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.
There was no debate. You were wrong on a matter of fact, and you were corrected. Maybe take some time to reflect on your error and how to avoid making it again in the future.
No, nothing was proven. Someone made a statement and seemed to think that was it. Odd way to debate.
Please allow me to elaborate:
"Censorship", in the way we are concerned with, has a fairly concrete definition, a necessary element of which is the exercise of authority to prevent the dissemination of speech. The criticism and media advocacy at issue in this thread presumably do not involve such exercise of authority (and if you had evidence it did, I surely hope you would present it forthrightly). You may disagree with this criticism, or be uncomfortable with its goals or methodology. But that cannot transform it into censorship. To argue otherwise is, frankly disingenuous and dishonest. "You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts", as the saying goes.
censorship is a red herring. The limitation of an expression of ideas due to anything other than the merit of the idea is a better fish to fry.
The idea of wonder woman looking like a contorted unrealistic woman designed to display boobs and butt is stupid and sexist, and I would prefer if they used another artist that did not depict her that way.
Which is why I'm buying all the Chiang books and will not be buying the future books by the new guy.
Is this okay? Or too censory for ya?
Do you think this differs from a person who has never/will never by comic books chastising someone who wants to by the future books for buying sexist comics as if it was a moral wrong? Or chastising the author for creating the sexist comic as if they are amoral for doing so? Should those people (the author/customer) feel bad for what they have done?
Calling out a depiction as sexist or part of a sexist tradition of art in comics is not equivalent of morally judging the artist. They should not "feel bad" ideally they should educate themselves and recognize the sexist ideas or images represented in their art, and if they truly educate themselves, work to avoid those in the future. The goal of calling these things out is to get the artist (or the audience) to RECOGNIZE some shit is going on. See: Pony's post.
Or they can just shrug their shoulders knowing that the right way to depict a human being doesn't really exist. That's also a possibility.
Fortunately no one said the bolded.
But a good artist? They'll listen to constructive criticism, see how it compares to what it is they're trying to express, and apply it to future creations.
They'll listen to what people have to say and use their brains to interpret what this means to their work. What behavior this may elicit is hard to predict.
So?
Bringing it back, a skillful artist may not come to the conclusion that sexist work is something they must grow out of. There are several points in that concept from which they may diverge from common opinion.
There are feminists who make in faux misogynist art. Thing is that they tend to label it so nobody mistakes the roleplayed misogyny fetish for something normalized.
Yeah, that's definitely one way to do it. There are also other legitimate ways.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
So you're saying I am suppressing McDonalds by not buying their food?
You seem to get really caught up in personal behavior. You can do whatever you want and no one has claimed otherwise. When you start trying to convince other people to do the same you are trying to suppress something (if what your trying to convince them to do is not use/buy/support a certain thing). Suppression also isn't inherently bad. Being a dick isn't illegal but I fully support you in trying to suppress people being dicks.
Where things run afoul is when you try and suppress things that aren't inherently bad. In this case a particular art style. You may believe that the harms of that art style make it inherently bad. Other people have said that there is not enough evidence to support your position and so trying to suppress said art style is not ok in their view.
At the very least please stop posting about how you can do whatever you want with your money. That gets old so fast.
Frankie is the one who said what a person does none of my business. Except for some reason when I opt to not buy sexist art then it's suppression and wrong. Don't get on me about it.
And since once again people seem intent on replying to posts no one is making, here is what I, and multiple people, have suggested be done about sexist art:
Generally try to avoid sexist media, support more positive media, and talk about the topic when it comes up like now.
Which is appalling to several others for reasons.
I personally have no problems with boycotting racist, sexist , or otherwise demeaning media. Where my problem lies is when those boycotts are done en mass due to gross or hasty generalizations.
Some people are sexist. Some people who are not sexist occasionally write or say things that are insensitive to a member of the opposite sex. Just because you say something that is insensitive does not mean you need to be branded as a sexist and driven from the public square. Yet, we live in a world where a single insensitive comment can ruin your public career.
As others said earlier, we are not operating in a social or cultural vacuum. You are not talking about your personal decisions here. We are all actively trying to convince others to see things our way.
There's also the thousands of careers that are ruined or held back because of sexism. Plus loads of times people get called out and apologise, admitting the mistake and promiding to do better afterall if there was a serious backlash and they absolutely refused to change, which then ruined them, is this a bad thing? Equality is advanced at the expense of a noncommercially viable product, seems like a decent trade.
Wait, I thought we were just criticizing sexist material, but thanks for showing us how fast you can slide down the slippery slope.
A sexist act is an act of prejudice or discrimination towards an individual
This is literally wrong.
Source?
Source your own claim that it's only against individuals.
For once ever justify something you post.
I just added it in the edit. But new posts are ok.
I was using the text from the Civil Rights Act, which I thought was a good general example of "something against racism / racist acts", which could easily translate into sexism / sexist acts.
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
The rest of the document is littered with talk of individuals, denying individuals, etc.
That, once again, literally does not mean sexism only applies to actions against an individual and only an individual.
The alternative is you believe that the claim "All women are weak willed imbeciles" isn't sexist because, hey, not an individual.
"All women are weak willed imbeciles" is a claim made about the individual members of the group "women".
The person saying, "All women are weak willed imbeciles" is not saying that the category of women is a weak-willed imbecile. It is a claim about the individual members of that category.
:rotate:
Is my statement incorrect?
I honestly don't care
Your ability to derail any thread into your own little logic lesson is legendary
There's a difference between "I didn't like this game because the graphics were bad" and "This game's bad graphics are indicative of an industry-wide cancer. We need more games with good graphics and fewer games with bad graphics. Artists who make games with bad graphics should be ashamed of themselves and we should all endeavor only to support games with good graphics."
I see a little projection in your post and think you might want to look at the two hypothetical criticisms you've listed and ask yourself, honestly, if you represented both sides accurately.
Regardless of "graphics are bad vs. I WILL BURN DOWN YOUR HOUSE," let's set that aside for a moment, I don't care that they are different. I want to know why one is OK to discuss critically and one isn't. Graphics are fair game. Story is fair game. Load times are fair game. Weapon realism is fair game. Representation of women is not. Why?
Yes, though not that one. If comments and opinions directed against or redefining the category of woman ( or "ideal woman" in this case) effect a single individual, then the WW art is sexist by that logic. Can't have sexist acts requiring harm to a specific indivual based on a category they belong to and a entirely separate boundary between the category and its members.
Is it finally time for me to bring up the time I saw the Italian Futurism exhibit at the Guggenheim?
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
There's a difference between "I didn't like this game because the graphics were bad" and "This game's bad graphics are indicative of an industry-wide cancer. We need more games with good graphics and fewer games with bad graphics. Artists who make games with bad graphics should be ashamed of themselves and we should all endeavor only to support games with good graphics."
I see a little projection in your post and think you might want to look at the two hypothetical criticisms you've listed and ask yourself, honestly, if you represented both sides accurately.
Regardless of "graphics are bad vs. I WILL BURN DOWN YOUR HOUSE," let's set that aside for a moment, I don't care that they are different. I want to know why one is OK to discuss critically and one isn't. Graphics are fair game. Story is fair game. Load times are fair game. Weapon realism is fair game. Representation of women is not. Why?
To my knowledge no one has suggested that you should not be critical of representation of women in media. But the means and end goals of your criticism are important.
Jebus314 on
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
There's a difference between "I didn't like this game because the graphics were bad" and "This game's bad graphics are indicative of an industry-wide cancer. We need more games with good graphics and fewer games with bad graphics. Artists who make games with bad graphics should be ashamed of themselves and we should all endeavor only to support games with good graphics."
I see a little projection in your post and think you might want to look at the two hypothetical criticisms you've listed and ask yourself, honestly, if you represented both sides accurately.
Regardless of "graphics are bad vs. I WILL BURN DOWN YOUR HOUSE," let's set that aside for a moment, I don't care that they are different. I want to know why one is OK to discuss critically and one isn't. Graphics are fair game. Story is fair game. Load times are fair game. Weapon realism is fair game. Representation of women is not. Why?
Because sexism/racism/etc. has baggage that those other categories do not.
Saying "You wrote a bad story" implies you did an inferior job.
Saying "You wrote a sexist story" implies that you maligned half of the human race.
There's a difference between "I didn't like this game because the graphics were bad" and "This game's bad graphics are indicative of an industry-wide cancer. We need more games with good graphics and fewer games with bad graphics. Artists who make games with bad graphics should be ashamed of themselves and we should all endeavor only to support games with good graphics."
I see a little projection in your post and think you might want to look at the two hypothetical criticisms you've listed and ask yourself, honestly, if you represented both sides accurately.
Regardless of "graphics are bad vs. I WILL BURN DOWN YOUR HOUSE," let's set that aside for a moment, I don't care that they are different. I want to know why one is OK to discuss critically and one isn't. Graphics are fair game. Story is fair game. Load times are fair game. Weapon realism is fair game. Representation of women is not. Why?
Because sexism/racism/etc. has baggage that those other categories do not.
Saying "You wrote a bad story" implies you did an inferior job.
Saying "You wrote a sexist story" implies that you maligned half of the human race.
So what do you suggest be done when someone writes a sexist story?
There's a difference between "I didn't like this game because the graphics were bad" and "This game's bad graphics are indicative of an industry-wide cancer. We need more games with good graphics and fewer games with bad graphics. Artists who make games with bad graphics should be ashamed of themselves and we should all endeavor only to support games with good graphics."
I see a little projection in your post and think you might want to look at the two hypothetical criticisms you've listed and ask yourself, honestly, if you represented both sides accurately.
Regardless of "graphics are bad vs. I WILL BURN DOWN YOUR HOUSE," let's set that aside for a moment, I don't care that they are different. I want to know why one is OK to discuss critically and one isn't. Graphics are fair game. Story is fair game. Load times are fair game. Weapon realism is fair game. Representation of women is not. Why?
Because sexism/racism/etc. has baggage that those other categories do not.
Saying "You wrote a bad story" implies you did an inferior job.
Saying "You wrote a sexist story" implies that you maligned half of the human race.
So what do you suggest be done when someone writes a sexist story?
The same thing we do when someone writes a violent story.
A sexist act is an act of prejudice or discrimination towards an individual
This is literally wrong.
Source?
Source your own claim that it's only against individuals.
For once ever justify something you post.
I just added it in the edit. But new posts are ok.
I was using the text from the Civil Rights Act, which I thought was a good general example of "something against racism / racist acts", which could easily translate into sexism / sexist acts.
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
The rest of the document is littered with talk of individuals, denying individuals, etc.
That, once again, literally does not mean sexism only applies to actions against an individual and only an individual.
The alternative is you believe that the claim "All women are weak willed imbeciles" isn't sexist because, hey, not an individual.
"All women are weak willed imbeciles" is a claim made about the individual members of the group "women".
The person saying, "All women are weak willed imbeciles" is not saying that the category of women is a weak-willed imbecile. It is a claim about the individual members of that category.
:rotate:
Is my statement incorrect?
I honestly don't care
Your ability to derail any thread into your own little logic lesson is legendary
I feel like this is sort of unfair though. This argument began because _J_ suggested that a drawing can not in and of itself be sexist. Which is a valid point. There is and should be a distinction between actual discrimination and prejudice and individual comics/media. To which quid latched on to the frankly irrelevant part of _J_'s post about acts of sexism being towards an individual. I don't see why it was unreasonable for _J_ to respond in kind even if I agree that nobody cares about the literal definition of sexism being against an individual versus a group.
Jebus314 on
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
+1
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
There's a difference between "I didn't like this game because the graphics were bad" and "This game's bad graphics are indicative of an industry-wide cancer. We need more games with good graphics and fewer games with bad graphics. Artists who make games with bad graphics should be ashamed of themselves and we should all endeavor only to support games with good graphics."
I see a little projection in your post and think you might want to look at the two hypothetical criticisms you've listed and ask yourself, honestly, if you represented both sides accurately.
Regardless of "graphics are bad vs. I WILL BURN DOWN YOUR HOUSE," let's set that aside for a moment, I don't care that they are different. I want to know why one is OK to discuss critically and one isn't. Graphics are fair game. Story is fair game. Load times are fair game. Weapon realism is fair game. Representation of women is not. Why?
I said both are OK to discuss critically. Maybe it's not okay to use either as the basis for an intellectual/consumerist campaign against individual creators or works? (And when I say maybe, I'm not being snarky. I'm not sure.)
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
There's a difference between "I didn't like this game because the graphics were bad" and "This game's bad graphics are indicative of an industry-wide cancer. We need more games with good graphics and fewer games with bad graphics. Artists who make games with bad graphics should be ashamed of themselves and we should all endeavor only to support games with good graphics."
I see a little projection in your post and think you might want to look at the two hypothetical criticisms you've listed and ask yourself, honestly, if you represented both sides accurately.
Regardless of "graphics are bad vs. I WILL BURN DOWN YOUR HOUSE," let's set that aside for a moment, I don't care that they are different. I want to know why one is OK to discuss critically and one isn't. Graphics are fair game. Story is fair game. Load times are fair game. Weapon realism is fair game. Representation of women is not. Why?
Because sexism/racism/etc. has baggage that those other categories do not.
Saying "You wrote a bad story" implies you did an inferior job.
Saying "You wrote a sexist story" implies that you maligned half of the human race.
So what do you suggest be done when someone writes a sexist story?
If you dislike it and don't feel like buying it, don't. If you like it and feel like buying it, do. If you dislike it and feel like saying so, do. If you dislike it and wish somebody would write a non-sexist story, encourage that. If you dislike it and wish that everybody would agree with you and/or that everybody would refuse to buy it, maybe try accepting that other people don't have to share your opinions and actions in order for them to be valid and meaningful?
So you're saying I am suppressing McDonalds by not buying their food?
You seem to get really caught up in personal behavior. You can do whatever you want and no one has claimed otherwise. When you start trying to convince other people to do the same you are trying to suppress something (if what your trying to convince them to do is not use/buy/support a certain thing). Suppression also isn't inherently bad. Being a dick isn't illegal but I fully support you in trying to suppress people being dicks.
Where things run afoul is when you try and suppress things that aren't inherently bad. In this case a particular art style. You may believe that the harms of that art style make it inherently bad. Other people have said that there is not enough evidence to support your position and so trying to suppress said art style is not ok in their view.
At the very least please stop posting about how you can do whatever you want with your money. That gets old so fast.
Frankie is the one who said what a person does none of my business. Except for some reason when I opt to not buy sexist art then it's suppression and wrong. Don't get on me about it.
And since once again people seem intent on replying to posts no one is making, here is what I, and multiple people, have suggested be done about sexist art:
Generally try to avoid sexist media, support more positive media, and talk about the topic when it comes up like now.
Which is appalling to several others for reasons.
I personally have no problems with boycotting racist, sexist , or otherwise demeaning media. Where my problem lies is when those boycotts are done en mass due to gross or hasty generalizations.
Some people are sexist. Some people who are not sexist occasionally write or say things that are insensitive to a member of the opposite sex. Just because you say something that is insensitive does not mean you need to be branded as a sexist and driven from the public square. Yet, we live in a world where a single insensitive comment can ruin your public career.
As others said earlier, we are not operating in a social or cultural vacuum. You are not talking about your personal decisions here. We are all actively trying to convince others to see things our way.
There's also the thousands of careers that are ruined or held back because of sexism. Plus loads of times people get called out and apologise, admitting the mistake and promiding to do better afterall if there was a serious backlash and they absolutely refused to change, which then ruined them, is this a bad thing? Equality is advanced at the expense of a noncommercially viable product, seems like a decent trade.
Wait, I thought we were just criticizing sexist material, but thanks for showing us how fast you can slide down the slippery slope.
I never said this had to happen all the time in every case, to get a career ending backlash you're going to be talking about a pretty egarious situation (unless things escalate in which case its a lot more complicated as it might be as much your response at fault as anything else). Just pointing out that careers not being effected by a backlash is not the baseline of a sexism free world, they're a pretty special and much rarer case than the vast bulk of sexisms effects on careers.
The slippery slope is surely saying that we need to prevent these occurrences at the expense of tackling the more everyday effects of sexism?
There's a difference between "I didn't like this game because the graphics were bad" and "This game's bad graphics are indicative of an industry-wide cancer. We need more games with good graphics and fewer games with bad graphics. Artists who make games with bad graphics should be ashamed of themselves and we should all endeavor only to support games with good graphics."
I see a little projection in your post and think you might want to look at the two hypothetical criticisms you've listed and ask yourself, honestly, if you represented both sides accurately.
Regardless of "graphics are bad vs. I WILL BURN DOWN YOUR HOUSE," let's set that aside for a moment, I don't care that they are different. I want to know why one is OK to discuss critically and one isn't. Graphics are fair game. Story is fair game. Load times are fair game. Weapon realism is fair game. Representation of women is not. Why?
Because sexism/racism/etc. has baggage that those other categories do not.
Saying "You wrote a bad story" implies you did an inferior job.
Saying "You wrote a sexist story" implies that you maligned half of the human race.
FWIW, I think that most criticism of sexist tropes can be done without specifically invoking sexism.
"This art is bad because the human body cannot actually contort into that position." "This story is poorly written because this character acts in a ridiculously stupid way in order to serve the plot." "This art is bad, because by giving the character massive breasts, the artist is deviating pretty hard from the character's long established design." "The costume design is terrible, because people can't actually fight very effectively in high heels, barring them being on horseback." "This art is bad because a reverse image search shows you exactly which porn films the artist traced off of in each panel." "The film would have been better served if that character and that character had more scenes, preferably together, as one of those characters was one of the best parts of the story, and the other character was interesting but underused." "This art is bad because real human beings have feet."
I think that when possible, it's easier to first convince someone that something is terrible, and then point out that it's also sexist, then it is to convince someone that something is terrible because it's sexist. The latter often leads, in my experience, to "No, it's not sexist!" and then the person gets defensive, and the discussion can't move forward.
Shadowhope on
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
well I mean you don't have to do that either. The most anyone is offering here is advice.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
There's a difference between "I didn't like this game because the graphics were bad" and "This game's bad graphics are indicative of an industry-wide cancer. We need more games with good graphics and fewer games with bad graphics. Artists who make games with bad graphics should be ashamed of themselves and we should all endeavor only to support games with good graphics."
I see a little projection in your post and think you might want to look at the two hypothetical criticisms you've listed and ask yourself, honestly, if you represented both sides accurately.
Regardless of "graphics are bad vs. I WILL BURN DOWN YOUR HOUSE," let's set that aside for a moment, I don't care that they are different. I want to know why one is OK to discuss critically and one isn't. Graphics are fair game. Story is fair game. Load times are fair game. Weapon realism is fair game. Representation of women is not. Why?
Because sexism/racism/etc. has baggage that those other categories do not.
Saying "You wrote a bad story" implies you did an inferior job.
Saying "You wrote a sexist story" implies that you maligned half of the human race.
FWIW, I think that most criticism of sexist tropes can be done without specifically invoking sexism.
"This art is bad because the human body cannot actually contort into that position." "This story is poorly written because this character acts in a ridiculously stupid way in order to serve the plot." "The costume design is terrible, because people can't actually fight very effectively in high heels, barring them being on horseback." "This art is bad because a reverse image search shows you exactly which porn films the artist traced off of in each panel." "The film would have been better served if that character and that character had more scenes, preferably together, as one of those characters was one of the best parts of the story, and the other character was interesting but underused." "This art is bad because real human beings have feet."
I think that when possible, it's easier to first convince someone that something is terrible, and then point out that it's also sexist, then it is to convince someone that something is terrible because it's sexist. The latter often leads, in my experience, to "No, it's not sexist!" and then the person gets defensive, and the discussion can't move forward.
This is not only super disingenuous, it automatically assumes that realism is a quality to be prized in and of itself over meaning and entertainment. "This superpowered woman who can fly is unrealistically depicted in this drawing of her punching a robot dinosaur."
There's a difference between "I didn't like this game because the graphics were bad" and "This game's bad graphics are indicative of an industry-wide cancer. We need more games with good graphics and fewer games with bad graphics. Artists who make games with bad graphics should be ashamed of themselves and we should all endeavor only to support games with good graphics."
I see a little projection in your post and think you might want to look at the two hypothetical criticisms you've listed and ask yourself, honestly, if you represented both sides accurately.
Regardless of "graphics are bad vs. I WILL BURN DOWN YOUR HOUSE," let's set that aside for a moment, I don't care that they are different. I want to know why one is OK to discuss critically and one isn't. Graphics are fair game. Story is fair game. Load times are fair game. Weapon realism is fair game. Representation of women is not. Why?
Because sexism/racism/etc. has baggage that those other categories do not.
Saying "You wrote a bad story" implies you did an inferior job.
Saying "You wrote a sexist story" implies that you maligned half of the human race.
FWIW, I think that most criticism of sexist tropes can be done without specifically invoking sexism.
"This art is bad because the human body cannot actually contort into that position." "This story is poorly written because this character acts in a ridiculously stupid way in order to serve the plot." "The costume design is terrible, because people can't actually fight very effectively in high heels, barring them being on horseback." "This art is bad because a reverse image search shows you exactly which porn films the artist traced off of in each panel." "The film would have been better served if that character and that character had more scenes, preferably together, as one of those characters was one of the best parts of the story, and the other character was interesting but underused." "This art is bad because real human beings have feet."
I think that when possible, it's easier to first convince someone that something is terrible, and then point out that it's also sexist, then it is to convince someone that something is terrible because it's sexist. The latter often leads, in my experience, to "No, it's not sexist!" and then the person gets defensive, and the discussion can't move forward.
This is not only super disingenuous, it automatically assumes that realism is a quality to be prized in and of itself over meaning and entertainment. "This superpowered woman who can fly is unrealistically depicted in this drawing of her punching a robot dinosaur."
Not to get into "I know you are but what am I," but I think that your response is pretty disingenuous.
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
There's a difference between "I didn't like this game because the graphics were bad" and "This game's bad graphics are indicative of an industry-wide cancer. We need more games with good graphics and fewer games with bad graphics. Artists who make games with bad graphics should be ashamed of themselves and we should all endeavor only to support games with good graphics."
I see a little projection in your post and think you might want to look at the two hypothetical criticisms you've listed and ask yourself, honestly, if you represented both sides accurately.
Regardless of "graphics are bad vs. I WILL BURN DOWN YOUR HOUSE," let's set that aside for a moment, I don't care that they are different. I want to know why one is OK to discuss critically and one isn't. Graphics are fair game. Story is fair game. Load times are fair game. Weapon realism is fair game. Representation of women is not. Why?
Because sexism/racism/etc. has baggage that those other categories do not.
Saying "You wrote a bad story" implies you did an inferior job.
Saying "You wrote a sexist story" implies that you maligned half of the human race.
FWIW, I think that most criticism of sexist tropes can be done without specifically invoking sexism.
"This art is bad because the human body cannot actually contort into that position." "This story is poorly written because this character acts in a ridiculously stupid way in order to serve the plot." "The costume design is terrible, because people can't actually fight very effectively in high heels, barring them being on horseback." "This art is bad because a reverse image search shows you exactly which porn films the artist traced off of in each panel." "The film would have been better served if that character and that character had more scenes, preferably together, as one of those characters was one of the best parts of the story, and the other character was interesting but underused." "This art is bad because real human beings have feet."
I think that when possible, it's easier to first convince someone that something is terrible, and then point out that it's also sexist, then it is to convince someone that something is terrible because it's sexist. The latter often leads, in my experience, to "No, it's not sexist!" and then the person gets defensive, and the discussion can't move forward.
This is not only super disingenuous, it automatically assumes that realism is a quality to be prized in and of itself over meaning and entertainment. "This superpowered woman who can fly is unrealistically depicted in this drawing of her punching a robot dinosaur."
It's pretty important when you're showing that woman trying to have a real human relationship or real human problems.
There's a difference between "I didn't like this game because the graphics were bad" and "This game's bad graphics are indicative of an industry-wide cancer. We need more games with good graphics and fewer games with bad graphics. Artists who make games with bad graphics should be ashamed of themselves and we should all endeavor only to support games with good graphics."
I see a little projection in your post and think you might want to look at the two hypothetical criticisms you've listed and ask yourself, honestly, if you represented both sides accurately.
Regardless of "graphics are bad vs. I WILL BURN DOWN YOUR HOUSE," let's set that aside for a moment, I don't care that they are different. I want to know why one is OK to discuss critically and one isn't. Graphics are fair game. Story is fair game. Load times are fair game. Weapon realism is fair game. Representation of women is not. Why?
Because sexism/racism/etc. has baggage that those other categories do not.
Saying "You wrote a bad story" implies you did an inferior job.
Saying "You wrote a sexist story" implies that you maligned half of the human race.
FWIW, I think that most criticism of sexist tropes can be done without specifically invoking sexism.
"This art is bad because the human body cannot actually contort into that position." "This story is poorly written because this character acts in a ridiculously stupid way in order to serve the plot." "The costume design is terrible, because people can't actually fight very effectively in high heels, barring them being on horseback." "This art is bad because a reverse image search shows you exactly which porn films the artist traced off of in each panel." "The film would have been better served if that character and that character had more scenes, preferably together, as one of those characters was one of the best parts of the story, and the other character was interesting but underused." "This art is bad because real human beings have feet."
I think that when possible, it's easier to first convince someone that something is terrible, and then point out that it's also sexist, then it is to convince someone that something is terrible because it's sexist. The latter often leads, in my experience, to "No, it's not sexist!" and then the person gets defensive, and the discussion can't move forward.
This is not only super disingenuous, it automatically assumes that realism is a quality to be prized in and of itself over meaning and entertainment. "This superpowered woman who can fly is unrealistically depicted in this drawing of her punching a robot dinosaur."
It's pretty important when you're showing that superpowered woman who can fly trying to have a real human relationship or real human problems.
There's a difference between "I didn't like this game because the graphics were bad" and "This game's bad graphics are indicative of an industry-wide cancer. We need more games with good graphics and fewer games with bad graphics. Artists who make games with bad graphics should be ashamed of themselves and we should all endeavor only to support games with good graphics."
I see a little projection in your post and think you might want to look at the two hypothetical criticisms you've listed and ask yourself, honestly, if you represented both sides accurately.
Regardless of "graphics are bad vs. I WILL BURN DOWN YOUR HOUSE," let's set that aside for a moment, I don't care that they are different. I want to know why one is OK to discuss critically and one isn't. Graphics are fair game. Story is fair game. Load times are fair game. Weapon realism is fair game. Representation of women is not. Why?
Because sexism/racism/etc. has baggage that those other categories do not.
Saying "You wrote a bad story" implies you did an inferior job.
Saying "You wrote a sexist story" implies that you maligned half of the human race.
So what do you suggest be done when someone writes a sexist story?
That depend on a lot of factors.
Is it real sexism or just perceived sexism?
Did they knowingly or unknowingly write the sexism?
Is there a good reason for the sexism?
Are they acknowledging the sexism or celebrating it?
There are so many thing to consider that I really doubt I could give you a concise response that wasn't a novel, but mainly charity, lots of charity. Remember that even good people make mistakes, so don't just assume that the author is a sexist scumbag. Pony's story shows that there isn't really a whole they could do without ruining their own story. Assume the best of others until you have proof otherwise.
There's a difference between "I didn't like this game because the graphics were bad" and "This game's bad graphics are indicative of an industry-wide cancer. We need more games with good graphics and fewer games with bad graphics. Artists who make games with bad graphics should be ashamed of themselves and we should all endeavor only to support games with good graphics."
I see a little projection in your post and think you might want to look at the two hypothetical criticisms you've listed and ask yourself, honestly, if you represented both sides accurately.
Regardless of "graphics are bad vs. I WILL BURN DOWN YOUR HOUSE," let's set that aside for a moment, I don't care that they are different. I want to know why one is OK to discuss critically and one isn't. Graphics are fair game. Story is fair game. Load times are fair game. Weapon realism is fair game. Representation of women is not. Why?
Because sexism/racism/etc. has baggage that those other categories do not.
Saying "You wrote a bad story" implies you did an inferior job.
Saying "You wrote a sexist story" implies that you maligned half of the human race.
So what do you suggest be done when someone writes a sexist story?
That depend on a lot of factors.
Is it real sexism or just perceived sexism?
Did they knowingly or unknowingly write the sexism?
Is there a good reason for the sexism?
Are they acknowledging the sexism or celebrating it?
There are so many thing to consider that I really doubt I could give you a concise response that wasn't a novel, but mainly charity, lots of charity. Remember that even good people make mistakes, so don't just assume that the author is a sexist scumbag. Pony's story shows that there isn't really a whole they could do without ruining their own story. Assume the best of others until you have proof otherwise.
I agree.
But what you seem to be missing is that several people in this thread are against saying anything at all.
There's a difference between "I didn't like this game because the graphics were bad" and "This game's bad graphics are indicative of an industry-wide cancer. We need more games with good graphics and fewer games with bad graphics. Artists who make games with bad graphics should be ashamed of themselves and we should all endeavor only to support games with good graphics."
I see a little projection in your post and think you might want to look at the two hypothetical criticisms you've listed and ask yourself, honestly, if you represented both sides accurately.
Regardless of "graphics are bad vs. I WILL BURN DOWN YOUR HOUSE," let's set that aside for a moment, I don't care that they are different. I want to know why one is OK to discuss critically and one isn't. Graphics are fair game. Story is fair game. Load times are fair game. Weapon realism is fair game. Representation of women is not. Why?
Because sexism/racism/etc. has baggage that those other categories do not.
Saying "You wrote a bad story" implies you did an inferior job.
Saying "You wrote a sexist story" implies that you maligned half of the human race.
So what do you suggest be done when someone writes a sexist story?
That depend on a lot of factors.
Is it real sexism or just perceived sexism?
Did they knowingly or unknowingly write the sexism?
Is there a good reason for the sexism?
Are they acknowledging the sexism or celebrating it?
There are so many thing to consider that I really doubt I could give you a concise response that wasn't a novel, but mainly charity, lots of charity. Remember that even good people make mistakes, so don't just assume that the author is a sexist scumbag. Pony's story shows that there isn't really a whole they could do without ruining their own story. Assume the best of others until you have proof otherwise.
I agree.
But what you seem to be missing is that several people in this thread are against saying anything at all.
Who is saying that? I don't think anyone is saying that.
Jebus314 on
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
There's a difference between "I didn't like this game because the graphics were bad" and "This game's bad graphics are indicative of an industry-wide cancer. We need more games with good graphics and fewer games with bad graphics. Artists who make games with bad graphics should be ashamed of themselves and we should all endeavor only to support games with good graphics."
I see a little projection in your post and think you might want to look at the two hypothetical criticisms you've listed and ask yourself, honestly, if you represented both sides accurately.
Regardless of "graphics are bad vs. I WILL BURN DOWN YOUR HOUSE," let's set that aside for a moment, I don't care that they are different. I want to know why one is OK to discuss critically and one isn't. Graphics are fair game. Story is fair game. Load times are fair game. Weapon realism is fair game. Representation of women is not. Why?
Because sexism/racism/etc. has baggage that those other categories do not.
Saying "You wrote a bad story" implies you did an inferior job.
Saying "You wrote a sexist story" implies that you maligned half of the human race.
So what do you suggest be done when someone writes a sexist story?
That depend on a lot of factors.
Is it real sexism or just perceived sexism?
Did they knowingly or unknowingly write the sexism?
Is there a good reason for the sexism?
Are they acknowledging the sexism or celebrating it?
There are so many thing to consider that I really doubt I could give you a concise response that wasn't a novel, but mainly charity, lots of charity. Remember that even good people make mistakes, so don't just assume that the author is a sexist scumbag. Pony's story shows that there isn't really a whole they could do without ruining their own story. Assume the best of others until you have proof otherwise.
I agree.
But what you seem to be missing is that several people in this thread are against saying anything at all.
Who is saying that? I don't think anyone is saying that.
J suggest put it in a book section and nothing else.
There's a difference between "I didn't like this game because the graphics were bad" and "This game's bad graphics are indicative of an industry-wide cancer. We need more games with good graphics and fewer games with bad graphics. Artists who make games with bad graphics should be ashamed of themselves and we should all endeavor only to support games with good graphics."
I see a little projection in your post and think you might want to look at the two hypothetical criticisms you've listed and ask yourself, honestly, if you represented both sides accurately.
Regardless of "graphics are bad vs. I WILL BURN DOWN YOUR HOUSE," let's set that aside for a moment, I don't care that they are different. I want to know why one is OK to discuss critically and one isn't. Graphics are fair game. Story is fair game. Load times are fair game. Weapon realism is fair game. Representation of women is not. Why?
Because sexism/racism/etc. has baggage that those other categories do not.
Saying "You wrote a bad story" implies you did an inferior job.
Saying "You wrote a sexist story" implies that you maligned half of the human race.
So what do you suggest be done when someone writes a sexist story?
That depend on a lot of factors.
Is it real sexism or just perceived sexism?
Did they knowingly or unknowingly write the sexism?
Is there a good reason for the sexism?
Are they acknowledging the sexism or celebrating it?
There are so many thing to consider that I really doubt I could give you a concise response that wasn't a novel, but mainly charity, lots of charity. Remember that even good people make mistakes, so don't just assume that the author is a sexist scumbag. Pony's story shows that there isn't really a whole they could do without ruining their own story. Assume the best of others until you have proof otherwise.
I agree.
But what you seem to be missing is that several people in this thread are against saying anything at all.
Who is saying that? I don't think anyone is saying that.
J suggest put it in a book section and nothing else.
Frankie calls it suppression.
I think _J_ said that is what he would do but I think he probably believes anyone should be able to criticize art for any reason they want to. I also don't think Frankie would say that you shouldn't be critical, just that the sexism movement can sometimes go past criticism to trying to remove all forms of a particular art style or whatever.
Jebus314 on
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
There's a difference between "I didn't like this game because the graphics were bad" and "This game's bad graphics are indicative of an industry-wide cancer. We need more games with good graphics and fewer games with bad graphics. Artists who make games with bad graphics should be ashamed of themselves and we should all endeavor only to support games with good graphics."
I see a little projection in your post and think you might want to look at the two hypothetical criticisms you've listed and ask yourself, honestly, if you represented both sides accurately.
Regardless of "graphics are bad vs. I WILL BURN DOWN YOUR HOUSE," let's set that aside for a moment, I don't care that they are different. I want to know why one is OK to discuss critically and one isn't. Graphics are fair game. Story is fair game. Load times are fair game. Weapon realism is fair game. Representation of women is not. Why?
Because sexism/racism/etc. has baggage that those other categories do not.
Saying "You wrote a bad story" implies you did an inferior job.
Saying "You wrote a sexist story" implies that you maligned half of the human race.
FWIW, I think that most criticism of sexist tropes can be done without specifically invoking sexism.
"This art is bad because the human body cannot actually contort into that position." "This story is poorly written because this character acts in a ridiculously stupid way in order to serve the plot." "The costume design is terrible, because people can't actually fight very effectively in high heels, barring them being on horseback." "This art is bad because a reverse image search shows you exactly which porn films the artist traced off of in each panel." "The film would have been better served if that character and that character had more scenes, preferably together, as one of those characters was one of the best parts of the story, and the other character was interesting but underused." "This art is bad because real human beings have feet."
I think that when possible, it's easier to first convince someone that something is terrible, and then point out that it's also sexist, then it is to convince someone that something is terrible because it's sexist. The latter often leads, in my experience, to "No, it's not sexist!" and then the person gets defensive, and the discussion can't move forward.
This is not only super disingenuous, it automatically assumes that realism is a quality to be prized in and of itself over meaning and entertainment. "This superpowered woman who can fly is unrealistically depicted in this drawing of her punching a robot dinosaur."
Not to get into "I know you are but what am I," but I think that your response is pretty disingenuous.
I will refer you to the Supreme Court precedent of Rubber v. Glue.
Nah, I just mean that, like, I can get behind the idea that characters shouldn't automatically wear high heels all the time no matter the circumstance, because that creates a certain expectation that we as a society don't want to create. But fighting in high heels is a perfectly acceptable unrealistic bit of escapist fantasy. I mean, capes are just as bad in terms of combat clothing (cite), but nobody complains about that, do they?
My issue is less that you're trying to trick somebody into accepting certain critiques and more that your fake arguments have their own wrongful assumptions, like if I tried to explain to a child that stealing was wrong by saying that black people steal and you don't want to be like them, now do you? Obviously the popular propensity towards exacting, logical realism isn't as harmful as the racist notion that blacks are prone to theft, but it is something that puts unnecessary constraints on artistic expression.
Also, maybe if your arguments were more convincing on their merits, you wouldn't have to hide them in a piece of nerd cheese. Just sayin'.
There's a difference between "I didn't like this game because the graphics were bad" and "This game's bad graphics are indicative of an industry-wide cancer. We need more games with good graphics and fewer games with bad graphics. Artists who make games with bad graphics should be ashamed of themselves and we should all endeavor only to support games with good graphics."
I see a little projection in your post and think you might want to look at the two hypothetical criticisms you've listed and ask yourself, honestly, if you represented both sides accurately.
Regardless of "graphics are bad vs. I WILL BURN DOWN YOUR HOUSE," let's set that aside for a moment, I don't care that they are different. I want to know why one is OK to discuss critically and one isn't. Graphics are fair game. Story is fair game. Load times are fair game. Weapon realism is fair game. Representation of women is not. Why?
Because sexism/racism/etc. has baggage that those other categories do not.
Saying "You wrote a bad story" implies you did an inferior job.
Saying "You wrote a sexist story" implies that you maligned half of the human race.
So what do you suggest be done when someone writes a sexist story?
That depend on a lot of factors.
Is it real sexism or just perceived sexism?
Did they knowingly or unknowingly write the sexism?
Is there a good reason for the sexism?
Are they acknowledging the sexism or celebrating it?
There are so many thing to consider that I really doubt I could give you a concise response that wasn't a novel, but mainly charity, lots of charity. Remember that even good people make mistakes, so don't just assume that the author is a sexist scumbag. Pony's story shows that there isn't really a whole they could do without ruining their own story. Assume the best of others until you have proof otherwise.
I agree.
But what you seem to be missing is that several people in this thread are against saying anything at all.
Who is saying that? I don't think anyone is saying that.
J suggest put it in a book section and nothing else.
Frankie calls it suppression.
I think _J_ said that is what he would do but I think he probably believes anyone should be able to criticize art for any reason they want to. I also don't think Frankie would say that you shouldn't be critical, just that the sexism movement can sometimes go past criticism to trying to remove all forms of a particular art style or whatever.
Until Frankie actually explains any of his beliefs I don't particularly care for your interpretation. By his reasoning I am currently suppressing McDonalds.
I think _J_ said that is what he would do but I think he probably believes anyone should be able to criticize art for any reason they want to. I also don't think Frankie would say that you shouldn't be critical, just that the sexism movement can sometimes go past criticism to trying to remove all forms of a particular art style or whatever.
Well, people can criticize art for any reason they want. As to whether or not people should be able to criticize art for nonsensical / stupid reasons, I remain undecided.
Much as I like fire, I am not a strong proponent of book burning. If someone writes a sexist book, we put it on the bookshelf. If you want to critique the book, go nuts. But don't critique it in a nonsensical way, unless you really want to; I can't stop you.
I think _J_ said that is what he would do but I think he probably believes anyone should be able to criticize art for any reason they want to. I also don't think Frankie would say that you shouldn't be critical, just that the sexism movement can sometimes go past criticism to trying to remove all forms of a particular art style or whatever.
Well, people can criticize art for any reason they want. As to whether or not people should be able to criticize art for nonsensical / stupid reasons, I remain undecided.
Much as I like fire, I am not a strong proponent of book burning. If someone writes a sexist book, we put it on the bookshelf. If you want to critique the book, go nuts. But don't critique it in a nonsensical way, unless you really want to; I can't stop you.
What does book burning have to do with anything.
Who in here has critiqued things in a nonsensical way.
I think _J_ said that is what he would do but I think he probably believes anyone should be able to criticize art for any reason they want to. I also don't think Frankie would say that you shouldn't be critical, just that the sexism movement can sometimes go past criticism to trying to remove all forms of a particular art style or whatever.
Well, people can criticize art for any reason they want. As to whether or not people should be able to criticize art for nonsensical / stupid reasons, I remain undecided.
Much as I like fire, I am not a strong proponent of book burning. If someone writes a sexist book, we put it on the bookshelf. If you want to critique the book, go nuts. But don't critique it in a nonsensical way, unless you really want to; I can't stop you.
What does book burning have to do with anything.
Who in here has critiqued things in a nonsensical way.
Those claims were not necessarily directed at people in this thread. I was responding to, "he probably believes anyone should be able to criticize art for any reason they want to", which is a claim about a universal, global stance. So I replied in kind.
I apologize if my post was misleading.
Edit: I do not think anyone in here is spouting nonsense. I think many of us have conflicting starting premises and definitions, though.
I think _J_ said that is what he would do but I think he probably believes anyone should be able to criticize art for any reason they want to. I also don't think Frankie would say that you shouldn't be critical, just that the sexism movement can sometimes go past criticism to trying to remove all forms of a particular art style or whatever.
Well, people can criticize art for any reason they want. As to whether or not people should be able to criticize art for nonsensical / stupid reasons, I remain undecided.
Much as I like fire, I am not a strong proponent of book burning. If someone writes a sexist book, we put it on the bookshelf. If you want to critique the book, go nuts. But don't critique it in a nonsensical way, unless you really want to; I can't stop you.
Yeah but do you really think it's nonsensical/stupid to criticize universal portrayal of women as inferior? I mean I have a lot of problems with the way people go about these sorts of discussions, but in the end I do feel like there is a legitimate concern about the portrayal of women in media.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
If you don't feel like a trope is sexist, we can talk about that.
If you want to talk about how a trope is sexist but you don't think that it does any harm, we can talk about that.
This is not the "who has the right to criticize art" thread. It's not the censorship thread. And it most certainly isn't the "your feelings on how a piece of art have impacted you are suppressing creators" thread.
There's a difference between "I didn't like this game because the graphics were bad" and "This game's bad graphics are indicative of an industry-wide cancer. We need more games with good graphics and fewer games with bad graphics. Artists who make games with bad graphics should be ashamed of themselves and we should all endeavor only to support games with good graphics."
I see a little projection in your post and think you might want to look at the two hypothetical criticisms you've listed and ask yourself, honestly, if you represented both sides accurately.
Regardless of "graphics are bad vs. I WILL BURN DOWN YOUR HOUSE," let's set that aside for a moment, I don't care that they are different. I want to know why one is OK to discuss critically and one isn't. Graphics are fair game. Story is fair game. Load times are fair game. Weapon realism is fair game. Representation of women is not. Why?
Because sexism/racism/etc. has baggage that those other categories do not.
Saying "You wrote a bad story" implies you did an inferior job.
Saying "You wrote a sexist story" implies that you maligned half of the human race.
FWIW, I think that most criticism of sexist tropes can be done without specifically invoking sexism.
"This art is bad because the human body cannot actually contort into that position." "This story is poorly written because this character acts in a ridiculously stupid way in order to serve the plot." "The costume design is terrible, because people can't actually fight very effectively in high heels, barring them being on horseback." "This art is bad because a reverse image search shows you exactly which porn films the artist traced off of in each panel." "The film would have been better served if that character and that character had more scenes, preferably together, as one of those characters was one of the best parts of the story, and the other character was interesting but underused." "This art is bad because real human beings have feet."
I think that when possible, it's easier to first convince someone that something is terrible, and then point out that it's also sexist, then it is to convince someone that something is terrible because it's sexist. The latter often leads, in my experience, to "No, it's not sexist!" and then the person gets defensive, and the discussion can't move forward.
This is not only super disingenuous, it automatically assumes that realism is a quality to be prized in and of itself over meaning and entertainment. "This superpowered woman who can fly is unrealistically depicted in this drawing of her punching a robot dinosaur."
Not to get into "I know you are but what am I," but I think that your response is pretty disingenuous.
I will refer you to the Supreme Court precedent of Rubber v. Glue.
Nah, I just mean that, like, I can get behind the idea that characters shouldn't automatically wear high heels all the time no matter the circumstance, because that creates a certain expectation that we as a society don't want to create. But fighting in high heels is a perfectly acceptable unrealistic bit of escapist fantasy. I mean, capes are just as bad in terms of combat clothing (cite), but nobody complains about that, do they?
My issue is less that you're trying to trick somebody into accepting certain critiques and more that your fake arguments have their own wrongful assumptions, like if I tried to explain to a child that stealing was wrong by saying that black people steal and you don't want to be like them, now do you? Obviously the popular propensity towards exacting, logical realism isn't as harmful as the racist notion that blacks are prone to theft, but it is something that puts unnecessary constraints on artistic expression.
Also, maybe if your arguments were more convincing on their merits, you wouldn't have to hide them in a piece of nerd cheese. Just sayin'.
I disagree, but I have significantly less disagreement with your second post than your first.
In your first post, you basically said "You're wrong, and you should feel bad for being wrong!"
In your second reply to me on this, you basically said "I disagree with you, and here's the problem with your argument."
The first mode of response to an idea "You're sexist!/You're being disingenuous!" provokes a confrontation without ever getting into why the item is a problem. The second mode, "The problem with this item is..." highlights the actual underlying problem with the item, and provokes discussion.
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
There's a difference between "I didn't like this game because the graphics were bad" and "This game's bad graphics are indicative of an industry-wide cancer. We need more games with good graphics and fewer games with bad graphics. Artists who make games with bad graphics should be ashamed of themselves and we should all endeavor only to support games with good graphics."
I see a little projection in your post and think you might want to look at the two hypothetical criticisms you've listed and ask yourself, honestly, if you represented both sides accurately.
Regardless of "graphics are bad vs. I WILL BURN DOWN YOUR HOUSE," let's set that aside for a moment, I don't care that they are different. I want to know why one is OK to discuss critically and one isn't. Graphics are fair game. Story is fair game. Load times are fair game. Weapon realism is fair game. Representation of women is not. Why?
Because sexism/racism/etc. has baggage that those other categories do not.
Saying "You wrote a bad story" implies you did an inferior job.
Saying "You wrote a sexist story" implies that you maligned half of the human race.
FWIW, I think that most criticism of sexist tropes can be done without specifically invoking sexism.
"This art is bad because the human body cannot actually contort into that position." "This story is poorly written because this character acts in a ridiculously stupid way in order to serve the plot." "This art is bad, because by giving the character massive breasts, the artist is deviating pretty hard from the character's long established design." "The costume design is terrible, because people can't actually fight very effectively in high heels, barring them being on horseback." "This art is bad because a reverse image search shows you exactly which porn films the artist traced off of in each panel." "The film would have been better served if that character and that character had more scenes, preferably together, as one of those characters was one of the best parts of the story, and the other character was interesting but underused." "This art is bad because real human beings have feet."
I think that when possible, it's easier to first convince someone that something is terrible, and then point out that it's also sexist, then it is to convince someone that something is terrible because it's sexist. The latter often leads, in my experience, to "No, it's not sexist!" and then the person gets defensive, and the discussion can't move forward.
I think you are right in that arguing from the individual merits is a better place to start.
I am going to latch on to the high heels thing specifically. You say it is unrealistic. I would say it falls under the rule of cool. Any woman who can fight effectively in high heels is more awesome to me because of the difficulty involved. Now we can have a discussion where I explain that Black Widow > Hawkeye and we can even agree to disagree. The problems start when in the course of that discussion you jump to "It's sexist" as if it were a trump card to win the discussion without feeling the need to back that statement up. Bringing in a charge of sexism would reframe the discussion where either I agree with you, admit I am a bad person, or spend the next year defending my point as not being sexist, and that is where I have problems.
Posts
Yeah, that's definitely one way to do it. There are also other legitimate ways.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Wait, I thought we were just criticizing sexist material, but thanks for showing us how fast you can slide down the slippery slope.
I honestly don't care
Your ability to derail any thread into your own little logic lesson is legendary
I see a little projection in your post and think you might want to look at the two hypothetical criticisms you've listed and ask yourself, honestly, if you represented both sides accurately.
Regardless of "graphics are bad vs. I WILL BURN DOWN YOUR HOUSE," let's set that aside for a moment, I don't care that they are different. I want to know why one is OK to discuss critically and one isn't. Graphics are fair game. Story is fair game. Load times are fair game. Weapon realism is fair game. Representation of women is not. Why?
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
To my knowledge no one has suggested that you should not be critical of representation of women in media. But the means and end goals of your criticism are important.
Because sexism/racism/etc. has baggage that those other categories do not.
Saying "You wrote a bad story" implies you did an inferior job.
Saying "You wrote a sexist story" implies that you maligned half of the human race.
So what do you suggest be done when someone writes a sexist story?
The same thing we do when someone writes a violent story.
Put it in the correct section of the bookstore.
I feel like this is sort of unfair though. This argument began because _J_ suggested that a drawing can not in and of itself be sexist. Which is a valid point. There is and should be a distinction between actual discrimination and prejudice and individual comics/media. To which quid latched on to the frankly irrelevant part of _J_'s post about acts of sexism being towards an individual. I don't see why it was unreasonable for _J_ to respond in kind even if I agree that nobody cares about the literal definition of sexism being against an individual versus a group.
I said both are OK to discuss critically. Maybe it's not okay to use either as the basis for an intellectual/consumerist campaign against individual creators or works? (And when I say maybe, I'm not being snarky. I'm not sure.)
If you dislike it and don't feel like buying it, don't. If you like it and feel like buying it, do. If you dislike it and feel like saying so, do. If you dislike it and wish somebody would write a non-sexist story, encourage that. If you dislike it and wish that everybody would agree with you and/or that everybody would refuse to buy it, maybe try accepting that other people don't have to share your opinions and actions in order for them to be valid and meaningful?
"An it harm none, do as thou wilt," basically.
I never said this had to happen all the time in every case, to get a career ending backlash you're going to be talking about a pretty egarious situation (unless things escalate in which case its a lot more complicated as it might be as much your response at fault as anything else). Just pointing out that careers not being effected by a backlash is not the baseline of a sexism free world, they're a pretty special and much rarer case than the vast bulk of sexisms effects on careers.
The slippery slope is surely saying that we need to prevent these occurrences at the expense of tackling the more everyday effects of sexism?
FWIW, I think that most criticism of sexist tropes can be done without specifically invoking sexism.
"This art is bad because the human body cannot actually contort into that position." "This story is poorly written because this character acts in a ridiculously stupid way in order to serve the plot." "This art is bad, because by giving the character massive breasts, the artist is deviating pretty hard from the character's long established design." "The costume design is terrible, because people can't actually fight very effectively in high heels, barring them being on horseback." "This art is bad because a reverse image search shows you exactly which porn films the artist traced off of in each panel." "The film would have been better served if that character and that character had more scenes, preferably together, as one of those characters was one of the best parts of the story, and the other character was interesting but underused." "This art is bad because real human beings have feet."
I think that when possible, it's easier to first convince someone that something is terrible, and then point out that it's also sexist, then it is to convince someone that something is terrible because it's sexist. The latter often leads, in my experience, to "No, it's not sexist!" and then the person gets defensive, and the discussion can't move forward.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
This is not only super disingenuous, it automatically assumes that realism is a quality to be prized in and of itself over meaning and entertainment. "This superpowered woman who can fly is unrealistically depicted in this drawing of her punching a robot dinosaur."
Not to get into "I know you are but what am I," but I think that your response is pretty disingenuous.
It's pretty important when you're showing that woman trying to have a real human relationship or real human problems.
That depend on a lot of factors.
Is it real sexism or just perceived sexism?
Did they knowingly or unknowingly write the sexism?
Is there a good reason for the sexism?
Are they acknowledging the sexism or celebrating it?
There are so many thing to consider that I really doubt I could give you a concise response that wasn't a novel, but mainly charity, lots of charity. Remember that even good people make mistakes, so don't just assume that the author is a sexist scumbag. Pony's story shows that there isn't really a whole they could do without ruining their own story. Assume the best of others until you have proof otherwise.
I agree.
But what you seem to be missing is that several people in this thread are against saying anything at all.
Who is saying that? I don't think anyone is saying that.
J suggest put it in a book section and nothing else.
Frankie calls it suppression.
Yet I doubt anyone's going to call it suppression if we tell them as much.
I think _J_ said that is what he would do but I think he probably believes anyone should be able to criticize art for any reason they want to. I also don't think Frankie would say that you shouldn't be critical, just that the sexism movement can sometimes go past criticism to trying to remove all forms of a particular art style or whatever.
I will refer you to the Supreme Court precedent of Rubber v. Glue.
Nah, I just mean that, like, I can get behind the idea that characters shouldn't automatically wear high heels all the time no matter the circumstance, because that creates a certain expectation that we as a society don't want to create. But fighting in high heels is a perfectly acceptable unrealistic bit of escapist fantasy. I mean, capes are just as bad in terms of combat clothing (cite), but nobody complains about that, do they?
My issue is less that you're trying to trick somebody into accepting certain critiques and more that your fake arguments have their own wrongful assumptions, like if I tried to explain to a child that stealing was wrong by saying that black people steal and you don't want to be like them, now do you? Obviously the popular propensity towards exacting, logical realism isn't as harmful as the racist notion that blacks are prone to theft, but it is something that puts unnecessary constraints on artistic expression.
Also, maybe if your arguments were more convincing on their merits, you wouldn't have to hide them in a piece of nerd cheese. Just sayin'.
Until Frankie actually explains any of his beliefs I don't particularly care for your interpretation. By his reasoning I am currently suppressing McDonalds.
I'm outa here.
Well, people can criticize art for any reason they want. As to whether or not people should be able to criticize art for nonsensical / stupid reasons, I remain undecided.
Much as I like fire, I am not a strong proponent of book burning. If someone writes a sexist book, we put it on the bookshelf. If you want to critique the book, go nuts. But don't critique it in a nonsensical way, unless you really want to; I can't stop you.
What does book burning have to do with anything.
Who in here has critiqued things in a nonsensical way.
Those claims were not necessarily directed at people in this thread. I was responding to, "he probably believes anyone should be able to criticize art for any reason they want to", which is a claim about a universal, global stance. So I replied in kind.
I apologize if my post was misleading.
Edit: I do not think anyone in here is spouting nonsense. I think many of us have conflicting starting premises and definitions, though.
Yeah but do you really think it's nonsensical/stupid to criticize universal portrayal of women as inferior? I mean I have a lot of problems with the way people go about these sorts of discussions, but in the end I do feel like there is a legitimate concern about the portrayal of women in media.
That some might consider sexist.
If you don't feel like a trope is sexist, we can talk about that.
If you want to talk about how a trope is sexist but you don't think that it does any harm, we can talk about that.
This is not the "who has the right to criticize art" thread. It's not the censorship thread. And it most certainly isn't the "your feelings on how a piece of art have impacted you are suppressing creators" thread.
This is A Thread About Sexist Tropes.
I disagree, but I have significantly less disagreement with your second post than your first.
In your first post, you basically said "You're wrong, and you should feel bad for being wrong!"
In your second reply to me on this, you basically said "I disagree with you, and here's the problem with your argument."
The first mode of response to an idea "You're sexist!/You're being disingenuous!" provokes a confrontation without ever getting into why the item is a problem. The second mode, "The problem with this item is..." highlights the actual underlying problem with the item, and provokes discussion.
I think you are right in that arguing from the individual merits is a better place to start.
I am going to latch on to the high heels thing specifically. You say it is unrealistic. I would say it falls under the rule of cool. Any woman who can fight effectively in high heels is more awesome to me because of the difficulty involved. Now we can have a discussion where I explain that Black Widow > Hawkeye and we can even agree to disagree. The problems start when in the course of that discussion you jump to "It's sexist" as if it were a trump card to win the discussion without feeling the need to back that statement up. Bringing in a charge of sexism would reframe the discussion where either I agree with you, admit I am a bad person, or spend the next year defending my point as not being sexist, and that is where I have problems.