@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.
Either way it wouldn't be a big deal. The current crop of heroes looks how they look because that's how it's always been. If tomorrow you said every hero needed to wear a variant of Iron Man's armor, it would happen.
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 focus groups though, and as far as I'm concerned focus groups have ruined more things than they've rescued. Should they be obligated for every character? What if you want to tell a story that's already blossoming in your head?
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.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
@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.
I draw.
Drawing nudes is easier because it's the most basic forms of the human body and there's no accounting for textures and the shapes that draped material make.
Narratively, it makes no sense, since wearing skin-tight clothing is a terrible choice for combat and flexibility. It's a trope that doesn't carry over when live-action seeks to foist hero fantasies on the public; guys like Indiana Jones wear regular clothes.
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 focus groups though, and as far as I'm concerned focus groups have ruined more things than they've rescued. Should they be obligated for every character? What if you want to tell a story that's already blossoming in your head?
I cannot tell how this discussion is going.
Let's start at the top: everything I said is supposed to be a sarcastic over-exaggeration of what you're saying, because what you're saying is inane. I am not proposing actual for real ideas or stating actual facts. Your complaint is very, very silly and so I made jokes about it.
Any example of a female character that behaves neither like a stereotype nor like a man had a woman involved in the creative process.
No.
Yeah wait what, no. I mean I guess I can't consult all of history but I'm going to assume that someone at some point wrote a decent female character ever without being a woman themselves or having a female co-author.
If men can't write women fine, but women can write men and women fine, then men should just quit. They can do nothing but hurt the industry and societal development because women can grab the rising market share with absolutely no drawbacks. I'm not being facetious here. If this is the truth, then men shouldn't write a single thing if they can't bring something to the table that women can't, as it's been established that women can bring something to the table that men can't, and overflowing the culture with flawed works just makes the problem worse with no advantages. It makes complete logical sense as long as you acknowledge that perpetuating male culture is bad.
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.
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.
Yeah, one data point really isn't going to cut it as far as proof. Something that shows a trend of media being way more male centric is... the Bechdel test! What do you know, I guess it is kind of useful after all.
0
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
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.
Eh, that's to be expected. When most stuff about men is written by men, you get pretty used to stories about men. Being surrounded by something is a pretty fast way to get good at it.
There's also the fact that women notice when women are written poorly, so they know what to avoid. It's easy to make a character a believable character when you actually are cognizant of what a two dimensional puppet is.
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.
Out of curiousity, I went and looked up the top 10 films.
Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted - a group of dudes and one female
Prometheus - two female characters, four male characters
Rock of Ages - girlfriend and boyfriend
That's My Boy - two guys
Snow White and the Huntsman - girlfriend and boyfriend
Men in Black III - a group of dudes and the girlfriend
Marvel's The Avengers - a group of dudes and one female
The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel - cast is equally men and women
Moonrise Kingdom - girlfriend and boyfriend
Battleship - a group of dudes and the girlfriend
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
Writing well isn't really a gendered activity - a good writer can put himself in the mindset of all kinds of characters from all kinds of circumstances. That's part of what makes a good writer.
Like, it's just strange to suggest that a writer can only write characters like themselves. Can people without kids write people who have kids? Can you not write people from other countries or cultures? It's just a strange thought.
Writing well isn't really a gendered activity - a good writer can put himself in the mindset of all kinds of characters from all kinds of circumstances. That's part of what makes a good writer.
Like, it's just strange to suggest that a writer can only write characters like themselves. Can people without kids write people who have kids? Can you not write people from other countries or cultures? It's just a strange thought.
Good writers are far more rare than published writers.
What is interesting, and I will agree with, is that we are seeing a lot of positive movement in gender inclusivity and a decline in sexism overall. It may not be a large decline nor a lot of progress forward, but it is there.
Which makes it all the more frustrating when shit like the Hitman trailer pop up
Yeah, it's important to take some heart in that things ARE getting better and the push for progress IS working. It's just that it's not DONE. Not at least until a woman in a chainmail bikini is president.
@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.
I draw.
Drawing nudes is easier because it's the most basic forms of the human body and there's no accounting for textures and the shapes that draped material make.
Narratively, it makes no sense, since wearing skin-tight clothing is a terrible choice for combat and flexibility. It's a trope that doesn't carry over when live-action seeks to foist hero fantasies on the public; guys like Indiana Jones wear regular clothes.
Don't forget that skintight clothing is the choice for the kinds of people we see performing near-superhuman feats: athletes.
0
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
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.
Yeah, one data point really isn't going to cut it as far as proof. Something that shows a trend of media being way more male centric is... the Bechdel test! What do you know, I guess it is kind of useful after all.
I said this in the other sexism thread (I think. Having two is confusing,) but the Bechdel test is the BMI of movie sexism. A movie passing or not passing is pretty irrelevant to everything. Just like you shouldn't use BMI as anything more than a first-pass categorization. When it's time to examine an individual, it's next to worthless except in the broadest sense. It's when it's applied to thousands that it starts to show useful data.
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?
Yes, it absolutely would be, because many aspects of the Amanda Connor run dealt with Power Girl dealing with the frustrations she felt at the fact she was being viewed as a sex object by people despite the fact that she was just as competent and powerful as Superman. She wanted to dress like that. It was her costume and she didn't want to change, but there were numerous parts of the plot which used the fact that her physique made her disguise TERRIBLE or that she would be saving someone and get frustrated that the guys buddies would then snap a picture of her boobs.
Is Power Girl a nail? I say that done properly she is a fine addition to our oatmeal. Writers should write the characters they want, and if the women happen to be absurdly hot then thats the way things are. If those women are well written and interesting, and are more than just eye candy then hurrah. If all they are is eye candy then boo to you bad writers.
You cannot, and never will be able to, change what people find attractive and like to see/read/write about.
Writing well isn't really a gendered activity - a good writer can put himself in the mindset of all kinds of characters from all kinds of circumstances. That's part of what makes a good writer.
Like, it's just strange to suggest that a writer can only write characters like themselves. Can people without kids write people who have kids? Can you not write people from other countries or cultures? It's just a strange thought.
How many times have you watched something in a television show, or read something in a book that was a description of a hobby you enjoy written by someone who had clearly never performed that activity?
Say, like any time "hacking" or "computers" or "video games" show up in sitcoms. Or like the Big Bang Theory's early days.
Sure, it is possible to write what you don't know, and do it well, but mayhaps a white man growing up in the south would have a harder time accurately portraying an african woman.
That isn't to say it is impossible, just that it is more difficult, and what we are pointing out is a systematic problem of people not being able to write beyond their experiences, and are seeking a quick fix to the problem.
Certainly a man can write women well, certainly women can write men well, certainly I can write a japanese man well...but it would be much more difficult, and it involves...you know what, I am not eloquent enough
It's the part where I'm being asked and not, say, Laura Lippman. Because Laura is a woman, and it's presumed therefore that she knows how to write about women, what with having been one her entire adult life. By the same token, Laura Lippman is not asked how it is she can write such convincing, strong male characters. Implicit in her job as a crafter of fiction is the demand that she must. No question need be asked.
The source influences, of course, but it's not simply a matter of me being male that brings the question. For some, the question seems born from genuine confusion and curiosity. Yet for others – for many others, I think, it's not simply that they're asking How Did You Do This Thing? What they're really asking, I think, is this:
Why aren't more men doing it?
Why is it that so many male writers, when trying to write strong female characters, fail?
Why do they default to a shorthand, lazy equation, where strong equals bitch?
I can speak for myself, and I can share my suspicions. First? Many men simply don't see it. They don't read what they've written, or if they do, they're blind to the content of their words, or they just don't recognize that there's work to be done here. For many, sadly, stereotype is enough, and the implicit failings in such writing either don't factor or don't matter.
But second, and far more damning? I think it comes from ignorance. Plain and simple ignorance, a crime no author should be allowed to commit.
Think about it like this; if I write a story in which one of my characters is deaf – and I have, it's called Alpha, and it's going to be released by this illustrious publishing imprint in May – it's incumbent upon me as the author of the work to know at least something of what I'm talking about. I don't, perhaps, need to learn American Sign Language (I didn't), but knowing something about ASL seems, at least to me, the very least I can do. Finding someone who can speak with authority about the nuances of deaf communication, about the rapidly-changing nature of it, who can educate me enough that I begin to understand the limitations and benefits of ASL communication, that would probably, possibly help.
If I'm writing a story about a pilot, it might, conceivably, be of use to me to know something about how to fly a plane. A pursuit of a pilot's license all my own would certainly make me more convincing, but sitting down with some solid reading, and perhaps an interview or two, would help to cover my bases.
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 focus groups though, and as far as I'm concerned focus groups have ruined more things than they've rescued. Should they be obligated for every character? What if you want to tell a story that's already blossoming in your head?
I cannot tell how this discussion is going.
Let's start at the top: everything I said is supposed to be a sarcastic over-exaggeration of what you're saying, because what you're saying is inane. I am not proposing actual for real ideas or stating actual facts. Your complaint is very, very silly and so I made jokes about it.
I am not complaining at all. I am sincerely asking for concrete guidelines to plan for a greater positive female image in social culture. I don't know what the definition of that is beyond looking at past works and saying "yes, that's sexist. Nope, that's not sexist." I want rules that can predict, and not just retroactively judge, what will be sexist and what won't, because a lot of credible sources are directly antagonistic to each other. I want to know how beautiful and clothed females should look, and why. I want to know what are good personality traits and what are bad ones. I want a protypical female character to be designed instead of reaching from example, because a lot of the past examples used are sexist or otherwise bland from not taking chances. I also want these rules to be precise enough to be able to distinguish between non-extreme examples like rob liefeld or I guess any Kathy Bates role.
Allow me to illustrate: when Silent Hill 3 was being created, the main character, Heather Mason, was originally designed wearing pants. After a focus group of only women, her bottom wear was changed to a short skirt out of popularity. What are the rules governing whether putting a female character in a skirt is misogynistic or not? If the rubric is solely focus groups, then any character made without focus group feedback from any demographic would be prejudiced against that demographic. If you're willing to abide by that, that's fine, but that would mean that almost all characters everywhere are antagonistic to some demographic, at which point it's basically ubiquitous and meaningless. The Bechdel test would be a good start if its noteworthiness stems from something other than "look how many movies don't pass it." Lots of movies don't pass lots of tests you can make; you have to first test whether your test is valid or not.
I am only staying in here because some point was made way early on in the thread that Tycho saying "the answer is, as always, more art" was handwaving. That looks to me like a solution that is a bit weenie but is consistent and does not contradict itself. If I can't take that stance, then I need another foolproof stance to stand behind.
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.
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
Research is one of the hardest things to get some artistic types to do. Heck, I had the same issue in college, and only became aware of it because my teacher pointed it out to me. I've seen it most recently in the Dungeons and Dragons art column where the art director's research on sexism begins and ends with "I googled it" and "My mom is a strong woman."
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?
Yes, it absolutely would be, because many aspects of the Amanda Connor run dealt with Power Girl dealing with the frustrations she felt at the fact she was being viewed as a sex object by people despite the fact that she was just as competent and powerful as Superman. She wanted to dress like that. It was her costume and she didn't want to change, but there were numerous parts of the plot which used the fact that her physique made her disguise TERRIBLE or that she would be saving someone and get frustrated that the guys buddies would then snap a picture of her boobs.
Is Power Girl a nail? I say that done properly she is a fine addition to our oatmeal. Writers should write the characters they want, and if the women happen to be absurdly hot then thats the way things are. If those women are well written and interesting, and are more than just eye candy then hurrah. If all they are is eye candy then boo to you bad writers.
You cannot, and never will be able to, change what people find attractive and like to see/read/write about.
They never "happen" to be.
Power Girl is a fictional character. Amanda Conner wrote her really well because she was contracted to. She kept her in the costume because she was contracted to. The reason for female superheroes being wet dreams is not that they just keep on happening to document these amazing ladies and they keep happening to be hot, it's that editorial boards believe it will successfully capture a demographic. It's nice that Power Girl exists, and that one of my favorite runs of her exists, but it would be nice to not have every single heroic woman in the medium be designed around physical appeal to men.
It is possible to criticize aspects of a work, or the medium in which is was created, without demanding that it all be burnt down.
Guy, this is an incredibly important point that everyone needs to understand: Feminism is not an inherently female trait. The species is, on average, sexist. That includes women. Some of the most sexist people you will ever know are women.
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?
Yes, it absolutely would be, because many aspects of the Amanda Connor run dealt with Power Girl dealing with the frustrations she felt at the fact she was being viewed as a sex object by people despite the fact that she was just as competent and powerful as Superman. She wanted to dress like that. It was her costume and she didn't want to change, but there were numerous parts of the plot which used the fact that her physique made her disguise TERRIBLE or that she would be saving someone and get frustrated that the guys buddies would then snap a picture of her boobs.
Is Power Girl a nail? I say that done properly she is a fine addition to our oatmeal. Writers should write the characters they want, and if the women happen to be absurdly hot then thats the way things are. If those women are well written and interesting, and are more than just eye candy then hurrah. If all they are is eye candy then boo to you bad writers.
You cannot, and never will be able to, change what people find attractive and like to see/read/write about.
The history of Power Girl is fairly odd. Her first appearance included the keyhole (that's the fashion industry term, as far as I know), but it was centered fairly high and very little cleavage was actually drawn, so that it was just a big tan blob in the middle of her chest. Oddly, they were vary detailed on her underboob:
Then artists noticed how silly it was and started competing over who could make the thing the largest without the whole thing looking ridiculous.
I am only staying in here because some point was made way early on in the thread that Tycho saying "the answer is, as always, more art" was handwaving. That looks to me like a solution that is a bit weenie but is consistent and does not contradict itself. If I can't take that stance, then I need another foolproof stance to stand behind.
The answer is not just "more art". The answer is "more diverse art". Or maybe, "art" in the first place. I wouldn't consider the hitman games art, except maybe the art of masochism, as our glorious Tube can probably attest to.
In fact, I wouldn't consider most of the shit we are complaining about "art". I wouldn't consider most video games art, simply because most of them don't do anything novel or interesting, and are also generally pretty beholden to tropes and stereotypes.
But this may be a different discussion.
My point is "more art" is almost a useless stance that doesn't address anything.
Writing well isn't really a gendered activity - a good writer can put himself in the mindset of all kinds of characters from all kinds of circumstances. That's part of what makes a good writer.
Like, it's just strange to suggest that a writer can only write characters like themselves. Can people without kids write people who have kids? Can you not write people from other countries or cultures? It's just a strange thought.
How many times have you watched something in a television show, or read something in a book that was a description of a hobby you enjoy written by someone who had clearly never performed that activity?
Say, like any time "hacking" or "computers" or "video games" show up in sitcoms. Or like the Big Bang Theory's early days.
Sure, it is possible to write what you don't know, and do it well, but mayhaps a white man growing up in the south would have a harder time accurately portraying an african woman.
That isn't to say it is impossible, just that it is more difficult, and what we are pointing out is a systematic problem of people not being able to write beyond their experiences, and are seeking a quick fix to the problem.
Certainly a man can write women well, certainly women can write men well, certainly I can write a japanese man well...but it would be much more difficult, and it involves...you know what, I am not eloquent enough
Actual, professional writers do research.
If you aren't doing research you really can only "write what you know" convincingly.
But yes, research. It's a thing, and writers do it.
-edit-
And yeah, it goes without saying that T.V. show writers rarely research. It shows, and it is entirely to their discredit. Star Trek was infamous for hiring scientific and technical consultants only to have the writers ignore their input. Bad writers are bad writers.
Guy, this is an incredibly important point that everyone needs to understand: Feminism is not an inherently female trait. The species is, on average, sexist. That includes women. Some of the most sexist people you will ever know are women.
How are you supposed to do anything if women don't even know what they want? You can't focus group, you can't ask, just put a gun in your mouth if you're market research
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.
Guy, this is an incredibly important point that everyone needs to understand: Feminism is not an inherently female trait. The species is, on average, sexist. That includes women. Some of the most sexist people you will ever know are women.
How are you supposed to do anything if women don't even know what they want? You can't focus group, you can't ask, just put a gun in your mouth if you're market research
Learn about sexism and then don't do it? I'm a dude, and I don't like sexism either.
My favorite comic also features miles and miles of cleavage.
Jeep, I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that we draw everyone in baggy clothes. Please don't strawman.
And to your second point- if, for example, the writers behind Lollipop Chainsaw's dialogue researched anything beyond "Tits and Ass" then I will eat my hat.
Guy, this is an incredibly important point that everyone needs to understand: Feminism is not an inherently female trait. The species is, on average, sexist. That includes women. Some of the most sexist people you will ever know are women.
How are you supposed to do anything if women don't even know what they want? You can't focus group, you can't ask, just put a gun in your mouth if you're market research
I seriously can't tell if you're trolling or if you really think this is an algorithm to be cracked.
You make better female characters by writing better female characters. "Better" varies according to subjective measures, so it can be confusing. But it's possible, and not actually very hard.
I mean, flip the script a bit. Would you be whining so fucking hard about this if the request was to write a decent male character?
Jeep, I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that we draw everyone in baggy clothes. Please don't strawman.
And to your second point- if, for example, the writers behind Lollipop Chainsaw's dialogue researched anything beyond "Tits and Ass" then I will eat my hat.
(I hope they didn't, I don't have a hat)
As I said, bad writing is bad writing.
Using the prevalence of bad writing to try to gauge the difficulty of writing something decent is hardly an exact science.
I am just so constantly confused by the boners for the magic of "market research" and "focus groups".
I mean maybe my post is ignorant, but at the same time it seems to be an argument along the lines of "well this comic is mainly for men, so that is why it sexualizes women."
Jeep, I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that we draw everyone in baggy clothes. Please don't strawman.
And to your second point- if, for example, the writers behind Lollipop Chainsaw's dialogue researched anything beyond "Tits and Ass" then I will eat my hat.
(I hope they didn't, I don't have a hat)
I think I can argue that Suda at least knows a thing or two about it based on his previous works, but since most hats are made of petroleum derivative components you probably shouldn't think of eating them for any reason
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.
Jeep, I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that we draw everyone in baggy clothes. Please don't strawman.
And to your second point- if, for example, the writers behind Lollipop Chainsaw's dialogue researched anything beyond "Tits and Ass" then I will eat my hat.
(I hope they didn't, I don't have a hat)
As I said, bad writing is bad writing.
Using the prevalence of bad writing to try to gauge the difficulty of writing something decent is hardly an exact science.
The argument tends to be "Hey, it is bad writing/drawing/storytelling when it is sexist/racist/homophobic, so can we get some better writing/art design/plots"
Do you agree or disagree that this is what is being presented
Because this is basically my argument.
There is a lot of bad writing, and it tends to follow predictable patterns of sexism (mainly), homophobia (less often) and racism (also less often)....mainly because one of the hallmarks of bad writing is the dependence on stereotype and trope to tell a story.
And most of these stereotypes and tropes tend to be sexist/racist/homophobic/etc in nature, or at least have become just sore points for many demographics.
Like, my favorite, is the "Mario" plot- A man has to save a woman from a Bad Thing. In its initial story? Maybe not so bad.
Enshrined in stereotype and depicted over and over again? Now we might have a problem.
Jeep, I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that we draw everyone in baggy clothes. Please don't strawman.
And to your second point- if, for example, the writers behind Lollipop Chainsaw's dialogue researched anything beyond "Tits and Ass" then I will eat my hat.
(I hope they didn't, I don't have a hat)
I think I can argue that Suda at least knows a thing or two about it based on his previous works, but since most hats are made of petroleum derivative components you probably shouldn't think of eating them for any reason
Did he research anything beyond T&A? I don't know if I would agree with that, as the shit the zombies shout at you is pretty much textbook sexism, and that can be sussed out in like two seconds of googling.
So either they didn't research that these things were really offensive slurs that could alienate consumers, or they didn't care.
Jeep, I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that we draw everyone in baggy clothes. Please don't strawman.
And to your second point- if, for example, the writers behind Lollipop Chainsaw's dialogue researched anything beyond "Tits and Ass" then I will eat my hat.
(I hope they didn't, I don't have a hat)
As I said, bad writing is bad writing.
Using the prevalence of bad writing to try to gauge the difficulty of writing something decent is hardly an exact science.
The argument tends to be "Hey, it is bad writing/drawing/storytelling when it is sexist/racist/homophobic, so can we get some better writing/art design/plots"
Do you agree or disagree that this is what is being presented
Because this is basically my argument.
There is a lot of bad writing, and it tends to follow predictable patterns of sexism (mainly), homophobia (less often) and racism (also less often)....mainly because one of the hallmarks of bad writing is the dependence on stereotype and trope to tell a story.
And most of these stereotypes and tropes tend to be sexist/racist/homophobic/etc in nature, or at least have become just sore points for many demographics.
Like, my favorite, is the "Mario" plot- A man has to save a woman from a Bad Thing. In its initial story? Maybe not so bad.
Enshrined in stereotype and depicted over and over again? Now we might have a problem.
Are you suggesting that pool from which all bad writing is derived must be purged of sexist tropes
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.
There is a lot of bad writing, and it tends to follow predictable patterns of sexism (mainly), homophobia (less often) and racism (also less often)....mainly because one of the hallmarks of bad writing is the dependence on stereotype and trope to tell a story.
And most of these stereotypes and tropes tend to be sexist/racist/homophobic/etc in nature, or at least have become just sore points for many demographics.
Like, my favorite, is the "Mario" plot- A man has to save a woman from a Bad Thing. In its initial story? Maybe not so bad.
Enshrined in stereotype and depicted over and over again? Now we might have a problem.
But that's ... what people are expecting. That's what people want.
Posts
Either way it wouldn't be a big deal. The current crop of heroes looks how they look because that's how it's always been. If tomorrow you said every hero needed to wear a variant of Iron Man's armor, it would happen.
No.
That's focus groups though, and as far as I'm concerned focus groups have ruined more things than they've rescued. Should they be obligated for every character? What if you want to tell a story that's already blossoming in your head?
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 draw.
Drawing nudes is easier because it's the most basic forms of the human body and there's no accounting for textures and the shapes that draped material make.
Narratively, it makes no sense, since wearing skin-tight clothing is a terrible choice for combat and flexibility. It's a trope that doesn't carry over when live-action seeks to foist hero fantasies on the public; guys like Indiana Jones wear regular clothes.
I cannot tell how this discussion is going.
Let's start at the top: everything I said is supposed to be a sarcastic over-exaggeration of what you're saying, because what you're saying is inane. I am not proposing actual for real ideas or stating actual facts. Your complaint is very, very silly and so I made jokes about it.
Yeah wait what, no. I mean I guess I can't consult all of history but I'm going to assume that someone at some point wrote a decent female character ever without being a woman themselves or having a female co-author.
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.
Such fantastically written women on that show.
Yeah, one data point really isn't going to cut it as far as proof. Something that shows a trend of media being way more male centric is... the Bechdel test! What do you know, I guess it is kind of useful after all.
Eh, that's to be expected. When most stuff about men is written by men, you get pretty used to stories about men. Being surrounded by something is a pretty fast way to get good at it.
There's also the fact that women notice when women are written poorly, so they know what to avoid. It's easy to make a character a believable character when you actually are cognizant of what a two dimensional puppet is.
Yehp, on the Bechdel list site, Prometheus passes
Too bad it was a shit movie
Out of curiousity, I went and looked up the top 10 films.
Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted - a group of dudes and one female
Prometheus - two female characters, four male characters
Rock of Ages - girlfriend and boyfriend
That's My Boy - two guys
Snow White and the Huntsman - girlfriend and boyfriend
Men in Black III - a group of dudes and the girlfriend
Marvel's The Avengers - a group of dudes and one female
The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel - cast is equally men and women
Moonrise Kingdom - girlfriend and boyfriend
Battleship - a group of dudes and the girlfriend
Like, it's just strange to suggest that a writer can only write characters like themselves. Can people without kids write people who have kids? Can you not write people from other countries or cultures? It's just a strange thought.
Good writers are far more rare than published writers.
No comment on the quality- haven't seen it
What is interesting, and I will agree with, is that we are seeing a lot of positive movement in gender inclusivity and a decline in sexism overall. It may not be a large decline nor a lot of progress forward, but it is there.
Which makes it all the more frustrating when shit like the Hitman trailer pop up
Don't forget that skintight clothing is the choice for the kinds of people we see performing near-superhuman feats: athletes.
I said this in the other sexism thread (I think. Having two is confusing,) but the Bechdel test is the BMI of movie sexism. A movie passing or not passing is pretty irrelevant to everything. Just like you shouldn't use BMI as anything more than a first-pass categorization. When it's time to examine an individual, it's next to worthless except in the broadest sense. It's when it's applied to thousands that it starts to show useful data.
Yes, it absolutely would be, because many aspects of the Amanda Connor run dealt with Power Girl dealing with the frustrations she felt at the fact she was being viewed as a sex object by people despite the fact that she was just as competent and powerful as Superman. She wanted to dress like that. It was her costume and she didn't want to change, but there were numerous parts of the plot which used the fact that her physique made her disguise TERRIBLE or that she would be saving someone and get frustrated that the guys buddies would then snap a picture of her boobs.
Is Power Girl a nail? I say that done properly she is a fine addition to our oatmeal. Writers should write the characters they want, and if the women happen to be absurdly hot then thats the way things are. If those women are well written and interesting, and are more than just eye candy then hurrah. If all they are is eye candy then boo to you bad writers.
You cannot, and never will be able to, change what people find attractive and like to see/read/write about.
How many times have you watched something in a television show, or read something in a book that was a description of a hobby you enjoy written by someone who had clearly never performed that activity?
Say, like any time "hacking" or "computers" or "video games" show up in sitcoms. Or like the Big Bang Theory's early days.
Sure, it is possible to write what you don't know, and do it well, but mayhaps a white man growing up in the south would have a harder time accurately portraying an african woman.
That isn't to say it is impossible, just that it is more difficult, and what we are pointing out is a systematic problem of people not being able to write beyond their experiences, and are seeking a quick fix to the problem.
Certainly a man can write women well, certainly women can write men well, certainly I can write a japanese man well...but it would be much more difficult, and it involves...you know what, I am not eloquent enough
A better response comes from Greg Rucka
Longquote
I am not complaining at all. I am sincerely asking for concrete guidelines to plan for a greater positive female image in social culture. I don't know what the definition of that is beyond looking at past works and saying "yes, that's sexist. Nope, that's not sexist." I want rules that can predict, and not just retroactively judge, what will be sexist and what won't, because a lot of credible sources are directly antagonistic to each other. I want to know how beautiful and clothed females should look, and why. I want to know what are good personality traits and what are bad ones. I want a protypical female character to be designed instead of reaching from example, because a lot of the past examples used are sexist or otherwise bland from not taking chances. I also want these rules to be precise enough to be able to distinguish between non-extreme examples like rob liefeld or I guess any Kathy Bates role.
Allow me to illustrate: when Silent Hill 3 was being created, the main character, Heather Mason, was originally designed wearing pants. After a focus group of only women, her bottom wear was changed to a short skirt out of popularity. What are the rules governing whether putting a female character in a skirt is misogynistic or not? If the rubric is solely focus groups, then any character made without focus group feedback from any demographic would be prejudiced against that demographic. If you're willing to abide by that, that's fine, but that would mean that almost all characters everywhere are antagonistic to some demographic, at which point it's basically ubiquitous and meaningless. The Bechdel test would be a good start if its noteworthiness stems from something other than "look how many movies don't pass it." Lots of movies don't pass lots of tests you can make; you have to first test whether your test is valid or not.
I am only staying in here because some point was made way early on in the thread that Tycho saying "the answer is, as always, more art" was handwaving. That looks to me like a solution that is a bit weenie but is consistent and does not contradict itself. If I can't take that stance, then I need another foolproof stance to stand behind.
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.
They never "happen" to be.
Power Girl is a fictional character. Amanda Conner wrote her really well because she was contracted to. She kept her in the costume because she was contracted to. The reason for female superheroes being wet dreams is not that they just keep on happening to document these amazing ladies and they keep happening to be hot, it's that editorial boards believe it will successfully capture a demographic. It's nice that Power Girl exists, and that one of my favorite runs of her exists, but it would be nice to not have every single heroic woman in the medium be designed around physical appeal to men.
It is possible to criticize aspects of a work, or the medium in which is was created, without demanding that it all be burnt down.
Guy, this is an incredibly important point that everyone needs to understand: Feminism is not an inherently female trait. The species is, on average, sexist. That includes women. Some of the most sexist people you will ever know are women.
The history of Power Girl is fairly odd. Her first appearance included the keyhole (that's the fashion industry term, as far as I know), but it was centered fairly high and very little cleavage was actually drawn, so that it was just a big tan blob in the middle of her chest. Oddly, they were vary detailed on her underboob:
The answer is not just "more art". The answer is "more diverse art". Or maybe, "art" in the first place. I wouldn't consider the hitman games art, except maybe the art of masochism, as our glorious Tube can probably attest to.
In fact, I wouldn't consider most of the shit we are complaining about "art". I wouldn't consider most video games art, simply because most of them don't do anything novel or interesting, and are also generally pretty beholden to tropes and stereotypes.
But this may be a different discussion.
My point is "more art" is almost a useless stance that doesn't address anything.
More art...made by whom?
Actual, professional writers do research.
If you aren't doing research you really can only "write what you know" convincingly.
But yes, research. It's a thing, and writers do it.
-edit-
And yeah, it goes without saying that T.V. show writers rarely research. It shows, and it is entirely to their discredit. Star Trek was infamous for hiring scientific and technical consultants only to have the writers ignore their input. Bad writers are bad writers.
How are you supposed to do anything if women don't even know what they want? You can't focus group, you can't ask, just put a gun in your mouth if you're market research
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.
Learn about sexism and then don't do it? I'm a dude, and I don't like sexism either.
My favorite comic also features miles and miles of cleavage.
And to your second point- if, for example, the writers behind Lollipop Chainsaw's dialogue researched anything beyond "Tits and Ass" then I will eat my hat.
(I hope they didn't, I don't have a hat)
I seriously can't tell if you're trolling or if you really think this is an algorithm to be cracked.
You make better female characters by writing better female characters. "Better" varies according to subjective measures, so it can be confusing. But it's possible, and not actually very hard.
I mean, flip the script a bit. Would you be whining so fucking hard about this if the request was to write a decent male character?
As I said, bad writing is bad writing.
Using the prevalence of bad writing to try to gauge the difficulty of writing something decent is hardly an exact science.
I mean maybe my post is ignorant, but at the same time it seems to be an argument along the lines of "well this comic is mainly for men, so that is why it sexualizes women."
I think I can argue that Suda at least knows a thing or two about it based on his previous works, but since most hats are made of petroleum derivative components you probably shouldn't think of eating them for any reason
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.
The argument tends to be "Hey, it is bad writing/drawing/storytelling when it is sexist/racist/homophobic, so can we get some better writing/art design/plots"
Do you agree or disagree that this is what is being presented
Because this is basically my argument.
There is a lot of bad writing, and it tends to follow predictable patterns of sexism (mainly), homophobia (less often) and racism (also less often)....mainly because one of the hallmarks of bad writing is the dependence on stereotype and trope to tell a story.
And most of these stereotypes and tropes tend to be sexist/racist/homophobic/etc in nature, or at least have become just sore points for many demographics.
Like, my favorite, is the "Mario" plot- A man has to save a woman from a Bad Thing. In its initial story? Maybe not so bad.
Enshrined in stereotype and depicted over and over again? Now we might have a problem.
THE MOSAIC (have to plug @LadyM at all times)
Did he research anything beyond T&A? I don't know if I would agree with that, as the shit the zombies shout at you is pretty much textbook sexism, and that can be sussed out in like two seconds of googling.
So either they didn't research that these things were really offensive slurs that could alienate consumers, or they didn't care.
Are you suggesting that pool from which all bad writing is derived must be purged of sexist tropes
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.
....yes?
I don't really think I understand your question
But that's ... what people are expecting. That's what people want.
This thread moves in predictable circles, unless Emnmnme was being jocular