That's EXACTLY the point. The conversation is revolving around fictional women in fictional shows. Period. When your counter examples are reality/documentary shows you're counterpoint isn't even in the same state, let alone ballpark.
I'm sorry something has to be fictional now to be entertaining?
Fictional women shooting ray guns are entertaining to watch.
Fictional women making cold cream aren't.
You said "Nuh-uh."
You already knew that this was the conversation, though.
My phone can't handle giant WOT multiquotes, I learned. My post only addressed the uselessness of the Bechdel test. Whether or not TV has gotten "better" is irrelevant, the Bechdel test can't measure that. It's gotten less malecentric over the years, but no one is denying that. So the Bechdel test is not helpful for our discusion.
The problem with that part of the article isn't that things like making beauty products or jewelry are useless and only shooting ray guns are cool. It's that watching somebody blast aliens with a ray gun is fucking entertaining. Watching someone stand around in a lab coat creating mixtures and then patch testing them on people is boring. So it's a terribly clueless reason to pick on the images chosen to represent positive women.
Doctors and scientists are respected, possibly because they're saving lives and furthering human knowledge. Of course, nurses and hygienists are less respected, but that's because those trades have a history of less training and being a hobby for the idle rich.
Maybe It's just my lack of use of the fancy stuff, but for me "beauty products" means upjumped detergents (actual soap was phased out decades ago). For me, the only innovations that are ever needed are either done by professional chemists (which tends to be associated with masculinity) or a guy with a sack of sand.
Yeouch. Though this also serves to remind me how little I know about geek culture. I think I recognize maybe three characters/names mentioned...hmmm...
If it makes you feel better, the only one I recognized was Bella from Twilight.
I misidentified two of the others though! >.>
My western nerd credentials are very lacking, which is something I've learned to live with (they're not that much better from where I was born,but everyone knows certain things, of course).
Specifically, I recognize the Fifth Element girl, Princess Leia, and the Chainsaw Cheerleader (thanks to the recent release). That's about it for me personally.
Why is it, only geek culture seems to defend rape fantasy games from Japan, and not strictly along the lines of the right of it to exist, but that there is intrinsic value in the game itself?
*puts on his compassionate, reasonable sensitivity hat*
Though the article quality seems reasonable, I do think you'd be hard pressed to be able to actually examine this particular phenomenon--Nazi-themed pornography--in the context of the society in one article. I'll give a counter example: before I came to the US, one of the least flattering bits of American media I'd been exposed to was Isla: She Wolf of the SS. Which is a Nazi-exploitation pornographic film seemingly dedicated to the actual victims of the Holocaust, in case you don't know. So, yeah...only a moron or a bigot with an ulterior would attempt to judge a country of tens of millions of people based on a smut film, I was old enough to figure that out.
Sure enough, yeah, the American pornographic film industry is gigantic (perhaps the biggest in the world?) and very seldomly produces Nazi-exploitation porn. Isla is not a terribly good representation of the industry itself, let alone Americans. I was a little perturbed by how many Americans had heard of a thirty-year-old porno film that referenced the holocaust, but other than that, yeah.
The Stalag comics remind me of that. With one exception: apparently, pornography was very hard to come by in 1960 in Israel. As such, I've lived in countries more populous than Israel, long after the 1960s. Where I was born has 3 times the population of Israel, and Japan and US are +100 million. In all these countries, pornography has been...pretty easy to get your hands on for a while now. That Stalag would surface in a rather small country where pornography was otherwise extremely hard to come by (If the NYT is to be believed, or for that matter, did their research), to the point where it was practically the only kind of domestic material...
This might be a question better left for a cultural historian though.
That's EXACTLY the point. The conversation is revolving around fictional women in fictional shows. Period. When your counter examples are reality/documentary shows you're counterpoint isn't even in the same state, let alone ballpark.
I'm sorry something has to be fictional now to be entertaining?
Fictional women shooting ray guns are entertaining to watch.
Fictional women making cold cream aren't.
You said "Nuh-uh."
You already knew that this was the conversation, though.
See edit. You're using blasters as a short cut to make something entertaining. Which is a shame.
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
I haven't seen RoJ in a while, but wasn't Princess Leia's outfit at that point directly related to her having attempted an (admittedly unsuccessful) rescue attempt for a helpless, blinded male character?
Admittedly it's a male character who eventually rescues both of them, but I recall that having less to do with his hyper-competent maleness and more to do with him being fucking telekinetic.
That's the outfit she's wearing when she turns on her captor (who is many times her size and strength) and kills him with the chains he used to bind her, isn't it?
Cherry-picking indeed.
True, but I've always found the fixation on the slave girl outfit by Star Wars fans and sci-fi/fantasy fans in general more than a little creepy. For decades, they've been fetishizing and fantazing over the image of a literal sex slave, and then excusing it by saying "Oh! But she kills the evil, fat rape monster in the end, so it's empowering!" Really? Really?
That they are fixated on it and the outfit itself plays a minor role in the character of Leia herself says something about fixating on titillation at the expense of the character.
That's EXACTLY the point. The conversation is revolving around fictional women in fictional shows. Period. When your counter examples are reality/documentary shows you're counterpoint isn't even in the same state, let alone ballpark.
I'm sorry something has to be fictional now to be entertaining? Fine: Advertising is boring to most people. Mad Men is not. Because presentation. It does not take blasters make something interesting. It takes tension.
Again, so the hell what? If your point is that fictional characters creating beauty products can be just as interesting as scifi/space opera, prove it. Using other examples from other shows 1) doesn't work, and 2) especially doesn't work when it in no way is what the show is about. Mad Men isn't about advertising. The Pitch is, but again, that's a reality program.
See edit. You're using blasters as a short cut to make something entertaining. Which is a shame.
I'm using "blasters" as a short cut? Because that's what that woman used as her example in her article? What the fuck are you even talking about? Whatevs. I can't stand this dishonest shit right now.
I haven't seen RoJ in a while, but wasn't Princess Leia's outfit at that point directly related to her having attempted an (admittedly unsuccessful) rescue attempt for a helpless, blinded male character?
Admittedly it's a male character who eventually rescues both of them, but I recall that having less to do with his hyper-competent maleness and more to do with him being fucking telekinetic.
That's the outfit she's wearing when she turns on her captor (who is many times her size and strength) and kills him with the chains he used to bind her, isn't it?
Cherry-picking indeed.
True, but I've always found the fixation on the slave girl outfit by Star Wars fans and sci-fi/fantasy fans in general more than a little creepy. For decades, they've been fetishizing and fantazing over the image of a literal sex slave, and then excusing it by saying "Oh! But she kills the evil, fat rape monster in the end, so it's empowering!" Really? Really?
Am I the only one who thinks it looks ugly and unappealing as well? The outfit, I mean. In addition to the rather unshakable elements of sexual slavery which do creep me out.
I mean, I get what makes Star Wars popular--space wizards! Good over evil! Millions of disposable war slaves! But Slave Leia always stumped me. Meanwhile, every year, I see about twenty of them at DragonCon, looking quite pleased with themselves. It'd be something I'd really prefer to ignore and hide if I were really, really into the fandom. "Yeah, we don't talk about that..." sort of situation.
EDIT: On a side note, I'm kind of surprised at the Aisha Tyler thing. I mean, besides seeing her on Friends, the second thing I'd seen of her (and the first related to the industry) were those videos Bungie hired her to do for Halo. Did no one else watch those?
That's EXACTLY the point. The conversation is revolving around fictional women in fictional shows. Period. When your counter examples are reality/documentary shows you're counterpoint isn't even in the same state, let alone ballpark.
I'm sorry something has to be fictional now to be entertaining?
Fictional women shooting ray guns are entertaining to watch.
Fictional women making cold cream aren't.
You said "Nuh-uh."
You already knew that this was the conversation, though.
WOAH, wait, really? That's the discussion? That's an insane conversation, though.
This is the paragraph:
Images with dichotomous messages like this concern me because I remember my own childhood of despising femininity and seeing it as the weaker, confining, less desirable option, wanting instead to enter the world of masculinity, of fun, and freedom; a form of internalized misogyny and femmephobia I am still recovering from, even now as a proud femme geek who loves expressing myself through traditionally “feminine” interests like crafting, fashion, jewellery, and making my own beauty products. The best part about enjoying those interests is that I am definitely not alone in them. Geek culture is full of people, women, men and gender rebels alike, who are great crafters, seamstresses, bakers, knitters, costume-makers, and creators. I wonder how many of them had a childhood filled with Barbie dolls for whom they designed outfits and hairstyles, and were still capable of having a jolly good time playing with ray-guns as well, rather than thinking of it in a purely either-or context?
Look at that shit one more time.
The author is discussing the uncomfortable feeling that being a dedicated tomboy is accepted by geek culture, but being a reasonably "girly" person is seen as dumber or more "mainstream" and therefore not as worthy.
She's not saying Aeryn Sung should be making jewelry, she's just... that was an example of the things she currently enjoys doing that are feminine. I don't know how that was misread so badly. I ctrl-f'd "jewelry" just to make sure there wasn't some completely different reference.
The idea is that it isn't necessarily a positive that "geek culture" is so obsessed with the tomboy, but thank goodness it appears that things are getting better and more people who grew up with barbie dolls are feeling comfortable as participants in that culture.
That's EXACTLY the point. The conversation is revolving around fictional women in fictional shows. Period. When your counter examples are reality/documentary shows you're counterpoint isn't even in the same state, let alone ballpark.
I'm sorry something has to be fictional now to be entertaining?
Fictional women shooting ray guns are entertaining to watch.
Fictional women making cold cream aren't.
You said "Nuh-uh."
You already knew that this was the conversation, though.
WOAH, wait, really? That's the discussion? That's an insane conversation, though.
This is the paragraph:
Images with dichotomous messages like this concern me because I remember my own childhood of despising femininity and seeing it as the weaker, confining, less desirable option, wanting instead to enter the world of masculinity, of fun, and freedom; a form of internalized misogyny and femmephobia I am still recovering from, even now as a proud femme geek who loves expressing myself through traditionally “feminine” interests like crafting, fashion, jewellery, and making my own beauty products. The best part about enjoying those interests is that I am definitely not alone in them. Geek culture is full of people, women, men and gender rebels alike, who are great crafters, seamstresses, bakers, knitters, costume-makers, and creators. I wonder how many of them had a childhood filled with Barbie dolls for whom they designed outfits and hairstyles, and were still capable of having a jolly good time playing with ray-guns as well, rather than thinking of it in a purely either-or context?
Look at that shit one more time.
The author is discussing the uncomfortable feeling that being a dedicated tomboy is accepted by geek culture, but being a reasonably "girly" person is seen as dumber or more "mainstream" and therefore not as worthy.
She's not saying Aeryn Sung should be making jewelry, she's just... that was an example of the things she currently enjoys doing that are feminine. I don't know how that was misread so badly. I ctrl-f'd "jewelry" just to make sure there wasn't some completely different reference.
The idea is that it isn't necessarily a positive that "geek culture" is so obsessed with the tomboy, but thank goodness it appears that things are getting better and more people who grew up with barbie dolls are feeling comfortable as participants in that culture.
I think you need to take it one step further. most the time femininity is acceptable in geek culture is when it exudes sex all over the place for the benefit of a male audience.
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
That's EXACTLY the point. The conversation is revolving around fictional women in fictional shows. Period. When your counter examples are reality/documentary shows you're counterpoint isn't even in the same state, let alone ballpark.
I'm sorry something has to be fictional now to be entertaining?
Fictional women shooting ray guns are entertaining to watch.
Fictional women making cold cream aren't.
You said "Nuh-uh."
You already knew that this was the conversation, though.
WOAH, wait, really? That's the discussion? That's an insane conversation, though.
This is the paragraph:
Images with dichotomous messages like this concern me because I remember my own childhood of despising femininity and seeing it as the weaker, confining, less desirable option, wanting instead to enter the world of masculinity, of fun, and freedom; a form of internalized misogyny and femmephobia I am still recovering from, even now as a proud femme geek who loves expressing myself through traditionally “feminine” interests like crafting, fashion, jewellery, and making my own beauty products. The best part about enjoying those interests is that I am definitely not alone in them. Geek culture is full of people, women, men and gender rebels alike, who are great crafters, seamstresses, bakers, knitters, costume-makers, and creators. I wonder how many of them had a childhood filled with Barbie dolls for whom they designed outfits and hairstyles, and were still capable of having a jolly good time playing with ray-guns as well, rather than thinking of it in a purely either-or context?
Look at that shit one more time.
The author is discussing the uncomfortable feeling that being a dedicated tomboy is accepted by geek culture, but being a reasonably "girly" person is seen as dumber or more "mainstream" and therefore not as worthy.
She's not saying Aeryn Sung should be making jewelry, she's just... that was an example of the things she currently enjoys doing that are feminine. I don't know how that was misread so badly. I ctrl-f'd "jewelry" just to make sure there wasn't some completely different reference.
The idea is that it isn't necessarily a positive that "geek culture" is so obsessed with the tomboy, but thank goodness it appears that things are getting better and more people who grew up with barbie dolls are feeling comfortable as participants in that culture.
What she says here really, really resonates with me, because I am aware of the same thing within myself - rejecting things as "too girly" because of internalizing the mass amounts of media that tell me that feminine means weak, stupid, petty, vain, shallow, unheroic. Girls are not heros. The things girls do are not valuable.
But why is a seamstress valuless but a tailor is not?
Why is jewelry-making valueless art but painting isn't?
I remember once posting on a forum about how enraptured I was of these shoes, how exquisitely designed I thought they were. And I was apologetic about it, trying to explain that I loved these shoes because of the artistry of them, and not because I am a ditzy female obsessed with shoes. Why do I feel the need to apologize for liking something?
Knowing how much I internalize the negativity towards things percieved as "female" is one of the reasons I'm bothered by people ragging on "bronies." I know there are some extreme elements to bronies that aren't great (plushie sex), but the fact that dudes can be proud of a show that's "female" is a good thing from my perspective. Although there is also the depressing element there that insists that because guys like the show, that must mean that it isn't a girl's show after all.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
That's EXACTLY the point. The conversation is revolving around fictional women in fictional shows. Period. When your counter examples are reality/documentary shows you're counterpoint isn't even in the same state, let alone ballpark.
I'm sorry something has to be fictional now to be entertaining?
Fictional women shooting ray guns are entertaining to watch.
Fictional women making cold cream aren't.
You said "Nuh-uh."
You already knew that this was the conversation, though.
WOAH, wait, really? That's the discussion? That's an insane conversation, though.
This is the paragraph:
Images with dichotomous messages like this concern me because I remember my own childhood of despising femininity and seeing it as the weaker, confining, less desirable option, wanting instead to enter the world of masculinity, of fun, and freedom; a form of internalized misogyny and femmephobia I am still recovering from, even now as a proud femme geek who loves expressing myself through traditionally “feminine” interests like crafting, fashion, jewellery, and making my own beauty products. The best part about enjoying those interests is that I am definitely not alone in them. Geek culture is full of people, women, men and gender rebels alike, who are great crafters, seamstresses, bakers, knitters, costume-makers, and creators. I wonder how many of them had a childhood filled with Barbie dolls for whom they designed outfits and hairstyles, and were still capable of having a jolly good time playing with ray-guns as well, rather than thinking of it in a purely either-or context?
Look at that shit one more time.
The author is discussing the uncomfortable feeling that being a dedicated tomboy is accepted by geek culture, but being a reasonably "girly" person is seen as dumber or more "mainstream" and therefore not as worthy.
She's not saying Aeryn Sung should be making jewelry, she's just... that was an example of the things she currently enjoys doing that are feminine. I don't know how that was misread so badly. I ctrl-f'd "jewelry" just to make sure there wasn't some completely different reference.
The idea is that it isn't necessarily a positive that "geek culture" is so obsessed with the tomboy, but thank goodness it appears that things are getting better and more people who grew up with barbie dolls are feeling comfortable as participants in that culture.
I think you need to take it one step further. most the time femininity is acceptable in geek culture is when it exudes sex all over the place for the benefit of a male audience.
By your standards would you say that the only time femininity is acceptable in any culture is when it exudes sex etc etc? Excluding those cultures dominated by women. I think what we need is some kind of idea what you and 'your side' would say is OK.
It's pretty clear where I think 'OK' is. I think that things transition from being bad to being good based entirely on the quality of the writing and creativity contained in them. That it is impossible to look at a piece of of context and say 'that is sexist', since context is what makes something sexist.
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
That's EXACTLY the point. The conversation is revolving around fictional women in fictional shows. Period. When your counter examples are reality/documentary shows you're counterpoint isn't even in the same state, let alone ballpark.
I'm sorry something has to be fictional now to be entertaining?
Fictional women shooting ray guns are entertaining to watch.
Fictional women making cold cream aren't.
You said "Nuh-uh."
You already knew that this was the conversation, though.
WOAH, wait, really? That's the discussion? That's an insane conversation, though.
This is the paragraph:
Images with dichotomous messages like this concern me because I remember my own childhood of despising femininity and seeing it as the weaker, confining, less desirable option, wanting instead to enter the world of masculinity, of fun, and freedom; a form of internalized misogyny and femmephobia I am still recovering from, even now as a proud femme geek who loves expressing myself through traditionally “feminine” interests like crafting, fashion, jewellery, and making my own beauty products. The best part about enjoying those interests is that I am definitely not alone in them. Geek culture is full of people, women, men and gender rebels alike, who are great crafters, seamstresses, bakers, knitters, costume-makers, and creators. I wonder how many of them had a childhood filled with Barbie dolls for whom they designed outfits and hairstyles, and were still capable of having a jolly good time playing with ray-guns as well, rather than thinking of it in a purely either-or context?
Look at that shit one more time.
The author is discussing the uncomfortable feeling that being a dedicated tomboy is accepted by geek culture, but being a reasonably "girly" person is seen as dumber or more "mainstream" and therefore not as worthy.
She's not saying Aeryn Sung should be making jewelry, she's just... that was an example of the things she currently enjoys doing that are feminine. I don't know how that was misread so badly. I ctrl-f'd "jewelry" just to make sure there wasn't some completely different reference.
The idea is that it isn't necessarily a positive that "geek culture" is so obsessed with the tomboy, but thank goodness it appears that things are getting better and more people who grew up with barbie dolls are feeling comfortable as participants in that culture.
I think you need to take it one step further. most the time femininity is acceptable in geek culture is when it exudes sex all over the place for the benefit of a male audience.
By your standards would you say that the only time femininity is acceptable in any culture is when it exudes sex etc etc? Excluding those cultures dominated by women. I think what we need is some kind of idea what you and 'your side' would say is OK.
It's pretty clear where I think 'OK' is. I think that things transition from being bad to being good based entirely on the quality of the writing and creativity contained in them. That it is impossible to look at a piece of of context and say 'that is sexist', since context is what makes something sexist.
My phone can't handle giant WOT multiquotes, I learned. My post only addressed the uselessness of the Bechdel test. Whether or not TV has gotten "better" is irrelevant, the Bechdel test can't measure that. It's gotten less malecentric over the years, but no one is denying that. So the Bechdel test is not helpful for our discusion.
But the discussion isn't whether today is better than 1970, or 1980, or yesterday.
It's about... just, sexism/misogyny, the media. It's about a lot of things. But saying that rule-of-thumb doesn't provide anything useful is weird. Like I'd say... it's less malecentric than it was yesterday, but still pretty malecentric! Look at all this shit not passing the test! It's providing a small part of a larger discussion, it doesn't become invalid simply because it cannot be used to determine that media today is worse than the media of yesterday.
I mean it's also not the world's greatest rhetorical device or anything, but I thought the mad dash to rid it from the thread was weird.
That's EXACTLY the point. The conversation is revolving around fictional women in fictional shows. Period. When your counter examples are reality/documentary shows you're counterpoint isn't even in the same state, let alone ballpark.
I'm sorry something has to be fictional now to be entertaining?
Fictional women shooting ray guns are entertaining to watch.
Fictional women making cold cream aren't.
You said "Nuh-uh."
You already knew that this was the conversation, though.
WOAH, wait, really? That's the discussion? That's an insane conversation, though.
This is the paragraph:
Images with dichotomous messages like this concern me because I remember my own childhood of despising femininity and seeing it as the weaker, confining, less desirable option, wanting instead to enter the world of masculinity, of fun, and freedom; a form of internalized misogyny and femmephobia I am still recovering from, even now as a proud femme geek who loves expressing myself through traditionally “feminine” interests like crafting, fashion, jewellery, and making my own beauty products. The best part about enjoying those interests is that I am definitely not alone in them. Geek culture is full of people, women, men and gender rebels alike, who are great crafters, seamstresses, bakers, knitters, costume-makers, and creators. I wonder how many of them had a childhood filled with Barbie dolls for whom they designed outfits and hairstyles, and were still capable of having a jolly good time playing with ray-guns as well, rather than thinking of it in a purely either-or context?
Look at that shit one more time.
The author is discussing the uncomfortable feeling that being a dedicated tomboy is accepted by geek culture, but being a reasonably "girly" person is seen as dumber or more "mainstream" and therefore not as worthy.
She's not saying Aeryn Sung should be making jewelry, she's just... that was an example of the things she currently enjoys doing that are feminine. I don't know how that was misread so badly. I ctrl-f'd "jewelry" just to make sure there wasn't some completely different reference.
The idea is that it isn't necessarily a positive that "geek culture" is so obsessed with the tomboy, but thank goodness it appears that things are getting better and more people who grew up with barbie dolls are feeling comfortable as participants in that culture.
What she says here really, really resonates with me, because I am aware of the same thing within myself - rejecting things as "too girly" because of internalizing the mass amounts of media that tell me that feminine means weak, stupid, petty, vain, shallow, unheroic. Girls are not heros. The things girls do are not valuable.
But why is a seamstress valuless but a tailor is not?
Why is jewelry-making valueless art but painting isn't?
I remember once posting on a forum about how enraptured I was of these shoes, how exquisitely designed I thought they were. And I was apologetic about it, trying to explain that I loved these shoes because of the artistry of them, and not because I am a ditzy female obsessed with shoes. Why do I feel the need to apologize for liking something?
Knowing how much I internalize the negativity towards things percieved as "female" is one of the reasons I'm bothered by people ragging on "bronies." I know there are some extreme elements to bronies that aren't great (plushie sex), but the fact that dudes can be proud of a show that's "female" is a good thing from my perspective. Although there is also the depressing element there that insists that because guys like the show, that must mean that it isn't a girl's show after all.
Yeah, my girlfriend has talked about similar issues. As a teenager, her enjoyment of action films and technical work was lauded by her dorky friends, but baking was dangerously girly and had to be hedged against. Enjoying shoes, or wearing dresses, or wearing makeup or whatnot was only acceptable if you also made sure to say that you know it was shitty. Less so now that we're adults and our friends span a few subcultures, but it's certainly not fun to feel like you aren't allowed to be your gender if you want to be cool. Well, a very specific subset of cool.
That's EXACTLY the point. The conversation is revolving around fictional women in fictional shows. Period. When your counter examples are reality/documentary shows you're counterpoint isn't even in the same state, let alone ballpark.
I'm sorry something has to be fictional now to be entertaining?
Fictional women shooting ray guns are entertaining to watch.
Fictional women making cold cream aren't.
You said "Nuh-uh."
You already knew that this was the conversation, though.
WOAH, wait, really? That's the discussion? That's an insane conversation, though.
This is the paragraph:
Images with dichotomous messages like this concern me because I remember my own childhood of despising femininity and seeing it as the weaker, confining, less desirable option, wanting instead to enter the world of masculinity, of fun, and freedom; a form of internalized misogyny and femmephobia I am still recovering from, even now as a proud femme geek who loves expressing myself through traditionally “feminine” interests like crafting, fashion, jewellery, and making my own beauty products. The best part about enjoying those interests is that I am definitely not alone in them. Geek culture is full of people, women, men and gender rebels alike, who are great crafters, seamstresses, bakers, knitters, costume-makers, and creators. I wonder how many of them had a childhood filled with Barbie dolls for whom they designed outfits and hairstyles, and were still capable of having a jolly good time playing with ray-guns as well, rather than thinking of it in a purely either-or context?
Look at that shit one more time.
The author is discussing the uncomfortable feeling that being a dedicated tomboy is accepted by geek culture, but being a reasonably "girly" person is seen as dumber or more "mainstream" and therefore not as worthy.
She's not saying Aeryn Sung should be making jewelry, she's just... that was an example of the things she currently enjoys doing that are feminine. I don't know how that was misread so badly. I ctrl-f'd "jewelry" just to make sure there wasn't some completely different reference.
The idea is that it isn't necessarily a positive that "geek culture" is so obsessed with the tomboy, but thank goodness it appears that things are getting better and more people who grew up with barbie dolls are feeling comfortable as participants in that culture.
I think you need to take it one step further. most the time femininity is acceptable in geek culture is when it exudes sex all over the place for the benefit of a male audience.
By your standards would you say that the only time femininity is acceptable in any culture is when it exudes sex etc etc? Excluding those cultures dominated by women. I think what we need is some kind of idea what you and 'your side' would say is OK.
It's pretty clear where I think 'OK' is. I think that things transition from being bad to being good based entirely on the quality of the writing and creativity contained in them. That it is impossible to look at a piece of of context and say 'that is sexist', since context is what makes something sexist.
Pepper Potts in The Avengers is OK.
But she's not a society, that's an example of a single piece of fiction. I'm talking about something like "The way that the Indy 500 community treats women is OK and isn't related to exuding sexuality in a negative way"
What model would you like society to be built upon. Lets say we're about to throw aside the 'misogynistic ways of the today', where shall we look for inspiration as to how we shall build a new society? Clearly you don't think we should look at geeks, who is the right choice?
My phone can't handle giant WOT multiquotes, I learned. My post only addressed the uselessness of the Bechdel test. Whether or not TV has gotten "better" is irrelevant, the Bechdel test can't measure that. It's gotten less malecentric over the years, but no one is denying that. So the Bechdel test is not helpful for our discusion.
But the discussion isn't whether today is better than 1970, or 1980, or yesterday.
It's about... just, sexism/misogyny, the media. It's about a lot of things. But saying that rule-of-thumb doesn't provide anything useful is weird. Like I'd say... it's less malecentric than it was yesterday, but still pretty malecentric! Look at all this shit not passing the test! It's providing a small part of a larger discussion, it doesn't become invalid simply because it cannot be used to determine that media today is worse than the media of yesterday.
I mean it's also not the world's greatest rhetorical device or anything, but I thought the mad dash to rid it from the thread was weird.
That's EXACTLY the point. The conversation is revolving around fictional women in fictional shows. Period. When your counter examples are reality/documentary shows you're counterpoint isn't even in the same state, let alone ballpark.
I'm sorry something has to be fictional now to be entertaining?
Fictional women shooting ray guns are entertaining to watch.
Fictional women making cold cream aren't.
You said "Nuh-uh."
You already knew that this was the conversation, though.
WOAH, wait, really? That's the discussion? That's an insane conversation, though.
This is the paragraph:
Images with dichotomous messages like this concern me because I remember my own childhood of despising femininity and seeing it as the weaker, confining, less desirable option, wanting instead to enter the world of masculinity, of fun, and freedom; a form of internalized misogyny and femmephobia I am still recovering from, even now as a proud femme geek who loves expressing myself through traditionally “feminine” interests like crafting, fashion, jewellery, and making my own beauty products. The best part about enjoying those interests is that I am definitely not alone in them. Geek culture is full of people, women, men and gender rebels alike, who are great crafters, seamstresses, bakers, knitters, costume-makers, and creators. I wonder how many of them had a childhood filled with Barbie dolls for whom they designed outfits and hairstyles, and were still capable of having a jolly good time playing with ray-guns as well, rather than thinking of it in a purely either-or context?
Look at that shit one more time.
The author is discussing the uncomfortable feeling that being a dedicated tomboy is accepted by geek culture, but being a reasonably "girly" person is seen as dumber or more "mainstream" and therefore not as worthy.
She's not saying Aeryn Sung should be making jewelry, she's just... that was an example of the things she currently enjoys doing that are feminine. I don't know how that was misread so badly. I ctrl-f'd "jewelry" just to make sure there wasn't some completely different reference.
The idea is that it isn't necessarily a positive that "geek culture" is so obsessed with the tomboy, but thank goodness it appears that things are getting better and more people who grew up with barbie dolls are feeling comfortable as participants in that culture.
What she says here really, really resonates with me, because I am aware of the same thing within myself - rejecting things as "too girly" because of internalizing the mass amounts of media that tell me that feminine means weak, stupid, petty, vain, shallow, unheroic. Girls are not heros. The things girls do are not valuable.
But why is a seamstress valuless but a tailor is not?
Why is jewelry-making valueless art but painting isn't?
I remember once posting on a forum about how enraptured I was of these shoes, how exquisitely designed I thought they were. And I was apologetic about it, trying to explain that I loved these shoes because of the artistry of them, and not because I am a ditzy female obsessed with shoes. Why do I feel the need to apologize for liking something?
Knowing how much I internalize the negativity towards things percieved as "female" is one of the reasons I'm bothered by people ragging on "bronies." I know there are some extreme elements to bronies that aren't great (plushie sex), but the fact that dudes can be proud of a show that's "female" is a good thing from my perspective. Although there is also the depressing element there that insists that because guys like the show, that must mean that it isn't a girl's show after all.
Yeah, my girlfriend has talked about similar issues. As a teenager, her enjoyment of action films and technical work was lauded by her dorky friends, but baking was dangerously girly and had to be hedged against. Enjoying shoes, or wearing dresses, or wearing makeup or whatnot was only acceptable if you also made sure to say that you know it was shitty. Less so now that we're adults and our friends span a few subcultures, but it's certainly not fun to feel like you aren't allowed to be your gender if you want to be cool. Well, a very specific subset of cool.
You and your girlfriend need better geek friends. Baking, cookery and all that jazz is solidly inside the big tent of geekery these days.
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
My phone can't handle giant WOT multiquotes, I learned. My post only addressed the uselessness of the Bechdel test. Whether or not TV has gotten "better" is irrelevant, the Bechdel test can't measure that. It's gotten less malecentric over the years, but no one is denying that. So the Bechdel test is not helpful for our discusion.
But the discussion isn't whether today is better than 1970, or 1980, or yesterday.
It's about... just, sexism/misogyny, the media. It's about a lot of things. But saying that rule-of-thumb doesn't provide anything useful is weird. Like I'd say... it's less malecentric than it was yesterday, but still pretty malecentric! Look at all this shit not passing the test! It's providing a small part of a larger discussion, it doesn't become invalid simply because it cannot be used to determine that media today is worse than the media of yesterday.
I mean it's also not the world's greatest rhetorical device or anything, but I thought the mad dash to rid it from the thread was weird.
That's EXACTLY the point. The conversation is revolving around fictional women in fictional shows. Period. When your counter examples are reality/documentary shows you're counterpoint isn't even in the same state, let alone ballpark.
I'm sorry something has to be fictional now to be entertaining?
Fictional women shooting ray guns are entertaining to watch.
Fictional women making cold cream aren't.
You said "Nuh-uh."
You already knew that this was the conversation, though.
WOAH, wait, really? That's the discussion? That's an insane conversation, though.
This is the paragraph:
Images with dichotomous messages like this concern me because I remember my own childhood of despising femininity and seeing it as the weaker, confining, less desirable option, wanting instead to enter the world of masculinity, of fun, and freedom; a form of internalized misogyny and femmephobia I am still recovering from, even now as a proud femme geek who loves expressing myself through traditionally “feminine” interests like crafting, fashion, jewellery, and making my own beauty products. The best part about enjoying those interests is that I am definitely not alone in them. Geek culture is full of people, women, men and gender rebels alike, who are great crafters, seamstresses, bakers, knitters, costume-makers, and creators. I wonder how many of them had a childhood filled with Barbie dolls for whom they designed outfits and hairstyles, and were still capable of having a jolly good time playing with ray-guns as well, rather than thinking of it in a purely either-or context?
Look at that shit one more time.
The author is discussing the uncomfortable feeling that being a dedicated tomboy is accepted by geek culture, but being a reasonably "girly" person is seen as dumber or more "mainstream" and therefore not as worthy.
She's not saying Aeryn Sung should be making jewelry, she's just... that was an example of the things she currently enjoys doing that are feminine. I don't know how that was misread so badly. I ctrl-f'd "jewelry" just to make sure there wasn't some completely different reference.
The idea is that it isn't necessarily a positive that "geek culture" is so obsessed with the tomboy, but thank goodness it appears that things are getting better and more people who grew up with barbie dolls are feeling comfortable as participants in that culture.
What she says here really, really resonates with me, because I am aware of the same thing within myself - rejecting things as "too girly" because of internalizing the mass amounts of media that tell me that feminine means weak, stupid, petty, vain, shallow, unheroic. Girls are not heros. The things girls do are not valuable.
But why is a seamstress valuless but a tailor is not?
Why is jewelry-making valueless art but painting isn't?
I remember once posting on a forum about how enraptured I was of these shoes, how exquisitely designed I thought they were. And I was apologetic about it, trying to explain that I loved these shoes because of the artistry of them, and not because I am a ditzy female obsessed with shoes. Why do I feel the need to apologize for liking something?
Knowing how much I internalize the negativity towards things percieved as "female" is one of the reasons I'm bothered by people ragging on "bronies." I know there are some extreme elements to bronies that aren't great (plushie sex), but the fact that dudes can be proud of a show that's "female" is a good thing from my perspective. Although there is also the depressing element there that insists that because guys like the show, that must mean that it isn't a girl's show after all.
Yeah, my girlfriend has talked about similar issues. As a teenager, her enjoyment of action films and technical work was lauded by her dorky friends, but baking was dangerously girly and had to be hedged against. Enjoying shoes, or wearing dresses, or wearing makeup or whatnot was only acceptable if you also made sure to say that you know it was shitty. Less so now that we're adults and our friends span a few subcultures, but it's certainly not fun to feel like you aren't allowed to be your gender if you want to be cool. Well, a very specific subset of cool.
You and your girlfriend need better geek friends. Baking, cookery and all that jazz is solidly inside the big tent of geekery these days.
Dismiss, diminish, ignore. The experience of geeky women is not your experience, so it can't be a genuine reflection of societal pressures.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
My phone can't handle giant WOT multiquotes, I learned. My post only addressed the uselessness of the Bechdel test. Whether or not TV has gotten "better" is irrelevant, the Bechdel test can't measure that. It's gotten less malecentric over the years, but no one is denying that. So the Bechdel test is not helpful for our discusion.
But the discussion isn't whether today is better than 1970, or 1980, or yesterday.
It's about... just, sexism/misogyny, the media. It's about a lot of things. But saying that rule-of-thumb doesn't provide anything useful is weird. Like I'd say... it's less malecentric than it was yesterday, but still pretty malecentric! Look at all this shit not passing the test! It's providing a small part of a larger discussion, it doesn't become invalid simply because it cannot be used to determine that media today is worse than the media of yesterday.
I mean it's also not the world's greatest rhetorical device or anything, but I thought the mad dash to rid it from the thread was weird.
That's EXACTLY the point. The conversation is revolving around fictional women in fictional shows. Period. When your counter examples are reality/documentary shows you're counterpoint isn't even in the same state, let alone ballpark.
I'm sorry something has to be fictional now to be entertaining?
Fictional women shooting ray guns are entertaining to watch.
Fictional women making cold cream aren't.
You said "Nuh-uh."
You already knew that this was the conversation, though.
WOAH, wait, really? That's the discussion? That's an insane conversation, though.
This is the paragraph:
Images with dichotomous messages like this concern me because I remember my own childhood of despising femininity and seeing it as the weaker, confining, less desirable option, wanting instead to enter the world of masculinity, of fun, and freedom; a form of internalized misogyny and femmephobia I am still recovering from, even now as a proud femme geek who loves expressing myself through traditionally “feminine” interests like crafting, fashion, jewellery, and making my own beauty products. The best part about enjoying those interests is that I am definitely not alone in them. Geek culture is full of people, women, men and gender rebels alike, who are great crafters, seamstresses, bakers, knitters, costume-makers, and creators. I wonder how many of them had a childhood filled with Barbie dolls for whom they designed outfits and hairstyles, and were still capable of having a jolly good time playing with ray-guns as well, rather than thinking of it in a purely either-or context?
Look at that shit one more time.
The author is discussing the uncomfortable feeling that being a dedicated tomboy is accepted by geek culture, but being a reasonably "girly" person is seen as dumber or more "mainstream" and therefore not as worthy.
She's not saying Aeryn Sung should be making jewelry, she's just... that was an example of the things she currently enjoys doing that are feminine. I don't know how that was misread so badly. I ctrl-f'd "jewelry" just to make sure there wasn't some completely different reference.
The idea is that it isn't necessarily a positive that "geek culture" is so obsessed with the tomboy, but thank goodness it appears that things are getting better and more people who grew up with barbie dolls are feeling comfortable as participants in that culture.
What she says here really, really resonates with me, because I am aware of the same thing within myself - rejecting things as "too girly" because of internalizing the mass amounts of media that tell me that feminine means weak, stupid, petty, vain, shallow, unheroic. Girls are not heros. The things girls do are not valuable.
But why is a seamstress valuless but a tailor is not?
Why is jewelry-making valueless art but painting isn't?
I remember once posting on a forum about how enraptured I was of these shoes, how exquisitely designed I thought they were. And I was apologetic about it, trying to explain that I loved these shoes because of the artistry of them, and not because I am a ditzy female obsessed with shoes. Why do I feel the need to apologize for liking something?
Knowing how much I internalize the negativity towards things percieved as "female" is one of the reasons I'm bothered by people ragging on "bronies." I know there are some extreme elements to bronies that aren't great (plushie sex), but the fact that dudes can be proud of a show that's "female" is a good thing from my perspective. Although there is also the depressing element there that insists that because guys like the show, that must mean that it isn't a girl's show after all.
Yeah, my girlfriend has talked about similar issues. As a teenager, her enjoyment of action films and technical work was lauded by her dorky friends, but baking was dangerously girly and had to be hedged against. Enjoying shoes, or wearing dresses, or wearing makeup or whatnot was only acceptable if you also made sure to say that you know it was shitty. Less so now that we're adults and our friends span a few subcultures, but it's certainly not fun to feel like you aren't allowed to be your gender if you want to be cool. Well, a very specific subset of cool.
You and your girlfriend need better geek friends. Baking, cookery and all that jazz is solidly inside the big tent of geekery these days.
Dismiss, diminish, ignore. The experience of geeky women is not your experience, so it can't be a genuine reflection of societal pressures.
Actually, I'm making a definitive and specific statement. I believe that these days baking and cookery are inside the scope of activities considered highly acceptable by the geek community, at least the aspect of it I'm familiar with. If his girlfriends issues as a young person were limited to her love of baking being incompatible with her friends love of Sci-Fi etc then the times have changed. You cant just dismiss everything that disagrees with your worldview as anecdotal. Eventually all those anecdotes add up to an argument.
If perhaps baking was just an example, and she also had problems with her love of designer shoes and ballet also not being accepted then times are not any better. Those activites would still be considered 'bad' by the geek community that I am familiar with. Not because they are considered 'female' but because they are considered to be part of a different community (fashion, formal art) which is viewed as being very 'anti' geek.
You and your girlfriend need better geek friends. Baking, cookery and all that jazz is solidly inside the big tent of geekery these days.
Dismiss, diminish, ignore. The experience of geeky women is not your experience, so it can't be a genuine reflection of societal pressures.
Yeah man, I don't know what to say.
I guess I can try going back in time and telling my girlfriend's friends to shape up, that might work. I'll also work on making sure I alter all of her formative role models so that there isn't as stark a divide between being feminine and being cool.
I mean this is not a fucking sales pitch for being a geek.
This is discussing what is and is not, at this moment. My girlfriend, and sister, and mom have all found different things accepted in different areas. Geeky people might find my mom's love of endless variations on Pride and Prejudice a little uncool, but her love of Sin City nifty. Or maybe my sister's avid enjoyment of fancy shoes is considered less cool than her enjoyment of Ray Bradbury. That's okay! But it is a thing, and it is a thing that is happening, and it's okay to talk about it. No one is asking anyone to like, switch sides. There's no side to which to switch.
It's an experience people are having, and it informs how they feel they fit into a subculture.
We're not all having a rumble with the Jocks and the Preps later today, you don't need to stump for your side.
That's EXACTLY the point. The conversation is revolving around fictional women in fictional shows. Period. When your counter examples are reality/documentary shows you're counterpoint isn't even in the same state, let alone ballpark.
I'm sorry something has to be fictional now to be entertaining?
Fictional women shooting ray guns are entertaining to watch.
Fictional women making cold cream aren't.
You said "Nuh-uh."
You already knew that this was the conversation, though.
WOAH, wait, really? That's the discussion? That's an insane conversation, though.
This is the paragraph:
Images with dichotomous messages like this concern me because I remember my own childhood of despising femininity and seeing it as the weaker, confining, less desirable option, wanting instead to enter the world of masculinity, of fun, and freedom; a form of internalized misogyny and femmephobia I am still recovering from, even now as a proud femme geek who loves expressing myself through traditionally “feminine” interests like crafting, fashion, jewellery, and making my own beauty products. The best part about enjoying those interests is that I am definitely not alone in them. Geek culture is full of people, women, men and gender rebels alike, who are great crafters, seamstresses, bakers, knitters, costume-makers, and creators. I wonder how many of them had a childhood filled with Barbie dolls for whom they designed outfits and hairstyles, and were still capable of having a jolly good time playing with ray-guns as well, rather than thinking of it in a purely either-or context?
Look at that shit one more time.
The author is discussing the uncomfortable feeling that being a dedicated tomboy is accepted by geek culture, but being a reasonably "girly" person is seen as dumber or more "mainstream" and therefore not as worthy.
She's not saying Aeryn Sung should be making jewelry, she's just... that was an example of the things she currently enjoys doing that are feminine. I don't know how that was misread so badly. I ctrl-f'd "jewelry" just to make sure there wasn't some completely different reference.
The idea is that it isn't necessarily a positive that "geek culture" is so obsessed with the tomboy, but thank goodness it appears that things are getting better and more people who grew up with barbie dolls are feeling comfortable as participants in that culture.
I think you need to take it one step further. most the time femininity is acceptable in geek culture is when it exudes sex all over the place for the benefit of a male audience.
By your standards would you say that the only time femininity is acceptable in any culture is when it exudes sex etc etc? Excluding those cultures dominated by women. I think what we need is some kind of idea what you and 'your side' would say is OK.
It's pretty clear where I think 'OK' is. I think that things transition from being bad to being good based entirely on the quality of the writing and creativity contained in them. That it is impossible to look at a piece of of context and say 'that is sexist', since context is what makes something sexist.
Pepper Potts in The Avengers is OK.
But she's not a society, that's an example of a single piece of fiction. I'm talking about something like "The way that the Indy 500 community treats women is OK and isn't related to exuding sexuality in a negative way"
What model would you like society to be built upon. Lets say we're about to throw aside the 'misogynistic ways of the today', where shall we look for inspiration as to how we shall build a new society? Clearly you don't think we should look at geeks, who is the right choice?
My wife? I honestly don't know if there is a perfect choice but I certainly don't think geeks and geek culture are the best voice.
I'm really not sure what this thread is about anymore. It doesn't seem to have a whole lot to do with objectification and sexualization in media though.
Star Wars and Star Trek are from the 60s and 70s. While they're certainly a part of 'geek' culture they don't seem all that relevant in terms of a discussion on modern media.
My phone can't handle giant WOT multiquotes, I learned. My post only addressed the uselessness of the Bechdel test. Whether or not TV has gotten "better" is irrelevant, the Bechdel test can't measure that. It's gotten less malecentric over the years, but no one is denying that. So the Bechdel test is not helpful for our discusion.
But the discussion isn't whether today is better than 1970, or 1980, or yesterday.
It's about... just, sexism/misogyny, the media. It's about a lot of things. But saying that rule-of-thumb doesn't provide anything useful is weird. Like I'd say... it's less malecentric than it was yesterday, but still pretty malecentric! Look at all this shit not passing the test! It's providing a small part of a larger discussion, it doesn't become invalid simply because it cannot be used to determine that media today is worse than the media of yesterday.
I never said it was invalid! I said it was useless, and you just said it yourself. All it can tell us is something that was never in question: Media is malecentric (yes it's less malecentric than it used to be, a bit).
I have nothing against Ms. Bechdel. I just don't think the Bechdel test is useful, unless, as I said, you're in a debate with someone who is really, really ignorant or simply trolling you.
The reason I wanted it gone from the discussion is because in addition to serving no purpose, there are very high quality works that fail the test, and garbage that passes it. So it's not adding anything to the discussion.
That's EXACTLY the point. The conversation is revolving around fictional women in fictional shows. Period. When your counter examples are reality/documentary shows you're counterpoint isn't even in the same state, let alone ballpark.
I'm sorry something has to be fictional now to be entertaining?
Fictional women shooting ray guns are entertaining to watch.
Fictional women making cold cream aren't.
You said "Nuh-uh."
You already knew that this was the conversation, though.
WOAH, wait, really? That's the discussion? That's an insane conversation, though.
This is the paragraph:
Images with dichotomous messages like this concern me because I remember my own childhood of despising femininity and seeing it as the weaker, confining, less desirable option, wanting instead to enter the world of masculinity, of fun, and freedom; a form of internalized misogyny and femmephobia I am still recovering from, even now as a proud femme geek who loves expressing myself through traditionally “feminine” interests like crafting, fashion, jewellery, and making my own beauty products. The best part about enjoying those interests is that I am definitely not alone in them. Geek culture is full of people, women, men and gender rebels alike, who are great crafters, seamstresses, bakers, knitters, costume-makers, and creators. I wonder how many of them had a childhood filled with Barbie dolls for whom they designed outfits and hairstyles, and were still capable of having a jolly good time playing with ray-guns as well, rather than thinking of it in a purely either-or context?
Look at that shit one more time.
The author is discussing the uncomfortable feeling that being a dedicated tomboy is accepted by geek culture, but being a reasonably "girly" person is seen as dumber or more "mainstream" and therefore not as worthy.
She's not saying Aeryn Sung should be making jewelry, she's just... that was an example of the things she currently enjoys doing that are feminine. I don't know how that was misread so badly. I ctrl-f'd "jewelry" just to make sure there wasn't some completely different reference.
The idea is that it isn't necessarily a positive that "geek culture" is so obsessed with the tomboy, but thank goodness it appears that things are getting better and more people who grew up with barbie dolls are feeling comfortable as participants in that culture.
I think you need to take it one step further. most the time femininity is acceptable in geek culture is when it exudes sex all over the place for the benefit of a male audience.
By your standards would you say that the only time femininity is acceptable in any culture is when it exudes sex etc etc? Excluding those cultures dominated by women. I think what we need is some kind of idea what you and 'your side' would say is OK.
It's pretty clear where I think 'OK' is. I think that things transition from being bad to being good based entirely on the quality of the writing and creativity contained in them. That it is impossible to look at a piece of of context and say 'that is sexist', since context is what makes something sexist.
Pepper Potts in The Avengers is OK.
But she's not a society, that's an example of a single piece of fiction. I'm talking about something like "The way that the Indy 500 community treats women is OK and isn't related to exuding sexuality in a negative way"
What model would you like society to be built upon. Lets say we're about to throw aside the 'misogynistic ways of the today', where shall we look for inspiration as to how we shall build a new society? Clearly you don't think we should look at geeks, who is the right choice?
My wife? I honestly don't know if there is a perfect choice but I certainly don't think geeks and geek culture are the best voice.
What I'm trying to get at here is that I feel both sides (the 'women are being objectified in the media, they're being used as sex objects all the time and this is bad!' and the 'It's not so bad, really it's to do with quality of media and not sexism' sides) feel that Kim Kardashian is 'bad'. One side because she does nothing but show skin all day and try to fulfill male fantasies, and the other side because she does that without any good reason or interest. She is fundamentally bad to one side, and functionally bad to another. Clearly there is a whole other group who thinks she is awesome, but they don't seem to be here.
I just don't know what the 'objectification' side thinks is good. What should society be? When does objectification and sexualization end and storytelling begin? What level is OK?
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
I'm really not sure what this thread is about anymore. It doesn't seem to have a whole lot to do with objectification and sexualization in media though.
Star Wars and Star Trek are from the 60s and 70s. While they're certainly a part of 'geek' culture they don't seem all that relevant in terms of a discussion on modern media.
The Star Trek movie is a reboot of the franchise, which keeps hold of the same white male characters that were the heros before. The one female character has now become the girlfriend.
Star Wars: The Old Republic is a game I play, right now, wherein the slave girl costume is still popular. More to the point, though, is the weird divide between playing female characters and playing male ones; the dudes get frequent opportunities for sex and flirting in-game; the female characters (so far, of the four republic classes I've played) do not. Additionally, a majority of the companions for each class are male. And this isn't even touching on some of the creepy mysogynistic slave girl shit on the imperial side.
Sooooo... yeah, these franchises are alive and well today, and while they've made some progress, they're still hammering in some of the same old ideas.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
I'm really not sure what this thread is about anymore. It doesn't seem to have a whole lot to do with objectification and sexualization in media though.
Star Wars and Star Trek are from the 60s and 70s. While they're certainly a part of 'geek' culture they don't seem all that relevant in terms of a discussion on modern media.
The Star Trek movie is a reboot of the franchise, which keeps hold of the same white male characters that were the heros before. The one female character has now become the girlfriend.
Star Wars: The Old Republic is a game I play, right now, wherein the slave girl costume is still popular. More to the point, though, is the weird divide between playing female characters and playing male ones; the dudes get frequent opportunities for sex and flirting in-game; the female characters (so far, of the four republic classes I've played) do not. Additionally, a majority of the companions for each class are male. And this isn't even touching on some of the creepy mysogynistic slave girl shit on the imperial side.
Sooooo... yeah, these franchises are alive and well today, and while they've made some progress, they're still hammering in some of the same old ideas.
Not clicking that link, but the way people talked about playing a Sith Warrior and how they dealt with Vette was creepy, disturbing, and gross.
The most common complaint was "It's unfair that I can't romance/fully pursue the friendship storyline unless I take off her shock collar."
The second most popular complaint was "It's unfair that I can't 'break her' with the shock collar".
I remember that. I was really happy to get a new companion cause my guy was supposed to be dark side but I felt really uncomfortable with that particular situation and doing stuff for the dark side points.
That's EXACTLY the point. The conversation is revolving around fictional women in fictional shows. Period. When your counter examples are reality/documentary shows you're counterpoint isn't even in the same state, let alone ballpark.
I'm sorry something has to be fictional now to be entertaining?
Fictional women shooting ray guns are entertaining to watch.
Fictional women making cold cream aren't.
You said "Nuh-uh."
You already knew that this was the conversation, though.
WOAH, wait, really? That's the discussion? That's an insane conversation, though.
This is the paragraph:
Images with dichotomous messages like this concern me because I remember my own childhood of despising femininity and seeing it as the weaker, confining, less desirable option, wanting instead to enter the world of masculinity, of fun, and freedom; a form of internalized misogyny and femmephobia I am still recovering from, even now as a proud femme geek who loves expressing myself through traditionally “feminine” interests like crafting, fashion, jewellery, and making my own beauty products. The best part about enjoying those interests is that I am definitely not alone in them. Geek culture is full of people, women, men and gender rebels alike, who are great crafters, seamstresses, bakers, knitters, costume-makers, and creators. I wonder how many of them had a childhood filled with Barbie dolls for whom they designed outfits and hairstyles, and were still capable of having a jolly good time playing with ray-guns as well, rather than thinking of it in a purely either-or context?
Look at that shit one more time.
The author is discussing the uncomfortable feeling that being a dedicated tomboy is accepted by geek culture, but being a reasonably "girly" person is seen as dumber or more "mainstream" and therefore not as worthy.
She's not saying Aeryn Sung should be making jewelry, she's just... that was an example of the things she currently enjoys doing that are feminine. I don't know how that was misread so badly. I ctrl-f'd "jewelry" just to make sure there wasn't some completely different reference.
The idea is that it isn't necessarily a positive that "geek culture" is so obsessed with the tomboy, but thank goodness it appears that things are getting better and more people who grew up with barbie dolls are feeling comfortable as participants in that culture.
I think you need to take it one step further. most the time femininity is acceptable in geek culture is when it exudes sex all over the place for the benefit of a male audience.
By your standards would you say that the only time femininity is acceptable in any culture is when it exudes sex etc etc? Excluding those cultures dominated by women. I think what we need is some kind of idea what you and 'your side' would say is OK.
It's pretty clear where I think 'OK' is. I think that things transition from being bad to being good based entirely on the quality of the writing and creativity contained in them. That it is impossible to look at a piece of of context and say 'that is sexist', since context is what makes something sexist.
Pepper Potts in The Avengers is OK.
But she's not a society, that's an example of a single piece of fiction. I'm talking about something like "The way that the Indy 500 community treats women is OK and isn't related to exuding sexuality in a negative way"
What model would you like society to be built upon. Lets say we're about to throw aside the 'misogynistic ways of the today', where shall we look for inspiration as to how we shall build a new society? Clearly you don't think we should look at geeks, who is the right choice?
My wife? I honestly don't know if there is a perfect choice but I certainly don't think geeks and geek culture are the best voice.
What I'm trying to get at here is that I feel both sides (the 'women are being objectified in the media, they're being used as sex objects all the time and this is bad!' and the 'It's not so bad, really it's to do with quality of media and not sexism' sides) feel that Kim Kardashian is 'bad'. One side because she does nothing but show skin all day and try to fulfill male fantasies, and the other side because she does that without any good reason or interest. She is fundamentally bad to one side, and functionally bad to another. Clearly there is a whole other group who thinks she is awesome, but they don't seem to be here.
I just don't know what the 'objectification' side thinks is good. What should society be? When does objectification and sexualization end and storytelling begin? What level is OK?
I can't understand the question.
Like, how many nails do I want in my oatmeal? Obviously we need at least some nails.
I think maybe you're drawing a strange divide here that does not exist. I would like more stories that are good, and better female characters. These things aren't in opposition.
I'm struggling to figure out what media you're proposing that are just the best stories that would be ruined if women weren't sex objects. Would the Amanda Conner run of Power Girl be less fun if she didn't have the boob window?
I'm still not really sure what is an okay female role. People one one side want more beautiful females because beauty is empowering, others feel that beauty leads to objectification and women should have less obvious female traits. Some people believe that traditional feminine roles should be championed, others believe that females should be more well rounded into masculine territory. Some people believe that only women can write women, others believe that the onus is on male artists to initiate the inclusion of female characters.
If I was an influential artist feeling pressure from feminist social action, I'd take the safe road and only write male characters because males won't get offended by however males are portrayed. I mean, if all I can count on is hindsight "I'll know it when I see it" judgment instead of rules everybody can agree on, I'll stick with what everybody has already agreed is OK and inconsequential if I want to avoid controversy. Or I'd say screw all that I'm going to embrace controversy and base the purpose of my art only on what will stick in people's heads.
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.
That's EXACTLY the point. The conversation is revolving around fictional women in fictional shows. Period. When your counter examples are reality/documentary shows you're counterpoint isn't even in the same state, let alone ballpark.
I'm sorry something has to be fictional now to be entertaining?
Fictional women shooting ray guns are entertaining to watch.
Fictional women making cold cream aren't.
You said "Nuh-uh."
You already knew that this was the conversation, though.
WOAH, wait, really? That's the discussion? That's an insane conversation, though.
This is the paragraph:
Images with dichotomous messages like this concern me because I remember my own childhood of despising femininity and seeing it as the weaker, confining, less desirable option, wanting instead to enter the world of masculinity, of fun, and freedom; a form of internalized misogyny and femmephobia I am still recovering from, even now as a proud femme geek who loves expressing myself through traditionally “feminine” interests like crafting, fashion, jewellery, and making my own beauty products. The best part about enjoying those interests is that I am definitely not alone in them. Geek culture is full of people, women, men and gender rebels alike, who are great crafters, seamstresses, bakers, knitters, costume-makers, and creators. I wonder how many of them had a childhood filled with Barbie dolls for whom they designed outfits and hairstyles, and were still capable of having a jolly good time playing with ray-guns as well, rather than thinking of it in a purely either-or context?
Look at that shit one more time.
The author is discussing the uncomfortable feeling that being a dedicated tomboy is accepted by geek culture, but being a reasonably "girly" person is seen as dumber or more "mainstream" and therefore not as worthy.
She's not saying Aeryn Sung should be making jewelry, she's just... that was an example of the things she currently enjoys doing that are feminine. I don't know how that was misread so badly. I ctrl-f'd "jewelry" just to make sure there wasn't some completely different reference.
The idea is that it isn't necessarily a positive that "geek culture" is so obsessed with the tomboy, but thank goodness it appears that things are getting better and more people who grew up with barbie dolls are feeling comfortable as participants in that culture.
I think you need to take it one step further. most the time femininity is acceptable in geek culture is when it exudes sex all over the place for the benefit of a male audience.
By your standards would you say that the only time femininity is acceptable in any culture is when it exudes sex etc etc? Excluding those cultures dominated by women. I think what we need is some kind of idea what you and 'your side' would say is OK.
It's pretty clear where I think 'OK' is. I think that things transition from being bad to being good based entirely on the quality of the writing and creativity contained in them. That it is impossible to look at a piece of of context and say 'that is sexist', since context is what makes something sexist.
Pepper Potts in The Avengers is OK.
But she's not a society, that's an example of a single piece of fiction. I'm talking about something like "The way that the Indy 500 community treats women is OK and isn't related to exuding sexuality in a negative way"
What model would you like society to be built upon. Lets say we're about to throw aside the 'misogynistic ways of the today', where shall we look for inspiration as to how we shall build a new society? Clearly you don't think we should look at geeks, who is the right choice?
My wife? I honestly don't know if there is a perfect choice but I certainly don't think geeks and geek culture are the best voice.
What I'm trying to get at here is that I feel both sides (the 'women are being objectified in the media, they're being used as sex objects all the time and this is bad!' and the 'It's not so bad, really it's to do with quality of media and not sexism' sides) feel that Kim Kardashian is 'bad'. One side because she does nothing but show skin all day and try to fulfill male fantasies, and the other side because she does that without any good reason or interest. She is fundamentally bad to one side, and functionally bad to another. Clearly there is a whole other group who thinks she is awesome, but they don't seem to be here.
I just don't know what the 'objectification' side thinks is good. What should society be? When does objectification and sexualization end and storytelling begin? What level is OK?
I can't understand the question.
Like, how many nails do I want in my oatmeal? Obviously we need at least some nails.
I think maybe you're drawing a strange divide here that does not exist. I would like more stories that are good, and better female characters. These things aren't in opposition.
I'm struggling to figure out what media you're proposing that are just the best stories that would be ruined if women weren't sex objects. Would the Amanda Conner run of Power Girl be less fun if she didn't have the boob window?
Boob window aside, wouldn't it be more fitting to do away with the whole skintight bodysuit and giant, comic book character breasts as a whole?
Or do we at least need some nails? I'm not trying to be snarky or anything, I'm asking a question about redefining what I think are staples of comic books in the US. I don't know if she walked/flew/whatever around dressed as Peter Falk's Colombo, if she'd be less fun somehow--fun being the better quality than titillation, obviously.
I'm really not sure what this thread is about anymore. It doesn't seem to have a whole lot to do with objectification and sexualization in media though.
Star Wars and Star Trek are from the 60s and 70s. While they're certainly a part of 'geek' culture they don't seem all that relevant in terms of a discussion on modern media.
The Star Trek movie is a reboot of the franchise, which keeps hold of the same white male characters that were the heros before. The one female character has now become the girlfriend.
What would be the alternative? To change the story such that some other characters are the heroes, and not Kirk and Spock? Can you see any problems with doing it that way?
Or do you think they shouldn't be rebooting old franchises unless they feature lots of women and minority characters? So Sherlock Holmes, LoTR, Star Wars, Star Trek, Doctor Who, comic books movies...should all of that be off-limits?
I guess I don't see the point you're making. I said we should be talking about new franchises because new franchises show what kinds of things modern artists want to create when they have more freedom. Obviously when you're rebooting an old franchise you have a limited amount of freedom in terms of what you can do with the characters. What's the alternative to that?
That's EXACTLY the point. The conversation is revolving around fictional women in fictional shows. Period. When your counter examples are reality/documentary shows you're counterpoint isn't even in the same state, let alone ballpark.
I'm sorry something has to be fictional now to be entertaining?
Fictional women shooting ray guns are entertaining to watch.
Fictional women making cold cream aren't.
You said "Nuh-uh."
You already knew that this was the conversation, though.
WOAH, wait, really? That's the discussion? That's an insane conversation, though.
This is the paragraph:
Images with dichotomous messages like this concern me because I remember my own childhood of despising femininity and seeing it as the weaker, confining, less desirable option, wanting instead to enter the world of masculinity, of fun, and freedom; a form of internalized misogyny and femmephobia I am still recovering from, even now as a proud femme geek who loves expressing myself through traditionally “feminine” interests like crafting, fashion, jewellery, and making my own beauty products. The best part about enjoying those interests is that I am definitely not alone in them. Geek culture is full of people, women, men and gender rebels alike, who are great crafters, seamstresses, bakers, knitters, costume-makers, and creators. I wonder how many of them had a childhood filled with Barbie dolls for whom they designed outfits and hairstyles, and were still capable of having a jolly good time playing with ray-guns as well, rather than thinking of it in a purely either-or context?
Look at that shit one more time.
The author is discussing the uncomfortable feeling that being a dedicated tomboy is accepted by geek culture, but being a reasonably "girly" person is seen as dumber or more "mainstream" and therefore not as worthy.
She's not saying Aeryn Sung should be making jewelry, she's just... that was an example of the things she currently enjoys doing that are feminine. I don't know how that was misread so badly. I ctrl-f'd "jewelry" just to make sure there wasn't some completely different reference.
The idea is that it isn't necessarily a positive that "geek culture" is so obsessed with the tomboy, but thank goodness it appears that things are getting better and more people who grew up with barbie dolls are feeling comfortable as participants in that culture.
I think you need to take it one step further. most the time femininity is acceptable in geek culture is when it exudes sex all over the place for the benefit of a male audience.
By your standards would you say that the only time femininity is acceptable in any culture is when it exudes sex etc etc? Excluding those cultures dominated by women. I think what we need is some kind of idea what you and 'your side' would say is OK.
It's pretty clear where I think 'OK' is. I think that things transition from being bad to being good based entirely on the quality of the writing and creativity contained in them. That it is impossible to look at a piece of of context and say 'that is sexist', since context is what makes something sexist.
Pepper Potts in The Avengers is OK.
But she's not a society, that's an example of a single piece of fiction. I'm talking about something like "The way that the Indy 500 community treats women is OK and isn't related to exuding sexuality in a negative way"
What model would you like society to be built upon. Lets say we're about to throw aside the 'misogynistic ways of the today', where shall we look for inspiration as to how we shall build a new society? Clearly you don't think we should look at geeks, who is the right choice?
My wife? I honestly don't know if there is a perfect choice but I certainly don't think geeks and geek culture are the best voice.
What I'm trying to get at here is that I feel both sides (the 'women are being objectified in the media, they're being used as sex objects all the time and this is bad!' and the 'It's not so bad, really it's to do with quality of media and not sexism' sides) feel that Kim Kardashian is 'bad'. One side because she does nothing but show skin all day and try to fulfill male fantasies, and the other side because she does that without any good reason or interest. She is fundamentally bad to one side, and functionally bad to another. Clearly there is a whole other group who thinks she is awesome, but they don't seem to be here.
I just don't know what the 'objectification' side thinks is good. What should society be? When does objectification and sexualization end and storytelling begin? What level is OK?
I can't understand the question.
Like, how many nails do I want in my oatmeal? Obviously we need at least some nails.
I think maybe you're drawing a strange divide here that does not exist. I would like more stories that are good, and better female characters. These things aren't in opposition.
I'm struggling to figure out what media you're proposing that are just the best stories that would be ruined if women weren't sex objects. Would the Amanda Conner run of Power Girl be less fun if she didn't have the boob window?
Boob window aside, wouldn't it be more fitting to do away with the whole skintight bodysuit and giant, comic book character breasts as a whole?
Or do we at least need some nails? I'm not trying to be snarky or anything, I'm asking a question about redefining what I think are staples of comic books in the US.
Not really?
Okay, actually, the skintight suits tend to be easier to draw in a uniform style which helps if you're switching artists all the time. But they're really not a necessary aspect, see: Iron Man.
And there's no reason not to shift toward bodybuilder or weight-lifter type of bodies.
I'm really not sure what this thread is about anymore. It doesn't seem to have a whole lot to do with objectification and sexualization in media though.
Star Wars and Star Trek are from the 60s and 70s. While they're certainly a part of 'geek' culture they don't seem all that relevant in terms of a discussion on modern media.
The Star Trek movie is a reboot of the franchise, which keeps hold of the same white male characters that were the heros before. The one female character has now become the girlfriend.
What would be the alternative? To change the story such that some other characters are the heroes, and not Kirk and Spock? Can you see any problems with doing it that way?
Or do you think they shouldn't be rebooting old franchises unless they feature lots of women and minority characters? So Sherlock Holmes, LoTR, Star Wars, Star Trek, Doctor Who, comic books movies...should all of that be off-limits?
I guess I don't see the point you're making. I said we should be talking about new franchises because new franchises show what kinds of things modern artists want to create when they have more freedom. Obviously when you're rebooting an old franchise you have a limited amount of freedom in terms of what you can do with the characters. What's the alternative to that?
Criticism of something like the Star Trek movie doesn't mean that it shouldn't have been made or that people shouldn't watch it or enjoy it. The point is to note that it contributes to the trend that in most media, the heroes are usually white dudes. On an individual level it might not be a problem, but it does contribute to the overall trend which most certainly is a problem.
Just because it's a reboot of a franchise that was made during a more sexist time doesn't mean it's immune from criticism.
I'm still not really sure what is an okay female role. People one one side want more beautiful females because beauty is empowering, others feel that beauty leads to objectification and women should have less obvious female traits. Some people believe that traditional feminine roles should be championed, others believe that females should be more well rounded into masculine territory. Some people believe that only women can write women, others believe that the onus is on male artists to initiate the inclusion of female characters.
If I was an influential artist feeling pressure from feminist social action, I'd take the safe road and only write male characters because males won't get offended by however males are portrayed. I mean, if all I can count on is hindsight "I'll know it when I see it" judgment instead of rules everybody can agree on, I'll stick with what everybody has already agreed is OK and inconsequential if I want to avoid controversy. Or I'd say screw all that I'm going to embrace controversy and base the purpose of my art only on what will stick in people's heads.
Oh man, you've totally cut to the heart of it!
It's the damn ladies that are forcing people to write really shitty female characters. God damn it ladies, if you don't calm down soon there won't be any female characters at all!
Stop talking about it, and hope that somehow everything changes for the better.
I'm still not really sure what is an okay female role. People one one side want more beautiful females because beauty is empowering, others feel that beauty leads to objectification and women should have less obvious female traits. Some people believe that traditional feminine roles should be championed, others believe that females should be more well rounded into masculine territory. Some people believe that only women can write women, others believe that the onus is on male artists to initiate the inclusion of female characters.
If I was an influential artist feeling pressure from feminist social action, I'd take the safe road and only write male characters because males won't get offended by however males are portrayed. I mean, if all I can count on is hindsight "I'll know it when I see it" judgment instead of rules everybody can agree on, I'll stick with what everybody has already agreed is OK and inconsequential if I want to avoid controversy. Or I'd say screw all that I'm going to embrace controversy and base the purpose of my art only on what will stick in people's heads.
Oh man, you've totally cut to the heart of it!
It's the damn ladies that are forcing people to write really shitty female characters. God damn it ladies, if you don't calm down soon there won't be any female characters at all!
Stop talking about it, and hope that somehow everything changes for the better.
Yes, exactly. It's a load off not to have to worry about something when there's no real metric to know if you're helping or hurting.
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.
That's EXACTLY the point. The conversation is revolving around fictional women in fictional shows. Period. When your counter examples are reality/documentary shows you're counterpoint isn't even in the same state, let alone ballpark.
I'm sorry something has to be fictional now to be entertaining?
Fictional women shooting ray guns are entertaining to watch.
Fictional women making cold cream aren't.
You said "Nuh-uh."
You already knew that this was the conversation, though.
WOAH, wait, really? That's the discussion? That's an insane conversation, though.
This is the paragraph:
Images with dichotomous messages like this concern me because I remember my own childhood of despising femininity and seeing it as the weaker, confining, less desirable option, wanting instead to enter the world of masculinity, of fun, and freedom; a form of internalized misogyny and femmephobia I am still recovering from, even now as a proud femme geek who loves expressing myself through traditionally “feminine” interests like crafting, fashion, jewellery, and making my own beauty products. The best part about enjoying those interests is that I am definitely not alone in them. Geek culture is full of people, women, men and gender rebels alike, who are great crafters, seamstresses, bakers, knitters, costume-makers, and creators. I wonder how many of them had a childhood filled with Barbie dolls for whom they designed outfits and hairstyles, and were still capable of having a jolly good time playing with ray-guns as well, rather than thinking of it in a purely either-or context?
Look at that shit one more time.
The author is discussing the uncomfortable feeling that being a dedicated tomboy is accepted by geek culture, but being a reasonably "girly" person is seen as dumber or more "mainstream" and therefore not as worthy.
She's not saying Aeryn Sung should be making jewelry, she's just... that was an example of the things she currently enjoys doing that are feminine. I don't know how that was misread so badly. I ctrl-f'd "jewelry" just to make sure there wasn't some completely different reference.
The idea is that it isn't necessarily a positive that "geek culture" is so obsessed with the tomboy, but thank goodness it appears that things are getting better and more people who grew up with barbie dolls are feeling comfortable as participants in that culture.
I think you need to take it one step further. most the time femininity is acceptable in geek culture is when it exudes sex all over the place for the benefit of a male audience.
By your standards would you say that the only time femininity is acceptable in any culture is when it exudes sex etc etc? Excluding those cultures dominated by women. I think what we need is some kind of idea what you and 'your side' would say is OK.
It's pretty clear where I think 'OK' is. I think that things transition from being bad to being good based entirely on the quality of the writing and creativity contained in them. That it is impossible to look at a piece of of context and say 'that is sexist', since context is what makes something sexist.
Pepper Potts in The Avengers is OK.
But she's not a society, that's an example of a single piece of fiction. I'm talking about something like "The way that the Indy 500 community treats women is OK and isn't related to exuding sexuality in a negative way"
What model would you like society to be built upon. Lets say we're about to throw aside the 'misogynistic ways of the today', where shall we look for inspiration as to how we shall build a new society? Clearly you don't think we should look at geeks, who is the right choice?
My wife? I honestly don't know if there is a perfect choice but I certainly don't think geeks and geek culture are the best voice.
What I'm trying to get at here is that I feel both sides (the 'women are being objectified in the media, they're being used as sex objects all the time and this is bad!' and the 'It's not so bad, really it's to do with quality of media and not sexism' sides) feel that Kim Kardashian is 'bad'. One side because she does nothing but show skin all day and try to fulfill male fantasies, and the other side because she does that without any good reason or interest. She is fundamentally bad to one side, and functionally bad to another. Clearly there is a whole other group who thinks she is awesome, but they don't seem to be here.
I just don't know what the 'objectification' side thinks is good. What should society be? When does objectification and sexualization end and storytelling begin? What level is OK?
I can't understand the question.
Like, how many nails do I want in my oatmeal? Obviously we need at least some nails.
I think maybe you're drawing a strange divide here that does not exist. I would like more stories that are good, and better female characters. These things aren't in opposition.
I'm struggling to figure out what media you're proposing that are just the best stories that would be ruined if women weren't sex objects. Would the Amanda Conner run of Power Girl be less fun if she didn't have the boob window?
Boob window aside, wouldn't it be more fitting to do away with the whole skintight bodysuit and giant, comic book character breasts as a whole?
Or do we at least need some nails? I'm not trying to be snarky or anything, I'm asking a question about redefining what I think are staples of comic books in the US.
Not really?
Okay, actually, the skintight suits tend to be easier to draw in a uniform style which helps if you're switching artists all the time. But they're really not a necessary aspect, see: Iron Man.
And there's no reason not to shift toward bodybuilder or weight-lifter type of bodies.
I'm not going to count "skintight costumes are easier to draw" as an answer, but otherwise, are there really obstacles to having them all run around in totally unflattering costumes? You could make them distinctive anyway, give them bright colors or insignia or whatever. It would fly in the face of what I get is the impression of an overwhelmingly dominant trend on US comics (not limited to to women--if you're a superhero-type person, chances are you wear tight costumes, with certain exceptions, of course).
As for body-type, I guess a case could be made that it's a reflection of personality of sorts (along with method of speaking, behavior, everything else). We've got a similarly very strong tendency towards the boobs of steel archetype, which has obvious problems.
I'm just speculating, of course. I don't know enough about comics to say if this would provide benefits outweighing the disadvantages. I have to assume that there's a reason why the the whole of the Justice League or whatever doesn't dress in baggy clothes, work jumpsuits, ugly suits and combat fatigues Ghost in the Shell/Appleseed style (with one notable exception, intended to speak to the commercialization of the physical form, oy). Besides the obvious "independent, self-made" aspect of the superhero character type.
I'm really not sure what this thread is about anymore. It doesn't seem to have a whole lot to do with objectification and sexualization in media though.
Star Wars and Star Trek are from the 60s and 70s. While they're certainly a part of 'geek' culture they don't seem all that relevant in terms of a discussion on modern media.
The Star Trek movie is a reboot of the franchise, which keeps hold of the same white male characters that were the heros before. The one female character has now become the girlfriend.
What would be the alternative? To change the story such that some other characters are the heroes, and not Kirk and Spock? Can you see any problems with doing it that way?
Or do you think they shouldn't be rebooting old franchises unless they feature lots of women and minority characters? So Sherlock Holmes, LoTR, Star Wars, Star Trek, Doctor Who, comic books movies...should all of that be off-limits?
I guess I don't see the point you're making. I said we should be talking about new franchises because new franchises show what kinds of things modern artists want to create when they have more freedom. Obviously when you're rebooting an old franchise you have a limited amount of freedom in terms of what you can do with the characters. What's the alternative to that?
Criticism of something like the Star Trek movie doesn't mean that it shouldn't have been made or that people shouldn't watch it or enjoy it. The point is to note that it contributes to the trend that in most media, the heroes are usually white dudes. On an individual level it might not be a problem, but it does contribute to the overall trend which most certainly is a problem.
Just because it's a reboot of a franchise that was made during a more sexist time doesn't mean it's immune from criticism.
At the time of this writing, 5 out of ten movies in the "top box office" section of rotten tomatoes have female protagonists. One of those is a fantasy movie (Snow White and the Huntsman) and one is a sci-fi movie (Prometheus.) This isn't an unusual state of affairs at all. Lots and lots of movies come out with female leads every month, it's incredibly common. So if you contend that there is a lack of female protagonists in modern movie-making, I'd have to ask you to support that claim.
And yes, it does seem odd to criticize a franchise for character choices that were made two generations ago. Society has evolved a great deal since then. It makes a great deal more sense to criticize trends in modern franchises.
I'm still not really sure what is an okay female role. People one one side want more beautiful females because beauty is empowering, others feel that beauty leads to objectification and women should have less obvious female traits. Some people believe that traditional feminine roles should be championed, others believe that females should be more well rounded into masculine territory. Some people believe that only women can write women, others believe that the onus is on male artists to initiate the inclusion of female characters.
If I was an influential artist feeling pressure from feminist social action, I'd take the safe road and only write male characters because males won't get offended by however males are portrayed. I mean, if all I can count on is hindsight "I'll know it when I see it" judgment instead of rules everybody can agree on, I'll stick with what everybody has already agreed is OK and inconsequential if I want to avoid controversy. Or I'd say screw all that I'm going to embrace controversy and base the purpose of my art only on what will stick in people's heads.
Oh man, you've totally cut to the heart of it!
It's the damn ladies that are forcing people to write really shitty female characters. God damn it ladies, if you don't calm down soon there won't be any female characters at all!
Stop talking about it, and hope that somehow everything changes for the better.
Yes, exactly. It's a load off not to have to worry about something when there's no real metric to know if you're helping or hurting.
Right right, it's impossible to tell if your character is remotely human or not. It's completely up to polling "those goddamn feminists"
That is the only way to tell if you're writing a halfway decent character. That's actually exactly how Fargo was made.
That's EXACTLY the point. The conversation is revolving around fictional women in fictional shows. Period. When your counter examples are reality/documentary shows you're counterpoint isn't even in the same state, let alone ballpark.
I'm sorry something has to be fictional now to be entertaining?
Fictional women shooting ray guns are entertaining to watch.
Fictional women making cold cream aren't.
You said "Nuh-uh."
You already knew that this was the conversation, though.
WOAH, wait, really? That's the discussion? That's an insane conversation, though.
This is the paragraph:
Images with dichotomous messages like this concern me because I remember my own childhood of despising femininity and seeing it as the weaker, confining, less desirable option, wanting instead to enter the world of masculinity, of fun, and freedom; a form of internalized misogyny and femmephobia I am still recovering from, even now as a proud femme geek who loves expressing myself through traditionally “feminine” interests like crafting, fashion, jewellery, and making my own beauty products. The best part about enjoying those interests is that I am definitely not alone in them. Geek culture is full of people, women, men and gender rebels alike, who are great crafters, seamstresses, bakers, knitters, costume-makers, and creators. I wonder how many of them had a childhood filled with Barbie dolls for whom they designed outfits and hairstyles, and were still capable of having a jolly good time playing with ray-guns as well, rather than thinking of it in a purely either-or context?
Look at that shit one more time.
The author is discussing the uncomfortable feeling that being a dedicated tomboy is accepted by geek culture, but being a reasonably "girly" person is seen as dumber or more "mainstream" and therefore not as worthy.
She's not saying Aeryn Sung should be making jewelry, she's just... that was an example of the things she currently enjoys doing that are feminine. I don't know how that was misread so badly. I ctrl-f'd "jewelry" just to make sure there wasn't some completely different reference.
The idea is that it isn't necessarily a positive that "geek culture" is so obsessed with the tomboy, but thank goodness it appears that things are getting better and more people who grew up with barbie dolls are feeling comfortable as participants in that culture.
I think you need to take it one step further. most the time femininity is acceptable in geek culture is when it exudes sex all over the place for the benefit of a male audience.
By your standards would you say that the only time femininity is acceptable in any culture is when it exudes sex etc etc? Excluding those cultures dominated by women. I think what we need is some kind of idea what you and 'your side' would say is OK.
It's pretty clear where I think 'OK' is. I think that things transition from being bad to being good based entirely on the quality of the writing and creativity contained in them. That it is impossible to look at a piece of of context and say 'that is sexist', since context is what makes something sexist.
Pepper Potts in The Avengers is OK.
But she's not a society, that's an example of a single piece of fiction. I'm talking about something like "The way that the Indy 500 community treats women is OK and isn't related to exuding sexuality in a negative way"
What model would you like society to be built upon. Lets say we're about to throw aside the 'misogynistic ways of the today', where shall we look for inspiration as to how we shall build a new society? Clearly you don't think we should look at geeks, who is the right choice?
My wife? I honestly don't know if there is a perfect choice but I certainly don't think geeks and geek culture are the best voice.
What I'm trying to get at here is that I feel both sides (the 'women are being objectified in the media, they're being used as sex objects all the time and this is bad!' and the 'It's not so bad, really it's to do with quality of media and not sexism' sides) feel that Kim Kardashian is 'bad'. One side because she does nothing but show skin all day and try to fulfill male fantasies, and the other side because she does that without any good reason or interest. She is fundamentally bad to one side, and functionally bad to another. Clearly there is a whole other group who thinks she is awesome, but they don't seem to be here.
I just don't know what the 'objectification' side thinks is good. What should society be? When does objectification and sexualization end and storytelling begin? What level is OK?
I can't understand the question.
Like, how many nails do I want in my oatmeal? Obviously we need at least some nails.
I think maybe you're drawing a strange divide here that does not exist. I would like more stories that are good, and better female characters. These things aren't in opposition.
I'm struggling to figure out what media you're proposing that are just the best stories that would be ruined if women weren't sex objects. Would the Amanda Conner run of Power Girl be less fun if she didn't have the boob window?
Boob window aside, wouldn't it be more fitting to do away with the whole skintight bodysuit and giant, comic book character breasts as a whole?
Or do we at least need some nails? I'm not trying to be snarky or anything, I'm asking a question about redefining what I think are staples of comic books in the US.
Not really?
Okay, actually, the skintight suits tend to be easier to draw in a uniform style which helps if you're switching artists all the time. But they're really not a necessary aspect, see: Iron Man.
And there's no reason not to shift toward bodybuilder or weight-lifter type of bodies.
I'm not going to count "skintight costumes are easier to draw" as an answer, but otherwise, are there really obstacles to having them all run around in totally unflattering costumes? You could make them distinctive anyway, give them bright colors or insignia or whatever. It would fly in the face of what I get is the impression of an overwhelmingly dominant trend on US comics (not limited to to women--if you're a superhero-type person, chances are you wear tight costumes, with certain exceptions, of course).
As for body-type, I guess a case could be made that it's a reflection of personality of sorts (along with method of speaking, behavior, everything else). We've got a similarly very strong tendency towards the boobs of steel archetype, which has obvious problems.
I'm just speculating, of course. I don't know enough about comics to say if this would provide benefits outweighing the disadvantages. I have to assume that there's a reason why the the whole of the Justice League or whatever doesn't dress in baggy clothes, work jumpsuits, ugly suits and combat fatigues Ghost in the Shell/Appleseed style (with one notable exception, intended to speak to the commercialization of the physical form, oy). Besides the obvious "independent, self-made" aspect of the superhero character type.
"Easier to draw" is the literal inception of the tradition.
Like Superman and Batman are just nudes, with coloring, because that's wicked easy to produce in stages. But, yeah. Nope. You could change anything but the "superpowers" part of superhero comics and they wouldn't really be very different.
Also there wouldn't really be "disadvantages". The reason for everyone dressing the way they do is that everyone has been dressing that way for an extended period.
That's EXACTLY the point. The conversation is revolving around fictional women in fictional shows. Period. When your counter examples are reality/documentary shows you're counterpoint isn't even in the same state, let alone ballpark.
I'm sorry something has to be fictional now to be entertaining?
Fictional women shooting ray guns are entertaining to watch.
Fictional women making cold cream aren't.
You said "Nuh-uh."
You already knew that this was the conversation, though.
It probably doesn't help that the latter is peddling snake oil.
@durandal4532, that's fair, though I think you'd run into similar problems training artists to not draw the female cast with huge boobs. Baggy clothing wouldn't have to be really detailed, just not as titillating. Then again, I can't draw worth a shit. Who knows.
A lot of female characters are written poorly because they are written by men who aren't very good at writing women. It's not out of intentional sexism, but simply because men don't understand women. Any example of a female character that behaves neither like a stereotype nor like a man had a woman involved in the creative process.
Interestingly enough, women are often pretty good at writing male characters.
Posts
Fictional women shooting ray guns are entertaining to watch.
Fictional women making cold cream aren't.
You said "Nuh-uh."
You already knew that this was the conversation, though.
My phone can't handle giant WOT multiquotes, I learned. My post only addressed the uselessness of the Bechdel test. Whether or not TV has gotten "better" is irrelevant, the Bechdel test can't measure that. It's gotten less malecentric over the years, but no one is denying that. So the Bechdel test is not helpful for our discusion.
Doctors and scientists are respected, possibly because they're saving lives and furthering human knowledge. Of course, nurses and hygienists are less respected, but that's because those trades have a history of less training and being a hobby for the idle rich.
Maybe It's just my lack of use of the fancy stuff, but for me "beauty products" means upjumped detergents (actual soap was phased out decades ago). For me, the only innovations that are ever needed are either done by professional chemists (which tends to be associated with masculinity) or a guy with a sack of sand.
My western nerd credentials are very lacking, which is something I've learned to live with (they're not that much better from where I was born,but everyone knows certain things, of course).
Specifically, I recognize the Fifth Element girl, Princess Leia, and the Chainsaw Cheerleader (thanks to the recent release). That's about it for me personally.
You learn something new every day.
*puts on his compassionate, reasonable sensitivity hat*
Though the article quality seems reasonable, I do think you'd be hard pressed to be able to actually examine this particular phenomenon--Nazi-themed pornography--in the context of the society in one article. I'll give a counter example: before I came to the US, one of the least flattering bits of American media I'd been exposed to was Isla: She Wolf of the SS. Which is a Nazi-exploitation pornographic film seemingly dedicated to the actual victims of the Holocaust, in case you don't know. So, yeah...only a moron or a bigot with an ulterior would attempt to judge a country of tens of millions of people based on a smut film, I was old enough to figure that out.
Sure enough, yeah, the American pornographic film industry is gigantic (perhaps the biggest in the world?) and very seldomly produces Nazi-exploitation porn. Isla is not a terribly good representation of the industry itself, let alone Americans. I was a little perturbed by how many Americans had heard of a thirty-year-old porno film that referenced the holocaust, but other than that, yeah.
The Stalag comics remind me of that. With one exception: apparently, pornography was very hard to come by in 1960 in Israel. As such, I've lived in countries more populous than Israel, long after the 1960s. Where I was born has 3 times the population of Israel, and Japan and US are +100 million. In all these countries, pornography has been...pretty easy to get your hands on for a while now. That Stalag would surface in a rather small country where pornography was otherwise extremely hard to come by (If the NYT is to be believed, or for that matter, did their research), to the point where it was practically the only kind of domestic material...
This might be a question better left for a cultural historian though.
See edit. You're using blasters as a short cut to make something entertaining. Which is a shame.
That they are fixated on it and the outfit itself plays a minor role in the character of Leia herself says something about fixating on titillation at the expense of the character.
Again, so the hell what? If your point is that fictional characters creating beauty products can be just as interesting as scifi/space opera, prove it. Using other examples from other shows 1) doesn't work, and 2) especially doesn't work when it in no way is what the show is about. Mad Men isn't about advertising. The Pitch is, but again, that's a reality program.
I'm using "blasters" as a short cut? Because that's what that woman used as her example in her article? What the fuck are you even talking about? Whatevs. I can't stand this dishonest shit right now.
Am I the only one who thinks it looks ugly and unappealing as well? The outfit, I mean. In addition to the rather unshakable elements of sexual slavery which do creep me out.
I mean, I get what makes Star Wars popular--space wizards! Good over evil! Millions of disposable war slaves! But Slave Leia always stumped me. Meanwhile, every year, I see about twenty of them at DragonCon, looking quite pleased with themselves. It'd be something I'd really prefer to ignore and hide if I were really, really into the fandom. "Yeah, we don't talk about that..." sort of situation.
EDIT: On a side note, I'm kind of surprised at the Aisha Tyler thing. I mean, besides seeing her on Friends, the second thing I'd seen of her (and the first related to the industry) were those videos Bungie hired her to do for Halo. Did no one else watch those?
WOAH, wait, really? That's the discussion? That's an insane conversation, though.
This is the paragraph:
Look at that shit one more time.
The author is discussing the uncomfortable feeling that being a dedicated tomboy is accepted by geek culture, but being a reasonably "girly" person is seen as dumber or more "mainstream" and therefore not as worthy.
She's not saying Aeryn Sung should be making jewelry, she's just... that was an example of the things she currently enjoys doing that are feminine. I don't know how that was misread so badly. I ctrl-f'd "jewelry" just to make sure there wasn't some completely different reference.
The idea is that it isn't necessarily a positive that "geek culture" is so obsessed with the tomboy, but thank goodness it appears that things are getting better and more people who grew up with barbie dolls are feeling comfortable as participants in that culture.
I think you need to take it one step further. most the time femininity is acceptable in geek culture is when it exudes sex all over the place for the benefit of a male audience.
What she says here really, really resonates with me, because I am aware of the same thing within myself - rejecting things as "too girly" because of internalizing the mass amounts of media that tell me that feminine means weak, stupid, petty, vain, shallow, unheroic. Girls are not heros. The things girls do are not valuable.
But why is a seamstress valuless but a tailor is not?
Why is jewelry-making valueless art but painting isn't?
I remember once posting on a forum about how enraptured I was of these shoes, how exquisitely designed I thought they were. And I was apologetic about it, trying to explain that I loved these shoes because of the artistry of them, and not because I am a ditzy female obsessed with shoes. Why do I feel the need to apologize for liking something?
Knowing how much I internalize the negativity towards things percieved as "female" is one of the reasons I'm bothered by people ragging on "bronies." I know there are some extreme elements to bronies that aren't great (plushie sex), but the fact that dudes can be proud of a show that's "female" is a good thing from my perspective. Although there is also the depressing element there that insists that because guys like the show, that must mean that it isn't a girl's show after all.
By your standards would you say that the only time femininity is acceptable in any culture is when it exudes sex etc etc? Excluding those cultures dominated by women. I think what we need is some kind of idea what you and 'your side' would say is OK.
It's pretty clear where I think 'OK' is. I think that things transition from being bad to being good based entirely on the quality of the writing and creativity contained in them. That it is impossible to look at a piece of of context and say 'that is sexist', since context is what makes something sexist.
Pepper Potts in The Avengers is OK.
But the discussion isn't whether today is better than 1970, or 1980, or yesterday.
It's about... just, sexism/misogyny, the media. It's about a lot of things. But saying that rule-of-thumb doesn't provide anything useful is weird. Like I'd say... it's less malecentric than it was yesterday, but still pretty malecentric! Look at all this shit not passing the test! It's providing a small part of a larger discussion, it doesn't become invalid simply because it cannot be used to determine that media today is worse than the media of yesterday.
I mean it's also not the world's greatest rhetorical device or anything, but I thought the mad dash to rid it from the thread was weird.
Yeah, my girlfriend has talked about similar issues. As a teenager, her enjoyment of action films and technical work was lauded by her dorky friends, but baking was dangerously girly and had to be hedged against. Enjoying shoes, or wearing dresses, or wearing makeup or whatnot was only acceptable if you also made sure to say that you know it was shitty. Less so now that we're adults and our friends span a few subcultures, but it's certainly not fun to feel like you aren't allowed to be your gender if you want to be cool. Well, a very specific subset of cool.
But she's not a society, that's an example of a single piece of fiction. I'm talking about something like "The way that the Indy 500 community treats women is OK and isn't related to exuding sexuality in a negative way"
What model would you like society to be built upon. Lets say we're about to throw aside the 'misogynistic ways of the today', where shall we look for inspiration as to how we shall build a new society? Clearly you don't think we should look at geeks, who is the right choice?
You and your girlfriend need better geek friends. Baking, cookery and all that jazz is solidly inside the big tent of geekery these days.
Dismiss, diminish, ignore. The experience of geeky women is not your experience, so it can't be a genuine reflection of societal pressures.
Actually, I'm making a definitive and specific statement. I believe that these days baking and cookery are inside the scope of activities considered highly acceptable by the geek community, at least the aspect of it I'm familiar with. If his girlfriends issues as a young person were limited to her love of baking being incompatible with her friends love of Sci-Fi etc then the times have changed. You cant just dismiss everything that disagrees with your worldview as anecdotal. Eventually all those anecdotes add up to an argument.
If perhaps baking was just an example, and she also had problems with her love of designer shoes and ballet also not being accepted then times are not any better. Those activites would still be considered 'bad' by the geek community that I am familiar with. Not because they are considered 'female' but because they are considered to be part of a different community (fashion, formal art) which is viewed as being very 'anti' geek.
Yeah man, I don't know what to say.
I guess I can try going back in time and telling my girlfriend's friends to shape up, that might work. I'll also work on making sure I alter all of her formative role models so that there isn't as stark a divide between being feminine and being cool.
I mean this is not a fucking sales pitch for being a geek.
This is discussing what is and is not, at this moment. My girlfriend, and sister, and mom have all found different things accepted in different areas. Geeky people might find my mom's love of endless variations on Pride and Prejudice a little uncool, but her love of Sin City nifty. Or maybe my sister's avid enjoyment of fancy shoes is considered less cool than her enjoyment of Ray Bradbury. That's okay! But it is a thing, and it is a thing that is happening, and it's okay to talk about it. No one is asking anyone to like, switch sides. There's no side to which to switch.
It's an experience people are having, and it informs how they feel they fit into a subculture.
We're not all having a rumble with the Jocks and the Preps later today, you don't need to stump for your side.
My wife? I honestly don't know if there is a perfect choice but I certainly don't think geeks and geek culture are the best voice.
Star Wars and Star Trek are from the 60s and 70s. While they're certainly a part of 'geek' culture they don't seem all that relevant in terms of a discussion on modern media.
I never said it was invalid! I said it was useless, and you just said it yourself. All it can tell us is something that was never in question: Media is malecentric (yes it's less malecentric than it used to be, a bit).
I have nothing against Ms. Bechdel. I just don't think the Bechdel test is useful, unless, as I said, you're in a debate with someone who is really, really ignorant or simply trolling you.
The reason I wanted it gone from the discussion is because in addition to serving no purpose, there are very high quality works that fail the test, and garbage that passes it. So it's not adding anything to the discussion.
What I'm trying to get at here is that I feel both sides (the 'women are being objectified in the media, they're being used as sex objects all the time and this is bad!' and the 'It's not so bad, really it's to do with quality of media and not sexism' sides) feel that Kim Kardashian is 'bad'. One side because she does nothing but show skin all day and try to fulfill male fantasies, and the other side because she does that without any good reason or interest. She is fundamentally bad to one side, and functionally bad to another. Clearly there is a whole other group who thinks she is awesome, but they don't seem to be here.
I just don't know what the 'objectification' side thinks is good. What should society be? When does objectification and sexualization end and storytelling begin? What level is OK?
The Star Trek movie is a reboot of the franchise, which keeps hold of the same white male characters that were the heros before. The one female character has now become the girlfriend.
Star Wars: The Old Republic is a game I play, right now, wherein the slave girl costume is still popular. More to the point, though, is the weird divide between playing female characters and playing male ones; the dudes get frequent opportunities for sex and flirting in-game; the female characters (so far, of the four republic classes I've played) do not. Additionally, a majority of the companions for each class are male. And this isn't even touching on some of the creepy mysogynistic slave girl shit on the imperial side.
Sooooo... yeah, these franchises are alive and well today, and while they've made some progress, they're still hammering in some of the same old ideas.
Not clicking that link, but the way people talked about playing a Sith Warrior and how they dealt with Vette was creepy, disturbing, and gross.
The most common complaint was "It's unfair that I can't romance/fully pursue the friendship storyline unless I take off her shock collar."
The second most popular complaint was "It's unfair that I can't 'break her' with the shock collar".
I can't understand the question.
Like, how many nails do I want in my oatmeal? Obviously we need at least some nails.
I think maybe you're drawing a strange divide here that does not exist. I would like more stories that are good, and better female characters. These things aren't in opposition.
I'm struggling to figure out what media you're proposing that are just the best stories that would be ruined if women weren't sex objects. Would the Amanda Conner run of Power Girl be less fun if she didn't have the boob window?
If I was an influential artist feeling pressure from feminist social action, I'd take the safe road and only write male characters because males won't get offended by however males are portrayed. I mean, if all I can count on is hindsight "I'll know it when I see it" judgment instead of rules everybody can agree on, I'll stick with what everybody has already agreed is OK and inconsequential if I want to avoid controversy. Or I'd say screw all that I'm going to embrace controversy and base the purpose of my art only on what will stick in people's heads.
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.
Boob window aside, wouldn't it be more fitting to do away with the whole skintight bodysuit and giant, comic book character breasts as a whole?
Or do we at least need some nails? I'm not trying to be snarky or anything, I'm asking a question about redefining what I think are staples of comic books in the US. I don't know if she walked/flew/whatever around dressed as Peter Falk's Colombo, if she'd be less fun somehow--fun being the better quality than titillation, obviously.
What would be the alternative? To change the story such that some other characters are the heroes, and not Kirk and Spock? Can you see any problems with doing it that way?
Or do you think they shouldn't be rebooting old franchises unless they feature lots of women and minority characters? So Sherlock Holmes, LoTR, Star Wars, Star Trek, Doctor Who, comic books movies...should all of that be off-limits?
I guess I don't see the point you're making. I said we should be talking about new franchises because new franchises show what kinds of things modern artists want to create when they have more freedom. Obviously when you're rebooting an old franchise you have a limited amount of freedom in terms of what you can do with the characters. What's the alternative to that?
Not really?
Okay, actually, the skintight suits tend to be easier to draw in a uniform style which helps if you're switching artists all the time. But they're really not a necessary aspect, see: Iron Man.
And there's no reason not to shift toward bodybuilder or weight-lifter type of bodies.
Criticism of something like the Star Trek movie doesn't mean that it shouldn't have been made or that people shouldn't watch it or enjoy it. The point is to note that it contributes to the trend that in most media, the heroes are usually white dudes. On an individual level it might not be a problem, but it does contribute to the overall trend which most certainly is a problem.
Just because it's a reboot of a franchise that was made during a more sexist time doesn't mean it's immune from criticism.
Oh man, you've totally cut to the heart of it!
It's the damn ladies that are forcing people to write really shitty female characters. God damn it ladies, if you don't calm down soon there won't be any female characters at all!
Stop talking about it, and hope that somehow everything changes for the better.
Yes, exactly. It's a load off not to have to worry about something when there's no real metric to know if you're helping or hurting.
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.
I'm not going to count "skintight costumes are easier to draw" as an answer, but otherwise, are there really obstacles to having them all run around in totally unflattering costumes? You could make them distinctive anyway, give them bright colors or insignia or whatever. It would fly in the face of what I get is the impression of an overwhelmingly dominant trend on US comics (not limited to to women--if you're a superhero-type person, chances are you wear tight costumes, with certain exceptions, of course).
As for body-type, I guess a case could be made that it's a reflection of personality of sorts (along with method of speaking, behavior, everything else). We've got a similarly very strong tendency towards the boobs of steel archetype, which has obvious problems.
I'm just speculating, of course. I don't know enough about comics to say if this would provide benefits outweighing the disadvantages. I have to assume that there's a reason why the the whole of the Justice League or whatever doesn't dress in baggy clothes, work jumpsuits, ugly suits and combat fatigues Ghost in the Shell/Appleseed style (with one notable exception, intended to speak to the commercialization of the physical form, oy). Besides the obvious "independent, self-made" aspect of the superhero character type.
At the time of this writing, 5 out of ten movies in the "top box office" section of rotten tomatoes have female protagonists. One of those is a fantasy movie (Snow White and the Huntsman) and one is a sci-fi movie (Prometheus.) This isn't an unusual state of affairs at all. Lots and lots of movies come out with female leads every month, it's incredibly common. So if you contend that there is a lack of female protagonists in modern movie-making, I'd have to ask you to support that claim.
And yes, it does seem odd to criticize a franchise for character choices that were made two generations ago. Society has evolved a great deal since then. It makes a great deal more sense to criticize trends in modern franchises.
Right right, it's impossible to tell if your character is remotely human or not. It's completely up to polling "those goddamn feminists"
That is the only way to tell if you're writing a halfway decent character. That's actually exactly how Fargo was made.
"Easier to draw" is the literal inception of the tradition.
Like Superman and Batman are just nudes, with coloring, because that's wicked easy to produce in stages. But, yeah. Nope. You could change anything but the "superpowers" part of superhero comics and they wouldn't really be very different.
Also there wouldn't really be "disadvantages". The reason for everyone dressing the way they do is that everyone has been dressing that way for an extended period.
It probably doesn't help that the latter is peddling snake oil.
Interestingly enough, women are often pretty good at writing male characters.