When media is overwhelmingly loaded with X to the point that's it's harming people's lives it's a problem.
But the media is not harming people's lives.
Only if you believe people are not influenced by the culture they're surrounded by and media they consume.
I think accepting this uncritically is unwise. The Comics Code, Bothered About Dungeons & Dragons, playing Metal music backwards to worship Satan, Jack Thompson's crusade against violent video games, etc. have all been proved to be a ridiculous farce, so ridiculous that believing in it undermines your overall credibility as a person, let alone older ideas like arresting people for blasphemy (well, in non-shitty countries), or banning teaching evolution, and the like.
I think these are particularly extreme examples that obscure the point debated. One can think there are problematic correlations between violent or sexist images and violent or sexist behavior (or at least lacking sensitivity to the same) without sliding all the way to Jack Thompson territory.
Disagree. I think this is the sort of thing people say in order to get away with both having and eating a particular cake.
Sexist Imagery -> Sexism.
I don't like Sexist Imagery.
So, let's be concerned about it.
Apparently a new person will be drawing her later this year, here's a comparison of styles.
Sigh.
I feel bad for the Wonder Woman on the right. Her back must be killing her.
It's not as bad as Tifa from FFVII but it's getting there.
This is gross.
The critique of ample bosoms for nothing other than size is so bonkers I can't even.
Then you completely misunderstood what my point was.
The critique wasn't of large boobs but of the body proportions. As they're drawn, the Wonder Woman on the right has an extremely tiny waist and very large breasts in comparison. Her torso literally does not look like it can handle the weight without tons of pain. The Wonder Woman on the left is drawn with far more realistic and less injurious proportions.
My post wasn't boob-shaming. It was intended to encourage less unrealistic drawings of women (hello Tifa) because doing so potentially feeds into an "ideal" body image which many women attempt to emulate through unhealthy means such as anorexia or bulemia.
EDIT: I see some have already cleared it up for me, thanks guys.
If so, then I will cop to having misread you - though I feel I should clarify that it reads almost exactly the same as any other "big boobs therefore bad" post on its surface. Further compounded by the fact that Wonder Woman traditionally is among the strongest entities within the DC universe, certainly the strongest female and for supernatural reasons - a concern with regard to her bodily proportions on purely biomechanical grounds seems a little odd.
I will still maintain that it's an incomplete argumeent.
I don't know what I can do to convince you that large chest size does not bother me other than to tell you that my feelings lie in quite the opposite direction.
My concern isn't purely biomechanical, though. It's in potential harm to real-life girls trying to live up to an (impossible, as a real-life contortionist proved) ideal by punishing their own bodies.
That's doubly not what you expressed though.
I would like for you to quote the exact part where josh specifically said her boobs are too big and that alone is the problem.
I don't think anything I said requires josh to have expressed anything of the sort.
The only concerns he expressed where biomechanical - literally only referencing a character known for a large bust and the concerns about the backpain*. As such the other concerns were not expressed.
* I am not opposed to doing a Gricean analysis of this, but the logic of communication is something that is likely outside the scope of the thread.
The other concerns were implicit and obvious if you read the remainder of my opinions on the topic of misogynistic tropes. Like, for instance, the OP, where I explicitly state that I'm against the objectification of women. Or any number of other posts I've made that I know you've read on these forums which detail my character and how I would never shame a woman for having a large bust size.
However, the one post you quoted, when taken completely in a vacuum, could be misinterpreted, which is why I took the time to respond to your concern and clarify my position. So it's more than a little odd to me that you keep returning to the misunderstanding and not giving me the benefit of the doubt after I made it clear that your concern was unwarranted and inaccurate.
That's the last I'll say on that.
I am giving you benefit of the doubt - I'm pointing out that if it isn't an instance of the "depicts big boobs therefore bad" criticism then it is entirely incomplete, hence your need to clarify your position. If you're asking about my response to Quid, then I refer to the original statement because that's necessary to address Quid's challenge.
In addition, the concerns were not implicit and obvious given the rather cavalier approach to logic* taken but the radically progressive as a whole - wherein large breasts qua large breasts are regularly equated with objectification or sexualisation. Furthermore that you as a person would not shame a person for having large breasts is a non sequitur, I doubt any progressive would do so intentionally and that isn't what was happening anyway - depictions are not people, comic book art is not something to be shamed in the same fashion as a person.
To not give you the benefit of the doubt would be to insist that the more obvious and Gricean reading that appeals to the tendency toward groupthink in the radically progressive.
+1
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
When media is overwhelmingly loaded with X to the point that's it's harming people's lives it's a problem.
But the media is not harming people's lives.
Only if you believe people are not influenced by the culture they're surrounded by and media they consume.
I think accepting this uncritically is unwise. The Comics Code, Bothered About Dungeons & Dragons, playing Metal music backwards to worship Satan, Jack Thompson's crusade against violent video games, etc. have all been proved to be a ridiculous farce, so ridiculous that believing in it undermines your overall credibility as a person, let alone older ideas like arresting people for blasphemy (well, in non-shitty countries), or banning teaching evolution, and the like.
I think these are particularly extreme examples that obscure the point debated. One can think there are problematic correlations between violent or sexist images and violent or sexist behavior (or at least lacking sensitivity to the same) without sliding all the way to Jack Thompson territory.
Disagree. I think this is the sort of thing people say in order to get away with both having and eating a particular cake.
Sexist Imagery -> Sexism.
I don't like Sexist Imagery.
So, let's be concerned about it.
If the media we consume has zero effect on our thoughts and behaviour then what does? Are we islands? Does nothing influence us? And if some things do, then why not media? What is special about it that means it has no effect, subtle or gross?
The thing is that the idea that comic books are harmful also comes directly from the media, which has a vested interest in stoking the fires of gender war (since controversy and outrage = clicks.)
So yeah, I'll agree that the media can affect people, though the specific long-term effects are hard to measure. Anecdotally though, the 24/7 outrage machine seems to be about 100 times better at getting inside people's heads than niche picture books about superheroes that most people don't actually read.
Humans are not so simple as monkey see monkey do logic.
Viewing X amount of material does not automatically lead you to performing a form of that material. It can, however, subtly influence your attitudes and nudge you off the fence.
Media can change attitudes in subtle ways, making us more or less reactive to different situations. When we have access to context, this is much less of a problem, which is much of why being educated or having involved parents or guardians is so well-recommended. In many ways, media acts as a peer. It can apply opinions and pressure, but isn't automatically going to override all of your other peers, but it isn't going to have zero effect if you spend enough time with it.
The thing is that the idea that comic books are harmful also comes directly from the media, which has a vested interest in stoking the fires of gender war (since controversy and outrage = clicks.)
So yeah, I'll agree that the media can affect people, quite a lot. But the 24/7 outrage machine seems to be about 100 times better at getting inside people's heads than niche picture books about superheroes.
The stuff happens 24/7. People don't keep all of their discrimination to a specified holiday, so action against it isn't going to be either.
The thing is that the idea that comic books are harmful also comes directly from the media, which has a vested interest in stoking the fires of gender war (since controversy and outrage = clicks.)
So yeah, I'll agree that the media can affect people, quite a lot. But the 24/7 outrage machine seems to be about 100 times better at getting inside people's heads than niche picture books about superheroes.
The stuff happens 24/7. People don't keep all of their discrimination to a specified holiday, so action against it isn't going to be either.
Is 'action' in this case synonymous with 'talking about these problems in the media'?
It seems to me that the primary beneficiary of that action is not women, but the media.
The thing is that the idea that comic books are harmful also comes directly from the media, which has a vested interest in stoking the fires of gender war (since controversy and outrage = clicks.)
Maybe so. It's also important to realize that gender equality is a real issue that hasn't been solved. Especially in comic books, where the companies primary audience is middle aged white men. Azz Wonder Woman had an artist that drew her to appeal to everyone, the new artist cover was made for fan service to an audience who wants a meek Wonder Woman whose stance is for sexual appeal, not looking like she is a competent warrior.
So yeah, I'll agree that the media can affect people, quite a lot. But the 24/7 outrage machine seems to be about 100 times better at getting inside people's heads than niche picture books about superheroes that most people don't actually read.
Comic media isn't on for 24 hours, that's news networks who don't give a shit about comics. Comics are a small community that has its own flaws regarding female audiences and fostering an atmosphere that makes anyone who critiques traditional sexist and racist publishing an "outsider", this goes double for women/girls who do it. The industry, like video-games, is going through a change to be more inclusive, this is a good thing and the fans and creators who support the old guard aren't going to go quietly into the night.
The thing is that the idea that comic books are harmful also comes directly from the media, which has a vested interest in stoking the fires of gender war (since controversy and outrage = clicks.)
So yeah, I'll agree that the media can affect people, quite a lot. But the 24/7 outrage machine seems to be about 100 times better at getting inside people's heads than niche picture books about superheroes.
The stuff happens 24/7. People don't keep all of their discrimination to a specified holiday, so action against it isn't going to be either.
Is 'action' in this case synonymous with 'talking about these problems in the media'?
It seems to me that the primary beneficiary of that action is not women, but the media.
Why does it seem that way to you? Which media? Is CNN talking about Wonder Woman's impossible skeleton?
+3
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
edited September 2014
It's perfectly fine to have a preference for X.
It's perfectly fine to make art exhibiting preference for X.
It's a problem for society when most art exhibits preference for X, particularly when that preference outside of art can have negative consequences, because we accept that culture influences people as well as the other way around.
The way to solve the problem for society is to encourage the creation of works which exhibit alternate preferences, or which place the preference for X within a context that discourages adoption of the preference.
It's not immoral to smoke or make art where people smoke; but it's a problem for society when most art has people smoking, because smoking in the real world can have negative consequences and we accept that art that glorifies smoking encourages actual smoking. The way to solve this problem is to encourage art where people don't smoke, or which places smoking within a context that discourages taking up smoking (for example, smoking is portrayed as villainous, unglamorous, or featuring realistic consequences, such as lung cancer; or smoking is depicted as glamorous within clearly labeled advertisements or fetish porn so that viewers must seek them out specifically and/or can view them critically).
The thing is that the idea that comic books are harmful also comes directly from the media, which has a vested interest in stoking the fires of gender war (since controversy and outrage = clicks.)
So yeah, I'll agree that the media can affect people, quite a lot. But the 24/7 outrage machine seems to be about 100 times better at getting inside people's heads than niche picture books about superheroes.
The stuff happens 24/7. People don't keep all of their discrimination to a specified holiday, so action against it isn't going to be either.
Is 'action' in this case synonymous with 'talking about these problems in the media'?
It seems to me that the primary beneficiary of that action is not women, but the media.
Why does it seem that way to you? Which media? Is CNN talking about Wonder Woman's impossible skeleton?
How did you hear that comics are doing these bad things to society? Or did you come up with the idea independently?
Squidget0 on
0
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
Oh for fucks sake.
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
The thing is that the idea that comic books are harmful also comes directly from the media, which has a vested interest in stoking the fires of gender war (since controversy and outrage = clicks.)
So yeah, I'll agree that the media can affect people, quite a lot. But the 24/7 outrage machine seems to be about 100 times better at getting inside people's heads than niche picture books about superheroes.
The stuff happens 24/7. People don't keep all of their discrimination to a specified holiday, so action against it isn't going to be either.
Is 'action' in this case synonymous with 'talking about these problems in the media'?
It seems to me that the primary beneficiary of that action is not women, but the media.
Why does it seem that way to you? Which media? Is CNN talking about Wonder Woman's impossible skeleton?
How did you hear that comics are doing these bad things to society? Or did you come up with the idea independently?
From media outlets such as my psychology teacher.
I've been aware of sexism since I was in preschool. It's pretty much just been being educated and recognizing behavior patterns around myself and realizing that they were BS.
Incenjucar on
+4
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
On a completely different point, I think too often people object to things like the MPDG along the lines of "she only exists in order to help the protagonist change!" Unless you're objecting to the model of having protagonists in general (and those films which do are typically independent or art films, like Linklater's Slacker), every story is going to have one or more main characters and one or more side characters who exist in order so that the main character(s) can react to them in service of their narrative. Sometimes those side characters are dimensional, complex individuals; most of the time they are not (most of them have very small amounts of screentime--the police officer who says, "You're under arrest" to the hero and is never seen again). Either way, their function in the story is their relationship with the main character, in whatever capacity; they are part of the series of events that comprise a narrative in which a protagonist changes because of those events. People who take issue with this kind of character are either asking for every story to feature both a male and a female protagonist (something which may run counter to the artist's desire to express his or her own perspective, rather than attempting to express all perspectives at once for the sake of diversity) or complaining about the basic functions of narrative storytelling. Counter-examples given in this thread of "good" side characters (Tyler Durden, Clementine from Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind) are not characters who are any less sublimated to influencing the protagonist of their stories. They're just better written, more interesting side characters.
A much more fruitful line of endeavor lies in agitating for diversity in the creative fields, so that more women craft female protagonists (and their own, masculine self-serving secondary characters), if that's what you want.
This is not to say that there aren't well-written and poorly-written side characters. Only that asking for totally independent side characters is asking for a logical contradiction, or a movie containing no main characters at all.
The thing is that the idea that comic books are harmful also comes directly from the media, which has a vested interest in stoking the fires of gender war (since controversy and outrage = clicks.)
So yeah, I'll agree that the media can affect people, quite a lot. But the 24/7 outrage machine seems to be about 100 times better at getting inside people's heads than niche picture books about superheroes.
The stuff happens 24/7. People don't keep all of their discrimination to a specified holiday, so action against it isn't going to be either.
Is 'action' in this case synonymous with 'talking about these problems in the media'?
It seems to me that the primary beneficiary of that action is not women, but the media.
Why does it seem that way to you? Which media? Is CNN talking about Wonder Woman's impossible skeleton?
How did you hear that comics are doing these bad things to society? Or did you come up with the idea independently?
Every media has its own news outlets and you can find discussions about racism and sexism in comics by read message boards. Yes, comic news can be awful but that isn't unusual in any media. The video game industry isn't media jesus with unbias reporting either. It's odd to dismiss legitimate complaints about any industry because the industry reports and discusses it amongst themselves.
I think ultimately the MPDPerson thing is an issue of arguably bad writing practices leading to harmful expectations. I'm not sure if it's an issue that is more aimed toward one sex or gender, except that women tend to get more flak for not living up to their fantasy selves.
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
I think ultimately the MPDPerson thing is an issue of arguably bad writing practices leading to harmful expectations. I'm not sure if it's an issue that is more aimed toward one sex or gender, except that women tend to get more flak for not living up to their fantasy selves.
What exactly do you think the expectations from the MPDG are? Who has these expectations? Is there any evidence demonstrating any sort of cause or correlation beyond the just-so story?
The "you" here is not just fryer-guy but a more general "you".
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
If the media we consume has zero effect on our thoughts and behaviour then what does? Are we islands? Does nothing influence us? And if some things do, then why not media? What is special about it that means it has no effect, subtle or gross?
I think there's quite a gulf between "The media we consume has no effect on us" and "there's no reason to think the media we consume has some specific effect upon us" or "the media we consume does not have some specific effect upon us to a significant degree".
Sexist Imagery causes Sexist acts.
Murder Imagery cause Murder acts.
Either both of those are true, or neither is true.
And we thought Jack Thompson was a silly goose, therefore...
I do not often in my daily life come upon situations where I am required to murder people.
I do, often in my daily life, encounter women, and men, and situations where I am required to interpret how women and men are supposed to interact and what society expects in this regard.
On a completely different point, I think too often people object to things like the MPDG along the lines of "she only exists in order to help the protagonist change!" Unless you're objecting to the model of having protagonists in general (and those films which do are typically independent or art films, like Linklater's Slacker), every story is going to have one or more main characters and one or more side characters who exist in order so that the main character(s) can react to them in service of their narrative. Sometimes those side characters are dimensional, complex individuals; most of the time they are not (most of them have very small amounts of screentime--the police officer who says, "You're under arrest" to the hero and is never seen again). Either way, their function in the story is their relationship with the main character, in whatever capacity; they are part of the series of events that comprise a narrative in which a protagonist changes because of those events. People who take issue with this kind of character are either asking for every story to feature both a male and a female protagonist (something which may run counter to the artist's desire to express his or her own perspective, rather than attempting to express all perspectives at once for the sake of diversity) or complaining about the basic functions of narrative storytelling. Counter-examples given in this thread of "good" side characters (Tyler Durden, Clementine from Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind) are not characters who are any less sublimated to influencing the protagonist of their stories. They're just better written, more interesting side characters.
A much more fruitful line of endeavor lies in agitating for diversity in the creative fields, so that more women craft female protagonists (and their own, masculine self-serving secondary characters), if that's what you want.
This is not to say that there aren't well-written and poorly-written side characters. Only that asking for totally independent side characters is asking for a logical contradiction, or a movie containing no main characters at all.
I think the part of the objection you are missing in your description is that she doesn't exist solely to help the protagonist change, but that she can exist solely for that purpose. She's a character with no logic or sense to her. It's not even that she doesn't seemingly have any purpose beyond being a prop for a man, it's that she can't be anything more then that by design. That's sorta the point of the original description of the MPDG. That's the Pixie bit. That she doesn't and can't exist as anything but a muse to make a man feel better.
That's why and how (500) Days of Summer attacks the idea directly. By showing Summer as something independent of the needs of the main character and as a actual possible person.
Humans are not so simple as monkey see monkey do logic.
Viewing X amount of material does not automatically lead you to performing a form of that material. It can, however, subtly influence your attitudes and nudge you off the fence.
Media can change attitudes in subtle ways, making us more or less reactive to different situations. When we have access to context, this is much less of a problem, which is much of why being educated or having involved parents or guardians is so well-recommended. In many ways, media acts as a peer. It can apply opinions and pressure, but isn't automatically going to override all of your other peers, but it isn't going to have zero effect if you spend enough time with it.
I haven't seen any research that demonstrates that violent video games make people more violent
what I have seen is that violent people are more likely to play violent video games exclusively
I think this is probably true of sexism or gender representation as well, and by catering to that you end up with the problematic male female split we have in "core" games and makes a self reinforcing problem absent concerted criticism
the part of gaming that tends to make peop more sexist is the vitriolic online communities. There's nothing really sexist about call of duty, but you'll find more misogyny in an xblive COD match sometimes than in the whole of first person shooter narratives put together
I sent this in a PM to an undisclosed awesome person who wanted to discuss some of these things in private with me, but I feel this comic is relevant to the discourse here as well:
I think that dude comic artists are probably not going to be very good judges of what 'women' find attractive. Neither is anyone else, really, because it's a wide spectrum. Same for men. The Batman in that comic isn't remotely attractive to me, but I guess some people might like it? Good for them if so!
Exaggerations like you see in comics/fantasy present an interesting case, because they tend to take the more subtle stereotypes we all express and push them as far as possible. So women become hyper sexy/attractive, men become hyper muscled/violent, corporations become hyper-evil, ect. It can certainly be an interesting window into some of society's underlying prejudices and expectations.
But when I read anything by the people 'against' it, they mostly seem to be just as invested in the stereotypes. Someone who gets angry over combat high heels is still taking it as a given that the most important thing about the female character is her appearance, they're just using a different criteria to judge her appearance. Note that almost anyone in a fantasy game/comic is going to be dressed ridiculously for what they're doing, but the argument is always about the women, because they're the ones who's appearance is everything. That combat high heels are something that bothers you suggests that you're still viewing the female character primarily in terms of her appearance, while they judge male characters on their actions. You don't see a lot of angry posts about how the lack of realism shown by Spider Man's combat spandex. So the underlying message is the same on both sides (a woman's appearance is always what matters), its just framed as a two-sided issue.
And really, if doe-eyed Batman is your thing, it isn't hard to find content in a similar style. Just google "Cute Anime Boy" and take your time looking through the 15 million results. I have a hard time believing the source of the discontent here is a lack of creative content. There are comics in all kinds of styles and with all kinds of authors at your finger-tips, right now. Many artists would kill to have 1/50th the pageviews of the latest outrage blog post about combat high heels. So how much of this is a legitimate shortage of diverse art, and how much is fueled by the desire people have for self-righteous anger and superiority?
As the one who brought the heels up I feel obliged to answer this.
I don't care about the appearance, but after studying biology and seeing women stumble around pathetically because they decided it would be a great idea to go in high heels to the ecology field trip to some god-forsaken marsh I became especially sensitive. I don't care about the appearance, they look good, it's just that it breaks my suspension of disbelief. And yes, having your suspension broken by that in a comic book/videogame about interstellar wars is dumb, but that's why I called it irrational.
That said, you are right that it's not a female-only issue. For every female with boob-exposing armor there is a man with pauldrons that would not allow him to walk at a brisk pace, much less swing a sword.
EDIT: But has anyone really found a correlation between mysoginistic tropes and behavior? It seems like a very bold assumption to make and taking it as something completely obvious while dismissing the "videogames cause violence" crowd is something very weird.
Let this not sit precedent,but I think @_J_ is right here.
Australopitenico on
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
On a completely different point, I think too often people object to things like the MPDG along the lines of "she only exists in order to help the protagonist change!" Unless you're objecting to the model of having protagonists in general (and those films which do are typically independent or art films, like Linklater's Slacker), every story is going to have one or more main characters and one or more side characters who exist in order so that the main character(s) can react to them in service of their narrative. Sometimes those side characters are dimensional, complex individuals; most of the time they are not (most of them have very small amounts of screentime--the police officer who says, "You're under arrest" to the hero and is never seen again). Either way, their function in the story is their relationship with the main character, in whatever capacity; they are part of the series of events that comprise a narrative in which a protagonist changes because of those events. People who take issue with this kind of character are either asking for every story to feature both a male and a female protagonist (something which may run counter to the artist's desire to express his or her own perspective, rather than attempting to express all perspectives at once for the sake of diversity) or complaining about the basic functions of narrative storytelling. Counter-examples given in this thread of "good" side characters (Tyler Durden, Clementine from Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind) are not characters who are any less sublimated to influencing the protagonist of their stories. They're just better written, more interesting side characters.
A much more fruitful line of endeavor lies in agitating for diversity in the creative fields, so that more women craft female protagonists (and their own, masculine self-serving secondary characters), if that's what you want.
This is not to say that there aren't well-written and poorly-written side characters. Only that asking for totally independent side characters is asking for a logical contradiction, or a movie containing no main characters at all.
I think the part of the objection you are missing in your description is that she doesn't exist solely to help the protagonist change, but that she can exist solely for that purpose. She's a character with no logic or sense to her. It's not even that she doesn't seemingly have any purpose beyond being a prop for a man, it's that she can't be anything more then that by design. That's sorta the point of the original description of the MPDG. That's the Pixie bit. That she doesn't and can't exist as anything but a muse to make a man feel better.
That's why and how (500) Days of Summer attacks the idea directly. By showing Summer as something independent of the needs of the main character and as a actual possible person.
500 Days of Summer is the story of how, thanks to a tumultuous love affair, a man changes his career. The movie subverts the MPDG trope only in that the protagonist is spurred to change by rejection rather than love (and that his change does not result in a romantic reconciliation). If Summer is an independent character, it is only to the extent that she removes herself from the film and declines to submit to its narrative expectations; but this does not make her any less sublimated to JGL's growth as a person, engagement with life, etc, in terms of her narrative function. It merely inverts the ways in which her character fulfills the same function as Portman in Garden State.
Or are we to believe that sexism and wish fulfillment cannot take on forms which appear negative at first blush? 500 Days is powered by the male-perspective desire to be part of a sweeping, life-changing romance; even the apparently negative parts are beneficial (the hero's brief bout of post-break-up depression spurs him to quit his commercialized [read: sell-out] job writing gift cards and pursue his true artistic passion, architecture [read: writing scripts inspired by his own life]) and whatever happened with that girl just served to prepare him for the inevitable next one. Everything that happens to him is ultimately about him, even the parts that are not about him. The only way for Summer to prove herself a completely independent character would be for her to vanish from the film (they break up and he never sees her again) or take it over (the second half of the movie is about her totally unrelated struggle to help her cousin from Ireland get a green card, or whatever, and JGL is never seen or referenced again). Any conventional narrative form, any technique or arc for her short of those extremes, is inevitably, even definitionally bound to the central male perspective. Which is why, again, the only way to do this properly is to look at art about women, by women (which will have the same kind of problems, but with the genders reversed).
On a completely different point, I think too often people object to things like the MPDG along the lines of "she only exists in order to help the protagonist change!" Unless you're objecting to the model of having protagonists in general (and those films which do are typically independent or art films, like Linklater's Slacker), every story is going to have one or more main characters and one or more side characters who exist in order so that the main character(s) can react to them in service of their narrative. Sometimes those side characters are dimensional, complex individuals; most of the time they are not (most of them have very small amounts of screentime--the police officer who says, "You're under arrest" to the hero and is never seen again). Either way, their function in the story is their relationship with the main character, in whatever capacity; they are part of the series of events that comprise a narrative in which a protagonist changes because of those events. People who take issue with this kind of character are either asking for every story to feature both a male and a female protagonist (something which may run counter to the artist's desire to express his or her own perspective, rather than attempting to express all perspectives at once for the sake of diversity) or complaining about the basic functions of narrative storytelling. Counter-examples given in this thread of "good" side characters (Tyler Durden, Clementine from Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind) are not characters who are any less sublimated to influencing the protagonist of their stories. They're just better written, more interesting side characters.
A much more fruitful line of endeavor lies in agitating for diversity in the creative fields, so that more women craft female protagonists (and their own, masculine self-serving secondary characters), if that's what you want.
This is not to say that there aren't well-written and poorly-written side characters. Only that asking for totally independent side characters is asking for a logical contradiction, or a movie containing no main characters at all.
I think the part of the objection you are missing in your description is that she doesn't exist solely to help the protagonist change, but that she can exist solely for that purpose. She's a character with no logic or sense to her. It's not even that she doesn't seemingly have any purpose beyond being a prop for a man, it's that she can't be anything more then that by design. That's sorta the point of the original description of the MPDG. That's the Pixie bit. That she doesn't and can't exist as anything but a muse to make a man feel better.
That's why and how (500) Days of Summer attacks the idea directly. By showing Summer as something independent of the needs of the main character and as a actual possible person.
500 Days of Summer is the story of how, thanks to a tumultuous love affair, a man changes his career. The movie subverts the MPDG trope only in that the protagonist is spurred to change by rejection rather than love (and that his change does not result in a romantic reconciliation). If Summer is an independent character, it is only to the extent that she removes herself from the film and declines to submit to its narrative expectations; but this does not make her any less sublimated to JGL's growth as a person, engagement with life, etc, in terms of her narrative function. It merely inverts the ways in which her character fulfills the same function as Portman in Garden State.
Or are we to believe that sexism and wish fulfillment cannot take on forms which appear negative at first blush? 500 Days is powered by the male-perspective desire to be part of a sweeping, life-changing romance; even the apparently negative parts are beneficial (the hero's brief bout of post-break-up depression spurs him to quit his commercialized [read: sell-out] job writing gift cards and pursue his true artistic passion, architecture [read: writing scripts inspired by his own life]) and whatever happened with that girl just served to prepare him for the inevitable next one. Everything that happens to him is ultimately about him, even the parts that are not about him. The only way for Summer to prove herself a completely independent character would be for her to vanish from the film (they break up and he never sees her again) or take it over (the second half of the movie is about her totally unrelated struggle to help her cousin from Ireland get a green card, or whatever, and JGL is never seen or referenced again). Any conventional narrative form, any technique or arc for her short of those extremes, is inevitably, even definitionally bound to the central male perspective. Which is why, again, the only way to do this properly is to look at art about women, by women (which will have the same kind of problems, but with the genders reversed).
But you yourself already established that "helping to change the protagonist" is in no way problematic, so I'm not sure what your point is.
Of course everything is about him. It's his film. The film subverts the MPDG by not having Summer exist solely as a character that helps him. It goes out of it's way to illustrate that she exists beyond his expectations and the effects on his life. That's the point of the film. That he's looking for his MPDG and instead she's a real person.
+2
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
On a completely different point, I think too often people object to things like the MPDG along the lines of "she only exists in order to help the protagonist change!" Unless you're objecting to the model of having protagonists in general (and those films which do are typically independent or art films, like Linklater's Slacker), every story is going to have one or more main characters and one or more side characters who exist in order so that the main character(s) can react to them in service of their narrative. Sometimes those side characters are dimensional, complex individuals; most of the time they are not (most of them have very small amounts of screentime--the police officer who says, "You're under arrest" to the hero and is never seen again). Either way, their function in the story is their relationship with the main character, in whatever capacity; they are part of the series of events that comprise a narrative in which a protagonist changes because of those events. People who take issue with this kind of character are either asking for every story to feature both a male and a female protagonist (something which may run counter to the artist's desire to express his or her own perspective, rather than attempting to express all perspectives at once for the sake of diversity) or complaining about the basic functions of narrative storytelling. Counter-examples given in this thread of "good" side characters (Tyler Durden, Clementine from Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind) are not characters who are any less sublimated to influencing the protagonist of their stories. They're just better written, more interesting side characters.
A much more fruitful line of endeavor lies in agitating for diversity in the creative fields, so that more women craft female protagonists (and their own, masculine self-serving secondary characters), if that's what you want.
This is not to say that there aren't well-written and poorly-written side characters. Only that asking for totally independent side characters is asking for a logical contradiction, or a movie containing no main characters at all.
I think the part of the objection you are missing in your description is that she doesn't exist solely to help the protagonist change, but that she can exist solely for that purpose. She's a character with no logic or sense to her. It's not even that she doesn't seemingly have any purpose beyond being a prop for a man, it's that she can't be anything more then that by design. That's sorta the point of the original description of the MPDG. That's the Pixie bit. That she doesn't and can't exist as anything but a muse to make a man feel better.
That's why and how (500) Days of Summer attacks the idea directly. By showing Summer as something independent of the needs of the main character and as a actual possible person.
500 Days of Summer is the story of how, thanks to a tumultuous love affair, a man changes his career. The movie subverts the MPDG trope only in that the protagonist is spurred to change by rejection rather than love (and that his change does not result in a romantic reconciliation). If Summer is an independent character, it is only to the extent that she removes herself from the film and declines to submit to its narrative expectations; but this does not make her any less sublimated to JGL's growth as a person, engagement with life, etc, in terms of her narrative function. It merely inverts the ways in which her character fulfills the same function as Portman in Garden State.
Or are we to believe that sexism and wish fulfillment cannot take on forms which appear negative at first blush? 500 Days is powered by the male-perspective desire to be part of a sweeping, life-changing romance; even the apparently negative parts are beneficial (the hero's brief bout of post-break-up depression spurs him to quit his commercialized [read: sell-out] job writing gift cards and pursue his true artistic passion, architecture [read: writing scripts inspired by his own life]) and whatever happened with that girl just served to prepare him for the inevitable next one. Everything that happens to him is ultimately about him, even the parts that are not about him. The only way for Summer to prove herself a completely independent character would be for her to vanish from the film (they break up and he never sees her again) or take it over (the second half of the movie is about her totally unrelated struggle to help her cousin from Ireland get a green card, or whatever, and JGL is never seen or referenced again). Any conventional narrative form, any technique or arc for her short of those extremes, is inevitably, even definitionally bound to the central male perspective. Which is why, again, the only way to do this properly is to look at art about women, by women (which will have the same kind of problems, but with the genders reversed).
But you yourself already established that "helping to change the protagonist" is in no way problematic, so I'm not sure what your point is.
Of course everything is about him. It's his film. The film subverts the MPDG by not having Summer exist solely as a character that helps him. It goes out of it's way to illustrate that she exists beyond his expectations and the effects on his life. That's the point of the film. That he's looking for his MPDG and instead she's a real person.
My point is that I'm disagreeing with your reading of the movie as a subversion. Summer is solely a character who helps him, even if she helps him by breaking up with him. She doesn't exist beyond his expectations and the effect on his life because we literally don't see those things on the screen (to the point where I have had long arguments with people over in the movie threads who claim that the entire film is from the protagonist's limited point of view). He doesn't find his MPDG, but luckily life provides him with a new prospect. He does not end the movie realizing he needs to find, say, a plain-looking, hard-working woman who makes her living catching lobsters and whose days include neither fancy nor whim. Nor does he end the movie ready to treat women as something other than a fantasy or extension of himself (he certainly might be, but IIRC the movie does not actually express this). He ends the movie ready to try again with a similar type of girl, only now he's an architect.
I'm not saying this is problematic (I'm not saying it's not problematic, either); I'm just saying it isn't meaningfully subverting the trope, just fulfilling the same function in a different way.
On a completely different point, I think too often people object to things like the MPDG along the lines of "she only exists in order to help the protagonist change!" Unless you're objecting to the model of having protagonists in general (and those films which do are typically independent or art films, like Linklater's Slacker), every story is going to have one or more main characters and one or more side characters who exist in order so that the main character(s) can react to them in service of their narrative. Sometimes those side characters are dimensional, complex individuals; most of the time they are not (most of them have very small amounts of screentime--the police officer who says, "You're under arrest" to the hero and is never seen again). Either way, their function in the story is their relationship with the main character, in whatever capacity; they are part of the series of events that comprise a narrative in which a protagonist changes because of those events. People who take issue with this kind of character are either asking for every story to feature both a male and a female protagonist (something which may run counter to the artist's desire to express his or her own perspective, rather than attempting to express all perspectives at once for the sake of diversity) or complaining about the basic functions of narrative storytelling. Counter-examples given in this thread of "good" side characters (Tyler Durden, Clementine from Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind) are not characters who are any less sublimated to influencing the protagonist of their stories. They're just better written, more interesting side characters.
A much more fruitful line of endeavor lies in agitating for diversity in the creative fields, so that more women craft female protagonists (and their own, masculine self-serving secondary characters), if that's what you want.
This is not to say that there aren't well-written and poorly-written side characters. Only that asking for totally independent side characters is asking for a logical contradiction, or a movie containing no main characters at all.
I think the part of the objection you are missing in your description is that she doesn't exist solely to help the protagonist change, but that she can exist solely for that purpose. She's a character with no logic or sense to her. It's not even that she doesn't seemingly have any purpose beyond being a prop for a man, it's that she can't be anything more then that by design. That's sorta the point of the original description of the MPDG. That's the Pixie bit. That she doesn't and can't exist as anything but a muse to make a man feel better.
That's why and how (500) Days of Summer attacks the idea directly. By showing Summer as something independent of the needs of the main character and as a actual possible person.
500 Days of Summer is the story of how, thanks to a tumultuous love affair, a man changes his career. The movie subverts the MPDG trope only in that the protagonist is spurred to change by rejection rather than love (and that his change does not result in a romantic reconciliation). If Summer is an independent character, it is only to the extent that she removes herself from the film and declines to submit to its narrative expectations; but this does not make her any less sublimated to JGL's growth as a person, engagement with life, etc, in terms of her narrative function. It merely inverts the ways in which her character fulfills the same function as Portman in Garden State.
Or are we to believe that sexism and wish fulfillment cannot take on forms which appear negative at first blush? 500 Days is powered by the male-perspective desire to be part of a sweeping, life-changing romance; even the apparently negative parts are beneficial (the hero's brief bout of post-break-up depression spurs him to quit his commercialized [read: sell-out] job writing gift cards and pursue his true artistic passion, architecture [read: writing scripts inspired by his own life]) and whatever happened with that girl just served to prepare him for the inevitable next one. Everything that happens to him is ultimately about him, even the parts that are not about him. The only way for Summer to prove herself a completely independent character would be for her to vanish from the film (they break up and he never sees her again) or take it over (the second half of the movie is about her totally unrelated struggle to help her cousin from Ireland get a green card, or whatever, and JGL is never seen or referenced again). Any conventional narrative form, any technique or arc for her short of those extremes, is inevitably, even definitionally bound to the central male perspective. Which is why, again, the only way to do this properly is to look at art about women, by women (which will have the same kind of problems, but with the genders reversed).
But you yourself already established that "helping to change the protagonist" is in no way problematic, so I'm not sure what your point is.
Of course everything is about him. It's his film. The film subverts the MPDG by not having Summer exist solely as a character that helps him. It goes out of it's way to illustrate that she exists beyond his expectations and the effects on his life. That's the point of the film. That he's looking for his MPDG and instead she's a real person.
My point is that I'm disagreeing with your reading of the movie as a subversion. Summer is solely a character who helps him, even if she helps him by breaking up with him. She doesn't exist beyond his expectations and the effect on his life because we literally don't see those things on the screen (to the point where I have had long arguments with people over in the movie threads who claim that the entire film is from the protagonist's limited point of view). He doesn't find his MPDG, but luckily life provides him with a new prospect. He does not end the movie realizing he needs to find, say, a plain-looking, hard-working woman who makes her living catching lobsters and whose days include neither fancy nor whim. Nor does he end the movie ready to treat women as something other than a fantasy or extension of himself (he certainly might be, but IIRC the movie does not actually express this). He ends the movie ready to try again with a similar type of girl, only now he's an architect.
I'm not saying this is problematic (I'm not saying it's not problematic, either); I'm just saying it isn't meaningfully subverting the trope, just fulfilling the same function in a different way.
If you approach the MPDG from that angle, then I'm not sure it is even possible to fully subvert the trope and still have a functioning movie.
500 Days of Summer at least refuses to fulfil expectations of an MPDG, even if the character "Summer" still has to serve a narrative function. I'd say that the "problematic" aspects of the MPDG at least, are avoided. Even if the character is still primarily defined by its narrative function.
Sexist Imagery causes Sexist acts.
Murder Imagery cause Murder acts.
Either both of those are true, or neither is true.
And we thought Jack Thompson was a silly goose, therefore...
We thought Jack Thompson was a silly goose because he went after video games as if playing one turned you into a murder machine overnight. That's categorically not true.
What's true though is over a long enough span of time--say ten to twenty years--if you are exposed to the same sort of media stimuli the entire time then you will grow to believe that's acceptable because you haven't seen any alternative. Think of your brain as a tea bag and violent/sexist/racist/etc media as hot water: if you dip it in very quickly then there's next to no effect. If you dip it in over and over then there's a more sustained effect and if you dip it in and leave it there there's an even worse effect. The longer you're steeped in a certain viewpoint (a combination of the media you consume and what the people around you teach you) then the more ingrained it becomes and the harder it is for you to realize what's going on without feeling personally attacked.
One problem is that it's currently more acceptable in our society for someone to be brought up sexist (especially if a lot of it is predicated on courtesy) than it is to bring someone up in such a way that they are extremely violent. Another problem is that the brain handles violence differently than it handles sexism since the former is a primal instinct and the latter is a belief, so it's much easier to act sexist than act violent. Finally, violence is something men can easily be a target of so it's easier for them to understand why it's bad but the same cannot be said of sexism. All of those things combine to make sexism affect people more deeply and thus require a more prominent outcry to counteract.
Sexist Imagery causes Sexist acts.
Murder Imagery cause Murder acts.
Either both of those are true, or neither is true.
And we thought Jack Thompson was a silly goose, therefore...
We thought Jack Thompson was a silly goose because he went after video games as if playing one turned you into a murder machine overnight. That's categorically not true.
What's true though is over a long enough span of time--say ten to twenty years--if you are exposed to the same sort of media stimuli the entire time then you will grow to believe that's acceptable because you haven't seen any alternative. Think of your brain as a tea bag and violent/sexist/racist/etc media as hot water: if you dip it in very quickly then there's next to no effect. If you dip it in over and over then there's a more sustained effect and if you dip it in and leave it there there's an even worse effect. The longer you're steeped in a certain viewpoint (a combination of the media you consume and what the people around you teach you) then the more ingrained it becomes and the harder it is for you to realize what's going on without feeling personally attacked.
One problem is that it's currently more acceptable in our society for someone to be brought up sexist (especially if a lot of it is predicated on courtesy) than it is to bring someone up in such a way that they are extremely violent. Another problem is that the brain handles violence differently than it handles sexism since the former is a primal instinct and the latter is a belief, so it's much easier to act sexist than act violent. Finally, violence is something men can easily be a target of so it's easier for them to understand why it's bad but the same cannot be said of sexism. All of those things combine to make sexism affect people more deeply and thus require a more prominent outcry to counteract.
The counter-argument, however, is still similar to the violence thing. The fact is that women's rights have been steadily improving, as has women representation on the media. Public awareness of feminist issues is huge right now and newer generations seem to be more inclusive than the last. We are talking about people raised in comics and video games and movies and all kinds of media. So I find very hard to believe that comics, movies and video games are influencing children, much less adults, and making them more sexist.
Hell, you and I have been raised in video games, comics and all other media and we don't think it's OK to insult or belittle women, nor do we (I hope) think women are there to please us and have no agency. And this seems to be a pretty common sentiment. I have met very few people who honestly considered women worse than men, and most of that was caused more by personal problems than any sort of intangible media influence.
I work on an all-female lab, my boss is a woman, the leader of the university is a woman, there are grants for women only, courses for women only and professor spots reserved for women only. From where I stand it's very hard to believe that there is some sort of subtle sexism permeating everything.
EDIT: But has anyone really found a correlation between mysoginistic tropes and behavior? It seems like a very bold assumption to make and taking it as something completely obvious while dismissing the "videogames cause violence" crowd is something very weird.
Opty explained it a little better than I could, but here goes ... Its not as if seeing these tropes makes people go out and behave sexist. But if these tropes are basically the only viewpoint expressed in movies/tv shows or at least in the majority of main stream stuff, over time your perspective gets changed. And the outcome? Again - the "nice guys" of the world, among others. People will think opinions like "nice guys finish last" and "women go only for the assholes" are right and true facts, because that is what mainstream media tells us.
Another thing is body shaming. By using size 0 models almost exclusively the fashion industry fosters a very, very wrong body image and tells young girls/women how to look and "you always have to be thin". Thus leading to eating disorders.
Mysoginistic tropes do the same. They continuously show you something, until you think thats how its supposed to be/to work.
There is a LOT of stuff going on in the world other than comics.
Comics are also a lot better than they used to be about a lot of things, even if they still often have issues. The market may often have its head up its butt, but it's not entirely blind to the force of 51% of the species also being potential buyers.
A fantastic example is the Teen Titans cartoon. Cartoon Starfire has a LOT of fans. Many of whom were horrified when they encountered Sex Robot Starfire in the comics. They still at least looked at comics after encountering them in a non-insulting form.
There is a LOT of stuff going on in the world other than comics.
Comics are also a lot better than they used to be about a lot of things, even if they still often have issues. The market may often have its head up its butt, but it's not entirely blind to the force of 51% of the species also being potential buyers.
My point exactly. I'd say that in this discussion the huge influence of everyday social interaction and especially the very important influence of parental education are being dismissed. What I argue is that those two things are actually what influences people, the media being only a reflection of this society. If there was this huge positive feedback loop with media influencing people you would not see female representation steadily and organically improving, and society's backlash against sexist representation steadily and organically improving.
Parents were not dismissed, they were actually specifically called out as being an important mitigating factor. No more headcannon please.
Media is not only a reflection, it is also an influence. It is one of many influences, so changing it does not magically solve all problems, but it's still a factor.
Things are getting better because people are taking big risks and small risks to make things better and because the people who are used to a worse situation are dying off.
Heck, a huge part of the progress for women in America comes from WWII happening.
Parents were not dismissed, they were actually specifically called out as being an important mitigating factor. No more headcannon please.
Media is not only a reflection, it is also an influence. It is one of many influences, so changing it does not magically solve all problems, but it's still a factor.
Things are getting better because people are taking big risks and small risks to make things better and because the people who are used to a worse situation are dying off.
Heck, a huge part of the progress for women in America comes from WWII happening.
How do you propose we change the media so people receive the kind of influence we like?
The counter-argument, however, is still similar to the violence thing. The fact is that women's rights have been steadily improving, as has women representation on the media. Public awareness of feminist issues is huge right now and newer generations seem to be more inclusive than the last. We are talking about people raised in comics and video games and movies and all kinds of media. So I find very hard to believe that comics, movies and video games are influencing children, much less adults, and making them more sexist.
Thats not really a counter argument if someone is suggesting that there is a correlation between media depictions of sexism and actual sexism. As one goes down they would predict the other to go down too (which doesn't necessarily imply causation of course, but I don't see how it serves as a counterargument, unless media depictions were getting worse while womens rights got better or vice versa).
I sent this in a PM to an undisclosed awesome person who wanted to discuss some of these things in private with me, but I feel this comic is relevant to the discourse here as well:
This comic is, IMO, really poor at doing what it does to the extent that I don't know what point it is trying to make.
It completely fails to explain why other art should change its presentation and essentially has inserted a strawman (which, is actually accurate, just irrelevant since those people don't know or care about it anyway).
The counter-argument, however, is still similar to the violence thing. The fact is that women's rights have been steadily improving, as has women representation on the media. Public awareness of feminist issues is huge right now and newer generations seem to be more inclusive than the last. We are talking about people raised in comics and video games and movies and all kinds of media. So I find very hard to believe that comics, movies and video games are influencing children, much less adults, and making them more sexist.
Thats not really a counter argument if someone is suggesting that there is a correlation between media depictions of sexism and actual sexism. As one goes down they would predict the other to go down too (which doesn't necessarily imply causation of course, but I dont see how it serves as a counter).
You are absolutely right. It's a counter to the argument that sexist tropes cause sexism. I didn't express myself correctly. I have no doubt whatsoever that sexism in society and sexist tropes are correlated.
Sexist Imagery causes Sexist acts.
Murder Imagery cause Murder acts.
Either both of those are true, or neither is true.
And we thought Jack Thompson was a silly goose, therefore...
You're a really big fan of making people choose your own poor arguments.
When you state the above, you imply people here regardless of context think a single poorly drawn Wonder Woman image will turn anyone in to a sexist monster.
Posts
We treat the acts differently.
But influence is influence.
I am giving you benefit of the doubt - I'm pointing out that if it isn't an instance of the "depicts big boobs therefore bad" criticism then it is entirely incomplete, hence your need to clarify your position. If you're asking about my response to Quid, then I refer to the original statement because that's necessary to address Quid's challenge.
In addition, the concerns were not implicit and obvious given the rather cavalier approach to logic* taken but the radically progressive as a whole - wherein large breasts qua large breasts are regularly equated with objectification or sexualisation. Furthermore that you as a person would not shame a person for having large breasts is a non sequitur, I doubt any progressive would do so intentionally and that isn't what was happening anyway - depictions are not people, comic book art is not something to be shamed in the same fashion as a person.
To not give you the benefit of the doubt would be to insist that the more obvious and Gricean reading that appeals to the tendency toward groupthink in the radically progressive.
I guess I don't understand your point then?
How much of our media enforces random violence (even in video games) versus random acts of sexism?
How many people know that you shouldn't shoot random people on the street versus catcalling?
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
So yeah, I'll agree that the media can affect people, though the specific long-term effects are hard to measure. Anecdotally though, the 24/7 outrage machine seems to be about 100 times better at getting inside people's heads than niche picture books about superheroes that most people don't actually read.
Viewing X amount of material does not automatically lead you to performing a form of that material. It can, however, subtly influence your attitudes and nudge you off the fence.
Media can change attitudes in subtle ways, making us more or less reactive to different situations. When we have access to context, this is much less of a problem, which is much of why being educated or having involved parents or guardians is so well-recommended. In many ways, media acts as a peer. It can apply opinions and pressure, but isn't automatically going to override all of your other peers, but it isn't going to have zero effect if you spend enough time with it.
The stuff happens 24/7. People don't keep all of their discrimination to a specified holiday, so action against it isn't going to be either.
Is 'action' in this case synonymous with 'talking about these problems in the media'?
It seems to me that the primary beneficiary of that action is not women, but the media.
Maybe so. It's also important to realize that gender equality is a real issue that hasn't been solved. Especially in comic books, where the companies primary audience is middle aged white men. Azz Wonder Woman had an artist that drew her to appeal to everyone, the new artist cover was made for fan service to an audience who wants a meek Wonder Woman whose stance is for sexual appeal, not looking like she is a competent warrior.
Comic media isn't on for 24 hours, that's news networks who don't give a shit about comics. Comics are a small community that has its own flaws regarding female audiences and fostering an atmosphere that makes anyone who critiques traditional sexist and racist publishing an "outsider", this goes double for women/girls who do it. The industry, like video-games, is going through a change to be more inclusive, this is a good thing and the fans and creators who support the old guard aren't going to go quietly into the night.
Why does it seem that way to you? Which media? Is CNN talking about Wonder Woman's impossible skeleton?
It's perfectly fine to make art exhibiting preference for X.
It's a problem for society when most art exhibits preference for X, particularly when that preference outside of art can have negative consequences, because we accept that culture influences people as well as the other way around.
The way to solve the problem for society is to encourage the creation of works which exhibit alternate preferences, or which place the preference for X within a context that discourages adoption of the preference.
It's not immoral to smoke or make art where people smoke; but it's a problem for society when most art has people smoking, because smoking in the real world can have negative consequences and we accept that art that glorifies smoking encourages actual smoking. The way to solve this problem is to encourage art where people don't smoke, or which places smoking within a context that discourages taking up smoking (for example, smoking is portrayed as villainous, unglamorous, or featuring realistic consequences, such as lung cancer; or smoking is depicted as glamorous within clearly labeled advertisements or fetish porn so that viewers must seek them out specifically and/or can view them critically).
How did you hear that comics are doing these bad things to society? Or did you come up with the idea independently?
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
From media outlets such as my psychology teacher.
I've been aware of sexism since I was in preschool. It's pretty much just been being educated and recognizing behavior patterns around myself and realizing that they were BS.
A much more fruitful line of endeavor lies in agitating for diversity in the creative fields, so that more women craft female protagonists (and their own, masculine self-serving secondary characters), if that's what you want.
This is not to say that there aren't well-written and poorly-written side characters. Only that asking for totally independent side characters is asking for a logical contradiction, or a movie containing no main characters at all.
Every media has its own news outlets and you can find discussions about racism and sexism in comics by read message boards. Yes, comic news can be awful but that isn't unusual in any media. The video game industry isn't media jesus with unbias reporting either. It's odd to dismiss legitimate complaints about any industry because the industry reports and discusses it amongst themselves.
The "you" here is not just fryer-guy but a more general "you".
I think there's quite a gulf between "The media we consume has no effect on us" and "there's no reason to think the media we consume has some specific effect upon us" or "the media we consume does not have some specific effect upon us to a significant degree".
I do not often in my daily life come upon situations where I am required to murder people.
I do, often in my daily life, encounter women, and men, and situations where I am required to interpret how women and men are supposed to interact and what society expects in this regard.
I think the part of the objection you are missing in your description is that she doesn't exist solely to help the protagonist change, but that she can exist solely for that purpose. She's a character with no logic or sense to her. It's not even that she doesn't seemingly have any purpose beyond being a prop for a man, it's that she can't be anything more then that by design. That's sorta the point of the original description of the MPDG. That's the Pixie bit. That she doesn't and can't exist as anything but a muse to make a man feel better.
That's why and how (500) Days of Summer attacks the idea directly. By showing Summer as something independent of the needs of the main character and as a actual possible person.
I haven't seen any research that demonstrates that violent video games make people more violent
what I have seen is that violent people are more likely to play violent video games exclusively
I think this is probably true of sexism or gender representation as well, and by catering to that you end up with the problematic male female split we have in "core" games and makes a self reinforcing problem absent concerted criticism
the part of gaming that tends to make peop more sexist is the vitriolic online communities. There's nothing really sexist about call of duty, but you'll find more misogyny in an xblive COD match sometimes than in the whole of first person shooter narratives put together
As the one who brought the heels up I feel obliged to answer this.
I don't care about the appearance, but after studying biology and seeing women stumble around pathetically because they decided it would be a great idea to go in high heels to the ecology field trip to some god-forsaken marsh I became especially sensitive. I don't care about the appearance, they look good, it's just that it breaks my suspension of disbelief. And yes, having your suspension broken by that in a comic book/videogame about interstellar wars is dumb, but that's why I called it irrational.
That said, you are right that it's not a female-only issue. For every female with boob-exposing armor there is a man with pauldrons that would not allow him to walk at a brisk pace, much less swing a sword.
EDIT: But has anyone really found a correlation between mysoginistic tropes and behavior? It seems like a very bold assumption to make and taking it as something completely obvious while dismissing the "videogames cause violence" crowd is something very weird.
Let this not sit precedent,but I think @_J_ is right here.
500 Days of Summer is the story of how, thanks to a tumultuous love affair, a man changes his career. The movie subverts the MPDG trope only in that the protagonist is spurred to change by rejection rather than love (and that his change does not result in a romantic reconciliation). If Summer is an independent character, it is only to the extent that she removes herself from the film and declines to submit to its narrative expectations; but this does not make her any less sublimated to JGL's growth as a person, engagement with life, etc, in terms of her narrative function. It merely inverts the ways in which her character fulfills the same function as Portman in Garden State.
Or are we to believe that sexism and wish fulfillment cannot take on forms which appear negative at first blush? 500 Days is powered by the male-perspective desire to be part of a sweeping, life-changing romance; even the apparently negative parts are beneficial (the hero's brief bout of post-break-up depression spurs him to quit his commercialized [read: sell-out] job writing gift cards and pursue his true artistic passion, architecture [read: writing scripts inspired by his own life]) and whatever happened with that girl just served to prepare him for the inevitable next one. Everything that happens to him is ultimately about him, even the parts that are not about him. The only way for Summer to prove herself a completely independent character would be for her to vanish from the film (they break up and he never sees her again) or take it over (the second half of the movie is about her totally unrelated struggle to help her cousin from Ireland get a green card, or whatever, and JGL is never seen or referenced again). Any conventional narrative form, any technique or arc for her short of those extremes, is inevitably, even definitionally bound to the central male perspective. Which is why, again, the only way to do this properly is to look at art about women, by women (which will have the same kind of problems, but with the genders reversed).
But you yourself already established that "helping to change the protagonist" is in no way problematic, so I'm not sure what your point is.
Of course everything is about him. It's his film. The film subverts the MPDG by not having Summer exist solely as a character that helps him. It goes out of it's way to illustrate that she exists beyond his expectations and the effects on his life. That's the point of the film. That he's looking for his MPDG and instead she's a real person.
My point is that I'm disagreeing with your reading of the movie as a subversion. Summer is solely a character who helps him, even if she helps him by breaking up with him. She doesn't exist beyond his expectations and the effect on his life because we literally don't see those things on the screen (to the point where I have had long arguments with people over in the movie threads who claim that the entire film is from the protagonist's limited point of view). He doesn't find his MPDG, but luckily life provides him with a new prospect. He does not end the movie realizing he needs to find, say, a plain-looking, hard-working woman who makes her living catching lobsters and whose days include neither fancy nor whim. Nor does he end the movie ready to treat women as something other than a fantasy or extension of himself (he certainly might be, but IIRC the movie does not actually express this). He ends the movie ready to try again with a similar type of girl, only now he's an architect.
I'm not saying this is problematic (I'm not saying it's not problematic, either); I'm just saying it isn't meaningfully subverting the trope, just fulfilling the same function in a different way.
If you approach the MPDG from that angle, then I'm not sure it is even possible to fully subvert the trope and still have a functioning movie.
500 Days of Summer at least refuses to fulfil expectations of an MPDG, even if the character "Summer" still has to serve a narrative function. I'd say that the "problematic" aspects of the MPDG at least, are avoided. Even if the character is still primarily defined by its narrative function.
We thought Jack Thompson was a silly goose because he went after video games as if playing one turned you into a murder machine overnight. That's categorically not true.
What's true though is over a long enough span of time--say ten to twenty years--if you are exposed to the same sort of media stimuli the entire time then you will grow to believe that's acceptable because you haven't seen any alternative. Think of your brain as a tea bag and violent/sexist/racist/etc media as hot water: if you dip it in very quickly then there's next to no effect. If you dip it in over and over then there's a more sustained effect and if you dip it in and leave it there there's an even worse effect. The longer you're steeped in a certain viewpoint (a combination of the media you consume and what the people around you teach you) then the more ingrained it becomes and the harder it is for you to realize what's going on without feeling personally attacked.
One problem is that it's currently more acceptable in our society for someone to be brought up sexist (especially if a lot of it is predicated on courtesy) than it is to bring someone up in such a way that they are extremely violent. Another problem is that the brain handles violence differently than it handles sexism since the former is a primal instinct and the latter is a belief, so it's much easier to act sexist than act violent. Finally, violence is something men can easily be a target of so it's easier for them to understand why it's bad but the same cannot be said of sexism. All of those things combine to make sexism affect people more deeply and thus require a more prominent outcry to counteract.
The counter-argument, however, is still similar to the violence thing. The fact is that women's rights have been steadily improving, as has women representation on the media. Public awareness of feminist issues is huge right now and newer generations seem to be more inclusive than the last. We are talking about people raised in comics and video games and movies and all kinds of media. So I find very hard to believe that comics, movies and video games are influencing children, much less adults, and making them more sexist.
Hell, you and I have been raised in video games, comics and all other media and we don't think it's OK to insult or belittle women, nor do we (I hope) think women are there to please us and have no agency. And this seems to be a pretty common sentiment. I have met very few people who honestly considered women worse than men, and most of that was caused more by personal problems than any sort of intangible media influence.
I work on an all-female lab, my boss is a woman, the leader of the university is a woman, there are grants for women only, courses for women only and professor spots reserved for women only. From where I stand it's very hard to believe that there is some sort of subtle sexism permeating everything.
Opty explained it a little better than I could, but here goes ... Its not as if seeing these tropes makes people go out and behave sexist. But if these tropes are basically the only viewpoint expressed in movies/tv shows or at least in the majority of main stream stuff, over time your perspective gets changed. And the outcome? Again - the "nice guys" of the world, among others. People will think opinions like "nice guys finish last" and "women go only for the assholes" are right and true facts, because that is what mainstream media tells us.
Another thing is body shaming. By using size 0 models almost exclusively the fashion industry fosters a very, very wrong body image and tells young girls/women how to look and "you always have to be thin". Thus leading to eating disorders.
Mysoginistic tropes do the same. They continuously show you something, until you think thats how its supposed to be/to work.
There is a LOT of stuff going on in the world other than comics.
Comics are also a lot better than they used to be about a lot of things, even if they still often have issues. The market may often have its head up its butt, but it's not entirely blind to the force of 51% of the species also being potential buyers.
A fantastic example is the Teen Titans cartoon. Cartoon Starfire has a LOT of fans. Many of whom were horrified when they encountered Sex Robot Starfire in the comics. They still at least looked at comics after encountering them in a non-insulting form.
My point exactly. I'd say that in this discussion the huge influence of everyday social interaction and especially the very important influence of parental education are being dismissed. What I argue is that those two things are actually what influences people, the media being only a reflection of this society. If there was this huge positive feedback loop with media influencing people you would not see female representation steadily and organically improving, and society's backlash against sexist representation steadily and organically improving.
Media is not only a reflection, it is also an influence. It is one of many influences, so changing it does not magically solve all problems, but it's still a factor.
Things are getting better because people are taking big risks and small risks to make things better and because the people who are used to a worse situation are dying off.
Heck, a huge part of the progress for women in America comes from WWII happening.
How do you propose we change the media so people receive the kind of influence we like?
Thats not really a counter argument if someone is suggesting that there is a correlation between media depictions of sexism and actual sexism. As one goes down they would predict the other to go down too (which doesn't necessarily imply causation of course, but I don't see how it serves as a counterargument, unless media depictions were getting worse while womens rights got better or vice versa).
This comic is, IMO, really poor at doing what it does to the extent that I don't know what point it is trying to make.
It completely fails to explain why other art should change its presentation and essentially has inserted a strawman (which, is actually accurate, just irrelevant since those people don't know or care about it anyway).
You are absolutely right. It's a counter to the argument that sexist tropes cause sexism. I didn't express myself correctly. I have no doubt whatsoever that sexism in society and sexist tropes are correlated.
You're a really big fan of making people choose your own poor arguments.
When you state the above, you imply people here regardless of context think a single poorly drawn Wonder Woman image will turn anyone in to a sexist monster.
Which no one, at any point, has claimed.