But in countries with less access to that modern media showing sexually objectified women and/or women having to cover up significantly more in public you'll also tend to find more violence and discrimination against women.
I don't think it's a real tough sell to come to the conclusion that abuse against women happens more in these areas because there is still a tight psychological and legal control system on what these women can and cannot do, not that men just beat women regardless of whether they're in bikinis or not.
Every country has media. Do you believe that the Middle East doesn't have television channels? The messages about gender and sexuality in those media are much less progressive than ours.
Secondly, women are not more objectified by our media now than in the past. How on earth could you think that?
I'm sorry, I don't understand your criticism. Mind explaining a bit?
I don't think I said/implied women are more objectified by our media than ever before, or that the Middle East doesn't have televisions, or that their messages about gender are more progressive?
Sorry, I was criticising Shadowhope's post, and ended up somehow quoting yours too.
Oh, and inequality is still inequality. It's really shitty to say that women here should just shut up and be happy with an inherently unequal society because they aren't in the society that chucks rocks at them for not being covered head-to-toe.
It is an insanely loaded question, I won't dispute that. I also think that it's also a valid one. Yes, in America,* you can see a lot of women in a lot of states of undress quickly and easily. And yes, violence against women definitely occurs far too often in America. But in countries with less access to that modern media showing sexually objectified women and/or women having to cover up significantly more in public you'll also tend to find more violence and discrimination against women. In the Western world in general right now, woman are probably both closer to true equality than they've been at any point in history and also more sexually objectified than at any point in history.
Forcing women to wear burqa's or other similar types of clothing is also objectification. So is reducing them to only being able to be wives and mothers or not being able to leave the house. Those countries don't have less objectification of women, they just have different objectification.
Those countries have infinitely MORE objectification, because their cultures limit the roles of women to solely sexual objects to the point where it's suggested that even the slightest glimpse of a turned ankle will drive their poor helpless men into uncontrollable rape-frenzies.
It's the pinnacle of objectification, especially for societies where overt sexuality is frowned upon.
would overt sexuality reduce the objectification of women?
Exactly.
The standard historical model for dealing with female sexuality has been to look at them as a temptation, as a threat to men. The seductress, the witch, etc. In parts of the world that follow the model that's been the standard in human history, woman are typically objectified in such a way as to try to desexualize them. Wearing burqas objectifies women, but it does so in a way that attempts to divorce a woman from her sexuality and the threat that it implies. The result is only increases in sexual violence and discrimination. Men fear it, they try to restrict it, which leads to more fear, which leads to further misogyny.
In the western world, we've flipped the script. Woman are openly sexually objectified in fiction. There's far more images of sexy, beautiful women floating around than any generation in history has been exposed to. The result is that since the idea of a woman having sex and wanting to have sex isn't seen as an evil to be feared and ashamed of, men are better able to accept female sexuality, and the result is progress toward better equality for women.
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
I would say that at least romance novels are pretty straight-forward. It's about...romance and sex.
Meanwhile comic books put Starfire in a twine bikini and expect to be taken seriously.
Well I do find it pretty telling that the only rebuttal to the facepalm inducing cheescake of something like the Starfire reboot is... the book covers of ladies' porn.
Cambiata on
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
In the western world, we've flipped the script. Woman are openly sexually objectified in fiction. There's far more images of sexy, beautiful women floating around than any generation in history has been exposed to. The result is that since the idea of a woman having sex and wanting to have sex isn't seen as an evil to be feared and ashamed of, men are better able to accept female sexuality, and the result is progress toward better equality for women.
I understand what you're saying Shadowhope. However that causes problems in the opposite direction because you are still separating women from men and making them something less than human. Some women don't wish to be sexualized, yet you're making them a tool for your sexuality.
The solution, is for everyone to be treated equally.
Ohh and I would just like to bring attention to my huge-ass post on the previous page which addresses many people's posts made to me, for anyone who might have missed it because its at the bottom of page 4.
Almost all romance novels are in some way serialized so most ladies don't even actually bother with the cover they're just looking at what subgenre/number it is (romance practically has more subgenres than fiction has genres). If anything the covers might actually push some people away because they're so unbelievably kitsch, but the stories sell like you won't believe. Not to get all 'don't judge a book by its cover' but Romance is incredibly content driven. Almost uniquely so.
If the covers pushed enough people away to matter, they would be changed.
Conventions are hard to shake. I don't really see it as being that easy a change as you are suggesting, and in many ways the covers are actually changing. Fifty Shades of Grey being the most obvious, but a lot of new romance novels are coming out in hardback rather than soft, and the covers have a very different aesthetic. One that is much more "I'm not reading a romance novel!" if you will.
Saying "most ladies don't even actually bother with the cover" both isn't supported by anything and doesn't matter anyway because the people who don't care about the cover don't matter for when it comes to what's on the cover. By definition. The people who do care about the cover apparently like what they get. Or rather, enough of them do that it's still a good marketing strategy.
It's supported by the way in which romance covers were standardized by different publishers. Harlequin has 30 different series types, and all serials literally have a numeral on them. I can't think of any other type of genre with long running series that go to that extreme. Hell, Discworld doesn't even do that and it's pushing 40 books.
Also:
Readers and writers are also connected by their attempts to change the manner in which romance novels are published. Perhaps no other
set of readers has such a wide-ranging knowledge of the publishing industry. In the past, reader protests have affected the content of these novels, and readers are trying to change the covers. Many readers have long despised the “clinch” covers of scantily clad couples that make the novels embarrassing to read in public. Authors, too, have not always been happy with covers that are not representative of their work. One author indignantly recalls a meeting with a publisher where the only instructions about the cover art were to “make the Sisters of Sorts woman’s breasts prominent” (anonymous, qtd. in Gold, Issue 6). Readers are agitating for more scenic or floral covers, covers without people on them, and publishers are beginning to accommodate them. For example, when Laura Kinsale’s novel Midsummer Moon was originally published in 1987, the cover had a picture of a man and woman embracing on the rocks in front of a castle, but the 1997 reissue of the novel has a picture of a castle and some trees.
Struve L, STRUVE L. Sisters of Sorts: Reading Romantic Fiction and the Bonds Among Female Readers. Journal Of Popular Culture [serial online]. December 2011;44(6):1289-1306. Available from: Academic Search Premier, Ipswich, MA. Accessed June 3, 2012.
Please, that just shows that women are embarrassed to read the books in public with the covers. Not that they don't like the covers. I am often embaressed to open a comic book when I'm in a coffee shop or whatever and wish they came in a plain cover edition too. Its content that counts and a lot of romance novels are way worse for gender relations than anything you'll see anywhere else (other than in weird porn). Romance novels are flat out word porn for women, the same rules of perversion apply as in porn targeted at men.
Then what evidence would suffice to show that women don't necessarily like the way romance and it's covers objectify men? Or, at least, the aesthetic of men that stereotypically grace the covers of romance novels. Because I literally don't know what is being asked of me here. Like I said, some women rather enjoy the beefcake look. Some women like skinny guys. It is an extremely broad spectrum of what qualifies as beautiful. (Almost unique to the eye of the beholder as it were.) The fact that one type dominates the cover of this particularly profitable genre doesn't mean that it is universally appealing.
It feels to me as if many people wish to regard the female gender as a disembodied concept that should be respected and treated a certain way at all times, even if no real person is involved. Which is strange to me, in that I feel no concept is sacred or inherently HAS to be treated a certain way. Only people have rights, concepts do not have rights. If the treatment of this concept is distasteful to people, I don't believe the solution is to forbid it, but rather to create something you do agree with.
Only inasmuch as the way a society approaches the concept of gender ends up feeding directly back into how we treat people who express said gender.
And, no one here is "forbidding" anything. As you said, no concept is sacred, and the "concept" of the current depiction of female sexuality (and females in general) in modern society is being criticized. A criticism is not the same thing as censorship. It is not impossible to look at something, and come to the decision that it is Not a Good Thing, and that it needs to be changed.
Again, this is not about censorship.
I want to add a bit that may seem a bit rude- from your post it is kind of clear you missed the point of Scalzi's article, and I would suggest re-reading it a bit more closely, as well as the comments on the post. This is only said because your criticism of "privilege" is dealt with multiple times in his original post, as well as the comment thread.
My question to that though is why is the male comic artist not allowed to draw what he wants? If he is creating an inequality between the male and female characters, then I agree that is sexist.
The point is that he is (or she! the objectification of women by women is a Big Deal in the feminist community right now) is creating an inequality, and the inequality is specifically sexist.
You even said this yourself, or at least were getting at this point:
So essentially what I'm getting at is society seems to view power and strength as defining sexuality for men.
Where as fertility, well endowed anatomy, and submissiveness seem to define sexuality for women.
This raises a few questions we should ask:
Is this equal? I don't believe it is as power and strength usually result in dominance, ability, and freedom and are generally traits that society seems to value. Then again, there are arguments that women's sexuality can be a powerful tool because it is deceptive and controlling (the femme fatale archetype or the lost little girl archetype).
I would criticize your counterpoint with this: generally "deception" and a controlling personality are not traits that society seems to value.
@Black_Heart I do want to personally say that you are being extremely awesome about all this.
I am trying my hardest to be polite, which I generally am not in threads like these, because I think you are actually approaching this whole thing in good faith and generally being a champion.
I may disagree with you at the end, but I still salute your patience and discussion.
Arch is correct, "critique" is not the same as "censorship."
If someone wants to write a historical novel set in the pre-Civil-War Deep South and portray slavery as something awesome that slaves actually loved and benefited from, and those mean ol' abolitionists are just so awful for trying to screw up this lovely system, well, they are free to write a book like that.
If people then say, "I can't believe you wrote that" and criticize the book, this does not make them censors, nor does it make them "anti-art".
That is exactly how the novel Gone with the Wind reads, incidentally. I haven't seen the movie, but hopefully it didn't refer to black people as "darkies" all the time and complain about how people "straight from living in trees in the jungle" were now allowed to roam free.
The majority opinion today is that most pornography and a lot of sexual imagery in general is misogynist but it is at least possible for a woman to pose for a sexy photo without it being intrinsically misogynist.
One of the ways that we can deal with that as the audience is to keep in mind that the subjects of photos and videos are human beings and try to consider what they were thinking or feeling at the time of the photograph. Just try to exercise your empathy for the person on the screen.
Well, when we're talking about fiction, we're usually talking about it as though the characters are people with motivations.
What is the goal of empathy for a representation though? This is sort of what my initial question was about. A person and a representation of a person are two separate things. Reason dictates that I would know how to treat a person differently than an image of a person.
I quite honestly do not understand what you mean by this. Fictional representations; stories, have significantly impacted my view of the world and how I interact with it, the people around me, pretty much everything; at times even to the core of my being.
Arch is correct, "critique" is not the same as "censorship."
If someone wants to write a historical novel set in the pre-Civil-War Deep South and portray slavery as something awesome that slaves actually loved and benefited from, and those mean ol' abolitionists are just so awful for trying to screw up this lovely system, well, they are free to write a book like that.
If people then say, "I can't believe you wrote that" and criticize the book, this does not make them censors, nor does it make them "anti-art".
That is exactly how the novel Gone with the Wind reads, incidentally. I haven't seen the movie, but hopefully it didn't refer to black people as "darkies" all the time and complain about how people "straight from living in trees in the jungle" were now allowed to roam free.
The difference isn't quite as hard and fast as you are implying here though.
Critique can lead to what is essentially a form of cencorship as certain things stop being published or accepted or the like. That is, after all, the exact goal of people trying to end sexism and objectification in media and pretty much every other social progressive movement. It's also how alot of those same ideas were censored in the past.
You can technically write that book about how awesome slavery was. You won't get almost anyone to publish it though.
I understand the argument about media normalizing particular kinds of sexuality, but I always get skeptical when people bring up media that's specifically designed to give people sexual fantasies. Porn and romance novels (and to a lesser extent certain escapist fantasy with sexual themes) are specifically engineered to play out sexual fantasies. Those fantasies don't exist in a vacuum, they're not even really the product of the artist, they're more a reflection of the sexual desires people already have within the society. Porn has unrealistic body images because people want unrealistic bodies, and to suggest that pornographers only use gender-neutral images is to suggest that they go out of business.
So while I think it's fair to analyze why porn so often features women in submissive positions, I don't know that it's fair to criticize a particular piece of porn for doing so. Individual porn studios don't set the sexual standard anymore than women writing romance novels do - they're simply giving people what they ask for.
It's a similar ethical situation to any company who makes something that's 'bad for you.' Soda companies aren't unethical for producing soda, but the amount of soft drinks we consume can demonstrate a larger problem in our society. Artists aren't obligated to advance the state of society with their work, and the 'business' of art is more about reflecting public desires than giving a particular artist's perspective on an issue. What your average artist produces is much more of a reflection of our culture than an evolution, and while some artists choose to make 'risky' work or produce media society doesn't want, it's not fair to expect every artist to do things that way.
Historically, the best way to improve the depiction of women in art is to improve the conditions of women in the real world. You can't get reduce female objectification in art by complaining about specific pieces of art, anymore than you can get rid of a cold by complaining whenever you cough. The societal issues run deeper than that, and those are what really need to be addressed: once you've done that the sexy Starfire and BDSM nuns disappear on their own, in the same way blackface has from modern media.
Of course, by the same token it's fair to criticize a piece of art on a personal level. You can not like a piece of media that objectifies women in the same way you can not like a piece of media because it has an actor you don't care for. But it's a matter of personal taste either way.
0
Options
ButtlordFornicusLord of Bondage and PainRegistered Userregular
Arch is correct, "critique" is not the same as "censorship."
If someone wants to write a historical novel set in the pre-Civil-War Deep South and portray slavery as something awesome that slaves actually loved and benefited from, and those mean ol' abolitionists are just so awful for trying to screw up this lovely system, well, they are free to write a book like that.
If people then say, "I can't believe you wrote that" and criticize the book, this does not make them censors, nor does it make them "anti-art".
That is exactly how the novel Gone with the Wind reads, incidentally. I haven't seen the movie, but hopefully it didn't refer to black people as "darkies" all the time and complain about how people "straight from living in trees in the jungle" were now allowed to roam free.
The difference isn't quite as hard and fast as you are implying here though.
Critique can lead to what is essentially a form of cencorship as certain things stop being published or accepted or the like. That is, after all, the exact goal of people trying to end sexism and objectification in media and pretty much every other social progressive movement. It's also how alot of those same ideas were censored in the past.
You can technically write that book about how awesome slavery was. You won't get almost anyone to publish it though.
so what's your solution, don't critique anything ever because all viewpoints are equally valid?
In the western world, we've flipped the script. Woman are openly sexually objectified in fiction. There's far more images of sexy, beautiful women floating around than any generation in history has been exposed to. The result is that since the idea of a woman having sex and wanting to have sex isn't seen as an evil to be feared and ashamed of, men are better able to accept female sexuality, and the result is progress toward better equality for women.
I understand what you're saying Shadowhope. However that causes problems in the opposite direction because you are still separating women from men and making them something less than human. Some women don't wish to be sexualized, yet you're making them a tool for your sexuality.
The solution, is for everyone to be treated equally.
In the realms of fiction, especially thanks to the Internet, equal opportunity is pretty much available. Whether a woman wants to write original stories or fan fiction, write/draw comics, or create or modify photos. Depending on what kind of funds are available to her, a woman could create videos or video games with various degrees of polish. A woman can write about women and men as she sees them, or as she feels they should be. If she and others like her do it well, they'll change cultural images.
Everyone should be treated equally in the real world. There's a ton of policies in place across the western world and organizations dedicated to making that a reality. Realistically, with as many as one in ten sexual assaults against women not being reported going by some sources, we're still not doing enough to make true equality a reality. In fiction though, you cannot simply mandate or legislate what people will find entertaining or what artists will create, you can only try to ensure equal opportunity. If a woman wants to read about Christian Grey in 50 Shades of Grey, I don't really understand why, but it's her business. If I want to watch Ellen Ripley in Aliens, that's my business.
Shadowhope on
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
0
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
If we start taking censorship to mean anything more than the government or large companies actively restricting and destroying, selectively, information which they do not wish to be published, then we are in a weird place. I mean, people do call that censorship anyway, but that's equivocation - censorship is bad in the former sense because it is a method of control used to blind people to various offenses. Censorship in the "If I publish this, people will boycott me, those censors" isn't really bad, because the only other possibility is people not being able to exert their rights of free speech.
In other words, if "You shouldn't censor this" is a phrase being applied to someone speaking critically about something, rather than someone actively filtering information at the point of the source, then it's not just a silly thing to say, it's intensely hypocritical - it's saying "I should be able to say what I want, but you shouldn't be allowed to say what you want at all if it's critiquing me."
Saying "I think this is a problem" isn't censorship, or if it is, censorship is simply not a strictly bad thing. The problem is when someone controls the source of information such that they can bend others to their will.
In the realms of fiction, especially thanks to the Internet, equal opportunity is pretty much available. Whether a woman wants to write original stories or fan fiction, write/draw comics, or create or modify photos. Depending on what kind of funds are available to her, a woman could create videos or video games with various degrees of polish. A woman can write about women and men as she sees them, or as she feels they should be. If she and others like her do it well, they'll change cultural images.
I'm trying really hard to bite back all the sarcastic responses sizzling up from my subconscious, but you are making this difficult. So you are saying . . . that when men de facto control the multi-billion dollar movie, comics, and video game industries and women have fanfiction, they have equal means of representation.
And, no one here is "forbidding" anything. As you said, no concept is sacred, and the "concept" of the current depiction of female sexuality (and females in general) in modern society is being criticized. A criticism is not the same thing as censorship. It is not impossible to look at something, and come to the decision that it is Not a Good Thing, and that it needs to be changed.
Again, this is not about censorship.
Ahh, thank you. Yes, I was almost creating a strawman there/misdirecting. I just sort of get the impression from people who talk about sexism and misogyny that there should be a banning or culling of all materials that offend them and creators shouldn't be allowed to create what they want. I feel that anyone should be allowed to create whatever they want and everyone else should be allowed to ignore it, criticize it, or make something better, etc.
I want to add a bit that may seem a bit rude- from your post it is kind of clear you missed the point of Scalzi's article, and I would suggest re-reading it a bit more closely, as well as the comments on the post. This is only said because your criticism of "privilege" is dealt with multiple times in his original post, as well as the comment thread.
No, you aren't being rude at all. I'M afraid of coming off as rude or adversarial when I'm only trying to understand other people's positions and find the flaws in my own beliefs and arguments. I don't like having an opinion that I can't honestly support. If I find my opinion to be based on poor or destructive reasoning, I try to change it.
But please forgive me, I failed to understand where he dealt with my criticism in the article and the comments section has over 800 posts on it. It would be very tedious to pick through all of them to see if concerns are expressed and addressed in a way I can grasp. Privilege to me, focuses on the differences between people instead of the ways they are alike. A straight white male may have vastly more options open to him and may be oblivious to the plight of those who aren't in the same situation, yet that is irrelevant because it is only a possibility, not a certainty. Everyone has differences, everyone has similarities. I don't understand the desire to bring attention to the differences to alienate one another.
My question to that though is why is the male comic artist not allowed to draw what he wants? If he is creating an inequality between the male and female characters, then I agree that is sexist.
The point is that he is (or she! the objectification of women by women is a Big Deal in the feminist community right now) is creating an inequality, and the inequality is specifically sexist.
You even said this yourself, or at least were getting at this point:
So essentially what I'm getting at is society seems to view power and strength as defining sexuality for men.
Where as fertility, well endowed anatomy, and submissiveness seem to define sexuality for women.
This raises a few questions we should ask:
Is this equal? I don't believe it is as power and strength usually result in dominance, ability, and freedom and are generally traits that society seems to value. Then again, there are arguments that women's sexuality can be a powerful tool because it is deceptive and controlling (the femme fatale archetype or the lost little girl archetype).
I would criticize your counterpoint with this: generally "deception" and a controlling personality are not traits that society seems to value.
I understand what you're saying, but that sounds to me like its therefore impossible to portray a woman sexually, without being unfair to them, because their sexuality itself is an inequality. So if someone wishes to portray women sexually, they must either come up with a form of sexuality that is non-typical and thus difficult for society to identify as sexy, or they must be labeled a sexist.
Arch is correct, "critique" is not the same as "censorship."
If someone wants to write a historical novel set in the pre-Civil-War Deep South and portray slavery as something awesome that slaves actually loved and benefited from, and those mean ol' abolitionists are just so awful for trying to screw up this lovely system, well, they are free to write a book like that.
If people then say, "I can't believe you wrote that" and criticize the book, this does not make them censors, nor does it make them "anti-art".
That is exactly how the novel Gone with the Wind reads, incidentally. I haven't seen the movie, but hopefully it didn't refer to black people as "darkies" all the time and complain about how people "straight from living in trees in the jungle" were now allowed to roam free.
The difference isn't quite as hard and fast as you are implying here though.
Critique can lead to what is essentially a form of cencorship as certain things stop being published or accepted or the like. That is, after all, the exact goal of people trying to end sexism and objectification in media and pretty much every other social progressive movement. It's also how alot of those same ideas were censored in the past.
You can technically write that book about how awesome slavery was. You won't get almost anyone to publish it though.
so what's your solution, don't critique anything ever because all viewpoints are equally valid?
I don't recall ever saying that.
/checks thread
Yup, memory confirmed.
shryke on
0
Options
ButtlordFornicusLord of Bondage and PainRegistered Userregular
Arch is correct, "critique" is not the same as "censorship."
If someone wants to write a historical novel set in the pre-Civil-War Deep South and portray slavery as something awesome that slaves actually loved and benefited from, and those mean ol' abolitionists are just so awful for trying to screw up this lovely system, well, they are free to write a book like that.
If people then say, "I can't believe you wrote that" and criticize the book, this does not make them censors, nor does it make them "anti-art".
That is exactly how the novel Gone with the Wind reads, incidentally. I haven't seen the movie, but hopefully it didn't refer to black people as "darkies" all the time and complain about how people "straight from living in trees in the jungle" were now allowed to roam free.
The difference isn't quite as hard and fast as you are implying here though.
Critique can lead to what is essentially a form of cencorship as certain things stop being published or accepted or the like. That is, after all, the exact goal of people trying to end sexism and objectification in media and pretty much every other social progressive movement. It's also how alot of those same ideas were censored in the past.
You can technically write that book about how awesome slavery was. You won't get almost anyone to publish it though.
so what's your solution, don't critique anything ever because all viewpoints are equally valid?
I don't recall ever saying that.
/checks thread
Yup, memory confirmed.
well then how about you posit another idea because "critique can lead to censorship" isn't really true and it makes you look like a goose when you say it
Arch is correct, "critique" is not the same as "censorship."
If someone wants to write a historical novel set in the pre-Civil-War Deep South and portray slavery as something awesome that slaves actually loved and benefited from, and those mean ol' abolitionists are just so awful for trying to screw up this lovely system, well, they are free to write a book like that.
If people then say, "I can't believe you wrote that" and criticize the book, this does not make them censors, nor does it make them "anti-art".
That is exactly how the novel Gone with the Wind reads, incidentally. I haven't seen the movie, but hopefully it didn't refer to black people as "darkies" all the time and complain about how people "straight from living in trees in the jungle" were now allowed to roam free.
The difference isn't quite as hard and fast as you are implying here though.
Critique can lead to what is essentially a form of cencorship as certain things stop being published or accepted or the like. That is, after all, the exact goal of people trying to end sexism and objectification in media and pretty much every other social progressive movement. It's also how alot of those same ideas were censored in the past.
You can technically write that book about how awesome slavery was. You won't get almost anyone to publish it though.
so what's your solution, don't critique anything ever because all viewpoints are equally valid?
I don't recall ever saying that.
/checks thread
Yup, memory confirmed.
well then how about you posit another idea because "critique can lead to censorship" isn't really true and it makes you look like a goose when you say it
Um, no, my point still stands. Nothing you've said contradicts it. You just threw out a strawman and then became a pissy goose when I called you on it.
But please forgive me, I failed to understand where he dealt with my criticism in the article and the comments section has over 800 posts on it. It would be very tedious to pick through all of them to see if concerns are expressed and addressed in a way I can grasp. Privilege to me, focuses on the differences between people instead of the ways they are alike. A straight white male may have vastly more options open to him and may be oblivious to the plight of those who aren't in the same situation, yet that is irrelevant because it is only a possibility, not a certainty. Everyone has differences, everyone has similarities. I don't understand the desire to bring attention to the differences to alienate one another.
The issue of privilege extends beyond the individual to the societal frame and context that they exist within and so view as normal. Here's an example that I kind of like which might get the point across better:
"It's so convenient that the post office is only closed on Sundays. That makes it easy for everyone!"
Do you see it? (This is not in any way intended to be a koan, if not I can try and explain better.)
I understand the argument about media normalizing particular kinds of sexuality, but I always get skeptical when people bring up media that's specifically designed to give people sexual fantasies. Porn and romance novels (and to a lesser extent certain escapist fantasy with sexual themes) are specifically engineered to play out sexual fantasies. Those fantasies don't exist in a vacuum, they're not even really the product of the artist, they're more a reflection of the sexual desires people already have within the society. Porn has unrealistic body images because people want unrealistic bodies, and to suggest that pornographers only use gender-neutral images is to suggest that they go out of business.
So while I think it's fair to analyze why porn so often features women in submissive positions, I don't know that it's fair to criticize a particular piece of porn for doing so. Individual porn studios don't set the sexual standard anymore than women writing romance novels do - they're simply giving people what they ask for.
Individual porn studios may not, but the porn industry as a whole certainly does. Porn has a very real and frankly disturbing effect on our sexuality.
It's no different then any other sort of media we consume. All the same issues apply. It's a cycle and you can't absolve people who make porn or write romance novels of their part in it.
It's a similar ethical situation to any company who makes something that's 'bad for you.' Soda companies aren't unethical for producing soda, but the amount of soft drinks we consume can demonstrate a larger problem in our society.
No, but we can criticize them for marketing soda as being a good thing to drink all the time. The same way we criticize cigarette advertisements or the like.
Arch is correct, "critique" is not the same as "censorship."
If someone wants to write a historical novel set in the pre-Civil-War Deep South and portray slavery as something awesome that slaves actually loved and benefited from, and those mean ol' abolitionists are just so awful for trying to screw up this lovely system, well, they are free to write a book like that.
If people then say, "I can't believe you wrote that" and criticize the book, this does not make them censors, nor does it make them "anti-art".
That is exactly how the novel Gone with the Wind reads, incidentally. I haven't seen the movie, but hopefully it didn't refer to black people as "darkies" all the time and complain about how people "straight from living in trees in the jungle" were now allowed to roam free.
The difference isn't quite as hard and fast as you are implying here though.
Critique can lead to what is essentially a form of cencorship as certain things stop being published or accepted or the like. That is, after all, the exact goal of people trying to end sexism and objectification in media and pretty much every other social progressive movement. It's also how alot of those same ideas were censored in the past.
You can technically write that book about how awesome slavery was. You won't get almost anyone to publish it though.
so what's your solution, don't critique anything ever because all viewpoints are equally valid?
I don't recall ever saying that.
/checks thread
Yup, memory confirmed.
well then how about you posit another idea because "critique can lead to censorship" isn't really true and it makes you look like a goose when you say it
Um, no, my point still stands. Nothing you've said contradicts it. You just threw out a strawman and then became a pissy goose when I called you on it.
I'd still quibble with the notion that a societal chilling effect is the same as or should be described as censorship. While it may have similar de facto results it is still significantly different from actual de jure bans to warrant a distinction.
0
Options
ButtlordFornicusLord of Bondage and PainRegistered Userregular
Arch is correct, "critique" is not the same as "censorship."
If someone wants to write a historical novel set in the pre-Civil-War Deep South and portray slavery as something awesome that slaves actually loved and benefited from, and those mean ol' abolitionists are just so awful for trying to screw up this lovely system, well, they are free to write a book like that.
If people then say, "I can't believe you wrote that" and criticize the book, this does not make them censors, nor does it make them "anti-art".
That is exactly how the novel Gone with the Wind reads, incidentally. I haven't seen the movie, but hopefully it didn't refer to black people as "darkies" all the time and complain about how people "straight from living in trees in the jungle" were now allowed to roam free.
The difference isn't quite as hard and fast as you are implying here though.
Critique can lead to what is essentially a form of cencorship as certain things stop being published or accepted or the like. That is, after all, the exact goal of people trying to end sexism and objectification in media and pretty much every other social progressive movement. It's also how alot of those same ideas were censored in the past.
You can technically write that book about how awesome slavery was. You won't get almost anyone to publish it though.
so what's your solution, don't critique anything ever because all viewpoints are equally valid?
I don't recall ever saying that.
/checks thread
Yup, memory confirmed.
well then how about you posit another idea because "critique can lead to censorship" isn't really true and it makes you look like a goose when you say it
Um, no, my point still stands. Nothing you've said contradicts it. You just threw out a strawman and then became a pissy goose when I called you on it.
your point doesn't stand at all because publishers choosing not to publish things is not a form of censorship
and now, once again: what do you propose we do if critique is so potentially dangerous
The majority opinion today is that most pornography and a lot of sexual imagery in general is misogynist but it is at least possible for a woman to pose for a sexy photo without it being intrinsically misogynist.
One of the ways that we can deal with that as the audience is to keep in mind that the subjects of photos and videos are human beings and try to consider what they were thinking or feeling at the time of the photograph. Just try to exercise your empathy for the person on the screen.
Well, when we're talking about fiction, we're usually talking about it as though the characters are people with motivations.
What is the goal of empathy for a representation though? This is sort of what my initial question was about. A person and a representation of a person are two separate things. Reason dictates that I would know how to treat a person differently than an image of a person.
I quite honestly do not understand what you mean by this. Fictional representations; stories, have significantly impacted my view of the world and how I interact with it, the people around me, pretty much everything; at times even to the core of my being.
This is a difficult issue to grapple with because each person interprets things differently. There IS a separation between Fiction and Non-Fiction, Entertainment and Reality. We all ultimately choose what to take away from it, I believe. Many people LOVE to watch horror movies where people are brutally murdered and mutilated. However I can't see any sane person using that material to justify their desire and plans to murder and mutilate people.
I CAN see a person watching a film about a young boy who overcomes personal challenges/limitations and becomes a highly successful musician/artist/athlete, etc... and being inspired enough by the film to work towards their own goals. If everyone was influenced by and took material from all entertainment as legitimate courses of action for real life, our society couldn't function for obvious reasons. If no one was influenced by anything in entertainment at all, I think we would be at just as much of a loss.
I guess what it boils down to is individual people having the good judgement and intellectual aptitude to know what is proper to internalize from media and what isn't. Its not a simple issue either, but I've never been one to support broad generalizations as a means for supporting actions.
Black_Heart, I want to add that I do appreciate that you're reading and discussing all this in good faith. Some of these concepts are not easy to grasp because they go against what we take for granted; I imagine they're especially hard to grasp if you haven't personally experienced the negative implications resulting from that societal framework--the same way I cannot truly understand how a person of color is effected by societal stereotypes (though, of course, I try.)
The issue of privilege extends beyond the individual to the societal frame and context that they exist within and so view as normal. Here's an example that I kind of like which might get the point across better:
"It's so convenient that the post office is only closed on Sundays. That makes it easy for everyone!"
Do you see it? (This is not in any way intended to be a koan, if not I can try and explain better.)
I'm sorry. I'm not understanding the point behind that statement. Can you try to break it down or explain what that means?
If we start taking censorship to mean anything more than the government or large companies actively restricting and destroying, selectively, information which they do not wish to be published, then we are in a weird place. I mean, people do call that censorship anyway, but that's equivocation - censorship is bad in the former sense because it is a method of control used to blind people to various offenses. Censorship in the "If I publish this, people will boycott me, those censors" isn't really bad, because the only other possibility is people not being able to exert their rights of free speech.
In other words, if "You shouldn't censor this" is a phrase being applied to someone speaking critically about something, rather than someone actively filtering information at the point of the source, then it's not just a silly thing to say, it's intensely hypocritical - it's saying "I should be able to say what I want, but you shouldn't be allowed to say what you want at all if it's critiquing me."
Saying "I think this is a problem" isn't censorship, or if it is, censorship is simply not a strictly bad thing. The problem is when someone controls the source of information such that they can bend others to their will.
Well, unless someone is gonna argue that child pornography should be freely available, I think "censorship isn't strictly a bad thing" is a very well established precedent.
Secondly, we are talking about large corporations here. Large corporations are in charge of the majority of content people in our society are exposed to. And they do selectively destroy or restrict the information available to the public. Easy example: the MPAA
Just, in general, it's important to be aware that how we as a society view certain concepts effects the prevalence and distribution and availability of that content. We control what information people consume and we do so because of it's influence on society. This is used both ways, for good and for bad.
I'd still quibble with the notion that a societal chilling effect is the same as or should be described as censorship. While it may have similar de facto results it is still significantly different from actual de jure bans to warrant a distinction.
We can certainly decide to use another word (I did avoid just calling it censorship for a reason), it's no skin off my back, but the concept of restricting societal access to content is more of less the same.
Arch is correct, "critique" is not the same as "censorship."
If someone wants to write a historical novel set in the pre-Civil-War Deep South and portray slavery as something awesome that slaves actually loved and benefited from, and those mean ol' abolitionists are just so awful for trying to screw up this lovely system, well, they are free to write a book like that.
If people then say, "I can't believe you wrote that" and criticize the book, this does not make them censors, nor does it make them "anti-art".
That is exactly how the novel Gone with the Wind reads, incidentally. I haven't seen the movie, but hopefully it didn't refer to black people as "darkies" all the time and complain about how people "straight from living in trees in the jungle" were now allowed to roam free.
The difference isn't quite as hard and fast as you are implying here though.
Critique can lead to what is essentially a form of cencorship as certain things stop being published or accepted or the like. That is, after all, the exact goal of people trying to end sexism and objectification in media and pretty much every other social progressive movement. It's also how alot of those same ideas were censored in the past.
You can technically write that book about how awesome slavery was. You won't get almost anyone to publish it though.
so what's your solution, don't critique anything ever because all viewpoints are equally valid?
I don't recall ever saying that.
/checks thread
Yup, memory confirmed.
well then how about you posit another idea because "critique can lead to censorship" isn't really true and it makes you look like a goose when you say it
Um, no, my point still stands. Nothing you've said contradicts it. You just threw out a strawman and then became a pissy goose when I called you on it.
your point doesn't stand at all because publishers choosing not to publish things is not a form of censorship
It amounts to a very similar thing. Again, look at the MPAA and how it's actions have a chilling effect on the type of movies that get made in America. There's a whole documentary one it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Film_Is_Not_Yet_Rated
and now, once again: what do you propose we do if critique is so potentially dangerous
And again with the strawman.
Stop being a silly goose.
0
Options
ButtlordFornicusLord of Bondage and PainRegistered Userregular
Arch is correct, "critique" is not the same as "censorship."
If someone wants to write a historical novel set in the pre-Civil-War Deep South and portray slavery as something awesome that slaves actually loved and benefited from, and those mean ol' abolitionists are just so awful for trying to screw up this lovely system, well, they are free to write a book like that.
If people then say, "I can't believe you wrote that" and criticize the book, this does not make them censors, nor does it make them "anti-art".
That is exactly how the novel Gone with the Wind reads, incidentally. I haven't seen the movie, but hopefully it didn't refer to black people as "darkies" all the time and complain about how people "straight from living in trees in the jungle" were now allowed to roam free.
The difference isn't quite as hard and fast as you are implying here though.
Critique can lead to what is essentially a form of cencorship as certain things stop being published or accepted or the like. That is, after all, the exact goal of people trying to end sexism and objectification in media and pretty much every other social progressive movement. It's also how alot of those same ideas were censored in the past.
You can technically write that book about how awesome slavery was. You won't get almost anyone to publish it though.
so what's your solution, don't critique anything ever because all viewpoints are equally valid?
I don't recall ever saying that.
/checks thread
Yup, memory confirmed.
well then how about you posit another idea because "critique can lead to censorship" isn't really true and it makes you look like a goose when you say it
Um, no, my point still stands. Nothing you've said contradicts it. You just threw out a strawman and then became a pissy goose when I called you on it.
your point doesn't stand at all because publishers choosing not to publish things is not a form of censorship
It amounts to a very similar thing. Again, look at the MPAA and how it's actions have a chilling effect on the type of movies that get made in America. There's a whole documentary one it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Film_Is_Not_Yet_Rated
and now, once again: what do you propose we do if critique is so potentially dangerous
The issue of privilege extends beyond the individual to the societal frame and context that they exist within and so view as normal. Here's an example that I kind of like which might get the point across better:
"It's so convenient that the post office is only closed on Sundays. That makes it easy for everyone!"
Do you see it? (This is not in any way intended to be a koan, if not I can try and explain better.)
I'm sorry. I'm not understanding the point behind that statement. Can you try to break it down or explain what that means?
The idea of closing things on Sunday is an explicitly Christian concept that is hardwired into our society.
Arch is correct, "critique" is not the same as "censorship."
If someone wants to write a historical novel set in the pre-Civil-War Deep South and portray slavery as something awesome that slaves actually loved and benefited from, and those mean ol' abolitionists are just so awful for trying to screw up this lovely system, well, they are free to write a book like that.
If people then say, "I can't believe you wrote that" and criticize the book, this does not make them censors, nor does it make them "anti-art".
That is exactly how the novel Gone with the Wind reads, incidentally. I haven't seen the movie, but hopefully it didn't refer to black people as "darkies" all the time and complain about how people "straight from living in trees in the jungle" were now allowed to roam free.
The difference isn't quite as hard and fast as you are implying here though.
Critique can lead to what is essentially a form of cencorship as certain things stop being published or accepted or the like. That is, after all, the exact goal of people trying to end sexism and objectification in media and pretty much every other social progressive movement. It's also how alot of those same ideas were censored in the past.
You can technically write that book about how awesome slavery was. You won't get almost anyone to publish it though.
so what's your solution, don't critique anything ever because all viewpoints are equally valid?
I don't recall ever saying that.
/checks thread
Yup, memory confirmed.
well then how about you posit another idea because "critique can lead to censorship" isn't really true and it makes you look like a goose when you say it
Um, no, my point still stands. Nothing you've said contradicts it. You just threw out a strawman and then became a pissy goose when I called you on it.
your point doesn't stand at all because publishers choosing not to publish things is not a form of censorship
It amounts to a very similar thing. Again, look at the MPAA and how it's actions have a chilling effect on the type of movies that get made in America. There's a whole documentary one it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Film_Is_Not_Yet_Rated
and now, once again: what do you propose we do if critique is so potentially dangerous
And again with the strawman.
Stop being a silly goose.
a) that is still not censorship
What's the difference?
It's extremely difficult to make a major motion picture the MPAA won't approve of.
b) that is not a strawman
Yes it is. Goose.
0
Options
ButtlordFornicusLord of Bondage and PainRegistered Userregular
We can certainly decide to use another word (I did avoid just calling it censorship for a reason), it's no skin off my back, but the concept of restricting societal access to content is more of less the same.
and i'd argue that nothing is really being restricted from being released, especially in 2012 when so many independent means of distributing content exist
We can certainly decide to use another word (I did avoid just calling it censorship for a reason), it's no skin off my back, but the concept of restricting societal access to content is more of less the same.
and i'd argue that nothing is really being restricted from being released, especially in 2012 when so many independent means of distributing content exist
You would be wrong.
What publishers choose to publish, what theatres choose to show, what stations choose to air, these things all effect the very type of content that gets made. That's the nature of a system where things largely get made based on their ability to be distributed and make money.
shryke on
0
Options
ButtlordFornicusLord of Bondage and PainRegistered Userregular
Arch is correct, "critique" is not the same as "censorship."
If someone wants to write a historical novel set in the pre-Civil-War Deep South and portray slavery as something awesome that slaves actually loved and benefited from, and those mean ol' abolitionists are just so awful for trying to screw up this lovely system, well, they are free to write a book like that.
If people then say, "I can't believe you wrote that" and criticize the book, this does not make them censors, nor does it make them "anti-art".
That is exactly how the novel Gone with the Wind reads, incidentally. I haven't seen the movie, but hopefully it didn't refer to black people as "darkies" all the time and complain about how people "straight from living in trees in the jungle" were now allowed to roam free.
The difference isn't quite as hard and fast as you are implying here though.
Critique can lead to what is essentially a form of cencorship as certain things stop being published or accepted or the like. That is, after all, the exact goal of people trying to end sexism and objectification in media and pretty much every other social progressive movement. It's also how alot of those same ideas were censored in the past.
You can technically write that book about how awesome slavery was. You won't get almost anyone to publish it though.
so what's your solution, don't critique anything ever because all viewpoints are equally valid?
I don't recall ever saying that.
/checks thread
Yup, memory confirmed.
well then how about you posit another idea because "critique can lead to censorship" isn't really true and it makes you look like a goose when you say it
Um, no, my point still stands. Nothing you've said contradicts it. You just threw out a strawman and then became a pissy goose when I called you on it.
your point doesn't stand at all because publishers choosing not to publish things is not a form of censorship
It amounts to a very similar thing. Again, look at the MPAA and how it's actions have a chilling effect on the type of movies that get made in America. There's a whole documentary one it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Film_Is_Not_Yet_Rated
and now, once again: what do you propose we do if critique is so potentially dangerous
And again with the strawman.
Stop being a silly goose.
a) that is still not censorship
What's the difference?
It's extremely difficult to make a major motion picture the MPAA won't approve of.
b) that is not a strawman
Yes it is. Goose.
yo you really need to look up the definition of straw man if you think me saying "hey now this idea that critique leads to censorship is kinda dumb why don't you expound on some theoretical alternative for it if you think it's potentially dangerous, as evidenced by your belief that it can lead to censorship" is a straw man
and you can still release a movie without going through the mpaa the last i checked
whether or not a theater will show it is another matter entirely
but even if they choose not to show it, that's not censorship unless you think censorship is anything short of everyone just letting everyone else yell their bullshit at the top of their lungs with no societal restraints
0
Options
ButtlordFornicusLord of Bondage and PainRegistered Userregular
We can certainly decide to use another word (I did avoid just calling it censorship for a reason), it's no skin off my back, but the concept of restricting societal access to content is more of less the same.
and i'd argue that nothing is really being restricted from being released, especially in 2012 when so many independent means of distributing content exist
You would be wrong.
What publishers choose to publish, what theatres choose to show, what stations choose to air, these things all effect the very type of content that gets made. That's the nature of a system where things largely get made based on their ability to be distributed and make money.
you read like half that post and stopped
'also those choices? that's not censorship, unless you honestly believe that publishers and theatres and so on should have to show/print everything
edit this is not a strawman either this is me being hyperbolic to try to make a point
Black_Heart, I want to add that I do appreciate that you're reading and discussing all this in good faith. Some of these concepts are not easy to grasp because they go against what we take for granted; I imagine they're especially hard to grasp if you haven't personally experienced the negative implications resulting from that societal framework--the same way I cannot truly understand how a person of color is effected by societal stereotypes (though, of course, I try.)
Thanks. This is really fascinating and I really want to try and learn. I'm being spoiled by asking people to explain rather than trudge through the vast ocean of books, publications, and materials on the subject. I've read a lot on the subject online, but just reading articles and consuming others' points of view always feels extremely one-sided and limiting, like I'm not getting the big picture. When I discuss issues with others, its so much more illuminating for me.
Anyway, I think I kind of fundamentally disagree with the idea that "you cannot truly understand" anything. I believe that anyone can understand anything if they try hard enough, there is no limit to knowledge. However... I just want to point out that comprehension and empathy are not the same thing.
But please forgive me, I failed to understand where he dealt with my criticism in the article and the comments section has over 800 posts on it. It would be very tedious to pick through all of them to see if concerns are expressed and addressed in a way I can grasp. Privilege to me, focuses on the differences between people instead of the ways they are alike. A straight white male may have vastly more options open to him and may be oblivious to the plight of those who aren't in the same situation, yet that is irrelevant because it is only a possibility, not a certainty. Everyone has differences, everyone has similarities. I don't understand the desire to bring attention to the differences to alienate one another.
The point is not to alienate. The point is to encourage those people with more privilege to try to understand that those people with less privilege move through a different world, with a different set of challenges.
I find it hilarious you are trying to deny the power of society to effect content creation in a thread specifically about doing so for the purpose of removing sexual objectification from our media.
yo you really need to look up the definition of straw man if you think me saying "hey now this idea that critique leads to censorship is kinda dumb why don't you expound on some theoretical alternative for it if you think it's potentially dangerous, as evidenced by your belief that it can lead to censorship" is a straw man
No, you need to read more carefully since I never said the bolded you silly goose. I said it can lead to something like it.
The issue of privilege extends beyond the individual to the societal frame and context that they exist within and so view as normal. Here's an example that I kind of like which might get the point across better:
"It's so convenient that the post office is only closed on Sundays. That makes it easy for everyone!"
Do you see it? (This is not in any way intended to be a koan, if not I can try and explain better.)
I'm sorry. I'm not understanding the point behind that statement. Can you try to break it down or explain what that means?
The idea of closing things on Sunday is an explicitly Christian concept that is hardwired into our society.
Really? I thought it was just because people need to take a day off SOMETIME. I guess I'm just naive/stupid in some ways.
Edit: Rather, I meant in that specific statement that was given. I understand the concept of "Sundays off = Christian" but I don't immediately associate things with larger over-arching schemes.
Posts
Sorry, I was criticising Shadowhope's post, and ended up somehow quoting yours too.
That isn't remotely close to what I said.
Exactly.
The standard historical model for dealing with female sexuality has been to look at them as a temptation, as a threat to men. The seductress, the witch, etc. In parts of the world that follow the model that's been the standard in human history, woman are typically objectified in such a way as to try to desexualize them. Wearing burqas objectifies women, but it does so in a way that attempts to divorce a woman from her sexuality and the threat that it implies. The result is only increases in sexual violence and discrimination. Men fear it, they try to restrict it, which leads to more fear, which leads to further misogyny.
In the western world, we've flipped the script. Woman are openly sexually objectified in fiction. There's far more images of sexy, beautiful women floating around than any generation in history has been exposed to. The result is that since the idea of a woman having sex and wanting to have sex isn't seen as an evil to be feared and ashamed of, men are better able to accept female sexuality, and the result is progress toward better equality for women.
Well I do find it pretty telling that the only rebuttal to the facepalm inducing cheescake of something like the Starfire reboot is... the book covers of ladies' porn.
I understand what you're saying Shadowhope. However that causes problems in the opposite direction because you are still separating women from men and making them something less than human. Some women don't wish to be sexualized, yet you're making them a tool for your sexuality.
The solution, is for everyone to be treated equally.
Ohh and I would just like to bring attention to my huge-ass post on the previous page which addresses many people's posts made to me, for anyone who might have missed it because its at the bottom of page 4.
Then what evidence would suffice to show that women don't necessarily like the way romance and it's covers objectify men? Or, at least, the aesthetic of men that stereotypically grace the covers of romance novels. Because I literally don't know what is being asked of me here. Like I said, some women rather enjoy the beefcake look. Some women like skinny guys. It is an extremely broad spectrum of what qualifies as beautiful. (Almost unique to the eye of the beholder as it were.) The fact that one type dominates the cover of this particularly profitable genre doesn't mean that it is universally appealing.
Only inasmuch as the way a society approaches the concept of gender ends up feeding directly back into how we treat people who express said gender.
And, no one here is "forbidding" anything. As you said, no concept is sacred, and the "concept" of the current depiction of female sexuality (and females in general) in modern society is being criticized. A criticism is not the same thing as censorship. It is not impossible to look at something, and come to the decision that it is Not a Good Thing, and that it needs to be changed.
Again, this is not about censorship.
I want to add a bit that may seem a bit rude- from your post it is kind of clear you missed the point of Scalzi's article, and I would suggest re-reading it a bit more closely, as well as the comments on the post. This is only said because your criticism of "privilege" is dealt with multiple times in his original post, as well as the comment thread.
The point is that he is (or she! the objectification of women by women is a Big Deal in the feminist community right now) is creating an inequality, and the inequality is specifically sexist.
You even said this yourself, or at least were getting at this point:
I would criticize your counterpoint with this: generally "deception" and a controlling personality are not traits that society seems to value.
I am trying my hardest to be polite, which I generally am not in threads like these, because I think you are actually approaching this whole thing in good faith and generally being a champion.
I may disagree with you at the end, but I still salute your patience and discussion.
If someone wants to write a historical novel set in the pre-Civil-War Deep South and portray slavery as something awesome that slaves actually loved and benefited from, and those mean ol' abolitionists are just so awful for trying to screw up this lovely system, well, they are free to write a book like that.
If people then say, "I can't believe you wrote that" and criticize the book, this does not make them censors, nor does it make them "anti-art".
I quite honestly do not understand what you mean by this. Fictional representations; stories, have significantly impacted my view of the world and how I interact with it, the people around me, pretty much everything; at times even to the core of my being.
Welp, now I am going to be even more insufferable
The difference isn't quite as hard and fast as you are implying here though.
Critique can lead to what is essentially a form of cencorship as certain things stop being published or accepted or the like. That is, after all, the exact goal of people trying to end sexism and objectification in media and pretty much every other social progressive movement. It's also how alot of those same ideas were censored in the past.
You can technically write that book about how awesome slavery was. You won't get almost anyone to publish it though.
So while I think it's fair to analyze why porn so often features women in submissive positions, I don't know that it's fair to criticize a particular piece of porn for doing so. Individual porn studios don't set the sexual standard anymore than women writing romance novels do - they're simply giving people what they ask for.
It's a similar ethical situation to any company who makes something that's 'bad for you.' Soda companies aren't unethical for producing soda, but the amount of soft drinks we consume can demonstrate a larger problem in our society. Artists aren't obligated to advance the state of society with their work, and the 'business' of art is more about reflecting public desires than giving a particular artist's perspective on an issue. What your average artist produces is much more of a reflection of our culture than an evolution, and while some artists choose to make 'risky' work or produce media society doesn't want, it's not fair to expect every artist to do things that way.
Historically, the best way to improve the depiction of women in art is to improve the conditions of women in the real world. You can't get reduce female objectification in art by complaining about specific pieces of art, anymore than you can get rid of a cold by complaining whenever you cough. The societal issues run deeper than that, and those are what really need to be addressed: once you've done that the sexy Starfire and BDSM nuns disappear on their own, in the same way blackface has from modern media.
Of course, by the same token it's fair to criticize a piece of art on a personal level. You can not like a piece of media that objectifies women in the same way you can not like a piece of media because it has an actor you don't care for. But it's a matter of personal taste either way.
so what's your solution, don't critique anything ever because all viewpoints are equally valid?
In the realms of fiction, especially thanks to the Internet, equal opportunity is pretty much available. Whether a woman wants to write original stories or fan fiction, write/draw comics, or create or modify photos. Depending on what kind of funds are available to her, a woman could create videos or video games with various degrees of polish. A woman can write about women and men as she sees them, or as she feels they should be. If she and others like her do it well, they'll change cultural images.
Everyone should be treated equally in the real world. There's a ton of policies in place across the western world and organizations dedicated to making that a reality. Realistically, with as many as one in ten sexual assaults against women not being reported going by some sources, we're still not doing enough to make true equality a reality. In fiction though, you cannot simply mandate or legislate what people will find entertaining or what artists will create, you can only try to ensure equal opportunity. If a woman wants to read about Christian Grey in 50 Shades of Grey, I don't really understand why, but it's her business. If I want to watch Ellen Ripley in Aliens, that's my business.
In other words, if "You shouldn't censor this" is a phrase being applied to someone speaking critically about something, rather than someone actively filtering information at the point of the source, then it's not just a silly thing to say, it's intensely hypocritical - it's saying "I should be able to say what I want, but you shouldn't be allowed to say what you want at all if it's critiquing me."
Saying "I think this is a problem" isn't censorship, or if it is, censorship is simply not a strictly bad thing. The problem is when someone controls the source of information such that they can bend others to their will.
Good thing no one has suggested that.
Aaand Shivahn ninja'd me with a clearer response than mine. :^:
I'm trying really hard to bite back all the sarcastic responses sizzling up from my subconscious, but you are making this difficult. So you are saying . . . that when men de facto control the multi-billion dollar movie, comics, and video game industries and women have fanfiction, they have equal means of representation.
Ahh, thank you. Yes, I was almost creating a strawman there/misdirecting. I just sort of get the impression from people who talk about sexism and misogyny that there should be a banning or culling of all materials that offend them and creators shouldn't be allowed to create what they want. I feel that anyone should be allowed to create whatever they want and everyone else should be allowed to ignore it, criticize it, or make something better, etc.
No, you aren't being rude at all. I'M afraid of coming off as rude or adversarial when I'm only trying to understand other people's positions and find the flaws in my own beliefs and arguments. I don't like having an opinion that I can't honestly support. If I find my opinion to be based on poor or destructive reasoning, I try to change it.
But please forgive me, I failed to understand where he dealt with my criticism in the article and the comments section has over 800 posts on it. It would be very tedious to pick through all of them to see if concerns are expressed and addressed in a way I can grasp. Privilege to me, focuses on the differences between people instead of the ways they are alike. A straight white male may have vastly more options open to him and may be oblivious to the plight of those who aren't in the same situation, yet that is irrelevant because it is only a possibility, not a certainty. Everyone has differences, everyone has similarities. I don't understand the desire to bring attention to the differences to alienate one another.
I understand what you're saying, but that sounds to me like its therefore impossible to portray a woman sexually, without being unfair to them, because their sexuality itself is an inequality. So if someone wishes to portray women sexually, they must either come up with a form of sexuality that is non-typical and thus difficult for society to identify as sexy, or they must be labeled a sexist.
I don't recall ever saying that.
/checks thread
Yup, memory confirmed.
well then how about you posit another idea because "critique can lead to censorship" isn't really true and it makes you look like a goose when you say it
Um, no, my point still stands. Nothing you've said contradicts it. You just threw out a strawman and then became a pissy goose when I called you on it.
The issue of privilege extends beyond the individual to the societal frame and context that they exist within and so view as normal. Here's an example that I kind of like which might get the point across better:
"It's so convenient that the post office is only closed on Sundays. That makes it easy for everyone!"
Do you see it? (This is not in any way intended to be a koan, if not I can try and explain better.)
Individual porn studios may not, but the porn industry as a whole certainly does. Porn has a very real and frankly disturbing effect on our sexuality.
It's no different then any other sort of media we consume. All the same issues apply. It's a cycle and you can't absolve people who make porn or write romance novels of their part in it.
No, but we can criticize them for marketing soda as being a good thing to drink all the time. The same way we criticize cigarette advertisements or the like.
I'd still quibble with the notion that a societal chilling effect is the same as or should be described as censorship. While it may have similar de facto results it is still significantly different from actual de jure bans to warrant a distinction.
your point doesn't stand at all because publishers choosing not to publish things is not a form of censorship
and now, once again: what do you propose we do if critique is so potentially dangerous
This is a difficult issue to grapple with because each person interprets things differently. There IS a separation between Fiction and Non-Fiction, Entertainment and Reality. We all ultimately choose what to take away from it, I believe. Many people LOVE to watch horror movies where people are brutally murdered and mutilated. However I can't see any sane person using that material to justify their desire and plans to murder and mutilate people.
I CAN see a person watching a film about a young boy who overcomes personal challenges/limitations and becomes a highly successful musician/artist/athlete, etc... and being inspired enough by the film to work towards their own goals. If everyone was influenced by and took material from all entertainment as legitimate courses of action for real life, our society couldn't function for obvious reasons. If no one was influenced by anything in entertainment at all, I think we would be at just as much of a loss.
I guess what it boils down to is individual people having the good judgement and intellectual aptitude to know what is proper to internalize from media and what isn't. Its not a simple issue either, but I've never been one to support broad generalizations as a means for supporting actions.
I'm sorry. I'm not understanding the point behind that statement. Can you try to break it down or explain what that means?
Well, unless someone is gonna argue that child pornography should be freely available, I think "censorship isn't strictly a bad thing" is a very well established precedent.
Secondly, we are talking about large corporations here. Large corporations are in charge of the majority of content people in our society are exposed to. And they do selectively destroy or restrict the information available to the public. Easy example: the MPAA
Just, in general, it's important to be aware that how we as a society view certain concepts effects the prevalence and distribution and availability of that content. We control what information people consume and we do so because of it's influence on society. This is used both ways, for good and for bad.
We can certainly decide to use another word (I did avoid just calling it censorship for a reason), it's no skin off my back, but the concept of restricting societal access to content is more of less the same.
It amounts to a very similar thing. Again, look at the MPAA and how it's actions have a chilling effect on the type of movies that get made in America. There's a whole documentary one it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Film_Is_Not_Yet_Rated
And again with the strawman.
Stop being a silly goose.
a) that is still not censorship
b) that is not a strawman
The idea of closing things on Sunday is an explicitly Christian concept that is hardwired into our society.
What's the difference?
It's extremely difficult to make a major motion picture the MPAA won't approve of.
Yes it is. Goose.
and i'd argue that nothing is really being restricted from being released, especially in 2012 when so many independent means of distributing content exist
You would be wrong.
What publishers choose to publish, what theatres choose to show, what stations choose to air, these things all effect the very type of content that gets made. That's the nature of a system where things largely get made based on their ability to be distributed and make money.
yo you really need to look up the definition of straw man if you think me saying "hey now this idea that critique leads to censorship is kinda dumb why don't you expound on some theoretical alternative for it if you think it's potentially dangerous, as evidenced by your belief that it can lead to censorship" is a straw man
and you can still release a movie without going through the mpaa the last i checked
whether or not a theater will show it is another matter entirely
but even if they choose not to show it, that's not censorship unless you think censorship is anything short of everyone just letting everyone else yell their bullshit at the top of their lungs with no societal restraints
you read like half that post and stopped
'also those choices? that's not censorship, unless you honestly believe that publishers and theatres and so on should have to show/print everything
edit this is not a strawman either this is me being hyperbolic to try to make a point
Thanks. This is really fascinating and I really want to try and learn. I'm being spoiled by asking people to explain rather than trudge through the vast ocean of books, publications, and materials on the subject. I've read a lot on the subject online, but just reading articles and consuming others' points of view always feels extremely one-sided and limiting, like I'm not getting the big picture. When I discuss issues with others, its so much more illuminating for me.
Anyway, I think I kind of fundamentally disagree with the idea that "you cannot truly understand" anything. I believe that anyone can understand anything if they try hard enough, there is no limit to knowledge. However... I just want to point out that comprehension and empathy are not the same thing.
The point is not to alienate. The point is to encourage those people with more privilege to try to understand that those people with less privilege move through a different world, with a different set of challenges.
I find it hilarious you are trying to deny the power of society to effect content creation in a thread specifically about doing so for the purpose of removing sexual objectification from our media.
No, you need to read more carefully since I never said the bolded you silly goose. I said it can lead to something like it.
Hilariously, you just used another strawman.
Really? I thought it was just because people need to take a day off SOMETIME. I guess I'm just naive/stupid in some ways.
Edit: Rather, I meant in that specific statement that was given. I understand the concept of "Sundays off = Christian" but I don't immediately associate things with larger over-arching schemes.