it. Don't try to ruin it for everyone.

    The whole problem with your argument is that you want to prevent all but the tamest, most neutered criticism of transgressive art.

    You are saying "artists should be able to inflict pain to others, and they should not be allowed to respond." This is the stance of a censor, moreover, this is defending the infliction of pain, as well as decrying the person attacked from fighting back. I think it's pretty self-evident why such a position is incredibly harmful.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    EncCambiataAegeri_J_Quid
  • Alinius133Alinius133 Registered User regular
    Enc wrote: »
    On Cambiata's point, it's important to remember when making these sweeping generalizations that everyone in the thread that disagrees with your point are on some kind of unified agenda of evil against you that the entire thesis of this is warped. Doubly so when making statements like:
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    suffice to say I think the arguments and positions of the critics within the thread are inconsistent, incoherent or otherwise fail and I think that a lot of the behaviour within the thread by the aforesaid critics is self righteous bullying toward the dissenters. Mostly though I am quite averse to bad arguments and useless definitions and I think the critical side relies upon both.

    There are multiple people here with multiple backgrounds and perspectives. Cambiata's stance on abortion is inconsistent with some people's definition of "feminism," but that doesn't mean she can't advance the cause of equality towards women because these terms are not defined by one group and are not subject to some sort of purity test in order to make a position valid. It also doesn't mean that Cambiata and someone who think abortion should be done can't agree and still have a valid point on another topic just because one item of the discussion has dissonance.

    Some people in this thread, such as myself, think that looking at media with a critical eye is important to ensure you are an informed consumer and are aware of what you are taking in for what it really is, with awareness both the good and bad parts of it. And that's all. Others here may seek to impact change towards unfair or destructive cultural norms, and feel informing the general public about a very real, and generally ignored, problem. Those positions are not at odds in identifying the concern, but how they use it varies.

    The difference between "self righteous bullying" and what I feel is happening in this thread is primarily rooted in narcissism (specifically refusal to accept there are other views beyond your own). The same way that one of the posters a few pages back said "there isn't a problem" and someone else said "well, whatever you choose to believe you are wrong here." He was wrong not because he didn't perceive a problem, but that he refused that there could be one. Which is a very important distinction to make in this and other social issues debates. You may see no worries, concerns, issues, and completely like the media you are getting. That's entirely fine and understandable. But that doesn't mean the media you are consuming isn't problematic to other people, or actively contributing to problems other people face in their daily lives.

    "There is a problem (or someone has a problem)" is a valid position because you have a problem with something. If you are negatively affected by something you can identify that there is a concern. That doesn't mean anyone has to agree with you that the problem is serious or that there is a driving need for change, but there should be a general consensus from others that you perceive a problem to exist and that it is important to the person who is asserting this. Understaning this is basic empathy. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, as I am white it doesn't effect me, but by putting myself in that person's shoes I can sort of see where he is coming from."

    "I don't personally see a problem" is a valid position, but it is a position of ignorance. You don't understand the problem and/or you choose to ignore the discussion here which seeks to explain the problem from the perspectives of the people who do actually have one. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, while being of a race that is allowed I don't see the problem because it doesn't effect me and I don't care to think outside of my own experience."

    "There isn't a problem" is not a valid position, because by default you can only assert your own perspective and, in doing so with this degree of authority, you are essentially stating anyone with a problem is wrong and should change. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, while being of a race that is allowed I don't see the problem because it doesn't effect me, therefore he is wrong and things are as they should be."

    What is important in discussions like this is if you can see that ~someone~ has a problem and try to understand what that someone thinks the problem is important. You may not agree (and that's fine!), but understanding others is the root to being a productive member of society. Pony and others have brought up the point of shutting down discussion and criticism as "suppression" is essentially a means to silence the other side. By reviewing something critically people are not stopping someone from doing that action. The person generating art can still do whatever they want and ignore the criticism. By stopping criticism you are silencing the observer and actually are suppressing discussion.

    While I mostly agree with you here, I would point out one sweeping generalization that you are making. Mainly that if I don't see a problem, I must be speaking from ignorance. I can see what someone sees as a problem, understand where they are coming from, and still not agree that it is a problem. To extend your thought experiment. If a restaurant doesn't serve a certain race because that race has a significantly higher chance to having food allergies to the type of food being served, would you still consider that to be wrong?

  • TubeTube Administrator, ClubPA admin
    Bully is an insult, and covered by the edict.

    Hobnail wrote: »
    This forum has taken everything from me
  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion The Land of Flowers (and Dragons)Registered User regular
    edited September 2014
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    On Cambiata's point, it's important to remember when making these sweeping generalizations that everyone in the thread that disagrees with your point are on some kind of unified agenda of evil against you that the entire thesis of this is warped. Doubly so when making statements like:
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    suffice to say I think the arguments and positions of the critics within the thread are inconsistent, incoherent or otherwise fail and I think that a lot of the behaviour within the thread by the aforesaid critics is self righteous bullying toward the dissenters. Mostly though I am quite averse to bad arguments and useless definitions and I think the critical side relies upon both.

    There are multiple people here with multiple backgrounds and perspectives. Cambiata's stance on abortion is inconsistent with some people's definition of "feminism," but that doesn't mean she can't advance the cause of equality towards women because these terms are not defined by one group and are not subject to some sort of purity test in order to make a position valid. It also doesn't mean that Cambiata and someone who think abortion should be done can't agree and still have a valid point on another topic just because one item of the discussion has dissonance.

    Some people in this thread, such as myself, think that looking at media with a critical eye is important to ensure you are an informed consumer and are aware of what you are taking in for what it really is, with awareness both the good and bad parts of it. And that's all. Others here may seek to impact change towards unfair or destructive cultural norms, and feel informing the general public about a very real, and generally ignored, problem. Those positions are not at odds in identifying the concern, but how they use it varies.

    The difference between "self righteous bullying" and what I feel is happening in this thread is primarily rooted in narcissism (specifically refusal to accept there are other views beyond your own). The same way that one of the posters a few pages back said "there isn't a problem" and someone else said "well, whatever you choose to believe you are wrong here." He was wrong not because he didn't perceive a problem, but that he refused that there could be one. Which is a very important distinction to make in this and other social issues debates. You may see no worries, concerns, issues, and completely like the media you are getting. That's entirely fine and understandable. But that doesn't mean the media you are consuming isn't problematic to other people, or actively contributing to problems other people face in their daily lives.

    "There is a problem (or someone has a problem)" is a valid position because you have a problem with something. If you are negatively affected by something you can identify that there is a concern. That doesn't mean anyone has to agree with you that the problem is serious or that there is a driving need for change, but there should be a general consensus from others that you perceive a problem to exist and that it is important to the person who is asserting this. Understaning this is basic empathy. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, as I am white it doesn't effect me, but by putting myself in that person's shoes I can sort of see where he is coming from."

    "I don't personally see a problem" is a valid position, but it is a position of ignorance. You don't understand the problem and/or you choose to ignore the discussion here which seeks to explain the problem from the perspectives of the people who do actually have one. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, while being of a race that is allowed I don't see the problem because it doesn't effect me and I don't care to think outside of my own experience."

    "There isn't a problem" is not a valid position, because by default you can only assert your own perspective and, in doing so with this degree of authority, you are essentially stating anyone with a problem is wrong and should change. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, while being of a race that is allowed I don't see the problem because it doesn't effect me, therefore he is wrong and things are as they should be."

    What is important in discussions like this is if you can see that ~someone~ has a problem and try to understand what that someone thinks the problem is important. You may not agree (and that's fine!), but understanding others is the root to being a productive member of society. Pony and others have brought up the point of shutting down discussion and criticism as "suppression" is essentially a means to silence the other side. By reviewing something critically people are not stopping someone from doing that action. The person generating art can still do whatever they want and ignore the criticism. By stopping criticism you are silencing the observer and actually are suppressing discussion.

    While I mostly agree with you here, I would point out one sweeping generalization that you are making. Mainly that if I don't see a problem, I must be speaking from ignorance. I can see what someone sees as a problem, understand where they are coming from, and still not agree that it is a problem. To extend your thought experiment. If a restaurant doesn't serve a certain race because that race has a significantly higher chance to having food allergies to the type of food being served, would you still consider that to be wrong?

    The bolded part of your post is stated nearly word for word in my post under "There is a problem (or someone has a problem)." Specifically:
    Enc wrote: »
    "There is a problem (or someone has a problem)" is a valid position because you have a problem with something. If you are negatively affected by something you can identify that there is a concern. That doesn't mean anyone has to agree with you that the problem is serious or that there is a driving need for change, but there should be a general consensus from others that you perceive a problem to exist and that it is important to the person who is asserting this. Understaning this is basic empathy. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, as I am white it doesn't effect me, but by putting myself in that person's shoes I can sort of see where he is coming from."


    Concerning the italicized portion of your post: Yes, it is wrong. It still is racism. It (not serving a specific ethnicity because of a genetic trend towards an allergy) also isn't a thing that exists unless being used as cover for actual racism.

    Enc on
  • CambiataCambiata Commander Shepard The likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered User regular
    edited September 2014
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    I wonder if you get the same result if you phrase at as "what percentage of the crowd are men", whether it is a case where men are just considered the 'default' so having a noticeable number of alternative of an alternative means people will overestimate the numbers of that minority (so you're basing your estimation on the amount of time you're spending focused on each group, and taking a little bit longer to register a difference in the case of women or minorities) or if it's a case of people always overestimating that group that you ask them to count.

    Sure I've seen a similar thing brought up with regards to estimating percentages of race in crowds, but think it was again someone including a mention of these studies in the article rather than something detailing the studies themselves.

    I'm still trying to find the actual studies, but I did find this quote from Geena Davis (someone who has, after all, made a concerted effort to have these issues studied) in an NPR interview:
    DAVIS: My theory is that since all anybody has seen, when they are growing up, is this big imbalance - that the movies that they've watched are about, let's say, 5 to 1, as far as female presence is concerned - that's what starts to look normal. And let's think about - in different segments of society, 17 percent of cardiac surgeons are women; 17 percent of tenured professors are women. It just goes on and on. And isn't that strange that that's also the percentage of women in crowd scenes in movies? What if we're actually training people to see that ratio as normal so that when you're an adult, you don't notice?

    LYDEN: I wonder what the impact is of all of this lack of female representation.

    DAVIS: We just heard a fascinating and disturbing study, where they looked at the ratio of men and women in groups. And they found that if there's 17 percent women, the men in the group think it's 50-50. And if there's 33 percent women, the men perceive that as there being more women in the room than men.

    LYDEN: Oh, my goodness.

    DAVIS: So is it possible that 17 percent women has become so comfortable, and so normal, that that's just sort of unconsciously expected?

    LYDEN: Why else, Geena Davis, do these kinds of disparities matter?

    DAVIS: What we're, in effect, doing is training children to see that women and girls are less important than men and boys. We're training them to perceive that women take up only 17 percent of the space in the world. And if you add on top of that, that so many female characters are sexualized - even in things that are aimed at little kids - that's having an enormous impact as well.

    (emphasis mine)

    Cambiata on
  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    Cambiata wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Cambiata wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Squidget0 wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Squidget0 wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    I haven't read any Catwoman (haven't read comics in a long while) but isn't part of her actual character that she has intentional sex appeal, that she decided upon, and uses it purposefully to seduce people?

    Because seduction is a real thing that people attempt, so unrealistic drawings and body proportions/poses aside, there's a justification to sexualize that character.

    I would say the same is true of Black Widow as well. She actively uses her sexuality as a weapon, and often uses the fact that she is a woman to trick people into underestimating her. Is that sexist art or just art acknowledging the sexism present in the world?

    Sexist is not "a woman wears a sexy outfit to fight crime."

    Sexist is "women are much more likely to use sexy outfits to fight crime than men are."

    Actually, the sexism here is probably that men can't wear sexy outfits to fight crime, because the concept of a male 'sexy outfit' doesn't really exist in the public consciousness. Everyone always makes some joke about how sexy comics men would have giant codpieces, but I don't think those people are actually attracted to giant codpieces. If you ask 10 different people what a sexy man looks like you'll probably get 10 different answers.

    The idea of a 'sexy' male character is a lot more nebulous. When we see celebrities who get a lot of female attention and fans (say, a Tom Hiddleston or Benedict Cumberbatch), their attractiveness tends to rest more on their perceived personality than solely on their appearance or body type. This isn't because men are shallow, it's because as a society we've created different symbols for sexuality across the genders, and we interpret them in different ways. So even if lots of guys wear silly impractical things (like James Bond in a suit or whatever), it still won't get interpreted the same way as it would on a woman.

    If there were some combination of lines an artist could draw that the vast majority of straight women would interpret immediately as 'sexy guy', you'd probably see those lines drawn a lot. There are always artists willing to pander to an eager crowd. That sequence of lines doesn't exist right now, for a lot of really complicated reasons. It's ultimately a bit of a simplification to say that artists should draw something that we, as a society, have no concept for and haven't expressed any great interest in seeing.

    There's sexy male outfits. Something that's tight and shows off their physique is usually what's used.

    So like, spandex? Doesn't almost every male superhero wear that?

    Let's compare spandex worn by male and female super-heroes.

    superman-costume-456.jpg

    faf35-spider-woman_super.jpg?w=266&h=400

    See the difference?

    No.

    Just... just don't do this. Don't lie. It's embarrassing. I know you know what the Hawkeye initiative is. There is a clear and unambiguous difference between the way men and women pose in comic books. You know this.

    Like... I dunno man. Is it that the discussion you really want to have is that sexism doesn't exist or isn't as bad as people make it out to be? Is that why you do this stuff? If that's the argument you want to make then shoot, go ahead and do that. I would prefer that to this dog and pony show, personally.

    I'm not lying. The question was whether I saw a difference in the spandex worn by male and female superheroes, not how they were posed. I think it's somewhat odd because there is a difference - women might get leotards, unitards or swimsuit shapes, men get unitards full stop.

    As for my motivations, I don't think they're different in character to anyone else's in the thread - defense of one's opinions and preferences, criticism of one's stalking horses. If you're asking why I'm always a dissenter* in these threads it's a combination of many things and probably too long to post in general (and certainly too involved for me to articulate right now) - suffice to say I think the arguments and positions of the critics within the thread are inconsistent, incoherent or otherwise fail and I think that a lot of the behaviour within the thread by the aforesaid critics is self righteous bullying toward the dissenters. Mostly though I am quite averse to bad arguments and useless definitions and I think the critical side relies upon both.

    Well I wasn't asking why you were a dissenter, but good, fine - say all that then! Debate, expound upon your own ideas or dissect other people's. Don't do this passive agressive one man show like the above - "Oh when you said difference I thought you were asking the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow, and since I didn't know that of course I said no." There's lots of ways for you to dissent without playing the game of deliberate misunderstanding! You could have said "Of course I see a difference, I'm not an idiot. I just don't find it meaningful" or "I don't think it's harmful" or "I don't care" or you know whatever actual argument you want to make!

    You did the same thing with the wonder woman picture. Her back is obviously broken in the second image. When someone said it looks painful, you chose to come to the noble-hearted defense of large boobs everywhere. When, again, the broken back is kind of an obvious thing now, it having been pointed out in numerous threads before.
    ** Probably moreso than you given your anti-abortion stance.

    A quick sidestep into Cambiata history: When I was growing up, I had no people in my life as examples of feminism. So all my ideas of what feminism was came from fiction, and I firmly believed that I would never be allowed to be called a feminist by anyone in the movement, because surely they'd reject me for not hating men, not thinking all sex is rape, but most importantly because I could never believe that abortion is OK. Once I got out into the business world myself and began to actually see that lack of equality affects me, affects my pay and even effects whether I can even be hired regardless of skill level, I began to realize that I wanted to be a feminist, but still believed that I wasn't "allowed" to be one and the real feminists would hate me. Of course speaking to real, actual feminists on this board is what made me understand that that was a load of horse shit.

    And now finally after all this time, I meet one of those feminist gatekeepers I had come to believe were fictional. So, cool I guess?

    There's nothing passive aggressive about answering the question asked - which is exact what I did. In fact one of my fundamental beefs is that the questions asked and examples presented are not always those that inform the conclusions drawn. Like that of the substitution of poses for spandex - which grew out of a discussion about costumes.

    I don't know how else to explain my concern with regard to the back pain exchange beyond - with the context of depictions of large breasts qua large breasts being equated with sexism (historically, as in other threads, and by other internet denizens) and with the context of reference to Tifa (known for her large breasts not her strangely contorted spine), and the fact that by a Gricean analysis it conforms to my interpretation and the fact that it was identical in form (if not intent) to examples of my interpretation - each of which I have alluded to previously. I don't see how it could be construed as a disingenuous interpretation?

    I am sorry that you think I misinterpreted your question of "why...?" - though even with your clarification I still think my approach is the appropriate answer. I'm not being disingenuous with any of my interjections.

    As for the question of abortion, I wasn't judging nor denying your feminist credentials. It seems a straight statement of fact that we all want say an egalitarian society - equality of opportunity for both genders, equality of pay, people of all genders to be free to pursue their own brand of happiness, elimination of sexual violence and rape, no insane mobs harassing female internet celebrities and so forth. So we all want X, I want X+abortion and so do, I wager, most in the thread.

    If anything I feel like the emotional story about your upbringing and painting me as a gatekeeper of feminism is a little perverse given the above and the context in which the exchange occurred - it seems to me that your modus operandi is to fall upon an emotive appeal coupled with a maximally uncharitable interpretation of your interlocutors as a shaming tactic.

    Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
    Es-annon NEVA 4GET
  • TastyfishTastyfish Registered User regular
    edited September 2014
    Yes? Especially if it also coincided with a history of segregation. It'd be similar to saying that McDonalds should be able to refuse to serve blacks due to a much higher risk of diabetes.
    Or am I missing the point, and in there's some equivalent of public safety in 'sexist' media that would justify having a much narrower portrayal of women?

    Tastyfish on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Vanguard wrote: »
    It seems odd to decry censorship and then say there is no room for people to organize a boycott.

    The argument is "shut up, you're harming free speech."

    Determining the problem with that argument is left to the reader.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    rockrnger
  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion The Land of Flowers (and Dragons)Registered User regular
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    If anything I feel like the emotional story about your upbringing and painting me as a gatekeeper of feminism is a little perverse given the above and the context in which the exchange occurred - it seems to me that your modus operandi is to fall upon an emotive appeal coupled with a maximally uncharitable interpretation of your interlocutors as a shaming tactic.

    Perhaps you would care to respond to any of the rest of us that have addressed your argument without personal anecdote then?

    CambiataSo It Goesshryke
  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    Enc wrote: »
    On Cambiata's point, it's important to remember when making these sweeping generalizations that everyone in the thread that disagrees with your point are on some kind of unified agenda of evil against you that the entire thesis of this is warped. Doubly so when making statements like:
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    suffice to say I think the arguments and positions of the critics within the thread are inconsistent, incoherent or otherwise fail and I think that a lot of the behaviour within the thread by the aforesaid critics is self righteous bullying toward the dissenters. Mostly though I am quite averse to bad arguments and useless definitions and I think the critical side relies upon both.

    There are multiple people here with multiple backgrounds and perspectives. Cambiata's stance on abortion is inconsistent with some people's definition of "feminism," but that doesn't mean she can't advance the cause of equality towards women because these terms are not defined by one group and are not subject to some sort of purity test in order to make a position valid. It also doesn't mean that Cambiata and someone who think abortion should be done can't agree and still have a valid point on another topic just because one item of the discussion has dissonance.

    Some people in this thread, such as myself, think that looking at media with a critical eye is important to ensure you are an informed consumer and are aware of what you are taking in for what it really is, with awareness both the good and bad parts of it. And that's all. Others here may seek to impact change towards unfair or destructive cultural norms, and feel informing the general public about a very real, and generally ignored, problem. Those positions are not at odds in identifying the concern, but how they use it varies.

    The difference between "self righteous bullying" and what I feel is happening in this thread is primarily rooted in narcissism (specifically refusal to accept there are other views beyond your own). The same way that one of the posters a few pages back said "there isn't a problem" and someone else said "well, whatever you choose to believe you are wrong here." He was wrong not because he didn't perceive a problem, but that he refused that there could be one. Which is a very important distinction to make in this and other social issues debates. You may see no worries, concerns, issues, and completely like the media you are getting. That's entirely fine and understandable. But that doesn't mean the media you are consuming isn't problematic to other people, or actively contributing to problems other people face in their daily lives.

    "There is a problem (or someone has a problem)" is a valid position because you have a problem with something. If you are negatively affected by something you can identify that there is a concern. That doesn't mean anyone has to agree with you that the problem is serious or that there is a driving need for change, but there should be a general consensus from others that you perceive a problem to exist and that it is important to the person who is asserting this. Understaning this is basic empathy. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, as I am white it doesn't effect me, but by putting myself in that person's shoes I can sort of see where he is coming from."

    "I don't personally see a problem" is a valid position, but it is a position of ignorance. You don't understand the problem and/or you choose to ignore the discussion here which seeks to explain the problem from the perspectives of the people who do actually have one. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, while being of a race that is allowed I don't see the problem because it doesn't effect me and I don't care to think outside of my own experience."

    "There isn't a problem" is not a valid position, because by default you can only assert your own perspective and, in doing so with this degree of authority, you are essentially stating anyone with a problem is wrong and should change. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, while being of a race that is allowed I don't see the problem because it doesn't effect me, therefore he is wrong and things are as they should be."

    What is important in discussions like this is if you can see that ~someone~ has a problem and try to understand what that someone thinks the problem is important. You may not agree (and that's fine!), but understanding others is the root to being a productive member of society. Pony and others have brought up the point of shutting down discussion and criticism as "suppression" is essentially a means to silence the other side. By reviewing something critically people are not stopping someone from doing that action. The person generating art can still do whatever they want and ignore the criticism. By stopping criticism you are silencing the observer and actually are suppressing discussion.

    This would be a strong case in point of the sloppy characterisations against which I rail - I did not at any point accuse anyone of being "against me" nor of conspiring or colluding, nor did I make any statements about evil (in fact given I referred to the critical side as "fellow travellers" I would suggest I implied quite the opposite of considering anyone evil). My statements were specifically about the quality of argument and quantity of snark.

    I'm not responding to the rest of your comments because they're not directly referring to anything I have said and if they are aimed at me are done so under false apprehension - I don't need a lesson in empathy, I am well aware that perceptions differ but don't agree in the subject oriented relativity you propose (and contend that is not in keeping with the general position of the thread) and my dissent is not born of ignorance or a lack of understanding - I understand the arguments and conclusions just fine, I just do not think they succeed.

    Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
    Es-annon NEVA 4GET
  • TastyfishTastyfish Registered User regular
    Cambiata wrote: »
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    I wonder if you get the same result if you phrase at as "what percentage of the crowd are men", whether it is a case where men are just considered the 'default' so having a noticeable number of alternative of an alternative means people will overestimate the numbers of that minority (so you're basing your estimation on the amount of time you're spending focused on each group, and taking a little bit longer to register a difference in the case of women or minorities) or if it's a case of people always overestimating that group that you ask them to count.

    Sure I've seen a similar thing brought up with regards to estimating percentages of race in crowds, but think it was again someone including a mention of these studies in the article rather than something detailing the studies themselves.

    I'm still trying to find the actual studies, but I did find this quote from Geena Davis (someone who has, after all, made a concerted effort to have these issues studied) in an
    NPR interview:
    DAVIS: My theory is that since all anybody has seen, when they are growing up, is this big imbalance - that the movies that they've watched are about, let's say, 5 to 1, as far as female presence is concerned - that's what starts to look normal. And let's think about - in different segments of society, 17 percent of cardiac surgeons are women; 17 percent of tenured professors are women. It just goes on and on. And isn't that strange that that's also the percentage of women in crowd scenes in movies? What if we're actually training people to see that ratio as normal so that when you're an adult, you don't notice?

    LYDEN: I wonder what the impact is of all of this lack of female representation.

    DAVIS: We just heard a fascinating and disturbing study, where they looked at the ratio of men and women in groups. And they found that if there's 17 percent women, the men in the group think it's 50-50. And if there's 33 percent women, the men perceive that as there being more women in the room than men.

    LYDEN: Oh, my goodness.

    DAVIS: So is it possible that 17 percent women has become so comfortable, and so normal, that that's just sort of unconsciously expected?

    LYDEN: Why else, Geena Davis, do these kinds of disparities matter?

    DAVIS: What we're, in effect, doing is training children to see that women and girls are less important than men and boys. We're training them to perceive that women take up only 17 percent of the space in the world. And if you add on top of that, that so many female characters are sexualized - even in things that are aimed at little kids - that's having an enormous impact as well.

    (emphasis mine)

    I think she's probably misinterpreting the data here a bit though, and missing an actual issue in this topic.
    I think to say that we're training boys to think of women as taking up 17% of the space in the world is inaccurate - especially when in a young child's experience at home and at school (which has a lot more influence) they're going to encounter a much more equal mix.

    I think the main issue is that as humans we're pretty terrible at judging how large a group is, so that the rise of more programming focused at girls or designed to be more gender neutral gives us a false perspective on how serious the issues still are.

    Apothe0sisDerrickKristmas Kthulhu
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Squidget0 wrote: »
    Pony wrote: »
    Now, back to Magik. Let me toss on my Bane mask and ask you does she feel in charge? Look at those abs. Or more accurately, look at the lack of them. She's just got this sort of little line going on suggesting that sexy little ab canyon that a lot female superheroes got going on (see also: basically any picture of Supergirl in the last ten years) that real women kinda don't actually have unless they exclusively focus on weight loss and "toning" exercises that just burn body fat and don't actually build efficient, dense muscle worth a fuck.

    And that's the body she has. One that is sexy but not worth a fuck in a fight. Because she's a sex-thing. She's not meant to be a power fantasy, she's a sex object. You're not meant to want to be her, you're meant to want to fuck her. Whether you do or not is irrelevant, again, that's what's going on here.

    Before anyone even tries to claim that this is somehow okay because Magik is... well, magic and therefore doesn't need to have a rumble-ready power body, again I remind you that neither does fucking Cyclops. Cyclops actually has zero reason to be swole as he is, whereas Magik primarily fights with that giant as fuck sword of hers, which magical non-weight or whatever notwithstanding, would still suggest she'd look less like a runway model and more like someone with actual muscles right? Even if they have superpowers?

    And like you said, it would be one thing if a character's sexuality is a component of who that character is, which for Catwoman or say (again to use an X-Men example) Emma Frost, it absolutely is

    like I actually don't mind that Emma Frost dresses like she do, she Emma Frost, that how she do

    but Magik is a demon-fightin' sword-wielding bad-ass who traverses dimensions and shit. She doesn't seduce people or make sexiness a part of her interactions. In fact I'm trying to think of a romantic interest for Magik and I'm coming up empty!

    she gets sexualized anyway

    because comic books, is why

    I think you're overestimating how common the muscle fantasy is for women. I'd be much more likely to fantasize about being someone who looks like Magik than being a muscled body-builder or whatever. It's not like you have to choose between sexyness and power in a fantasy. I can imagine both having an awesome sexy build and being really agile or strong or whatever.

    I suspect that I am not alone in this. For example, night elves and other pretty races are much more popular among female players in WoW. I'm pretty sure that if you made an RPG and let people choose between playing a woman who looks like Magik and playing someone with a lady bodybuilder physique, most female players would be more likely to choose Magik. She's probably not a character I'd design given total creative freedom, but if I had to try to make her more appealing I don't think I'd start by adding more muscles.

    The line between a sexual fantasy and a power fantasy is weird, because being sexually powerful can also be a fantasy, so it's not like a character is only one or the other. I think the key word to focus on with a design is aspirational, and sexy can definitely be a part of that. One game that really illustrates the difference is early League of Legends character designs vs. more recent ones. Both designs might be a sexy-looking woman, but where Janna (older design) flirts with the player and makes jokes about phone sex, Shyvana (a more recent design) turns into a dragon and eats people. A lot of the recent LoL champions are totally rad, and they manage to be quite sexy in the process. I think it strikes a good balance.

    Except it's possible to have a realistic body build and still maintain allure - a good example of that sort of design is Mikasa Ackerman from Attack on Titan, who has a lean, muscular build that actually makes absolute sense for her character.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades 地獄のようにかわいい あなたは嫉妬深いかRegistered User regular
    In a desperate bid to bring this thread back around to something interesting and avoid exchanging personal barbs and character judgments, I present to you two very interesting articles on women's armor.

    What Kind of Armor Did Medieval Women Really Wear?

    Fantasy Armor and Lady Bits

    The latter is written by a real, modern-day armorer, detailing physics and functionality, while the former (written by Lauren Davis) takes a more historical approach.

    Read them. They are fun and informative.

    ジェイムズ・ブラウンの好きな色は何ですか?
    青!
    EncAtomikaElvenshaeKristmas Kthulhuprogramjunkie
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    I believe armor was even in its time a fantasy and am glad people have come to their senses and focused on light clothing that maximized flexibility and functionality

    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.
    Enc
  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    Oh, and as to why I don't take on the entire edifice of collective assumption in every one of these threads - my time is limited and there are many, many more on the critical side than the non-critical (and in addition we are not in agreement - I am not art uber alles as are Frankie and Astaerath, and J is far more sympathetic to a number of the arguments on the critical side than I am) let alone compared to just me, and it's frankly impossible to get people to return to first principles when we're in the midst of a huge and fast moving thread like these inevitably are.
    -
    So instead I respond if and when I can, to those things I think particular egregious or cut and dry - including, I would note, the bad arguments I see on the non-critical side (in this thread this has been only J's bookstore).

    Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
    Es-annon NEVA 4GET
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades 地獄のようにかわいい あなたは嫉妬深いかRegistered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    I believe armor was even in its time a fantasy and am glad people have come to their senses and focused on light clothing that maximized flexibility and functionality

    You're joking right? Historically, armor saved lives often. It was a major advancement in military technology. Plate armor and the like was rendered obsolete with the invention of gunpowder, but for its time the difference between a sword or an arrow piercing your soft fleshy bits or a piece of metal deflecting it was life or death.

    That's a side discussion though. When you're building a fantasy world where women fought alongside men in medieval-styled battles, you want to strike an appropriate balance between style (clearly-gendered) and realism, unless of course you're making a grindhouse style exploitation film or parody.

    ジェイムズ・ブラウンの好きな色は何ですか?
    青!
    CambiataEncRhan9shrykeKamarprogramjunkiePLA
This discussion has been closed.