Using your wallet puts pressure on the artist, Frankie.
You can't have it both ways.
Now who's talking in binary.
I'm not crazy, and I'm all for individual liberty. If you as a person decide to quietly not buy my stuff anymore, that's acceptable pressure. If you decide to up and organize a bunch of people to not buy my stuff, well that's a different story.
Who does this help?
The artist who's losing sales and doesn't know why?
The consumer who now has one less artist to buy from?
I am also tired of the false dichotomies being presented by several parties, including J and Frankiedarling, where there is simply a binary between "Accepting that sexist art exists and there is nothing you can do about it" and "Actively suppressing sexist art and oppressing the artists who produce it".
J in particular is a big fan of his bullshit false dichotomies and "Aristotlean" choices that only exist as a binary for his arbitrary reasons without establishing why they must be so. I'm tired of it.
There is no binary. There is no either or. There is no one or the other. It is a gradient of influence where you can impact the minds and values of other people without oppressing or suppressing anyone.
This goes back to the very first post I made (the one of substance, anyway, not the one I deleted), which talked about the difference between Censorship, Consumer Awareness, and Artist Awareness. There are some (J is someone I'll single out, but there are others) who consider it all on a singular continuum with censorship, where it's either censorship or irrelevancy, and that's bullshit.
Using the anecdote I posted as an example of my own experience interacting with a fan who pointed out sexist problems in my own writing, there's an example of what was originally Consumer Awareness (she was trying to talk to other fans about it) and then later Artist Awareness (she reached out to me, the writer). Consumer Awareness had zero traction for her, because the other fans she interacted with didn't see a problem and were unable to separate her considering the character as sexist as calling the entire comic sexist (which was the most common defense being mounted) or that essentially that the fans themselves were somehow sexist for enjoying a comic that she thought had a character in it that was a sexist stereotype.
So she tried Artist Awareness instead, and contacted me, and even that was only truly effective (because remember, even I got defensive about it initially) after I consulted with peers and had other female writers be like, yeah dogg, this is actually pretty problematic and that character sucks and you shouldn't write characters like that, but what's done is done I guess.
What was the result? Well, for that individual comic, nothing ultimately. I never really changed the character (because it was a writing issue, not like, how I drew them, because I wasn't the illustrator) and I never really got the chance to like, write them out of the comic for other reasons where I stopped being a part of the series.
But what was the result for me, as a writer? Well, I never wrote a character like that again, I tell ya what. I also, in general, took a more careful and critical eye to the sort of tropes and archetypes I used in my writing than I was doing before, very specifically for things like not just sexism, but also racism and other forms of discrimination that might not register with me on a conscious level but might sneak into my writing without my intent. After all, I'm a white, cisgender man, it's not exactly hard for me to write a character who is not those things and for me to come across like I'm talking out my ass.
So it was an experience I grew from, as a writer, and it had a net positive effect on the things I wrote, and although my pop culture relevance is effectively zero (I'm not a professional writer, after all), were that ever to change I'd still be carrying forward that same attitude and the same knowledge.
Comic book artists like Matt Fraction and game developers like Manveer Heir have similar stories. Stuff that made them stop and go "Huh" about the stuff they were creating and being involved in. Sometimes it was the work of other artists. Sometimes it was outreach from their audience. Sometimes it was the work of activists, including maligned critics and pundits who dare to opine about art and what may be wrong with the cultural impact it is having on people.
If you keep putting it as a binary, like there's either nothing you can do or it's some kind of oppressive act, then I can only draw one of two conclusions (If, of course, I assume you're arguing in good faith and not just screwing with people for your own amusement, J): Either you're literally incapable of understanding this "hew-mon" concept of nuance, or you're too fucking cowardly to try to address the question on its own terms like it can actually be asked, without histrionically screaming "THEY'RE TRYING TO TAKE OUR VIDEO GAMES"
I'll be honest Pony, I've had a hard time reply to some of your posts. You seem very ready to to assign labels to people who aren't agreeing, and it's not something I like dealing with on a phone for obvious reasons. I'm also goddamn sick of the thing were those who don't agree with the groupthink are called disingenuous or some such nonsense. It's tiresome. I don't agree with a lot of your stuff or other people's stuff for that matter, but I at least assume you're arguing from a place of sincerity. I don't expect you to reply to my posts, there's a lot of posts by a lot of people, but reading them is generally good. As you so kindly decided to point out to me earlier.
In your example I find the Consumer Awareness thing awful. Artist Awareness is better, and I guess she got lucky in that she made a point you agreed with. And sure, if that's as far as someone's willing to take it, I say more power to them. That's fine. The consumer awareness thing is what I don't like. You don't like something? Great. Wanna say something? Great. But if that's not enough for you, and you've got to try to round up a posse and get a bunch of people to start putting pressure on an artist to change something you don't like? Nah. Don't have room for that.
I have not once said you cannot criticize. People like to assign that to my posts because it makes them easier to counter, I guess. But I've never said it. I've talked with people who have had problems with my writing, and my friends have had similar conversations with people who don't like their art. Generally the response is the same: if you don't like it, don't read/view it, and that's an attitude I'll extend to the world in general. Voice a criticism if you want to. Try to talk to the artist. If that stuff doesn't work, walk away. Taking further action is just... kinda appalling.
Can you explain why?
"I just think it's gross" is a good enough answer to satisfy the question, but will get handled as "Well, that's just your opinion, man".
Like unless you can come up with a good explanation for how it's somehow a social ill or a greater harm, without resorting to alarmist bullshit or slippery slope garbo, then it's just something that makes you feel bad and I don't... especially care?
Considering you don't seem to especially care what makes other people feel bad if it bugs you when they say something about it.
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.
I think much criticism of how various sexes / genders are portrayed in media ignores the history and context of that media, how the media fits within the trends of 'Western Civilization'. I think some people are a bit naive in their beliefs about the degree to which some minor changes in particular instances of media will influence the actions and beliefs of large groups of people.
How one guy draws Wonder Woman, or how Natalie Portman portrays a character in some shitty movie with the guy from Scrubs, is so incredibly insignificant within the larger scope of sexism as a practiced habit within Western Civilization, that it is really quite silly to even bring them up as examples. Unrealistic ideals in fiction is not a new invention. Maybe it's not the cause of the problem. Maybe it's a symptom. Maybe treating symptoms is the path to hollow victories.
Yes, we could retcon Juliet into a more active role in the relationship. But...that seems like a very silly approach to the larger problem. Don't misunderstand me. Brave was a cool movie. And, yeah, fostering an environment where strong female leads in movies and books are common is great. But that's not how we eliminate sexism.
Changing representations of particular sexes / genders in the commodities people buy is an attempt to sell people the idea of equality.
I don't think we get social equality through the free market.
I'm one hundred percent insulted every time you insinuate my posting of the Wonder Woman image comparison was some sort of statement that if we could just fix that image the problem would be fixed, or that the result I'm looking for is to make that artist just change his drawing
Using your wallet puts pressure on the artist, Frankie.
You can't have it both ways.
Now who's talking in binary.
I'm not crazy, and I'm all for individual liberty. If you as a person decide to quietly not buy my stuff anymore, that's acceptable pressure. If you decide to up and organize a bunch of people to not buy my stuff, well that's a different story.
Who does this help?
The artist who's losing sales and doesn't know why?
The consumer who now has one less artist to buy from?
No one is even suggesting doing more but loads of oppression all over.
I mean Pony might.
But most of us are still sticking to "Generally try to avoid sexist media, support more positive media, and talk about the topic when it comes up like now." Monsters we are.
Again, the sexism is in the frequency geared toward a specific sex or gender. If a game consisted of an equal number of men and women and every single person wore thigh high stilettos of similar design and in the same contexts it would be weird but not sexist. If you have a hundred women in your fiction and one of them dresses in those boots, that isn't automatically sexist.
Ohmygod we are finally back on track can we keep it this way?
This is a good way of looking at it. I would say the high heels thing bothers me less in a sexist way and more in a "this is totally unrealistic" way. It takes me out of the story. But I would be lying if I didn't say that it didn't bother me on the basis of gender at all. There's really no male equivalent, short of a fight scene in... underwear I guess?
Here lies the disconnect.
Putting men in heels -> wierd
Putting a women in heels -> sexist
If you label the Women in Heels trope into an always sexist trope, it becomes a lose/lose for the artist. Are there any situations where you feel the use of heels would not be sexist?
Depends on the character, her reasons for wearing high heels, context (at the office or fighting crime? If it's fighting crime there had better be a good reason for in the story that makes sense) and if a lot of similar female characters are doing it like it's a fashion trend. Also why, as a writer, do you want her to wear high heels? Is it that important to the character or story? Wonder Woman's a character I don't think would give a fuck about fashion trends.
Using your wallet puts pressure on the artist, Frankie.
You can't have it both ways.
Now who's talking in binary.
I'm not crazy, and I'm all for individual liberty. If you as a person decide to quietly not buy my stuff anymore, that's acceptable pressure. If you decide to up and organize a bunch of people to not buy my stuff, well that's a different story.
It'd be nice if more writers fleshed out characters instead of putting cardboard cutouts of personalities on the screen or page just to appeal to our love of cheesecake.
It isn't trying to organize a boycott, but it is an attempt to modify the actions of others, which is a kind of suppression. Feel free to go out and write a fleshed out character, but don't tell Will Wheaton that he ought to.
Is I assume what Frankiedarling would say.
That's not suppression, that's the free market of ideas. Capitalism! Being an artist isn't a free pass on getting your ideas drawn and quartered in the village square. Being an artist isn't for the faint of heart. Amateurs go through this with fanfiction, you're not getting any leeway as a professional.
Using your wallet puts pressure on the artist, Frankie.
You can't have it both ways.
Now who's talking in binary.
I'm not crazy, and I'm all for individual liberty. If you as a person decide to quietly not buy my stuff anymore, that's acceptable pressure. If you decide to up and organize a bunch of people to not buy my stuff, well that's a different story.
Who does this help?
The artist who's losing sales and doesn't know why?
The consumer who now has one less artist to buy from?
I did state I'm fine with people contacting the artists or voicing individual criticisms.
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
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.
This is about 7 pages late, but I would suggest that it's due to the vague and somewhat schizophrenic claims of the critics* (both individually and in aggregate). In that despite the various claims "it's not about any particular piece of media, it's the trend overall" or "these kinds of depictions are sexist, but it's fine that they exist, they just shouldn't solely exist" inevitably the discussion falls upon particular examples - say a particular catwoman pose, Dragon Crown or Hitman: Leather Nuns Edition and the tone and general sentiment is "this is BAD and should not exist or be consumed". The former's connection to censorship is distal at best and so yours is a reasonable concern in that case, but the latter is far more proximal.
* I don't know what a good, general term is for each of the "sides" as it were. My general phrase is "radically progressive" but that seems clunky and doesn't necessarily highlight the difference I see between the various camps extant within the forums.
I am also tired of the false dichotomies being presented by several parties, including J and Frankiedarling, where there is simply a binary between "Accepting that sexist art exists and there is nothing you can do about it" and "Actively suppressing sexist art and oppressing the artists who produce it".
J in particular is a big fan of his bullshit false dichotomies and "Aristotlean" choices that only exist as a binary for his arbitrary reasons without establishing why they must be so. I'm tired of it.
There is no binary. There is no either or. There is no one or the other. It is a gradient of influence where you can impact the minds and values of other people without oppressing or suppressing anyone.
This goes back to the very first post I made (the one of substance, anyway, not the one I deleted), which talked about the difference between Censorship, Consumer Awareness, and Artist Awareness. There are some (J is someone I'll single out, but there are others) who consider it all on a singular continuum with censorship, where it's either censorship or irrelevancy, and that's bullshit.
Using the anecdote I posted as an example of my own experience interacting with a fan who pointed out sexist problems in my own writing, there's an example of what was originally Consumer Awareness (she was trying to talk to other fans about it) and then later Artist Awareness (she reached out to me, the writer). Consumer Awareness had zero traction for her, because the other fans she interacted with didn't see a problem and were unable to separate her considering the character as sexist as calling the entire comic sexist (which was the most common defense being mounted) or that essentially that the fans themselves were somehow sexist for enjoying a comic that she thought had a character in it that was a sexist stereotype.
So she tried Artist Awareness instead, and contacted me, and even that was only truly effective (because remember, even I got defensive about it initially) after I consulted with peers and had other female writers be like, yeah dogg, this is actually pretty problematic and that character sucks and you shouldn't write characters like that, but what's done is done I guess.
What was the result? Well, for that individual comic, nothing ultimately. I never really changed the character (because it was a writing issue, not like, how I drew them, because I wasn't the illustrator) and I never really got the chance to like, write them out of the comic for other reasons where I stopped being a part of the series.
But what was the result for me, as a writer? Well, I never wrote a character like that again, I tell ya what. I also, in general, took a more careful and critical eye to the sort of tropes and archetypes I used in my writing than I was doing before, very specifically for things like not just sexism, but also racism and other forms of discrimination that might not register with me on a conscious level but might sneak into my writing without my intent. After all, I'm a white, cisgender man, it's not exactly hard for me to write a character who is not those things and for me to come across like I'm talking out my ass.
So it was an experience I grew from, as a writer, and it had a net positive effect on the things I wrote, and although my pop culture relevance is effectively zero (I'm not a professional writer, after all), were that ever to change I'd still be carrying forward that same attitude and the same knowledge.
Comic book artists like Matt Fraction and game developers like Manveer Heir have similar stories. Stuff that made them stop and go "Huh" about the stuff they were creating and being involved in. Sometimes it was the work of other artists. Sometimes it was outreach from their audience. Sometimes it was the work of activists, including maligned critics and pundits who dare to opine about art and what may be wrong with the cultural impact it is having on people.
If you keep putting it as a binary, like there's either nothing you can do or it's some kind of oppressive act, then I can only draw one of two conclusions (If, of course, I assume you're arguing in good faith and not just screwing with people for your own amusement, J): Either you're literally incapable of understanding this "hew-mon" concept of nuance, or you're too fucking cowardly to try to address the question on its own terms like it can actually be asked, without histrionically screaming "THEY'RE TRYING TO TAKE OUR VIDEO GAMES"
I'll be honest Pony, I've had a hard time reply to some of your posts. You seem very ready to to assign labels to people who aren't agreeing, and it's not something I like dealing with on a phone for obvious reasons. I'm also goddamn sick of the thing were those who don't agree with the groupthink are called disingenuous or some such nonsense. It's tiresome. I don't agree with a lot of your stuff or other people's stuff for that matter, but I at least assume you're arguing from a place of sincerity. I don't expect you to reply to my posts, there's a lot of posts by a lot of people, but reading them is generally good. As you so kindly decided to point out to me earlier.
In your example I find the Consumer Awareness thing awful. Artist Awareness is better, and I guess she got lucky in that she made a point you agreed with. And sure, if that's as far as someone's willing to take it, I say more power to them. That's fine. The consumer awareness thing is what I don't like. You don't like something? Great. Wanna say something? Great. But if that's not enough for you, and you've got to try to round up a posse and get a bunch of people to start putting pressure on an artist to change something you don't like? Nah. Don't have room for that.
I have not once said you cannot criticize. People like to assign that to my posts because it makes them easier to counter, I guess. But I've never said it. I've talked with people who have had problems with my writing, and my friends have had similar conversations with people who don't like their art. Generally the response is the same: if you don't like it, don't read/view it, and that's an attitude I'll extend to the world in general. Voice a criticism if you want to. Try to talk to the artist. If that stuff doesn't work, walk away. Taking further action is just... kinda appalling.
Can you explain why?
"I just think it's gross" is a good enough answer to satisfy the question, but will get handled as "Well, that's just your opinion, man".
Like unless you can come up with a good explanation for how it's somehow a social ill or a greater harm, without resorting to alarmist bullshit or slippery slope garbo, then it's just something that makes you feel bad and I don't... especially care?
Considering you don't seem to especially care what makes other people feel bad if it bugs you when they say something about it.
I wrote a big old post on page 14. I believe it addresses this.
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
It seems odd to decry censorship and then say there is no room for people to organize a boycott.
I haven't read any Catwoman (haven't read comics in a long while) but isn't part of her actual character that she has intentional sex appeal, that she decided upon, and uses it purposefully to seduce people?
Because seduction is a real thing that people attempt, so unrealistic drawings and body proportions/poses aside, there's a justification to sexualize that character.
She does use her curves and cleavage to her advantage during fights. But then, it's not like she zips up her front when she's in a casual setting, either.
She wasn't in the comics I've read with her and I've read a lot. Drawn by Jim Haunted Vagina Balent.
I haven't read any Catwoman (haven't read comics in a long while) but isn't part of her actual character that she has intentional sex appeal, that she decided upon, and uses it purposefully to seduce people?
Because seduction is a real thing that people attempt, so unrealistic drawings and body proportions/poses aside, there's a justification to sexualize that character.
Yes, it's fine for someone to own their sexiness. But even in a context where Catwoman is kicking the blue fuck (I will be forever grateful for that phrase, Pony) out of someone who might find her attractive, the page I posted earlier would still be shit art.
+1
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
Using your wallet puts pressure on the artist, Frankie.
You can't have it both ways.
Now who's talking in binary.
I'm not crazy, and I'm all for individual liberty. If you as a person decide to quietly not buy my stuff anymore, that's acceptable pressure. If you decide to up and organize a bunch of people to not buy my stuff, well that's a different story.
Who does this help?
The artist who's losing sales and doesn't know why?
The consumer who now has one less artist to buy from?
I did state I'm fine with people contacting the artists or voicing individual criticisms.
Okay, then I don't know what you mean by your second part?
If it's not the voicing criticisms, is it the fact that you're doing it as a group?
Or is the implication that the group will sweep up people who don't agree with the group?
catwoman leaving her front unzipped like that in the workplace is sexual harassment and she should be fired
if she wants to walk around all cleavage hanging out when she's out beating people up as her "thing" that's cool, and as a male gaze I appreciate cleavage, or if she's seducing someone hey that's fine too (as long as they're clearly into it).
but srsly if i was on that superhero team I'd report it to HR
This costume was designed by Jim Lee. On a character that got shot in the gut by the Joker a few years ago in No Man's Land. The costume design wasn't commented on within the comics until Gail Simone eventually tried to give an excuse that Helena wanted people to see her abs, that she spent a ridic time working on her body to look fine as hell. It was bullshit, and Simone knew it. It wasn't until years later Simone got permission from the editors to redesign her outfit into something practical.
It's a pity Jim Lee's costume was what she wore on Justice League Unlimited.
I haven't read any Catwoman (haven't read comics in a long while) but isn't part of her actual character that she has intentional sex appeal, that she decided upon, and uses it purposefully to seduce people?
Because seduction is a real thing that people attempt, so unrealistic drawings and body proportions/poses aside, there's a justification to sexualize that character.
Yes, it's fine for someone to own their sexiness. But even in a context where Catwoman is kicking the blue fuck (I will be forever grateful for that phrase, Pony) out of someone who might find her attractive, the page I posted earlier would still be shit art.
Right, hence "unrealistic drawings and body proportions/poses aside"
The Amazons were in part a reverse projection of the housebound lives of actual Greek women, most of whom were excluded from the men's world, bereft of both political power and sexual freedom. Imaginary "male women" apparently were both fascinating and frightening to Greek men. On the one hand, the Greeks found tall, athletic women generally attractive, and the legend of hard-riding, overtly sexual Amazons seems designed in part to provide an enjoyable male fantasy.
People have been sexualizing female warriors since before 450 BCE. This is not a new or unique phenomenon.
It's not "because comic books". It's "because Western Civilization".
Stan Lee didn't pull "Let's objectify and sexualize these women!" out of thin air in May of 1975.
Using your wallet puts pressure on the artist, Frankie.
You can't have it both ways.
Now who's talking in binary.
I'm not crazy, and I'm all for individual liberty. If you as a person decide to quietly not buy my stuff anymore, that's acceptable pressure. If you decide to up and organize a bunch of people to not buy my stuff, well that's a different story.
Who does this help?
The artist who's losing sales and doesn't know why?
The consumer who now has one less artist to buy from?
No one is even suggesting doing more but loads of oppression all over.
I mean Pony might.
But most of us are still sticking to "Generally try to avoid sexist media, support more positive media, and talk about the topic when it comes up like now." Monsters we are.
I am generally a supporter of Artist Awareness, to clarify
like
trying to actually touch base with the artist through social media or whatever and get their attention and be like HEY, HEY WE HAVE A PROBLEM, HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THIS PROBLEM WE HAVE?
that does not mean i support online harassment or any of that other malarkey
I actually generally don't support consumer boycotts because I don't feel they're especially effective, on a pragmatic level, not because I am ethically against them
(when they actually work I'm like "okay! good job!" but I don't usually go out of my way to get involved with them on any kind of activist level)
but like, to use an example, not necessarily of an artist but an athlete
a while back a pro MMA fighter said a really shitty thing online, some garbage sexist bullshit
and it was the kind of thing where it like, didn't make him a fucking monster or something, but it was still a shitty thing to say
again, doesn't make him a sexist, but he still said a sexist thing
so I knew a guy who knew a guy etc who could actually touch base with this dude. (my social media relations with the MMA scene is weird but that's another story) and I was like "man is there anyway to grapevine some displeasure to this dude?"
as it turns out dude's own fanbase kinda popped on him over it so whatever and he retracted it and apologized.
but, like, I read his official Facebook page and where his own fans' outcry seemed to have started was one of his fans saying "hey man what the hell", not just to him, but other fans too.
And some of his other fans being like "yeah, what the hell?", while others still argued that it was no big deal and defended the fighter, and they argued.
That was Artist Awareness, but I would say it only gained volume because fans spoke to other fans, which is Consumer Awareness
But apparently that is super distasteful and wrong, lol!
So one thing that I think sometimes complicates the sexist tropes discussion is that there's always a gap between the thing that the artist creates, and how the audience interprets the creation.
Examples abound, but an easy one is nudity. Let's say that you make two strong attractive powerful characters who, as part of their character, are always naked. No matter what you do, even if the characters say and do all of the same things, that's going to be interpreted very differently based on their gender. While the individual interpretations will vary (one group might think that the naked woman is a symbol of strong feminity, while to another she might be crass sexualization), almost nobody is going to treat those two characters in the same way, even if they're really knowledgeable about gender issues. So the audience doesn't only have to think about their own gender biases, but their audiences biases as well - and those may even conflict! And of course, the character doesn't have to be naked for people to apply their own prejudices to it. We'll do it for any character trait, even really minor ones, even things we don't even notice.
A friend of mine really struggles with this in his writing. He has a hard time writing women, because when he has them say the same words that his male characters would say, it can come across as weird or inauthentic. Maybe a line that sounds confident coming from a guy will read as arrogant or trying too hard when it's coming from a woman. So even if he wrote completely gender-blind and eschewed all of his deeply ingrained personal stereotypes, it wouldn't be effective, because his audience will still apply their own biases to it.
That makes the task of avoiding gender stereotypes a lot harder, because you can't just write everyone the same and call it a day, because your audience won't treat them the same. And that seems to be true for pretty much any audience, so it's unlikely to disappear anytime soon.
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.
This is about 7 pages late, but I would suggest that it's due to the vague and somewhat schizophrenic claims of the critics* (both individually and in aggregate). In that despite the various claims "it's not about any particular piece of media, it's the trend overall" or "these kinds of depictions are sexist, but it's fine that they exist, they just shouldn't solely exist" inevitably the discussion falls upon particular examples - say a particular catwoman pose, Dragon Crown or Hitman: Leather Nuns Edition and the tone and general sentiment is "this is BAD and should not exist or be consumed". The former's connection to censorship is distal at best and so yours is a reasonable concern in that case, but the latter is far more proximal.
* I don't know what a good, general term is for each of the "sides" as it were. My general phrase is "radically progressive" but that seems clunky and doesn't necessarily highlight the difference I see between the various camps extant within the forums.
None of that has any connection to censorship though.
Like, Roger Ebert is not the Minister for Truth, ruling the moviescape with his jack-thumbed hand. He's just a guy saying "this movie sucks". Saying "this part of this movie is sexist" is no different. It's criticism. It's got nothing to do with censorship.
The Amazons were in part a reverse projection of the housebound lives of actual Greek women, most of whom were excluded from the men's world, bereft of both political power and sexual freedom. Imaginary "male women" apparently were both fascinating and frightening to Greek men. On the one hand, the Greeks found tall, athletic women generally attractive, and the legend of hard-riding, overtly sexual Amazons seems designed in part to provide an enjoyable male fantasy.
People have been sexualizing female warriors since before 450 BCE. This is not a new or unique phenomenon.
It's not "because comic books". It's "because Western Civilization".
Stan Lee didn't pull "Let's objectify and sexualize these women!" out of thin air in May of 1975.
catwoman leaving her front unzipped like that in the workplace is sexual harassment and she should be fired
if she wants to walk around all cleavage hanging out when she's out beating people up as her "thing" that's cool, and as a male gaze I appreciate cleavage, or if she's seducing someone hey that's cool too (as long as they're clearly into it).
but srsly if i was on that superhero team I'd report it to HR
People don't do this for Black Widow.
She'll kill you.
0
Options
darklite_xI'm not an r-tard...Registered Userregular
Only read the first sentence. I liked Yes Man. I think more people should like it. That's all.
Steam ID: darklite_x Xbox Gamertag: Darklite 37 PSN:Rage_Kage_37 Battle.Net:darklite#2197
catwoman leaving her front unzipped like that in the workplace is sexual harassment and she should be fired
if she wants to walk around all cleavage hanging out when she's out beating people up as her "thing" that's cool, and as a male gaze I appreciate cleavage, or if she's seducing someone hey that's cool too (as long as they're clearly into it).
but srsly if i was on that superhero team I'd report it to HR
People don't do this for Black Widow.
She'll kill you.
What exactly would you call what Catwoman and Black Widow do when they use sexuality as an opener? Belligerent beguiling? Fatal flustering?
catwoman leaving her front unzipped like that in the workplace is sexual harassment and she should be fired
if she wants to walk around all cleavage hanging out when she's out beating people up as her "thing" that's cool, and as a male gaze I appreciate cleavage, or if she's seducing someone hey that's cool too (as long as they're clearly into it).
but srsly if i was on that superhero team I'd report it to HR
People don't do this for Black Widow.
She'll kill you.
What exactly would you call what Catwoman and Black Widow do when they use sexuality as an opener? Belligerent beguiling? Fatal flustering?
Do any male characters use sexuality as an opener?
So one thing that I think sometimes complicates the sexist tropes discussion is that there's always a gap between the thing that the artist creates, and how the audience interprets the creation.
Examples abound, but an easy one is nudity. Let's say that you make two strong attractive powerful characters who, as part of their character, are always naked. No matter what you do, even if the characters say and do all of the same things, that's going to be interpreted very differently based on their gender. While the individual interpretations will vary (one group might think that the naked woman is a symbol of strong feminity, while to another she might be crass sexualization), almost nobody is going to treat those two characters in the same way, even if they're really knowledgeable about gender issues. So the audience doesn't only have to think about their own gender biases, but their audiences biases as well - and those may even conflict! And of course, the character doesn't have to be naked for people to apply their own prejudices to it. We'll do it for any character trait, even really minor ones, even things we don't even notice.
A friend of mine really struggles with this in his writing. He has a hard time writing women, because when he has them say the same words that his male characters would say, it can come across as weird or inauthentic. Maybe a line that sounds confident coming from a guy will read as arrogant or trying too hard when it's coming from a woman. So even if he wrote completely gender-blind and eschewed all of his deeply ingrained personal stereotypes, it wouldn't be effective, because his audience will still apply their own biases to it.
That makes the task of avoiding gender stereotypes a lot harder, because you can't just write everyone the same and call it a day, because your audience won't treat them the same. And that seems to be true for pretty much any audience, so it's unlikely to disappear anytime soon.
How nudity is presented can determine how the audience views it. Sure, both sexes can be very sexy when they're sexually attractive but you'll find it's easier to see a male being presented as a formidable warrior despite being naked - which isn't a bad thing in itself. However, when female characters get this depiction, especially in media like comics, they'll be presented as sexy models posing in silly positions like what you'd see strippers do for the male audience and a warrior second. The former isn't impossible to depict sexy female characters but it's the exception and that is unacceptable.
I haven't read any Catwoman (haven't read comics in a long while) but isn't part of her actual character that she has intentional sex appeal, that she decided upon, and uses it purposefully to seduce people?
Because seduction is a real thing that people attempt, so unrealistic drawings and body proportions/poses aside, there's a justification to sexualize that character.
I would say the same is true of Black Widow as well. She actively uses her sexuality as a weapon, and often uses the fact that she is a woman to trick people into underestimating her. Is that sexist art or just art acknowledging the sexism present in the world?
Sexist is not "a woman wears a sexy outfit to fight crime."
Sexist is "women are much more likely to use sexy outfits to fight crime than men are."
Actually, the sexism here is probably that men can't wear sexy outfits to fight crime, because the concept of a male 'sexy outfit' doesn't really exist in the public consciousness. Everyone always makes some joke about how sexy comics men would have giant codpieces, but I don't think those people are actually attracted to giant codpieces. If you ask 10 different people what a sexy man looks like you'll probably get 10 different answers.
The idea of a 'sexy' male character is a lot more nebulous. When we see celebrities who get a lot of female attention and fans (say, a Tom Hiddleston or Benedict Cumberbatch), their attractiveness tends to rest more on their perceived personality than solely on their appearance or body type. This isn't because men are shallow, it's because as a society we've created different symbols for sexuality across the genders, and we interpret them in different ways. So even if lots of guys wear silly impractical things (like James Bond in a suit or whatever), it still won't get interpreted the same way as it would on a woman.
If there were some combination of lines an artist could draw that the vast majority of straight women would interpret immediately as 'sexy guy', you'd probably see those lines drawn a lot. There are always artists willing to pander to an eager crowd. That sequence of lines doesn't exist right now, for a lot of really complicated reasons. It's ultimately a bit of a simplification to say that artists should draw something that we, as a society, have no concept for and haven't expressed any great interest in seeing.
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."
"The costume design is terrible, because people can't actually fight very effectively in high heels, barring them being on horseback."
These are perhaps the two statements made by Shadowhope that you could almost maybe stretch out of shape and squint at to call "super disingenuous" in your post. The rest is a non sequitur. But I'll bite anyway.
Asking that a character you like who performs fantastic actions emulate reality in certain ways (such as having a torso big enough for lungs, heart, stomach, large and small intestine, liver, etc) or to not be drawn in impossible poses in order to accentuate her sexual characteristics to exclusively pander to her male heterosexual readers is not valuing realism over meaning and entertainment. It is, at its most basic, asking the artist to do his fucking job correctly.
We can ask more from our artists depicting heroes (superpowered and otherwise) without being disingenuous. We can like a character, and dislike the way that many times her greatness is reduced to a pair of tits and ass, or a trophy for a male hero to acquire. We can and should call artists out so that we don't have to roll our eyes over shit like this just so we can justify the fact of her existence as a character in a comic.
The disingenuous part was specifically about the technique of tricking somebody into disliking a sexist work by arguing that the work is inferior for non-sexist reasons, an idea I found kinda silly.
I will continue to argue that realism is overrated at present. People should be willing to enjoy both surrealism (for example, the short-lived series Automatic Kafka) and pulp (like Nextwave or Hellboy), because both are legitimate modes of expression with their own value.
That Catwoman panel reads to me as over-the-top ridiculous, so I dunno if I'd get up in arms about it. Maybe it's worse in context.
I'm the first person to dislike unnecessary sexualization in my narrative. But if the people hired to write Catwoman decide that they want to tell a pulpy, escapist story about a sex symbol kicking people in the face, more power to them. They're under no obligation to give me a serious, gritty Catwoman, and not doing so doesn't mean they're not doing their jobs. It's fine if you don't like what they're doing, but to act as though their artistic decisions are objectively wrong is to apply objectivity (in any form) to a fundamentally subjective medium.
My mistake, I misunderstood what you were calling disingenuous. I still don't think the satirical statement you made about a woman punching a robot dinosaur follows, however.
Surrealist, absurdist, and abstract art can all tell their own stories in very different ways than a more 'grounded' style can, and I fucking love that. Hellboy has an awesome art direction, and I'm totally onboard when artists want to use styles other than 'regular.' I don't know what kind of Superman story Dali would have told (maybe Bizarro?), but I would be all about that shit.
The difference is that the artists who draw T&A for the male gaze default to 'regular.' They're not doing their job when their 'regular' style involves proportions and poses that defy logic and common sense in the service of a small group of the potential comic buying market. If someone wants to write the pulpy Catwoman you describe with an appropriate art direction, I would be just as critical of the art if the heroine was the only one to suffer from 60° spinal bendage, regardless of story content.
I haven't read any Catwoman (haven't read comics in a long while) but isn't part of her actual character that she has intentional sex appeal, that she decided upon, and uses it purposefully to seduce people?
Because seduction is a real thing that people attempt, so unrealistic drawings and body proportions/poses aside, there's a justification to sexualize that character.
I would say the same is true of Black Widow as well. She actively uses her sexuality as a weapon, and often uses the fact that she is a woman to trick people into underestimating her. Is that sexist art or just art acknowledging the sexism present in the world?
Sexist is not "a woman wears a sexy outfit to fight crime."
Sexist is "women are much more likely to use sexy outfits to fight crime than men are."
Actually, the sexism here is probably that men can't wear sexy outfits to fight crime, because the concept of a male 'sexy outfit' doesn't really exist in the public consciousness. Everyone always makes some joke about how sexy comics men would have giant codpieces, but I don't think those people are actually attracted to giant codpieces. If you ask 10 different people what a sexy man looks like you'll probably get 10 different answers.
The idea of a 'sexy' male character is a lot more nebulous. When we see celebrities who get a lot of female attention and fans (say, a Tom Hiddleston or Benedict Cumberbatch), their attractiveness tends to rest more on their perceived personality than solely on their appearance or body type. This isn't because men are shallow, it's because as a society we've created different symbols for sexuality across the genders, and we interpret them in different ways. So even if lots of guys wear silly impractical things (like James Bond in a suit or whatever), it still won't get interpreted the same way as it would on a woman.
If there were some combination of lines an artist could draw that the vast majority of straight women would interpret immediately as 'sexy guy', you'd probably see those lines drawn a lot. There are always artists willing to pander to an eager crowd. That sequence of lines doesn't exist right now, for a lot of really complicated reasons. It's ultimately a bit of a simplification to say that artists should draw something that we, as a society, have no concept for and haven't expressed any great interest in seeing.
There's sexy male outfits. Something that's tight and shows off their physique is usually what's used.
catwoman leaving her front unzipped like that in the workplace is sexual harassment and she should be fired
if she wants to walk around all cleavage hanging out when she's out beating people up as her "thing" that's cool, and as a male gaze I appreciate cleavage, or if she's seducing someone hey that's cool too (as long as they're clearly into it).
but srsly if i was on that superhero team I'd report it to HR
People don't do this for Black Widow.
She'll kill you.
What exactly would you call what Catwoman and Black Widow do when they use sexuality as an opener? Belligerent beguiling? Fatal flustering?
Do any male characters use sexuality as an opener?
The Amazons were in part a reverse projection of the housebound lives of actual Greek women, most of whom were excluded from the men's world, bereft of both political power and sexual freedom. Imaginary "male women" apparently were both fascinating and frightening to Greek men. On the one hand, the Greeks found tall, athletic women generally attractive, and the legend of hard-riding, overtly sexual Amazons seems designed in part to provide an enjoyable male fantasy.
People have been sexualizing female warriors since before 450 BCE. This is not a new or unique phenomenon.
It's not "because comic books". It's "because Western Civilization".
Stan Lee didn't pull "Let's objectify and sexualize these women!" out of thin air in May of 1975.
From a civilization that also sexualized men....
So do we. I don't see your point.
People have been sexualizing and objectifying each other since ever. I don't understand how pointing to a character created in 1975 is somehow insightful.
Now, back to Magik. Let me toss on my Bane mask and ask you does she feel in charge? Look at those abs. Or more accurately, look at the lack of them. She's just got this sort of little line going on suggesting that sexy little ab canyon that a lot female superheroes got going on (see also: basically any picture of Supergirl in the last ten years) that real women kinda don't actually have unless they exclusively focus on weight loss and "toning" exercises that just burn body fat and don't actually build efficient, dense muscle worth a fuck.
And that's the body she has. One that is sexy but not worth a fuck in a fight. Because she's a sex-thing. She's not meant to be a power fantasy, she's a sex object. You're not meant to want to be her, you're meant to want to fuck her. Whether you do or not is irrelevant, again, that's what's going on here.
Before anyone even tries to claim that this is somehow okay because Magik is... well, magic and therefore doesn't need to have a rumble-ready power body, again I remind you that neither does fucking Cyclops. Cyclops actually has zero reason to be swole as he is, whereas Magik primarily fights with that giant as fuck sword of hers, which magical non-weight or whatever notwithstanding, would still suggest she'd look less like a runway model and more like someone with actual muscles right? Even if they have superpowers?
And like you said, it would be one thing if a character's sexuality is a component of who that character is, which for Catwoman or say (again to use an X-Men example) Emma Frost, it absolutely is
like I actually don't mind that Emma Frost dresses like she do, she Emma Frost, that how she do
but Magik is a demon-fightin' sword-wielding bad-ass who traverses dimensions and shit. She doesn't seduce people or make sexiness a part of her interactions. In fact I'm trying to think of a romantic interest for Magik and I'm coming up empty!
she gets sexualized anyway
because comic books, is why
I think you're overestimating how common the muscle fantasy is for women. I'd be much more likely to fantasize about being someone who looks like Magik than being a muscled body-builder or whatever. It's not like you have to choose between sexyness and power in a fantasy. I can imagine both having an awesome sexy build and being really agile or strong or whatever.
I suspect that I am not alone in this. For example, night elves and other pretty races are much more popular among female players in WoW. I'm pretty sure that if you made an RPG and let people choose between playing a woman who looks like Magik and playing someone with a lady bodybuilder physique, most female players would be more likely to choose Magik. She's probably not a character I'd design given total creative freedom, but if I had to try to make her more appealing I don't think I'd start by adding more muscles.
The line between a sexual fantasy and a power fantasy is weird, because being sexually powerful can also be a fantasy, so it's not like a character is only one or the other. I think the key word to focus on with a design is aspirational, and sexy can definitely be a part of that. One game that really illustrates the difference is early League of Legends character designs vs. more recent ones. Both designs might be a sexy-looking woman, but where Janna (older design) flirts with the player and makes jokes about phone sex, Shyvana (a more recent design) turns into a dragon and eats people. A lot of the recent LoL champions are totally rad, and they manage to be quite sexy in the process. I think it strikes a good balance.
I haven't read any Catwoman (haven't read comics in a long while) but isn't part of her actual character that she has intentional sex appeal, that she decided upon, and uses it purposefully to seduce people?
Because seduction is a real thing that people attempt, so unrealistic drawings and body proportions/poses aside, there's a justification to sexualize that character.
I would say the same is true of Black Widow as well. She actively uses her sexuality as a weapon, and often uses the fact that she is a woman to trick people into underestimating her. Is that sexist art or just art acknowledging the sexism present in the world?
Sexist is not "a woman wears a sexy outfit to fight crime."
Sexist is "women are much more likely to use sexy outfits to fight crime than men are."
Actually, the sexism here is probably that men can't wear sexy outfits to fight crime, because the concept of a male 'sexy outfit' doesn't really exist in the public consciousness. Everyone always makes some joke about how sexy comics men would have giant codpieces, but I don't think those people are actually attracted to giant codpieces. If you ask 10 different people what a sexy man looks like you'll probably get 10 different answers.
The idea of a 'sexy' male character is a lot more nebulous. When we see celebrities who get a lot of female attention and fans (say, a Tom Hiddleston or Benedict Cumberbatch), their attractiveness tends to rest more on their perceived personality than solely on their appearance or body type. This isn't because men are shallow, it's because as a society we've created different symbols for sexuality across the genders, and we interpret them in different ways. So even if lots of guys wear silly impractical things (like James Bond in a suit or whatever), it still won't get interpreted the same way as it would on a woman.
If there were some combination of lines an artist could draw that the vast majority of straight women would interpret immediately as 'sexy guy', you'd probably see those lines drawn a lot. There are always artists willing to pander to an eager crowd. That sequence of lines doesn't exist right now, for a lot of really complicated reasons. It's ultimately a bit of a simplification to say that artists should draw something that we, as a society, have no concept for and haven't expressed any great interest in seeing.
There's sexy male outfits. Something that's tight and shows off their physique is usually what's used.
So like, spandex? Doesn't almost every male superhero wear that?
I haven't read any Catwoman (haven't read comics in a long while) but isn't part of her actual character that she has intentional sex appeal, that she decided upon, and uses it purposefully to seduce people?
Because seduction is a real thing that people attempt, so unrealistic drawings and body proportions/poses aside, there's a justification to sexualize that character.
I would say the same is true of Black Widow as well. She actively uses her sexuality as a weapon, and often uses the fact that she is a woman to trick people into underestimating her. Is that sexist art or just art acknowledging the sexism present in the world?
Sexist is not "a woman wears a sexy outfit to fight crime."
Sexist is "women are much more likely to use sexy outfits to fight crime than men are."
Actually, the sexism here is probably that men can't wear sexy outfits to fight crime, because the concept of a male 'sexy outfit' doesn't really exist in the public consciousness. Everyone always makes some joke about how sexy comics men would have giant codpieces, but I don't think those people are actually attracted to giant codpieces. If you ask 10 different people what a sexy man looks like you'll probably get 10 different answers.
The idea of a 'sexy' male character is a lot more nebulous. When we see celebrities who get a lot of female attention and fans (say, a Tom Hiddleston or Benedict Cumberbatch), their attractiveness tends to rest more on their perceived personality than solely on their appearance or body type. This isn't because men are shallow, it's because as a society we've created different symbols for sexuality across the genders, and we interpret them in different ways. So even if lots of guys wear silly impractical things (like James Bond in a suit or whatever), it still won't get interpreted the same way as it would on a woman.
If there were some combination of lines an artist could draw that the vast majority of straight women would interpret immediately as 'sexy guy', you'd probably see those lines drawn a lot. There are always artists willing to pander to an eager crowd. That sequence of lines doesn't exist right now, for a lot of really complicated reasons. It's ultimately a bit of a simplification to say that artists should draw something that we, as a society, have no concept for and haven't expressed any great interest in seeing.
Hiddleson fans aren't strictly liking him for his personality but it helps. Cumberbatch isn't as handsome, same situation with Sherlock. Women and girls like "pretty" people it's just that society has drilled into their heads it's not acceptable to admit that. There are differences, of course, yet they're not so different on that front. Chris Evans and Hemsworth get enormous female attention too, and that is serious Twilight-esque mania based on their sexual appearance. Marvel knows how to hire their sexy Chrises. I'm no expert on this subject, though.
How a male character is sold sexually to a female audience is different to how male characters are generally shown in media, Twilight excelled at this in the movies with Edward and the werewolves. Nightwing is given this by artists like Nicola Scott, in scenes that show off his butt. He's the go-to boy for female fans to drool over in the DCU.
I'm positive this scene in Guardians was made for the female and gay audience to ogle.
catwoman leaving her front unzipped like that in the workplace is sexual harassment and she should be fired
if she wants to walk around all cleavage hanging out when she's out beating people up as her "thing" that's cool, and as a male gaze I appreciate cleavage, or if she's seducing someone hey that's cool too (as long as they're clearly into it).
but srsly if i was on that superhero team I'd report it to HR
People don't do this for Black Widow.
She'll kill you.
What exactly would you call what Catwoman and Black Widow do when they use sexuality as an opener? Belligerent beguiling? Fatal flustering?
Do any male characters use sexuality as an opener?
I haven't read any Catwoman (haven't read comics in a long while) but isn't part of her actual character that she has intentional sex appeal, that she decided upon, and uses it purposefully to seduce people?
Because seduction is a real thing that people attempt, so unrealistic drawings and body proportions/poses aside, there's a justification to sexualize that character.
I would say the same is true of Black Widow as well. She actively uses her sexuality as a weapon, and often uses the fact that she is a woman to trick people into underestimating her. Is that sexist art or just art acknowledging the sexism present in the world?
Sexist is not "a woman wears a sexy outfit to fight crime."
Sexist is "women are much more likely to use sexy outfits to fight crime than men are."
Actually, the sexism here is probably that men can't wear sexy outfits to fight crime, because the concept of a male 'sexy outfit' doesn't really exist in the public consciousness. Everyone always makes some joke about how sexy comics men would have giant codpieces, but I don't think those people are actually attracted to giant codpieces. If you ask 10 different people what a sexy man looks like you'll probably get 10 different answers.
The idea of a 'sexy' male character is a lot more nebulous. When we see celebrities who get a lot of female attention and fans (say, a Tom Hiddleston or Benedict Cumberbatch), their attractiveness tends to rest more on their perceived personality than solely on their appearance or body type. This isn't because men are shallow, it's because as a society we've created different symbols for sexuality across the genders, and we interpret them in different ways. So even if lots of guys wear silly impractical things (like James Bond in a suit or whatever), it still won't get interpreted the same way as it would on a woman.
If there were some combination of lines an artist could draw that the vast majority of straight women would interpret immediately as 'sexy guy', you'd probably see those lines drawn a lot. There are always artists willing to pander to an eager crowd. That sequence of lines doesn't exist right now, for a lot of really complicated reasons. It's ultimately a bit of a simplification to say that artists should draw something that we, as a society, have no concept for and haven't expressed any great interest in seeing.
There's sexy male outfits. Something that's tight and shows off their physique is usually what's used.
So like, spandex? Doesn't almost every male superhero wear that?
Maybe? I think spandex doesn't quite make the cut alot of the time. But like a tight t-shirt and jeans or something? Or no shirt at all? That shit works.
Like anything it's cultural and depends alot on context and such.
Posts
Who does this help?
The artist who's losing sales and doesn't know why?
The consumer who now has one less artist to buy from?
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
Can you explain why?
"I just think it's gross" is a good enough answer to satisfy the question, but will get handled as "Well, that's just your opinion, man".
Like unless you can come up with a good explanation for how it's somehow a social ill or a greater harm, without resorting to alarmist bullshit or slippery slope garbo, then it's just something that makes you feel bad and I don't... especially care?
Considering you don't seem to especially care what makes other people feel bad if it bugs you when they say something about it.
I'm one hundred percent insulted every time you insinuate my posting of the Wonder Woman image comparison was some sort of statement that if we could just fix that image the problem would be fixed, or that the result I'm looking for is to make that artist just change his drawing
Stop it
No one is even suggesting doing more but loads of oppression all over.
I mean Pony might.
But most of us are still sticking to "Generally try to avoid sexist media, support more positive media, and talk about the topic when it comes up like now." Monsters we are.
Depends on the character, her reasons for wearing high heels, context (at the office or fighting crime? If it's fighting crime there had better be a good reason for in the story that makes sense) and if a lot of similar female characters are doing it like it's a fashion trend. Also why, as a writer, do you want her to wear high heels? Is it that important to the character or story? Wonder Woman's a character I don't think would give a fuck about fashion trends.
That's not suppression, that's the free market of ideas. Capitalism! Being an artist isn't a free pass on getting your ideas drawn and quartered in the village square. Being an artist isn't for the faint of heart. Amateurs go through this with fanfiction, you're not getting any leeway as a professional.
I did state I'm fine with people contacting the artists or voicing individual criticisms.
This is about 7 pages late, but I would suggest that it's due to the vague and somewhat schizophrenic claims of the critics* (both individually and in aggregate). In that despite the various claims "it's not about any particular piece of media, it's the trend overall" or "these kinds of depictions are sexist, but it's fine that they exist, they just shouldn't solely exist" inevitably the discussion falls upon particular examples - say a particular catwoman pose, Dragon Crown or Hitman: Leather Nuns Edition and the tone and general sentiment is "this is BAD and should not exist or be consumed". The former's connection to censorship is distal at best and so yours is a reasonable concern in that case, but the latter is far more proximal.
I wrote a big old post on page 14. I believe it addresses this.
She wasn't in the comics I've read with her and I've read a lot. Drawn by Jim Haunted Vagina Balent.
Yes, it's fine for someone to own their sexiness. But even in a context where Catwoman is kicking the blue fuck (I will be forever grateful for that phrase, Pony) out of someone who might find her attractive, the page I posted earlier would still be shit art.
Okay, then I don't know what you mean by your second part?
If it's not the voicing criticisms, is it the fact that you're doing it as a group?
Or is the implication that the group will sweep up people who don't agree with the group?
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
if she wants to walk around all cleavage hanging out when she's out beating people up as her "thing" that's cool, and as a male gaze I appreciate cleavage, or if she's seducing someone hey that's fine too (as long as they're clearly into it).
but srsly if i was on that superhero team I'd report it to HR
This costume was designed by Jim Lee. On a character that got shot in the gut by the Joker a few years ago in No Man's Land. The costume design wasn't commented on within the comics until Gail Simone eventually tried to give an excuse that Helena wanted people to see her abs, that she spent a ridic time working on her body to look fine as hell. It was bullshit, and Simone knew it. It wasn't until years later Simone got permission from the editors to redesign her outfit into something practical.
It's a pity Jim Lee's costume was what she wore on Justice League Unlimited.
Right, hence "unrealistic drawings and body proportions/poses aside"
I'll skip over the _J_ and just give you a direct quote from the source, just so you know I'm not making it up:
People have been sexualizing female warriors since before 450 BCE. This is not a new or unique phenomenon.
It's not "because comic books". It's "because Western Civilization".
Stan Lee didn't pull "Let's objectify and sexualize these women!" out of thin air in May of 1975.
I am generally a supporter of Artist Awareness, to clarify
like
trying to actually touch base with the artist through social media or whatever and get their attention and be like HEY, HEY WE HAVE A PROBLEM, HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THIS PROBLEM WE HAVE?
that does not mean i support online harassment or any of that other malarkey
I actually generally don't support consumer boycotts because I don't feel they're especially effective, on a pragmatic level, not because I am ethically against them
(when they actually work I'm like "okay! good job!" but I don't usually go out of my way to get involved with them on any kind of activist level)
but like, to use an example, not necessarily of an artist but an athlete
a while back a pro MMA fighter said a really shitty thing online, some garbage sexist bullshit
and it was the kind of thing where it like, didn't make him a fucking monster or something, but it was still a shitty thing to say
again, doesn't make him a sexist, but he still said a sexist thing
so I knew a guy who knew a guy etc who could actually touch base with this dude. (my social media relations with the MMA scene is weird but that's another story) and I was like "man is there anyway to grapevine some displeasure to this dude?"
as it turns out dude's own fanbase kinda popped on him over it so whatever and he retracted it and apologized.
but, like, I read his official Facebook page and where his own fans' outcry seemed to have started was one of his fans saying "hey man what the hell", not just to him, but other fans too.
And some of his other fans being like "yeah, what the hell?", while others still argued that it was no big deal and defended the fighter, and they argued.
That was Artist Awareness, but I would say it only gained volume because fans spoke to other fans, which is Consumer Awareness
But apparently that is super distasteful and wrong, lol!
Examples abound, but an easy one is nudity. Let's say that you make two strong attractive powerful characters who, as part of their character, are always naked. No matter what you do, even if the characters say and do all of the same things, that's going to be interpreted very differently based on their gender. While the individual interpretations will vary (one group might think that the naked woman is a symbol of strong feminity, while to another she might be crass sexualization), almost nobody is going to treat those two characters in the same way, even if they're really knowledgeable about gender issues. So the audience doesn't only have to think about their own gender biases, but their audiences biases as well - and those may even conflict! And of course, the character doesn't have to be naked for people to apply their own prejudices to it. We'll do it for any character trait, even really minor ones, even things we don't even notice.
A friend of mine really struggles with this in his writing. He has a hard time writing women, because when he has them say the same words that his male characters would say, it can come across as weird or inauthentic. Maybe a line that sounds confident coming from a guy will read as arrogant or trying too hard when it's coming from a woman. So even if he wrote completely gender-blind and eschewed all of his deeply ingrained personal stereotypes, it wouldn't be effective, because his audience will still apply their own biases to it.
That makes the task of avoiding gender stereotypes a lot harder, because you can't just write everyone the same and call it a day, because your audience won't treat them the same. And that seems to be true for pretty much any audience, so it's unlikely to disappear anytime soon.
None of that has any connection to censorship though.
Like, Roger Ebert is not the Minister for Truth, ruling the moviescape with his jack-thumbed hand. He's just a guy saying "this movie sucks". Saying "this part of this movie is sexist" is no different. It's criticism. It's got nothing to do with censorship.
From a civilization that also sexualized men....
People don't do this for Black Widow.
What exactly would you call what Catwoman and Black Widow do when they use sexuality as an opener? Belligerent beguiling? Fatal flustering?
Do any male characters use sexuality as an opener?
How nudity is presented can determine how the audience views it. Sure, both sexes can be very sexy when they're sexually attractive but you'll find it's easier to see a male being presented as a formidable warrior despite being naked - which isn't a bad thing in itself. However, when female characters get this depiction, especially in media like comics, they'll be presented as sexy models posing in silly positions like what you'd see strippers do for the male audience and a warrior second. The former isn't impossible to depict sexy female characters but it's the exception and that is unacceptable.
Actually, the sexism here is probably that men can't wear sexy outfits to fight crime, because the concept of a male 'sexy outfit' doesn't really exist in the public consciousness. Everyone always makes some joke about how sexy comics men would have giant codpieces, but I don't think those people are actually attracted to giant codpieces. If you ask 10 different people what a sexy man looks like you'll probably get 10 different answers.
The idea of a 'sexy' male character is a lot more nebulous. When we see celebrities who get a lot of female attention and fans (say, a Tom Hiddleston or Benedict Cumberbatch), their attractiveness tends to rest more on their perceived personality than solely on their appearance or body type. This isn't because men are shallow, it's because as a society we've created different symbols for sexuality across the genders, and we interpret them in different ways. So even if lots of guys wear silly impractical things (like James Bond in a suit or whatever), it still won't get interpreted the same way as it would on a woman.
If there were some combination of lines an artist could draw that the vast majority of straight women would interpret immediately as 'sexy guy', you'd probably see those lines drawn a lot. There are always artists willing to pander to an eager crowd. That sequence of lines doesn't exist right now, for a lot of really complicated reasons. It's ultimately a bit of a simplification to say that artists should draw something that we, as a society, have no concept for and haven't expressed any great interest in seeing.
My mistake, I misunderstood what you were calling disingenuous. I still don't think the satirical statement you made about a woman punching a robot dinosaur follows, however.
Surrealist, absurdist, and abstract art can all tell their own stories in very different ways than a more 'grounded' style can, and I fucking love that. Hellboy has an awesome art direction, and I'm totally onboard when artists want to use styles other than 'regular.' I don't know what kind of Superman story Dali would have told (maybe Bizarro?), but I would be all about that shit.
The difference is that the artists who draw T&A for the male gaze default to 'regular.' They're not doing their job when their 'regular' style involves proportions and poses that defy logic and common sense in the service of a small group of the potential comic buying market. If someone wants to write the pulpy Catwoman you describe with an appropriate art direction, I would be just as critical of the art if the heroine was the only one to suffer from 60° spinal bendage, regardless of story content.
There's sexy male outfits. Something that's tight and shows off their physique is usually what's used.
Didn't Marvel have a "Captain Roofie" character?
So do we. I don't see your point.
People have been sexualizing and objectifying each other since ever. I don't understand how pointing to a character created in 1975 is somehow insightful.
But then they gave him a date rape power for awhile.
I think you're overestimating how common the muscle fantasy is for women. I'd be much more likely to fantasize about being someone who looks like Magik than being a muscled body-builder or whatever. It's not like you have to choose between sexyness and power in a fantasy. I can imagine both having an awesome sexy build and being really agile or strong or whatever.
I suspect that I am not alone in this. For example, night elves and other pretty races are much more popular among female players in WoW. I'm pretty sure that if you made an RPG and let people choose between playing a woman who looks like Magik and playing someone with a lady bodybuilder physique, most female players would be more likely to choose Magik. She's probably not a character I'd design given total creative freedom, but if I had to try to make her more appealing I don't think I'd start by adding more muscles.
The line between a sexual fantasy and a power fantasy is weird, because being sexually powerful can also be a fantasy, so it's not like a character is only one or the other. I think the key word to focus on with a design is aspirational, and sexy can definitely be a part of that. One game that really illustrates the difference is early League of Legends character designs vs. more recent ones. Both designs might be a sexy-looking woman, but where Janna (older design) flirts with the player and makes jokes about phone sex, Shyvana (a more recent design) turns into a dragon and eats people. A lot of the recent LoL champions are totally rad, and they manage to be quite sexy in the process. I think it strikes a good balance.
So like, spandex? Doesn't almost every male superhero wear that?
Hiddleson fans aren't strictly liking him for his personality but it helps. Cumberbatch isn't as handsome, same situation with Sherlock. Women and girls like "pretty" people it's just that society has drilled into their heads it's not acceptable to admit that. There are differences, of course, yet they're not so different on that front. Chris Evans and Hemsworth get enormous female attention too, and that is serious Twilight-esque mania based on their sexual appearance. Marvel knows how to hire their sexy Chrises. I'm no expert on this subject, though.
How a male character is sold sexually to a female audience is different to how male characters are generally shown in media, Twilight excelled at this in the movies with Edward and the werewolves. Nightwing is given this by artists like Nicola Scott, in scenes that show off his butt. He's the go-to boy for female fans to drool over in the DCU.
I'm positive this scene in Guardians was made for the female and gay audience to ogle.
The fuck?
The fuck??
Star Fox?
Maybe? I think spandex doesn't quite make the cut alot of the time. But like a tight t-shirt and jeans or something? Or no shirt at all? That shit works.
Like anything it's cultural and depends alot on context and such.