As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

A Thread About Sexist Tropes

18911131422

Posts

  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    goddamnit I don't know why I thought this was a thread only about games

    my bad

    carry on Quid I don't disagree with you at all

  • Andy JoeAndy Joe We claim the land for the highlord! The AdirondacksRegistered User regular
    Talking about art as harmful and seeking ways to eliminate said harm falls under the umbrella for me with room to spare.

    It's not, regardless of whether you believe it is.

    XBL: Stealth Crane PSN: ajpet12 3DS: 1160-9999-5810 NNID: StealthCrane Pokemon Scarlet Name: Carmen
  • FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    Pony wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    Elki wrote: »
    Elki wrote: »
    Squidget0 wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Squidget0 wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Squidget0 wrote: »
    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?

    My awareness of it has definitely been heightened by reading other people talk about it in these forums, blogs, that one time I took a class on English literature and they told me to read a book, etc. I'm not sure what your point is, though. That you are a man with independent ideas arguing against the automatons of mass media? I mean, I guess, but dismissal of people's concerns about sexism isn't some niche idea. Everywhere you can find people espousing the view that it's no big deal. Is the idea here that people who don't care about this arrived at their views completely independently? They never heard anyone say "c'mon, they're just comic books. For a bit of fun"?

    How convenient it is, when our ideas are not only the correct ones, but also completely independent. Arrived at after careful thought and deliberation. Not like those dingbats who read about it in some blog.

    I mean, for the most part I share the idea that such things should be left alone as "just a bit of fun". No good, in my mind, ever came of a crusade against artistic content certain groups feel are morally objectionable or harmful.

    Comic books and pulp of their ilk are simply there for "a bit of fun", the trouble is in taking them to be more than that in any respect.

    I don't do much questioning why people read the things they do. I read some incredibly weird and different things, for all kinds of reasons; I'm in no position to judge. But I'm not going to pretend that I arrived at my broad opinions on the media I consume as a unique snowflake, who never saw anything like the opinions I hold before I adopted them as my own.
    Enc wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Just to be clear here

    You do not think people are influenced by the ideas their culture teaches them?

    Of course culture influences people, but higher culture influences them more. Expose a person to a world of culture, and you'll find they can cherry pick the best fruits over the most abundant ones as well as anybody.

    Citation needed.

    Here's an infographic, though I'm still looking for actual literature
    Elki wrote: »
    Squidget0 wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Squidget0 wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Squidget0 wrote: »
    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?

    My awareness of it has definitely been heightened by reading other people talk about it in these forums, blogs, that one time I took a class on English literature and they told me to read a book, etc. I'm not sure what your point is, though. That you are a man with independent ideas arguing against the automatons of mass media? I mean, I guess, but dismissal of people's concerns about sexism isn't some niche idea. Everywhere you can find people espousing the view that it's no big deal. Is the idea here that people who don't care about this arrived at their views completely independently? They never heard anyone say "c'mon, they're just comic books. For a bit of fun"?

    How convenient it is, when our ideas are not only the correct ones, but also completely independent. Arrived at after careful thought and deliberation. Not like those dingbats who read about it in some blog.

    I mean, for the most part I share the idea that such things should be left alone as "just a bit of fun". No good, in my mind, ever came of a crusade against artistic content certain groups feel are morally objectionable or harmful.

    Comic books and pulp of their ilk are simply there for "a bit of fun", the trouble is in taking them to be more than that in any respect.

    Somehow, I don't see Maus being "a bit of fun." Despite what you think, comics are a form of art and culture, and as such are open to legitimate analysis and criticism. Frankly, it's your position that is the more harmful one, as you seek to ghettoize comics into triviality in the name of "saving" them.

    l

    I'm not ghettoizing anything. Personally I've never seen any good come from one group or another attempting to suppress art they find objectionable, be it the Catholic Church or feminists on the internet. I'm just generally against analysis and criticism used as a cover for making things you dislike go away.

    There is a huge difference between suppressing art (as in: "comic books are the devil, ban them from our communities!") and calling art out for it's flaws (which is what is happening here). Look at comic books with a critical lens is a useful and interesting exercise. Making more widespread the lack of sense in body types throughout comic books as a whole is a useful and worthwhile discussion. There is no such thing a "bit of bun" art or other throw-away terms.

    The Dragonlance books were something I would say were "trash fiction" back in the 90s, harmless fun that wouldn't ever make for a solid peer reviewed critique. But at the same time TSR and TOR were producing a lot of books, and I (and others) read a lot of them. They were filled with horrible stereotypes (from "empowered" women never passing a bechdel test to racist tendencies in how ethnicity was depicted, and worse). Yes, they werent high-culture things but when an entire generation of young men were reading them during their formative years problems begin to emerge.

    No medium should be void of criticism on it's content. All media consumes affects our lives and tints our perception of the world, even subtlely.

    So what's your conclusion here? Pulp exists for a reason. If you believe pulp to be harmful (I disagree but whatevs for the hypothetical) than where do you go from there? Where is this line of thought taking you? Because I assure you that there always has been some form of pulp, most likely always will be. Folks will always find it attractive for reasons you can't suppress or condition out of a culture, because it changes to suit the culture.

    I'm not saying pulp is bad or harmful, only that tropes in pulp should be taken just as seriously as tropes in any other media. The post was in response to the idea that pulp somehow is above criticism as being "a bit of fun" and not worth reviewing and not remarkable upon impact. Which is really not true at all. If anything, pulp is typically more impactful as more people casually consume it without critical thought compared to other forms of media perceived to have "higher" cultural value.

    Pulp should be viewed with a critical eye as well as anything else. Everyone should be an educated and aware consumer of media. There is a ton of good in pulp as well, from offering an affordable escape from reality for those who need it to typically emphasizing themes of good, honest characters triumphing over self-serving destructive ones. There are neutral and problematic areas as well beyond racism and sexism (the need for violence and killing as the universal solution, for example), but pulp is a mixed bag. Identifying why it is mixed is important for being a self-actualized person.

    Engaging pulp with a critical eye gets you.... somewhere, but not really where you're supposed to go. You can deconstruct the fuck out of something like Sin City, but if you're reading Sin City to make yourself a more self-actualized person or are relying on it to inform you on how to live your life you might just be barking up the wrong tree.

    This also addresses the post asking me why I'm calling all comics pulp. Really I'm not, but there is a lot of pulp there and a lot of what gets raged at does seem to me to fall under the category of good harmless fun, stuff that melts under the harsh light of fierce dissection but is, in the moment, distraction and joy. I'm honestly less concerned about this than I am the focus at stories and tropes at large, but this is odd to me. Cathartic and escspist media will always exist, I'm not worried about feminism squashing the fun out of it, but treating it deadly serious like we are is kinda ironic, no?

    Maybe other people are doing so, but when I say "critical eye" I don't mean going in to deconstructionism or dismantling something that is fun. That is something professional critics do, but not the common viewer. Being aware with a critical eye is understanding that "Hey, Sin City is really violent and while this is entertaining I should be aware that this is not positive patterned behavior." It is watching something like a Michael Bay film and thinking "I really enjoy giant robots breaking stuff, but maybe there should be more to something like this than just giant robots and half naked Megan Fox." It is watching the film and recognizing what it is doing in addition to just enjoying the ride.

    Arguing that you aren't supposed to look critically at pulp just because "it's not meant for it" is like saying you aren't supposed to know the calorie count of a Big Mac because you don't eat it to be healthy. Of course you don't! But that doesn't mean you shouldn't know just how bad for you it can be when you make the choice to eat one.

    Going back to comics, feminism isn't trying to slash the fun out of your experience, only to point out that what you are considering fun may have more levels and may not be as harmless as you think. If Wonder Woman were depicted as a strong, muscular woman with a pear shaped body, but still went on the same zany, action-packed adventures would your fun be lessened? Hopefully no! You are along for the ride for "good harmless fun" right? So why shouldn't she look like that? Or be any number of other body types?

    If her being an hourglass waif is requisite for your "good harmless fun" then perhaps it isn't harmless at all.

    Cathartic and escapist doesn't mean negative body image or ridiculous violence. Those things are fine to have here and there, just like a Big Mac, but when every meal is a Big Mac you die of diabetes or heart disease. When every comic is one, in the same fashion problems are evident.

    Well personally I'm still of the mind that attempts at "showing harm" are lacking in many respects, so that particular argument won't go too far with me. I'm also not friendly to the idea of any artistic media being suppressed on moral grounds.

    I think I need a longer post to address a bunch of stuf, but on my phone at work won't cut it. In the words of that lovy robot, I'll be back.

    yo dogg remember when I wrote a big long post about how talking about media suppression and censorship is a bullshit dog-whistle argument to deflect criticism

    and you clearly didn't fucking read it

    yeah

    Read it and disagreed. I'll get to ya, just not going to put down my thoughts on a phone. Makes me too brisk.

    Appreciate you thinking of me though.

  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion Pronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered User regular
    Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
    Artistic freedom does not mean guarantee of audience or protection from criticism.
    The critical eye is something to use to see the world as it is, and as is not.

    Is this case as it is: Comic books, and media as a whole, have horrible track records for female body types.
    And as it is not: The majority of women do not conform to this body type by nature.

    What you do with that is your own business. You can shrug and say "who cares?" and maybe you don't. But understanding that others do and thinking about why they do, will make you a wiser and more emphatic person. Similarly if you tell the people that do feel this way they are wrong or incorrect to feel that way you may want to think about why you get the pushback you do when it happens.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Why do these kind of discussions always end up in the same place, which people apparently unable to understand that criticism is not censorship?

    It really comes off feeling like some people can't even accept criticism of things they like.

    Because people aren't willing to accept the full repercussions of their choices, and because censorship is a convenient boogeyman.

    We may need to have A God Damned Separate Thread On Free Speech Absolutism (a.k.a. Why Reddit Is The Mos Eisley Of The Internet).

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Why do these kind of discussions always end up in the same place, which people apparently unable to understand that criticism is not censorship?

    It really comes off feeling like some people can't even accept criticism of things they like.

    Because people aren't willing to accept the full repercussions of their choices, and because censorship is a convenient boogeyman.

    We may need to have A God Damned Separate Thread On Free Speech Absolutism (a.k.a. Why Reddit Is The Mos Eisley Of The Internet).

    please use a different title structure AngelHedgie that title structure fucking sucks

    seriously

    i am so sick of it, it's so childish

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    If the argument someone wants to make is "I don't want anything to change ever except for the people criticizing things to stop doing so." at least argue that instead of trying to cram other arguments into a strawman you have doused in gasoline.

  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Watch out, Hedgie

    Pony gonna send jack booted thugs your way

  • FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    Well h
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Talking about art as harmful and seeking ways to eliminate said harm falls under the umbrella for me with room to spare.

    It's not, regardless of whether you believe it is.

    Well hey, debate over, you win. Cause you said so, apparently.

  • Alinius133Alinius133 Registered User regular
    edited September 2014
    shryke wrote: »
    Why do these kind of discussions always end up in the same place, which people apparently unable to understand that criticism is not censorship?

    It really comes off feeling like some people can't even accept criticism of things they like.

    Because there is a slippery slope with a few fine lines involved.

    1. Criticism of media to make others aware of potential negative tropes. The problem is that potential negative tropes can be very subjective and the actual negative effects are hard to define.
    2. Supporting perceived positive tropes in media. Depending on the level of support given to positive tropes, this can turn into de facto censorship of peceived negative tropes.
    3. Once something gets labeled as badwrong, certain groups of people take it on themselves to rid the world of it. For a great example of this, see smoking. While rational people may agree that smoking should be allowed, there is still a strong push toward virtual prohibition.


    Alinius133 on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Pony wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Why do these kind of discussions always end up in the same place, which people apparently unable to understand that criticism is not censorship?

    It really comes off feeling like some people can't even accept criticism of things they like.

    Because people aren't willing to accept the full repercussions of their choices, and because censorship is a convenient boogeyman.

    We may need to have A God Damned Separate Thread On Free Speech Absolutism (a.k.a. Why Reddit Is The Mos Eisley Of The Internet).

    please use a different title structure AngelHedgie that title structure fucking sucks

    seriously

    i am so sick of it, it's so childish

    I was being snarky with the title, but I've been going over a free speech absolutism thread for a while now, because it's the fucking bad penny of the internet.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    New topic -- Sexist trope: Dads freaking out about their young daughters' consensual sex lives

    See: Transformers 4, Hardcore, every dad character in everything ever


    Seriously. Gross. Stop this shit. Positioning the father as the gatekeeper of his daughter's sexuality is broken on so many levels, but not the least of which is the incestuous implications.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited September 2014
    Well h
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Talking about art as harmful and seeking ways to eliminate said harm falls under the umbrella for me with room to spare.

    It's not, regardless of whether you believe it is.

    Well hey, debate over, you win. Cause you said so, apparently.

    Giving up isn't going to win the debate. If you're got an argument that will poke holes in his opinion let's hear it.

    Harry Dresden on
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Well h
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Talking about art as harmful and seeking ways to eliminate said harm falls under the umbrella for me with room to spare.

    It's not, regardless of whether you believe it is.

    Well hey, debate over, you win. Cause you said so, apparently.

    If you're going to claim that what people really want to do when they say remove harm is censor artists you're not making an especially honest argument.

  • Jebus314Jebus314 Registered User regular
    Enc wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    I'm saying pick one.

    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.

    Which no one, at any point, has claimed.

    Do lots of violent video games make someone more violent?

    Is there any research showing that the content of a game makes someone more violent, misogynistic, etc

    There actually is a growing base of quantitative data and studies backing desensitization of violence through habitual violent media. This is just one of about forty journal articles I found though my University database published within the last five years backing this: http://rcgd.isr.umich.edu/aggr/articles/Huesmann/2011.Krahé et al.Desentization.JPSP.pdf

    To be clear though the links that have been found are between violent media and being desensitized to violent media. Not between violent media and violent behavior. Looking through the posted article they find high correlations between not really caring about violence in a short video clips, and how often they watch those clips, but the don't find very high correlations between watching a lot of violent clips and acting aggressively.

    "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    Can we put the conversation about what constitutes censorship on hold at the very least and talk about the scene from Wedding Crashers where a man is tied to a bed and forced into sex, complains that he was raped the next day, and then later admits that he likes it?

    Because that scene pissed me off.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Well h
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Talking about art as harmful and seeking ways to eliminate said harm falls under the umbrella for me with room to spare.

    It's not, regardless of whether you believe it is.

    Well hey, debate over, you win. Cause you said so, apparently.

    It's been explained why your premise is defective several times in this thread.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    Atomika wrote: »
    New topic -- Sexist trope: Dads freaking out about their young daughters' consensual sex lives

    See: Transformers 4, Hardcore, every dad character in everything ever


    Seriously. Gross. Stop this shit. Positioning the father as the gatekeeper of his daughter's sexuality is broken on so many levels, but not the least of which is the incestuous implications.

    Yeah, and the flip side: dads being super proud of their son losing his virginity.

  • BethrynBethryn Unhappiness is Mandatory Registered User regular
    Atomika wrote: »
    Bethryn wrote: »
    Atomika wrote: »
    Maybe if your idea of cathartic and escapist media is things where women are routinely objectified, exploited, and violently abused to no greater end or commentary, maybe you're a really, really awful person.
    Probably worth remembering that in most of the games/comics, even if they depict women negatively, the player character/protagonist is not the one violently abusing them, and is often in a hero role that involves saving those women.

    And while the situation of the women in those games/comic is problematic when it's the dominant theme, as a player narrative or a protagonist you're supposed to see as a role model, saving people is good and heroic, and yes, cathartic and escapist.

    But cathartic escapist scenarios that reward heroism while still presenting a context of dangerous stereotypes aren't really all that much better; it's just patting yourself on the back for casting yourself as the "good guy" in those scenarios.

    Flip it a different way and change the scenery: if you took escapist pleasure from playing games where your "hero" ran around rescuing kidnapped objectified women from African cannibals or Arab slave traders, is it still just as harmless?
    From their perspective, yes!

    It's not that easy to look at it from the outside perspective without having others suggest it to you, and plenty of people will enjoy it just from the point of view they're presented with.

    ...and of course, as always, Kill Hitler.
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited September 2014
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Why do these kind of discussions always end up in the same place, which people apparently unable to understand that criticism is not censorship?

    It really comes off feeling like some people can't even accept criticism of things they like.

    Because there is a slippery slope with a few fine lines involved.

    1. Criticism of media to make others aware of potential negative tropes. The problem is that potential negative tropes can be very subjective and the actual negative effects are hard to define.
    2. Supporting perceived positive tropes in media. Depending on the level of support given to positive tropes, this can turn into de facto censorship of peceived negative tropes.
    3. Once something gets labeled as badwrong, certain groups of people take it on themselves to rid the world of it. For a great example of this, see smoking. While rational people may agree that smoking should be allowed, there is still a strong push toward virtual prohibition.

    Name me a single piece of general media, wherein no harm actually occurs to anyone, that has been banned in the U.S.

    Cause I can name tons of media that is frowned upon far, far worse than the romantic comedy dreck that gets pushed out every year and yet is under no threat of being banned.

    Quid on
  • AstaerethAstaereth In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
    Criticism is not the same as censorship, but it is essentially an attempt to influence future creations. I mean, wouldn't the dream end result of these kinds of conversations be a world in which sexist media was a minority of all creative output?

    Either that's not something people want (in which case, what is the dream goal here?), or it's okay to want that because realistically it's not going to happen (but some diluted version of it hopefully will, right?).

    I mean, ideally people bitch at Marvel for not doing a female superhero movie, and the result is Marvel does one instead of its next male superhero movie. That's not censorship, in that no rights are abridged and nobody's forcing Marvel to do anything; but it still represents a change in culture created by criticism of that culture.

    So I think people who say "this is censorship, this is causing harm" are not necessarily trying to say that there are 1st Amendment considerations here--just that people making these criticisms are actually trying to change future media via their (non-coercive) influence. If you like media as it is presently, or feel like these criticisms are going to result in a media landscape where your preferred media is marginalized or non-existent, you're going to be upset and you're going to feel like these creators are under attack. You're going to feel like the demand implicit in these conversations is that one group of people (creators) change their self-expression in order to satisfy another group of people (critics); and that demand can be inaccurately (but emotionally correctly) termed censorship.

    ACsTqqK.jpg
  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion Pronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered User regular
    Well h
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Talking about art as harmful and seeking ways to eliminate said harm falls under the umbrella for me with room to spare.

    It's not, regardless of whether you believe it is.

    Well hey, debate over, you win. Cause you said so, apparently.

    To say it more elaborately, it may fall under that umbrella for you. But not for anyone else necessarily regardless of how true you believe it. I point out harm with full well understanding that there is little I can do to fix, solve, change, or affect it beyond calling it for what it is. But by understanding what something is I can make a more informed decision.

    You can remain isolated from other people's perspectives if you choose to do so. But that really won't help you understand the world as it is around you. You don't have to agree with those perspectives, you probably won't for most of them you come across, but understanding why those perspectives exist will allow you to understand where people are coming from when they talk about a subject.

    You can stick your head in the sand and think you are lost in the desert while the people around you point at the ocean. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

  • FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    Well h
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Talking about art as harmful and seeking ways to eliminate said harm falls under the umbrella for me with room to spare.

    It's not, regardless of whether you believe it is.

    Well hey, debate over, you win. Cause you said so, apparently.

    Giving up isn't going to win the debate. If you're got an argument that will poke holes in his opinion let's hear it.

    I'm not giving up. I'm making fun of him making a definitive statement like that.

  • TexiKenTexiKen Dammit! That fish really got me!Registered User regular
    While overprotective dad is beaten into the ground, in the case of Transformers 4, I sided with Marky Mark because that was some weird stuff to put in the film about the Romeo and Juliet laws and even showing the card.

    It gave the impression the dude kind of looks for underage girls to bone when not doing the dew in super awesome rallysport. That's probably why he had to leave Ireland or Scotland or wherever he was.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Atomika wrote: »
    New topic -- Sexist trope: Dads freaking out about their young daughters' consensual sex lives

    See: Transformers 4, Hardcore, every dad character in everything ever


    Seriously. Gross. Stop this shit. Positioning the father as the gatekeeper of his daughter's sexuality is broken on so many levels, but not the least of which is the incestuous implications.

    While listening to the comedy channels on satellite radio in the car, this comes up So. Fucking. Often. I change the channel as soon as I hear one. It's also why I find myself repressing the urge to beat Bill Engvall with his fucking sign.

    Hey, look. Proof that media make people violent!

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Jebus314Jebus314 Registered User regular
    Atomika wrote: »
    New topic -- Sexist trope: Dads freaking out about their young daughters' consensual sex lives

    See: Transformers 4, Hardcore, every dad character in everything ever


    Seriously. Gross. Stop this shit. Positioning the father as the gatekeeper of his daughter's sexuality is broken on so many levels, but not the least of which is the incestuous implications.

    I mean, I get that the whole protective dad thing is a specific trope involving the male father and female daughter, but aren't parents supposed to care about their kids sex lives? Isn't a major part of being a parent making sure that your kid has a healthy sex life and isn't pandering sexual favors to garner attention/affection?

    "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    Atomika wrote: »
    New topic -- Sexist trope: Dads freaking out about their young daughters' consensual sex lives

    See: Transformers 4, Hardcore, every dad character in everything ever


    Seriously. Gross. Stop this shit. Positioning the father as the gatekeeper of his daughter's sexuality is broken on so many levels, but not the least of which is the incestuous implications.

    Yeah, and the flip side: dads being super proud of their son losing his virginity.

    I want to go into more detail about why I find both sides of this trope gross.

    It's difficult to see why such a double standard would exist on its face. I think it stems from the idea that women are "purer" beings or that their sexuality is somehow a commodity or prize, whereas a man having sex is just a conquest, a triumph and a claiming of that prize.

    Regardless, the idea that a woman, past the age of consent, does not have the right to choose her own sexual partners is squicky. It implies ownership over her body. And on the flip side, celebrating the conquest (depending on why, obviously) can also be taken as acquiring ownership. Which leaves me feeling like there's a gross film covering my whole body.

  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Atomika wrote: »
    New topic -- Sexist trope: Dads freaking out about their young daughters' consensual sex lives

    See: Transformers 4, Hardcore, every dad character in everything ever


    Seriously. Gross. Stop this shit. Positioning the father as the gatekeeper of his daughter's sexuality is broken on so many levels, but not the least of which is the incestuous implications.

    I loathe that it's repeatedly encouraged in media for father's to physically threaten the people their daughters choose to date, even if they're perfectly decent people.

    Cause this is something like half my family clings to and it's disgusting.

  • Alinius133Alinius133 Registered User regular
    edited September 2014
    Quid wrote: »
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Why do these kind of discussions always end up in the same place, which people apparently unable to understand that criticism is not censorship?

    It really comes off feeling like some people can't even accept criticism of things they like.

    Because there is a slippery slope with a few fine lines involved.

    1. Criticism of media to make others aware of potential negative tropes. The problem is that potential negative tropes can be very subjective and the actual negative effects are hard to define.
    2. Supporting perceived positive tropes in media. Depending on the level of support given to positive tropes, this can turn into de facto censorship of peceived negative tropes.
    3. Once something gets labeled as badwrong, certain groups of people take it on themselves to rid the world of it. For a great example of this, see smoking. While rational people may agree that smoking should be allowed, there is still a strong push toward virtual prohibition.

    Name me a single piece of general media, wherein no harm actually occurs to anyone, that has been banned in the U.S.

    Cause I can name tons of media that is frowned upon far, far worse than the romantic comedy dreck that gets pushed out every year and yet is under no threat of being banned.
    Note the words "de facto" in #2.

    As for #3, just because people have thus far failed at banning things in the US does not mean they haven't tried.

    Alinius133 on
  • CambiataCambiata Commander Shepard The likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered User regular
    .
    Well h
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Talking about art as harmful and seeking ways to eliminate said harm falls under the umbrella for me with room to spare.

    It's not, regardless of whether you believe it is.

    Well hey, debate over, you win. Cause you said so, apparently.

    It's been explained why your premise is defective several times in this thread.

    And in many other threads before this one!

    "If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Atomika wrote: »
    New topic -- Sexist trope: Dads freaking out about their young daughters' consensual sex lives

    See: Transformers 4, Hardcore, every dad character in everything ever


    Seriously. Gross. Stop this shit. Positioning the father as the gatekeeper of his daughter's sexuality is broken on so many levels, but not the least of which is the incestuous implications.

    I mean, I get that the whole protective dad thing is a specific trope involving the male father and female daughter, but aren't parents supposed to care about their kids sex lives? Isn't a major part of being a parent making sure that your kid has a healthy sex life and isn't pandering sexual favors to garner attention/affection?

    Care about, yes.

    But what gets displayed pretty much every time is them trying to control their daughter's sex lives.

  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    edited September 2014
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Atomika wrote: »
    New topic -- Sexist trope: Dads freaking out about their young daughters' consensual sex lives

    See: Transformers 4, Hardcore, every dad character in everything ever


    Seriously. Gross. Stop this shit. Positioning the father as the gatekeeper of his daughter's sexuality is broken on so many levels, but not the least of which is the incestuous implications.

    I mean, I get that the whole protective dad thing is a specific trope involving the male father and female daughter, but aren't parents supposed to care about their kids sex lives? Isn't a major part of being a parent making sure that your kid has a healthy sex life and isn't pandering sexual favors to garner attention/affection?

    I don't think the gross thing is a healthy involvement in guiding your kids to have a safe sex life.

    It's the, "My daughter is an ANGEL and she will never have sex without my say-so!" attitude.

    @Quid Jinx!

    joshofalltrades on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Atomika wrote: »
    New topic -- Sexist trope: Dads freaking out about their young daughters' consensual sex lives

    See: Transformers 4, Hardcore, every dad character in everything ever


    Seriously. Gross. Stop this shit. Positioning the father as the gatekeeper of his daughter's sexuality is broken on so many levels, but not the least of which is the incestuous implications.

    I mean, I get that the whole protective dad thing is a specific trope involving the male father and female daughter, but aren't parents supposed to care about their kids sex lives? Isn't a major part of being a parent making sure that your kid has a healthy sex life and isn't pandering sexual favors to garner attention/affection?

    A healthy sex life and hating men who have sex with your daughter are not the same thing.

    And the second is what you get.

  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Why do these kind of discussions always end up in the same place, which people apparently unable to understand that criticism is not censorship?

    It really comes off feeling like some people can't even accept criticism of things they like.

    Because there is a slippery slope with a few fine lines involved.

    1. Criticism of media to make others aware of potential negative tropes. The problem is that potential negative tropes can be very subjective and the actual negative effects are hard to define.
    2. Supporting perceived positive tropes in media. Depending on the level of support given to positive tropes, this can turn into de facto censorship of peceived negative tropes.
    3. Once something gets labeled as badwrong, certain groups of people take it on themselves to rid the world of it. For a great example of this, see smoking. While rational people may agree that smoking should be allowed, there is still a strong push toward virtual prohibition.

    Name me a single piece of general media, wherein no harm actually occurs to anyone, that has been banned in the U.S.

    Cause I can name tons of media that is frowned upon far, far worse than the romantic comedy dreck that gets pushed out every year and yet is under no threat of being banned.
    Note the words "de facto" in #2. As for #3, just because people have thus far failed at banning things in the US does not mean they haven't tried.

    So?

    People try to do things all the time. That doesn't mean everyone needs to stop being critical of everything ever. Nothing is actually banned.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Why do these kind of discussions always end up in the same place, which people apparently unable to understand that criticism is not censorship?

    It really comes off feeling like some people can't even accept criticism of things they like.

    Because there is a slippery slope with a few fine lines involved.

    1. Criticism of media to make others aware of potential negative tropes. The problem is that potential negative tropes can be very subjective and the actual negative effects are hard to define.
    2. Supporting perceived positive tropes in media. Depending on the level of support given to positive tropes, this can turn into de facto censorship of peceived negative tropes.
    3. Once something gets labeled as badwrong, certain groups of people take it on themselves to rid the world of it. For a great example of this, see smoking. While rational people may agree that smoking should be allowed, there is still a strong push toward virtual prohibition.

    Name me a single piece of general media, wherein no harm actually occurs to anyone, that has been banned in the U.S.

    Cause I can name tons of media that is frowned upon far, far worse than the romantic comedy dreck that gets pushed out every year and yet is under no threat of being banned.
    Note the words "de facto" in #2. As for #3, just because people have thus far failed at banning things in the US does not mean they haven't tried.

    So name the de facto bans then.

  • programjunkieprogramjunkie Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    It's an interesting point, but it's neither an overwhelming consensus, nor is it precisely applicable here. Going from being barbarians to part of the modern world is less than directly applicable to, to use a non-comic example, female RPG characters wearing bikini armor (which is terrible and people who like it should feel bad. If you're going to use eye candy, at the very least justify it in universe, you sexist hack fucks),

    It's also worth noting that media may have likely contained a substantial amount of the sexist tropes mentioned in this thread.

    No kindly keep your goalposts where they were. Media influences culture. Culture influences people. There is not some upper limit where this ceases to be true..

    Earth's gravity and Saturn's gravity are pulling on both of us right now. Which one is more relevant? Which one can safely be disregard?

    Access to media which could reasonably be called infrastructure development could absolutely be a different thing than worrying about minutiae like physically implausible poses.
    Also, calling Indians without cable TV barbarians is grossly insulting.

    But accurate if they are giving their wife a black eye for leaving the house without permission, or believe that to be acceptable actions (Which was one of the measured indicators). That said, I agree that's not the sort of statement you should make without lots of caveats, or perhaps not at all.
    Enc wrote: »
    Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
    Artistic freedom does not mean guarantee of audience or protection from criticism.
    The critical eye is something to use to see the world as it is, and as is not.

    This is one issue I have: freedom of speech only means freedom from consequences. It's not like "free will" which solely discusses one's ability to perform the action, it does mean that people have a moral right to speak without overwhelming consequences. Now, it usually applies to being arrested, though it could reasonably be applied to non-state actors as well. If you get murdered because of something you said, you didn't meaningfully have a right to free speech.

    OTOH, if people say, "You're an asshole for writing a racist book, and I'm choosing to spend my money elsewhere," that is the system working as intended, and that author absolutely had free speech.

  • FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    Well h
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Talking about art as harmful and seeking ways to eliminate said harm falls under the umbrella for me with room to spare.

    It's not, regardless of whether you believe it is.

    Well hey, debate over, you win. Cause you said so, apparently.

    It's been explained why your premise is defective several times in this thread.

    Apparently, though I am yet to be convinced of it. It's still just nebulous claims of harm used as justification to promote the removal of said harm all disguised as some sort of "simple criticism". It's the same old thing, from everyone who was outraged about something, ever. Plus, you don't agree with my premise that art is essentially sacrosanct and should not be suppressed (yes, suppressed, that's what's being advocated as evidenced by the motion of proving harm through to removing harm) under pretty much any circumstance. If it's legal to make it, I support it, and I think our disagreement really stems from there.


  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Why do these kind of discussions always end up in the same place, which people apparently unable to understand that criticism is not censorship?

    It really comes off feeling like some people can't even accept criticism of things they like.

    Because there is a slippery slope with a few fine lines involved.

    1. Criticism of media to make others aware of potential negative tropes. The problem is that potential negative tropes can be very subjective and the actual negative effects are hard to define.
    2. Supporting perceived positive tropes in media. Depending on the level of support given to positive tropes, this can turn into de facto censorship of peceived negative tropes.
    3. Once something gets labeled as badwrong, certain groups of people take it on themselves to rid the world of it. For a great example of this, see smoking. While rational people may agree that smoking should be allowed, there is still a strong push toward virtual prohibition.

    Name me a single piece of general media, wherein no harm actually occurs to anyone, that has been banned in the U.S.

    Cause I can name tons of media that is frowned upon far, far worse than the romantic comedy dreck that gets pushed out every year and yet is under no threat of being banned.
    Note the words "de facto" in #2. As for #3, just because people have thus far failed at banning things in the US does not mean they haven't tried.

    I don't see anyone in Washington trying to ban sexism and racism completely in media with legislation.

  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    Enc wrote: »
    Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
    Artistic freedom does not mean guarantee of audience or protection from criticism.
    The critical eye is something to use to see the world as it is, and as is not.

    Is this case as it is: Comic books, and media as a whole, have horrible track records for female body types.
    And as it is not: The majority of women do not conform to this body type by nature.

    What you do with that is your own business. You can shrug and say "who cares?" and maybe you don't. But understanding that others do and thinking about why they do, will make you a wiser and more emphatic person. Similarly if you tell the people that do feel this way they are wrong or incorrect to feel that way you may want to think about why you get the pushback you do when it happens.

    Right exactly. You can have the argument over whether or not the realities of how women's body types are presented in comic books and other media matters, whether that is societally important or not, whether that has a meaningful affect on men or how they think or perceive women or how women perceive themselves and so on.

    That's addressing the argument on it's own terms. And some people in this thread are doing that, and are having that argument, and that is fine. Obviously, I have a side in that argument that should be clear by now.

    You can also argue about what can be done about that in terms of how artists and producers of media content themselves can be doing things differently (if anything, if you feel there is at all even a problem), and as consumers of art and media we could be making different choices. Those are legitimate arguments to be had, and some people are having them, and that's fine too.

    But literally nobody is arguing that one of the things to be done about these issues is censorship, suppression, or in any other way TAKING AWAY OUR STUFF. Histrionic whining about rights, expression, freedom, etc. is just that. Whining. It's obfuscation and nonsense. Nobody is making that suggestion, and I think there's a clear motive behind the people who are, in the absence of anyone making that suggestion, continuing to argue against it anyway.

    I think that it's insecurity. I think when people start harping about censorship and suppression and freedom of expression and so on in conversations like this that comes from a place of insecurity about the media and art they consume, and a concern that a judgment may in turn may be passed about them in particular because of it. It comes from a variety of different causes for that insecurity, but that insecurity and anxiety is there and it makes them believe that they're coming and they're going to get us. You get people like Squidget0, who on page 2 of this thread wrote this paranoid bit of nonsense on how these controversies are actually part of a vast, multi-phase conspiracy by major television networks and other media conglomerates to generate fake outrage and keep people invested in their products, and that critical blogs are actually... false flag operations of... female employees designed to... make people feel better about themselves? Something something gender war? Dude lost me after a while.

    All because there are people with insecure self-identities who are tying what they like into who they are, and they can't handle criticisms of the former without feeling like they are criticisms of the latter. They can't believe that there is actually a problem they weren't aware of and were an unknowing part of, because the vast majority of people aren't guiltless sociopaths and the vast majority of people do feel empathy and actually feel really shitty when they're made to realize that hold on, maybe this is actually kinda awful? But rather than question that, take responsibility for that, maybe change their views or habits, they go "No no no no, I can't, this is too important to who I am, I'm a gamer, a comic book geek, I can't just stop being this or question these things now because someone pointed out how fucked up and toxic these subcultures are!"

    So they double down, and pretend nothing is amiss, and the problem is the people complaining about the problem. It's talking about racism that makes you the racist, see, I don't even see races! Why are you talking about racism all the time? What're you, some kind of racist? I think you're obsessed with race, man. What are you, some kind of race warrior?

    It's all from a place of deep insecurity.

This discussion has been closed.