Character designs: sexism and objectification

[Sethala]

Whelp, decided to dive in head-first again.  This time, I want to ask something about character designs, mostly in video games but other media too.

Basically, I hear a lot of outcry at female characters being sexualized and objectified.  Now, I'll freely admit that I enjoy having sexy characters in games, I've gone out of my way to get a sexy outfit or two in World of Warcraft, and I've dropped some money on some of the more revealing skins in League of Legends.  What I don't fully understand though, is why I pretty much never hear any outcry about sexualized men. 

Now, I have always been a believer in giving everyone equal treatment, and that extends to games too.  So my thoughts are, if a game wants to have sexualized female characters, that's perfectly fine if they want to do the same to males.  But as I thought this, I realized that I didn't have any good idea what the difference would be between just a strong male character, and a sexualized one.  So my question for anyone interested is, what kind of character designs for men would be sexualized?  And a secondary question for the women out there, what kind of designs would you like to see on men to "balance out" the sexy designs for women, or is the only solution to get rid of sexualized women altogether?

[consortium11]

The stereotypical sexualised male character is the "beefcake"... think rippling muscles, broad soldiers and skinny loin clothes. If Red Sonya is the stereotypical sexualised female character then Conan is the stereotypical sexualised male character. Obviously that's not always the case.... comics for example have a long history of *nudge nudge wink wink* sexualising more lean male characters but it remains the stereotype.

Just for a quick example of sexualisation in media, look at the pose in the Red Sonja picture linked above and specifically the pose she's been drawn in; a spine-shattering one that allows the viewer to see both her ass and her bust. It's one of the most common images you see for female characters and there's basically no such comparison for male characters (outside of it occasionally ironic reference).

My own personal issue with the way that sexualisation happens in games is it generally involves something akin to a plothole. Take Mass Effect 2 for example. You're in a life and death battle with the fate of the universe at stake and what the men wear reflects that... see Jacob Taylor who is wearing an entirely practical bodysuit (if a bit tight and lacking in armour), let alone the N7 armoured up male-shep. But then you compare that to essentially his female counterpart Miranda Lawson... absolutely skin tight outfit, cleavage on display and all. And then Jack... does anything really need to be said? When I see things like that I can't help but have my mind go "why aren't they wearing body armour of some form?" and it ends up sticking with me. It's something that happens far too often in games; male characters wear a somewhat practical form of armour, female characters are put into either as little or as skintight an outfit as possible.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Well objectification is not necessarily about the female character being attractive or even sexually appealing.  This notion of objectification comes into play when the woman’s body and therefore sex appeal is the selling point of the character.  There is no further point to the figure or real interest in the character beyond her ability to look good.  An example of this might be the female lead in the newest G.I. Joe film.  One of the few female members of an elite fighting force, specially trained and educated to battle the forces of terror yet her main play time in the film is when she is using her body to “tease and attract” men.  So no matter how strong, smart or good this woman is her real purpose comes down to her sex appeal.  Despite other factors she is only an object of sexual desire.

[Sethala]

The stereotypical sexualised male character is the "beefcake"... think rippling muscles, broad soldiers and skinny loin clothes. If Red Sonya is the stereotypical sexualised female character then Conan is the stereotypical sexualised male character. Obviously that's not always the case.... comics for example have a long history of *nudge nudge wink wink* sexualising more lean male characters but it remains the stereotype.

Just for a quick example of sexualisation in media, look at the pose in the Red Sonja picture linked above and specifically the pose she's been drawn in; a spine-shattering one that allows the viewer to see both her ass and her bust. It's one of the most common images you see for female characters and there's basically no such comparison for male characters (outside of it occasionally ironic reference).

My own personal issue with the way that sexualisation happens in games is it generally involves something akin to a plothole. Take Mass Effect 2 for example. You're in a life and death battle with the fate of the universe at stake and what the men wear reflects that... see Jacob Taylor who is wearing an entirely practical bodysuit (if a bit tight and lacking in armour), let alone the N7 armoured up male-shep. But then you compare that to essentially his female counterpart Miranda Lawson... absolutely skin tight outfit, cleavage on display and all. And then Jack... does anything really need to be said? When I see things like that I can't help but have my mind go "why aren't they wearing body armour of some form?" and it ends up sticking with me. It's something that happens far too often in games; male characters wear a somewhat practical form of armour, female characters are put into either as little or as skintight an outfit as possible.

I've heard it argued that that's a male power fantasy, not a female sexual fantasy, and that the female sexual fantasy is often a more feminie-looking man.  Even so, however, there's plenty of examples of both, and I've never been one to feel "turned off" by something like that.  (Admittedly, I likely wouldn't play as either if there's an option to play as a female character, as that's always my preference, but having them in-game is certainly no deterrent).  As for the discrepancy however, I agree that it's bad, but I would say I'd prefer more of the "not really armor" look for both males and females, though it depends a lot on the setting and how much can be handwaved/justified as "magic/energy shields/blah".  But yes, only having full plate for males and only chainmail bikinis for females is annoying.

Well objectification is not necessarily about the female character being attractive or even sexually appealing.  This notion of objectification comes into play when the woman’s body and therefore sex appeal is the selling point of the character.  There is no further point to the figure or real interest in the character beyond her ability to look good.  An example of this might be the female lead in the newest G.I. Joe film.  One of the few female members of an elite fighting force, specially trained and educated to battle the forces of terror yet her main play time in the film is when she is using her body to “tease and attract” men.  So no matter how strong, smart or good this woman is her real purpose comes down to her sex appeal.  Despite other factors she is only an object of sexual desire.

Would it be fair to say that the problem is with characters that are only sexual characters, and that someone that's sexualized in addition to other, positive traits would be acceptable?  For instance, I haven't seen the G.I. Joe movie, but if she were to "tease and attract" the men and then go on to kick major ass, would you be ok with having both elements as part of her character?

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Sethala, I’m not quite sure what you are trying to move toward.  Are you basically worried that people want ugly woman characters?

[Shjade]

For instance, I haven't seen the G.I. Joe movie, but if she were to "tease and attract" the men and then go on to kick major ass, would you be ok with having both elements as part of her character?

Kicking ass doesn't really change anything. Hell, for a lot of people it just adds to the same concept, the whole 'wild amazon' thing. See also: Xena - Warrior Princess.

[meikle]

Conan isn't really a sexualised male character.  Conan isn't meant to be appealing as a sex object, he's meant to be appealing as a power fantasy.  Those are totally different things.  To be totally honest, if games featured men as hypersexualized as a lot of games feature women, I think a lot of the 18-25 male gamer crowd would freak out at having dongs shoved in their face all the time (because that's really the defining issue -- hypersexualization turns a male character into a delivery vehicle for AWESOME DICK the way that hypersexualization turns a female character into a pair of tits and a great ass.)

Here's what you get when you sexualize male characters the way that games sexualize female characters:

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

At the end of the day, though, the difference between a strong female character and a lame female character is not how much ass she kicks, it's how much agency she's given and whether she's a character first or just something to look at; female characters are often treated less like people and more like decoration.   There is a lot that can be said about this though -- it's not only 'what the character wears' or 'how the character behaves', a lot of it is just in how the character is portrayed -- for example, does she suffer crippling back damage from the fact that she inexplicable walks around backwards, with her ass thrust out and her torso twisted 180 degrees so you can check out her ass and chest at the same time?  Does she wear impractical attire despite the fact that everything about her characterization suggests it's a bad idea / contrary to her personality?  Does she vamp it up for no reason at all, all the time?  Is she the only woman in sight, by the way, except for all the pretty women standing in the background?  etc, etc.

[DarklingAlice]

My own personal issue with the way that sexualisation happens in games is it generally involves something akin to a plothole. Take Mass Effect 2 for example. You're in a life and death battle with the fate of the universe at stake and what the men wear reflects that... see Jacob Taylor who is wearing an entirely practical bodysuit (if a bit tight and lacking in armour), let alone the N7 armoured up male-shep. But then you compare that to essentially his female counterpart Miranda Lawson... absolutely skin tight outfit, cleavage on display and all. And then Jack... does anything really need to be said? When I see things like that I can't help but have my mind go "why aren't they wearing body armour of some form?" and it ends up sticking with me. It's something that happens far too often in games; male characters wear a somewhat practical form of armour, female characters are put into either as little or as skintight an outfit as possible.

That was so annoying. Especially after the first game made major strides in subverting that trope (Heavy Armor and a Helmet just make Shep and Ashley look like ass-kicking supersoldiers).



Actually Conan is pretty hypersexualized depending on the artist/story.

And you have to remember that a bust and ass are not primary sexual characteristics like a penis is. Rarely do you see sexualized female characters with clearly outlined vaginas. Now, there are a few artists...like whoever did Magna Carta and the cover art for a couple of Exalted books, who are just dying to shove camel toes in our faces, but it's definitely the exception to the rule.

We tend to sexualize people based on secondary sexual characteristics because our society has drawn an arbitrary line claiming that primary sexual characteristics should not be displayed (and cause hey, dat ass is sexy!). People who think that the defining characteristic of male sexuality is the penis tend to display a really shallow view of the attractive capacity (and sometimes even the physical reality) of the sex. It makes sense because society is phallocentric and perpetuates the myth that the male body can't be sexy in the same way the female body can. Frankly, I find that men who believe that their sexiest part (or worse their only sexual part) is their penis tend to be...tedious, and it is not the first thing I am going to go too if I were to describe what makes my lovers sexy.

I think the bigger impediment to seeing sexualized and properly sexual men in a video game is that video game designers are in large part heterosexual men who have no idea what they are looking for.

[Trieste]

Since consortium linked the Conan picture and mentioned sexualization of men, I've actually been kinda eyeballing the picture and thinking, "... I don't find that very sexy." How's about we go through a mental exercise of what a sexualized male character would actually look like?

Dude is sweaty and grimy and wearing way too much clothing. A lot of women find the whole "man who just got done bathing himself in blood" thing sexy, but it doesn't have to be a dirty fantasy! At least not literally. So let's take some of his clothes off... actually let's take all his clothes off. That's better. Let's also put him in a dew-filled forest glen, kinda like those nymph paintings you see. With a waterfall. Chicks like waterfalls.

Actually, I don't know if all chicks like waterfalls, but this chick likes waterfalls.

We're off to kind of a good start, but when I think of Conan, I'm really sorry, I think of anabolic steroids. Maybe it's because he was played by the Ahnold at one point. So anabolic steroids have this reputation for, ah, shrinkage. We don't want that. But we also don't want "SUCK MAH TWENTY INCHER!" either. In my experience and in my conversations with other women, Conan would be ideal at four, maybe five inches, but the man should have girth. And he's a strong, strapping barbarian so in our mental picture, we should make sure he still has his foreskin. You're going to need that detail burned into your brain - trust me. Would I lie to you?

I think it's no secret that no small number of women also enjoy pegging, and even if a woman doesn't enjoy pegging, many women like looking at dat ass, so a sexualized Conan really needs to be kind of ass-first at the camera. But we like faces and (usually) lips, too. So he'd need to be sticking his ass toward the camera and kind of looking over his shoulder and smiling and also naked under a waterfall with his uncircumcised penis peeking at us from between his slightly-parted thighs and oh by the way, sword calluses hurt so he would actually be Conan the Guy Who Kills People With Silk.

That was a really pleasant mental exercise that pretty much shows you that, no, men in video games aren't actually sexualized. Beefcake is, like nearly everything else in traditional gaming, aimed at the straight male player. That's changing, and it's a cool trend, but please don't pretend that it wasn't there in the first place. >.>

Edit: Correcting typos.

[meikle]

It makes sense because society is phallocentric and perpetuates the myth that the male body can't be sexy in the same way the female body can. Frankly, I find that men who believe that their sexiest part (or worse their only sexual part) is their penis tend to be...tedious, and it is not the first thing I am going to go too if I were to describe what makes my lovers sexy.

Hey, I didn't say sexy, I said sexualized.

Like, the new Lara Croft?  She's pretty sexy!  She's strong, she's incredibly capable, she fucks shit up everywhere she goes and doesn't stop moving.  She's also not very sexualized, especially not the degree that she was in titles past.

I'm willing to admit that I have no idea what people find attractive about men, so whatever, I'm okay with that.  I think sexualization is very often enforced by placing sexual characteristics front and center, though, for sure -- and a guy running around topless just doesn't strike that chord the same way that a woman displayed like, say, this does:



Edit: Maybe we could look to yaoi, which, true, does not emphasize sexual organs so much as... other things:

[Healergirl]

Meikle,

Just looking at pictures like that makes my back hurt.

[Kazyth]

The fact that she is apparently doing the Cabbage Patch with just her chest, while having a waist almost as narrow as her neck, doesn't help that idea at all.

[Healergirl]

*HG has real trouble tearing her gaze away from that yaoi pic....*

[meikle]

*HG has real trouble tearing her gaze away from that yaoi pic....*

HANDS

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

Just googling 'yaoi hands' is fun.

[Moraline]

In my experiences, I find the largest outcry about sexual objectification of women in games/comicbooks etc tends to come from men more than women. The women that usually yell about it are the ones that are hard on the feminist battle lines and object to it on those principles. Most of the female gamers/comic book readers etc that I know of don't really get bothered by it at all.

Which to me explains why we don't hear about male sexual objectification as much. Men don't complain about themselves but they get self righteous and all white knighty about women's rights. (Even if we don't want their help.)

<snip>


<snip>

Now speaking from my own perspective. I think images like the giant boobed anime character posted above are stupid. With that said though, it doesn't bother me in the slightest. I actually find it amusing and funny. I've never felt threatened by these images or felt the need to conform to any ideals from it. I've never seen images like that as anything other then silly fun.

Also, I totally find Conan sexy.

The man isn't just a power symbol he's also promoted as being irresistible to women. Confidence and Power are considered to be two of the most attractive qualities to women. They are right, with Conan's confidence and his attitude he is very attractive. He is the ultimate Alpha Male and eventually becomes the most dominant king of his world - the ultimate Alpha Male archetype.

PS: I don't like my men in dewy waterfalls and most certainly have no intention of pegging any of them. I like my men, strong, manly, and in control.

Age of Conan - Intro Cinematic (High Def)

[Inkidu]

The stereotypical sexualised male character is the "beefcake"... think rippling muscles, broad soldiers and skinny loin clothes. If Red Sonya is the stereotypical sexualised female character then Conan is the stereotypical sexualised male character. Obviously that's not always the case.... comics for example have a long history of *nudge nudge wink wink* sexualising more lean male characters but it remains the stereotype.

Just for a quick example of sexualisation in media, look at the pose in the Red Sonja picture linked above and specifically the pose she's been drawn in; a spine-shattering one that allows the viewer to see both her ass and her bust. It's one of the most common images you see for female characters and there's basically no such comparison for male characters (outside of it occasionally ironic reference).

My own personal issue with the way that sexualisation happens in games is it generally involves something akin to a plothole. Take Mass Effect 2 for example. You're in a life and death battle with the fate of the universe at stake and what the men wear reflects that... see Jacob Taylor who is wearing an entirely practical bodysuit (if a bit tight and lacking in armour), let alone the N7 armoured up male-shep. But then you compare that to essentially his female counterpart Miranda Lawson... absolutely skin tight outfit, cleavage on display and all. And then Jack... does anything really need to be said? When I see things like that I can't help but have my mind go "why aren't they wearing body armour of some form?" and it ends up sticking with me. It's something that happens far too often in games; male characters wear a somewhat practical form of armour, female characters are put into either as little or as skintight an outfit as possible.

Honestly I think it's just a double standard myself. How many shirtless guys are in Twilight? Your ME2 reference is good, but what about Tali one of the more favored romantic interests if internet polls are anything to go on. She wears a full body suit that's essentially skin tight. I found her very attractive and her booty and bust are on display. It's sexualized but in a more subtle way, and it has a lot more to do with their individual personalities. Yes Miranda is Ms. Fanservice, but I think Bioware has a lot more fun with this concept than people give them credit for.

Also, I find Jack's stripper-rific outfit to be more ironic because of her personality. Plus this was completely averted in ME3 by armor options and you had Vega there beef-caking it up. It's not hard to look for sexualization on either side. :\

[Cecilia]

Well, here's an interesting video that touches on some of these issues.  I like how she starts with "it's okay to enjoy games and still be critical of them."  As a mother of a young boy, I am concerned about how the games he plays make him view women in general.  This topic reminds me a little of how I dealt with the whole "Barbie" thing with my daughter.  Once she got her covered Barbie, we pointed out that real women have nipples, that their feet aren't always pointed like that and that their heads don't spin around 360 degrees.

http://www.feministfrequency.com/

[TheGlyphstone]

Relevant PA comic:

[Avis habilis]

It's not hard to look for sexualization on either side. :\

The last nail was driven in that false equivalence's coffin years ago: http://www.shortpacked.com/2011/comic/book-13/05-the-death-of-snkrs/falseequivalence/

[Cyrano Johnson]

The objection to sexualized female characters has never been that there is sexualization, but the number of games in which that's the only treatment of women.... and in which the particular sexualization being provided is very, very obviously geared toward the tastes of undersexed teenage boys as opposed to the kind of sexy that any reasonably broad cross-section of women might actually want to identify with. The inverse example, Conan, by contrast embodies the most common core sex and power fantasies of that same target demographic.

Women gamers get pissed at it because it's impossible not to notice when an entire industry is actually going out of its way not to cater to a huge sector of potential consumers. Male gamers get pissed at it because, if they've grown out of the target "undersexed teenage boy" demographic, it's annoying not to have gaming culture grow with them. 

[Moraline]

The last nail was driven in that false equivalence's coffin years ago: http://www.shortpacked.com/2011/comic/book-13/05-the-death-of-snkrs/falseequivalence/

That comic is absurd. I can assure you that I don't find feminized men to be attractive.

Batman is fine the way he is. Actually as Bruce Wayne in a suit he's a sexual god to me. Same thing goes for Tony Stark. Both are confident with broad shoulders and well built, along with finely tailored suits. That more accurately fits what I find to be attractive. It is true that I'd like to see their eyes better. I don't see all that many well drawn eyes on any cartoon character or video game character because it's a tiny detail and hard to render without great cost, it's much cheaper and easier to give them broad shoulders.

The objection to sexualized female characters has never been that there is sexualization, but the number of games in which that's the only treatment of women.... and in which the particular sexualization being provided is very, very obviously geared toward the tastes of undersexed teenage boys as opposed to the kind of sexy that any reasonably broad cross-section of women might actually want to identify with. The inverse example, Conan, by contrast embodies the most common core sex and power fantasies of that same target demographic.

Women gamers get pissed at it because it's impossible not to notice when an entire industry is actually going out of its way not to cater to a huge sector of potential consumers. Male gamers get pissed at it because, if they've grown out of the target "undersexed teenage boy" demographic, it's annoying not to have gaming culture grow with them. 

This I can agree with more but less about the sexualization and more with the lack of female leads. Although that is changing. There's been a lot of games out like Tomb Raider with strong female lead characters in them (Wet, Velvet Assassin, Mirror's Edge...) 

I'd be much happier if games came with either a choice between female lead or male lead instead of forcing us into one or the either. Then make the stories more gender neutral.

[Sethala]

First off, thanks everyone for the explanations.  After posting the topic I went around a bit more and found this: http://thehawkeyeinitiative.com/

So, yeah.  Admittedly, I have to ask the women here how many of the pictures on that site are actually attractive, and how many are just silly? 

@PumpkinSeeds: Sorry, I was tired and somewhat incohesive.  What I'm asking is, I know that having a female character that's supposed to have useful skills but ends up doing nothing important for the story but be eye candy for the male characters (and viewers) is dumb.  What I was asking though, is if the character is attractive, and uses her attractiveness to gain an advantage, but then also turns around and proves that she's capable of much more than just being a sexual object, is that acceptable?  Or is it better to completely ignore her attractive side?

@meikle: Is it wrong if I looked at that picture and thought "he's too hairy to be attractive?"  Or is that part of the attraction for women?

@Trieste: The only thing I'm not completely ok with in that description is his dick showing, actually.  As Alice pointed out, there's a difference between primary sexual characteristics (the genitals) and secondary ones, and society has pretty much ingrained in us that showing the former off is wrong.  I'm fine with showing off a bit of a bulge on occasion, just like I'm fine with showing a bit of camel toe, but going beyond either of those drops it from "sexualized character design" to "outright porn".

@Moraline: That actually makes me wonder, I've noticed it tends to be more "acceptable" for women to find other women attractive than it is for men to find other men attractive.  Is this just a result of society, or are women more likely to be "bi-curious" than men are?  Or, another idea is that for at least some women, being overly sexy is as much of a power fantasy as being overly beefy is a power fantasy for men, is that true at all?  (Honestly have no idea on either of these, not trying to say that it's the reason for this.)

@Glyphstone: That comic (and the resulting thread) are kind of what made me want to make this topic, actually.  Though again, it comes down to primary characteristics on the male and secondary characteristics on the female, which I think is generally more offensive.

@Avis: Aside from the lips, I'm fine with that batman design, honestly.

There was a short string of articles about this game on Kotaku recently, and the artist of the game mainly clarified that his designs on all of the characters were supposed to be exaggerated to the point of silliness.

Anyway, I think my original question was pretty well answered, so thank you all for commenting.  I'm trying to think of what it would be like if just about every male was portrayed like this, and... honestly, not sure what I'd think.  So yes, I think I see where some of the complaints are coming from now.

[meikle]

There was a short string of articles about this game on Kotaku recently, and the artist of the game mainly clarified that his designs on all of the characters were supposed to be exaggerated to the point of silliness.

"I did it on purpose" doesn't make it better.

Is it wrong if I looked at that picture and thought "he's too hairy to be attractive?"  Or is that part of the attraction for women?

I don't know.  Is it wrong that I look at a lot of female characters and think "She's too grotesquely anatomically disfigured to be attractive"?

Here's a fun blog: http://boobsdontworkthatway.tumblr.com/page/2

Started on page 2 since the most recent page is all about the same Dragon Whatever character.

[DarklingAlice]

Alice would just like to point out that societal ingranations are dumb and that she really is all for Conan's dick showing ^_^. She suggests that the representatve from the state of Trie come for a summit on primary vs. secondary sexual characteristics to be held at a local clothing optional pool/bar ('cause yes, we have those. I love this town).

[Pumpkin Seeds]

 The problem is that once more the attractiveness is highlighted in greater detail than the other qualities.  There is no need to gloss over or ignore that a female character is attractive, but when their other skill set is reduced to this or when their sexuality is obviously placed into every aspect of their being then objectification becomes apparent.  For instance in the film, a crack team of special forces could not come up with any other ideas than sticking their female companion in a pair of short-shorts bending over at the corner to kidnap a Congressman?  Also that notion demeans men as well because they are reduced to dogs that simply follow their “nose.”  Since Lady Jaye has sorta become a model for me, I will also use a card image of her.

Lady Jaye

Notice that the image has her holding implements of battle.  So certainly she is skilled at fighting because she has the pistol and knife in hand, yet these are off to the side.  The image frontline and center of her large breasts which are barely constrained by a white top that looks more like a bandage and an open green jacket.   Sexualized with other attributes reduced.  Now some might disagree with me, but I would then point toward the Scarlet Johansson version of Black Widow.  If you notice many of the pictures of Black Widow show a zipped down top, but instead this actress went with a more conservative look (hard to do in skin tight black).

Scarlet Johansson

Arms crossed over the top show a defensive posture with no cleavage spilling out at all.  The outfit is tight, but the weaponry is positioned in “realistic” portions that are also parts where the eye would be drawn.  Attractive, deadly.  Another example, a bit more conservative, is that of Michelle Rodriguez from SWAT.

Michelle Rodriguez

Both Black Widow and the SWAT character are attractive women, but the attractiveness comes secondary to their actual character. 

[gaggedLouise]

The Conan pic linked by consortium makes me think of Peter the Great for some reason. I figiure it's both his dark, flowing hair and the fact that he's standing in front of a medieval fortress which could all but be the Kremlin. And like Trie, I don't find him that sexy. I like this wild man better, Great, effortless pose and a sense of confidence.

(The stone-age guy with the club is a heraldic figure, he turns up o more than one local coat of arms up north: this one's from Lapland).

[Moraline]

...

@Moraline: That actually makes me wonder, I've noticed it tends to be more "acceptable" for women to find other women attractive than it is for men to find other men attractive.  Is this just a result of society, or are women more likely to be "bi-curious" than men are?  Or, another idea is that for at least some women, being overly sexy is as much of a power fantasy as being overly beefy is a power fantasy for men, is that true at all?  (Honestly have no idea on either of these, not trying to say that it's the reason for this.)

..

In my opinion, I think that sexual acceptance is based on societal pressure. However, social behavior is an evolutionary process and waxes and wanes through generations based on differing cultures. Women are not more likely to be bi-curious but men are more likely to be repressed (at least in North America.)

And yes, being "overly sexy" for a woman is as much of a power fantasy as being overly beefy can be for men. However, that's largely dependent on individual perceptions as much as it is also a part of societal pressures and evolutionary process.  Of course these are all just my opinions.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

The bicurious part is interesting because on media this plays more into the male fantasy of having two women more than the female fantasy of wanting to be with a woman.  Notice many times the women are touching and teasing each other, in front of the male or in an attempt to tease male audience members.  There really is very little story between the two female characters and typically their bi-curious nature is either at the insistence of a male or with a male partner nearby.  Men touching and teasing each other does not appeal sexually to a heterosexual male, but two women doing so is appealing because the man envisions himself being in there as well.

[Chris Brady]

And yes, being "overly sexy" for a woman is as much of a power fantasy as being overly beefy can be for men. However, that's largely dependent on individual perceptions as much as it is also a part of societal pressures and evolutionary process.  Of course these are all just my opinions.

In MY ANECDOTAL experience, being sexy is very much a woman's power fantasy.

  I know at least two girls in my area who WANT to be the woman in this picture.  I also know a few of them here on E that don't mind being her.

  And they (the two I know personally) also want to be Red Sonja here as well.  And I've had at least one E-lady say she wanted to play a Red Sonja/Xena Warrior Princess analog.  I'm pretty sure there's more out there too, who what to be sexy and/or kick ass.

My favourite game store held this demo for the Marvel Superhero game (may it rest in peace), we had this one girl come in (a couple of times) and wanted to play Catwoman (wrong world) but chose Spiderwoman for the simple fact that she has a pheromone power that makes men want her, and she could use her body to mess with mens' minds.  She didn't care that the hero was an accomplished fighter, or that she was an excellent detective, or that she could blast enemies with a 'venom' power, nope all she wanted was to screw the villains over by making them want her or fear her (The power can control emotions on a primal level.)

So I've come to a sneaking suspicion that what men and women view as 'power fantasy' might be...  Completely different.  What each gender thinks is 'cool' may be complimentary, but may also opposite.  In that what a woman wants to be, compliments what a guy wants to be in their respective power fantasies.

There will be some overlap, but I think it's difference in what the genders like is what makes humanity awesome to me.

Your Mileage May Vary.

[Vekseid]

Is the character an actual character or just a prop in human skin?

1) Does they have their own goals and ambitions, outside of the context of others?
2) Their own history, outside of the context of others?
- Specifically names. "Married three times, divorced all of them. Moving on - might flesh this out later but for now those three people are not relevant, this character stands on their own."
3) Their own effect on the story (or setting, in the case of more open games like RPGs), outside of the context of others?
- E.g. are they actually in the foreground from time to time, generating effects without requiring the aid of, or worse, being as mere support of others?
4) Could an entire act starring this character be done with the gender swapped and, if the reader/player had no other knowledge of said character, nothing at all would seem amiss?
- It's not required that this be the case for every possible story, merely, that a good portion of the character's time should not be defined by their gender.

Sexualized art/poses/etc. are usually an outgrowth of this, probably made most famous by the various "We must show both her tits and ass at the same time" promotional/fanart/etc. poses and their criticism.

Almost all of e.g. Anita Sarkeesian's critiques of female presentations in stories/games come down to not just objectification, but the above specific sort of it. The above thing isn't a person being objectified - it isn't actually even a person.

Try writing a story with a main male 'lead' where the answer to all of the above questions is a definitive, unambiguous 'no', and then shop around and see who actually likes/cares for the guy or what happens to him.

[Inkidu]

The last nail was driven in that false equivalence's coffin years ago: http://www.shortpacked.com/2011/comic/book-13/05-the-death-of-snkrs/falseequivalence/

I don't think fighting one false equivalent with another is exactly the right thing to do. :\

Women don't have power fantasies? I find that a little hard to believe. Everyone's got one, even women. There's some idealized thing women have to want to be.

Also, you could thing down Batman without making him look homosexual or uncomfortable to the male power crowd, they've done it. Batman Beyond's Batman is a good example. I think that's an obviously hyperbolic example played chiefly for laughs. Also there are objectification of men as an ideal as well so it actually rings a little hollow to me.

For example: BOD Man Football Commercial

Are you really saying that I would want to wear a body spray because it would make me a hunka-hunka burning love and fulfill some power fantasy? Because someone would have to be real dumb if they thought a body spray was going to pick up chicks. Guys have self-image issues too. Hell look at the Old Spice Guy ads. They're objectifying men.

So I don't think it's right to have double standards on both sides.

[meikle]

Gettin' all the fallacies goin' on here.  "This happens to men sometimes too, so it's not a problem."  Check!  "I know some people who disagree, and they're women, ergo the problem doesn't exist."  Check!  "This doesn't personally bother me, so it's all good!" Check!

Let's keep it up!

Meanwhile, I'm going to go ahead and say that people in this thread suggesting that a man with pretty lips is "homosexual" and the implications that confidence and power are 'masculine' while subservience is feminine (subservience as a female power fantasy, even!) is proof of how damaging this kind of thing.

[Moraline]

Gettin' all the fallacies goin' on here.  "This happens to men sometimes too, so it's not a problem."  Check!  "I know some people who disagree, and they're women, ergo the problem doesn't exist."  Check!  "This doesn't personally bother me, so it's all good!" Check!

Let's keep it up!

I hardly think that having an opinion is a fallacy.

[Avis habilis]

I don't think fighting one false equivalent with another is exactly the right thing to do. :\

Good thing I didn't.

Women don't have power fantasies? I find that a little hard to believe.

Good thing the strip didn't say that.

Because someone would have to be real dumb if they thought a body spray was going to pick up chicks.

Unless that ad is pitching that spritz to women, that's exactly the message it's supposed to convey. It's a stupid message, but there it is.

[Inkidu]

Gettin' all the fallacies goin' on here.  "This happens to men sometimes too, so it's not a problem."  Check!  "I know some people who disagree, and they're women, ergo the problem doesn't exist."  Check!  "This doesn't personally bother me, so it's all good!" Check!

Let's keep it up!

Actually my point is that it happens more times to men than people are willing to acknowledge and when someone does try to talk about it the old power fantasy comes out. It is a problem on both sides. It's a double standard wrapped in a double standard.

I don't disagree, and I don't care what your gender is it's still a double standard.

It bothers the hell out of me along with this entire page Double Standard.

I don't like it whether it's happening to men or women, and yes it happens to both.

[meikle]

I don't disagree, and I don't care what your gender is it's still a double standard.

It's not a double standard; it's the exact same standard, and it is dangerous to both genders, yes.  At its heart, though, are ideas that have been expressed in this thread: men are powerful, women are subservient.  Men who aren't powerful are feminine, they're homosexual.  Follow Moraline: they're not following cultural norms, they're undesirable.  Follow Chris Brady: women are supposed to be subservient, they're told to be subservient, and so when they learn to be subservient, it's okay, that's our power fantasy. 

It all comes from the same place, and that place is the belief that women are weak, subservient, and often, objects to be taken and controlled.  If you're a woman, embrace it!  If you're a man, don't be like women.

Ending the theme of women as weak, as objects, undermines the problem on both ends.

[Inkidu]

It's not a double standard; it's the exact same standard, and it is dangerous to both genders, yes.  At its heart, though, are ideas that have been expressed in this thread: men are powerful, women are subservient.  Men who aren't powerful are feminine, they're homosexual.  Follow Moraline: they're not following cultural norms, they're undesirable.  Follow Chris Brady: women are supposed to be subservient, they're told to be subservient, and so when they learn to be subservient, it's okay, that's our power fantasy. 

It all comes from the same place, and that place is the belief that women are weak, subservient, and often, objects to be taken and controlled.  If you're a woman, embrace it!  If you're a man, don't be like women.

Ending the theme of women as weak, as objects, undermines the problem on both ends.

So, what am I saying?

[meikle]

So, what am I saying?

"Let's talk about men instead."

No, let's not; let's talk about the problem, which is the same, which originates in the same place, for everyone.

[Inkidu]

"Let's talk about men instead."

No, let's not; let's talk about the problem, which is the same, which originates in the same place, for everyone.

I don't think so.

[Kazyth]

Alice would just like to point out that societal ingranations are dumb and that she really is all for Conan's dick showing ^_^. She suggests that the representative from the state of Trie come for a summit on primary vs. secondary sexual characteristics to be held at a local clothing optional pool/bar ('cause yes, we have those. I love this town).

The representative from the Kaztatorship of Kazbeast requests a seat at this upcoming summit, and is willing to bring the junk in his trunk (along with any other needful bits) along for the discussion.  Dick showing optional.

OT: Honestly, I would be just as bothered by female fanservice as I am about male fanservice.  I don't tend to play female characters in a game, I could care less about their tits and ass when I am playing.  If I want porn, even softcore, I can find it.  I have -all- the porn at my fingertips.  It's called the internet.  When I play a game, be it a fighting game, a first person shooter, an RPG, or what have you I'm not doing it to be titillated.  I'm doing it to either use my pixels to beat up other pixels, use my pixels to shoot other pixels in the face (or in the junk, if I am feeling juvenile), or to get my pixels awesome pixel gear with good stats.  For my pixels.  Do I want the characters to be nicely rendered?  Yes.  Hell yes.  But I have no interest in playing Lord Thrustington Mancandy Cunnilingual III anymore than I want to play Hooterella VonBaDonkaDonk Esq.  I want believeable characters, or at least only slightly exaggerated characters, a pretty world, and that's it.

The fact that game developers in the main seem to feel that they -have- to have T&A to sell their games, or to at least get more money out of them, seems more to me to be a money grab or an attempt to direct attention away from parts of their games that might not be so great.  "Who cares about that crash bug?  They have Titphysics^TM, and that new AssJello^TM rendering!".  And it works.  For some.  Then they get ripped apart by the folks who don't notice that stuff, lose business from those who won't support it, and somehow seem to come around to the idea that the next game needs "Moar Sexxors!".  Maybe that's just cynical of me, but at least there have been little tremors of change here and there.

[Moraline]

...  Follow Moraline: they're not following cultural norms, they're undesirable. 

I never said that and it's extremely judgmental of you to say so.

I'm done with this conversation.

[Trieste]

The representative from the Kaztatership of Kazbeast

(Fixed.)

[meikle]

I never said that and it's extremely judgmental of you to say so.

I can assure you that I don't find feminized men to be attractive.

[Inkidu]

That's... I don't know what you're trying to prove but I don't like that.

Just because her likes happen to fall within "cultural norms" doesn't mean she thinks effeminate men are weak, just that she finds them unattractive to her personally.

I find some women unattractive but I don't think they should have to live up to some norm of society just to be considered attractive, or that they're unattractive to everyone. They're not weak to me, just unattractive.     

[Moraline]

Okay, one last post because it needs to be done.

"I don't find feminized men to be attractive," is what I wrote.

It is vastly different then...

... they're not following cultural norms, they're undesirable.

What I said was my personal tastes in men. You expect me to apologize for that?

You're trying to make me look like I'm a bad person for liking men that are big and masculine looking. It's not a cultural normative issue. Men have hair, men are large that's just the way an average man is built. I like them that way. Others may not, I don't judge them for it.

What you are doing is judging me for it and trying to use it as a point of order.

And I'm shocked that you don't see the difference in what I said and what and how you said what you did.

[meikle]

What I said was my personal tastes in men. You expect me to apologize for that?

No.  I'm trying to draw attention to the fact that you think that strength and force are masculine, and softness and prettiness are feminine.  These are the cultural traits I'm highlighting, and the problem is not in your taste, the problem is that your taste is distinguished by cultural norms which are hurtful to men and women -- and not because of you, specifically, but because they are pervasive throughout our culture.

You're an adult, and I don't think it's really in any adult to significantly change their taste through force of will.  I don't think you should apologize and I don't think you need to change.  I think we should change our attitudes about certain traits being "masculine" and others being "feminine" because those ideas are foundational to so many gender issues in our culture.

tl;dr, the issue not that you like strong men, the issue is that you think that a man who is less strong is "feminized", and so do so many other people that it becomes culturally accepted that women have to be weak, or if not have to be, then are by default.

Edit: and, equally, it inspires our culture to treat men who express those "feminine" features as if they're somehow not really men, as if having soft features and full lips is transgressing some kind of barrier.  That's how we get to ripped, topless men on unicorns selling body spray, saying, "You're not man's not me, but at least he could smell like me!"

edit 2: Exact quote: "Anything is possible when your man smells like Old Spice and not a lady."

[Pumpkin Seeds]

THE FLIP SIDE WORKOUT Watch the video Yahoo! Screen

Bit of humor to lighten the mood, though also does highlight a role reversal.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

The advertisement is playing toward men.  This is supposed to make men want to buy the body spray because this is the lifestyle of a man that uses this type of body spray.  An image of an athletic man moving around with other athletic men in competition, of women fawning over them from the bleachers is one that is attractive to men.  A woman is not looking at this commercial thinking that they want their man to wear this spray because their man will run around a football field with cheerleaders watching them.  Such an advertisement is especially directed at men, not women. 

"Ricci Ricci" Perfume Commercial with Jessica Stam

Here is a perfume commercial for women.  See the woman as playful, wearing a beautiful dress running along rooftops carefree.  A well dressed, handsome man is drawn to her.  This is designed for women because the advertiser is saying, “women don’t you want to be this carefree and beautiful, wear this perfume and you could be.”

Notice though that in the male cologne commercial the women are dressed in shorts and bikini tops, whereas in the perfume commercial the man is stylishly dressed and covered. 

There is nothing wrong or unusual about a woman wanting to be attractive.  If a girl is drawn to the Spider-Woman character because of their pheromone ability than that is simply her preference to play.  Perhaps that is her ideal character, a seductress.  My question is why does a character with such a physical presence of kicking ass and spitting venom suddenly have this “make men want me” power.  I have not seen Spider-Man with such a similar ability.  Whereas women are naturally drawn to Spider-Man’s abilities and his physicality, they are not drawn to Spider-Woman?

[Inkidu]

My point behind the BOD commercial was that it doesn't always appeal to a since of power-fantasy. Sometimes it's just like a woman seeing a bikini model and getting self-conscious of her body image. Men get hit that way too by stuff. That was all. 

[Pumpkin Seeds]

A woman seeing another woman in a bikini and feeling self-conscious is not objectification of women though.  That has more to do with body image.  Just as that commercial making another man insecure or wanting to be those men is about body image, not objectification of men. 

[Inkidu]

A woman seeing another woman in a bikini and feeling self-conscious is not objectification of women though.  That has more to do with body image.  Just as that commercial making another man insecure or wanting to be those men is about body image, not objectification of men.

Fair enough, but I believe it's awfully one sided to say that objectification is a purely female-focused thing, and that if a male that could possibly be objectified by women isn't necessarily waved off as male power-fantasy; this is admittedly my opinion.

And I don't care what comics people come back at this comment with :P

[Chris Brady]

Tangent:

The real power of Spiderman is his ability to be relate-able.  He is the everyman saddled with power.  He has problems most geeks did of his era, and people, especially boys (who were the ones often shoved into the geek tribe, usually against their will) so the average reader could relate to him.

Spiderwoman (Jessica Drew) actually has some personal issues with her powers.  Yes, she's a capable fighter and thinker, but her pheromone power disturbs her.  She's often left wondering if they (usually men) like her because of who she is, rather than what she's doing to their heads.

And you know what?  That's the strength of early years Marvel, the characters are flawed, and are treated as human characters.

/tangent

Thing is, what I'm seeing here is the same BS arguments of Cheesecake vs. Beefcake and that any who likes looking at either should be ashamed because it's WRONG and EVIL and SINFUL, and I have no idea why, but I'm always reminded of the Christian Fundamentals or Born-Agains that yell and scream at us from street corners, as to why we're going to hell, because we like looking at sexy (to us) pictures of men and women.

This stuff?  Is all pure opinion.  And a lot of it is of fictional people in fictional situations and frankly, once we (as in the people in this thread)...

You know what just occurred to me?

Whomever is objecting here about this 'objectification of women' in fantasy is wrong are making a case as to why sites like E, or rather Elliquiy itself is WRONG.

This entire board is nothing more than a collection of people who wish to enact power fantasies of some sort or another, and have gotten together with others to write them out.  And some men and women like to be objectified.  Hell, there's an Non-Consensual board for those who are into that.

I understand that visuals are more powerful for us humans, because our eyes are our primary tools for interaction and socializing, not to mention dealing with danger and hazards, but writing here is in this very same category.

What makes Elliquiy OK and other mediums not? (Honest question.)

[meikle]

I'm starting to think some people do not know what objectification means.

[Avis habilis]

Thing is, what I'm seeing here is the same BS arguments of Cheesecake vs. Beefcake and that any who likes looking at either should be ashamed because it's WRONG and EVIL and SINFUL, and I have no idea why, but I'm always reminded of the Christian Fundamentals or Born-Agains that yell and scream at us from street corners, as to why we're going to hell, because we like looking at sexy (to us) pictures of men and women.

Nope. You're seeing people say that there's a substantial trend of depicting of women as aids to arousal for men & nothing but. This bears exactly no resemblance to saying that it's wrong to enjoy looking at sexy people.

What makes Elliquiy OK and other mediums not? (Honest question.)

The difference is that everyone involved is actively involved in setting the situation & choosing parts.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

So Spider-Man has the complex trials of power and responsibility.  The unenviable position of question his role in the universe and the nature of being a super hero.  He must decide how to balance his personal life with his seeming obligation to help other people because he has been fated to do so.  A tragic and epic quandary.  Spider-Woman has to question…do men really like me for me or because I smell good.  Ok.

Once more, I don’t think anyone is really condemning someone for looking at men or women.  People want to be attractive.  Objectification comes from having a character’s assets removed to the point where they are an object, not a subject of the story.  Honestly that in and of itself is not a bad thing either because not all stories have an ability to move into every character in the story.  The problem is that women have this done to them overwhelmingly and also that female leads are also done this way.  So the starring role for a woman is stripped of any contribution other than how they look in short-shorts and a bikini top. 

Elliquiy is a writing board.  Yes there are sexual fantasies being played out in writing, but nobody is trying to remove all aspects of another’s character and make sex the only important thing.  There are some stories on Elliquiy that are likened more to porn than works of fiction.  Yet I do not think Vekseid would appreciate the argument that objecting to women being portrayed as objects in media is an objection to Elliquiy. 

[Chris Brady]

Elliquiy is a writing board.  Yes there are sexual fantasies being played out in writing, but nobody is trying to remove all aspects of another’s character and make sex the only important thing.

Have you read some of the stories here?  I daresay that some of them ARE.  And the participants LIKE IT.  Who are we to say it's wrong?

There are some stories on Elliquiy that are likened more to porn than works of fiction.  Yet I do not think Vekseid would appreciate the argument that objecting to women being portrayed as objects in media is an objection to Elliquiy.

Whether or not he likes it is irrelevant.  The fact of the matter is, because this is an Adult site, we get to see every kink that's legal and people are into, and some of that range from the mild romance to outright pornification of the human body.

So the question remains:  What makes Elliquiy get a pass, if we have to scrutinize other mediums?

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Well, I would first point out that Elliquiy does not require the writer of a female character to make their characters sexual objects.  Once more being objectified means having other aspects removed so that the person is an object.  Elliquiy does have objectification going on and I have had characters I made objectified.  My responsibilities then as a writer for that character is to simply say, stop.  Some refuse to do so and I leave the game.  I had done this in the past and will do so in the future.   Elliquiy does not encourage people to do this or put rules into place for people to do such a thing. 

The media, especially video games and comic books, actively promotes the objectification of women.  So much so that lead female characters are taken off the cover of video games, have their stories reduced and are killed off routinely.  Elliquiy does not get a pass, but has earned a reputation for being an environment that is very friendly to female writers and very supportive of people playing strong, female characters.  Elliquiy does not attempt to constrain the creative potential or desires of writers including their portrayal of women. 

[Kazyth]

Here's the deal Chris... you just said what the difference is.  There are women on E who -choose- to play objectified women in their stories.  Who -choose- to enjoy it.  It isn't rammed down their throats and pushed into their faces every day that this is what women are for, this is how women should be treated and should expect to be treated.  While this isn't exact, of course, it is rather the difference between enjoying having yourself called a slut, manwhore, or whatever and having random people on the street and TV say it to you.

It's about choice, and if some women choose to be objectified because they like it, or to write characters who are, more power to them.  But when you take away that choice?  That makes it a whole different story.

[meikle]

Elliquiy is a place for people to practice a hobby; it's not a media power that is out there telling people how it should be.

I'm not sure if it really needed to be said, but maybe it does: this topic is a social issue, a cultural issue, not an issue where anyone is rapping people on the knuckles going, "No!  Bad!"  Nobody cares what you do in threads on a forum that's hidden from private viewing, we care about the things that are put on television, advertised far and wide across the internet, things that are targeted toward children that enforce binary gender norms and tell little girls that they should worry about being pretty, not smart, that tell little boys to be aggressive and that cooking is for girls, etc.

[Silk]

I don't think you really need to look further than Ironman and Batman for sexualized male characters.

Either dark rich brooding handsome with the dramatic tragic past
or the overtly flirtatious rich handsome playboy.

Then there's any prince charming type character out there.

Even in LoL this happens such as debonair Jayce.

just because people don't see it as the sexualisation that it is due to the accustom, it doesn't stop it being "This is the top of the gene stock guys, you should be this if you want to get laid anytime soon"

[Pumpkin Seeds]

I hardly think Iron Man and Batman have their stories reduced or become only objects of desire in their stories.

[Chris Brady]

I hardly think Iron Man and Batman have their stories reduced or become only objects of desire in their stories.

Of all the comics I've collected, I've not seen any of the female characters become nothing but objects of desire either.

Most of them have real problems usually involving the same villains the boys have to deal with.

There was an arc/graphic where Red Sonja became queen of a kingdom, and she had to deal with the very same problem that Conan did when he became King.

I'm wondering if we're just seeing the problem where we WANT to see it.

[Kazyth]

No, we're really not just seeing it where we WANT to see it.

This isn't just about comics, for one.  And, again, Batman and Iron Man aren't sexualized.  Or if they are, they're not sexualized to be women's fantasies (though I will admit some women may totally be into that).  Again, that's pandering directly to males.  Mostly adolescent to college-age males, who want to be the dark and missunderstood caped crusader... who also happens to be good at everything, be handsome, rich, and has had most major female baddies (and a number of the good girls) make a play for him/have a romantic arc with him.  Tony Stark?  Much the same.  Billionaire playboy who gets all the tail, has the bitchin' power suit, supergenious.  And when whatever woman they are with starts to get old, well, suddenly someone dies.  Or vanishes.  Or something else happens and then there's a new love interest.  Or at least bed partner.

Comics are, with the exception of a small group of them, geared towards a certain target audience and it panders to them shamelessly.  The men are all male power fantasies, and the women are mostly male sexual fantasies.  T&A, always in tight fitting clothes, peepholes for cleavage, bare legs, barely anything covering their tops... yes, there are exceptions to this, but they are just that.  Exceptions.  Just as some of the arcs and such in various comics you referenced Chris are exceptions.  How many story arcs are there, or backgrounds for heroes are there, that involve a man getting raped?  How many involve women getting raped?  There is a -massive- disparity with things like that, distinctly because the audience comics play to knows that the idea of a man getting raped by another man would upset and put off their target audience.  No such worries about a woman being raped.  Then, of course, the menfolk get to get all angry and go get justice for them.  It's pretty rare in the many comics I've read (and I worked in a comic store for years, I've read a lot) where the woman gets her own justice.

And that's just in comics.  We've already touched on videogames, and popular culture in general.  Rap videos where women are just there to be pretty and be fondled, rock and alternative videos of the same.  You can point out a few all-women bands or bands with female singers that do the same for men, but they are again a huge minority.  This is an issue, a real one, and a disturbing one that won't be swept under the rug or handwaved away by pointing out one or two little things where it might not be the case, and calling it "Seeing it where we want to see it".

The point is we -don't- want to see it.

[meikle]

I'm wondering if we're just seeing the problem where we WANT to see it.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StuffedIntoTheFridge

[Chris Brady]

Deep in the 80's to 90's there was an arc in Ironman in which Tony Stark's drinking got bad.  REAL bad.  Down to the point where he would black out, and even when he was Ironman, to the detriment of the state of New York.

Don't know about you, but I don't want to have an addiction problem as part of a power fantasy.

And there was a cute arc, where Superman gets his responsible nature stripped away from a magic kryptonite crystal.  Which was actually kinda scary, but he really ended up being like a big kid.  So Batman goes on a mission to rescue his friend by finding the opposite crystal in a Volcano.  Now this Opposing Crystal suddenly fills Batman's mind with everything he ever wanted.  And you know what?  Justice and removing all crime isn't remotely what he ever wanted.  Mommy and Daddy being alive, and a girlfriend, were his deepest darkest desires.  And in the end, even Superman never realizes that.  And all Batman wants is love and family, just like every single human being out there.  So much for being a badass.

As for Jessica Drew (Spiderwoman) she's got issues of her own, and most of them have nothing to do with the problem that her pheromone powers make going out for donuts an exercise in concentration.  She's currently (I believe) a triple agent working for S.H.I.E.L.D, Hydra and the Avengers (or was at one point), she was kidnapped and replaced by a member of the Skrull alien race, and possible tortured (Like all other heroes they've caught, the Skrull aren't very nice to their prisoners, including of their own race.)  And that's not considering that her own powers make it possible to induce a fear driven heart attack into any guy if she's really pissed off.

This whole argument of 'objectifying' women in various mediums, I'm just not seeing it.  And I'm in the middle of them.  I'm a nerd and a geek, I STILL collect comics, I play video games on a regular basis, I play D&D and other table top RPGs, and the only time anyone gets upset about this seems to be when they see ONE tiny thing off the corner of their and it sets them off.  And often blow it out of extreme proportion and usually out of context.

And because I'm in inundated with all these hobbies, I scrutinize, I look for flaws, I make damn sure that what I get for my limited money is WORTH the money, and shallow characters, asinine comedy plots and other idiocies.  And I've been doing that since I was 11 years old.

Comedies are the worse things, because it's supposed to be funny, you can get away with racism, sexism and other cruelties.  I SAY NO, it's NOT OK.

Rant On:

One more thing that's getting up my craw, this whole 'Women in Refrigerators' movement lambasting the comic industry for showing women getting assaulted.  Is it horrific when it happens?  HELL YES.  And what do you think most comic reading boys think when they saw Kyle Rayner's girlfriend murdered and stuffed into an ice box.  You think we were giggling and masturbating to it?  NO.  We want to kill the fucker who did it.  We want grab Major Force and beat the living shit out of the bastard for doing it, in all the worse and most painful ways we could think of.

The sad fact of the matter is that women are often targeted the world around because they're seen as weak.  And most men have been programmed for the past several hundred thousand years to feel protective of them.  Why do you think there's a movement wanting to stop worldwide violence against women?  Because BOTH men and women see it as a worse wrong than killing another man.  Women are to be protected, and this thread is a primary proof of this.  At the same time, this is also used for a story effect, and it works.  It gets people upset, men and women.  You want to show a bad guy being really bad?  Have him target women and children.

I grew up in the 80's watching kids cartoons, and most of them had these morality plays at the end, warning us kids about dangers, like strangers, odd looking syringes and the like, and frankly, I'm pretty sure that a lot of the comic writers ALSO grew up watching G-Force (AKA Battle of The Planets) or He-Man, or She-Ra and the like, and whenever they use such a situation (the aforementioned Women in Refrigerators) it's there not to titillate, it's there to galvanize and show that beating on those weaker than you is WRONG.

But no, we'll just sit here and accuse other people of getting off on 'objectifying' women, because we decided that we're going to get offended about something, without actually looking deeper.

/rant off.

[meikle]

You are so oblivious, I mean Jesus Christ.

I can't even address anything you say because you don't pay attention to what anyone else actually says, you make something up and then get angry about it.

But to be totally succinct, you are blind to the problem because you are the source of it.  You are the heart of the problem being discussed, and you don't "see it" because you think the problem is a good thing.

You know what?  I'm not okay with being told, "You're a woman, so get used to being victimized, because it's just natural for us to be more motivated by seeing you get hurt!"  That's ridiculous, let alone incredibly fucked up.  I'm not okay with being told that the best way to use a woman in your comic is to kill her because it makes the men in the comic angry.  I'm fucking tired of the idea that men have to be heroes and women have to suffer to make it happen.

People like you are the reason women stay away from geek communities.  I just want you to know that when we say that there are people who drive us away, whose attitudes make us feel uncomfortable and unwelcome, it's people like you we're talking about.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

At this point Chris you seem to be ignoring more than “not seeing” the problems.  Feminists are not taking an isolated incident and blowing that out of proportion; instead you are taking an exception and stretching that to fit an entire genre.  Iron Man having a drinking problem was not designed to give men a “power fantasy” but to explore the character through personal conflict.  Just as the plot lines were for Batman and Superman a way to explore the characters and draw the reader more into those complex characters.  These three male figures were allowed to become weaker so that they could later become stronger.  Their vulnerability is considered adversity.  Women on the other hand are given adversity and await the rescue of a man.

The “Women in Refrigerators” is bad because the trope continually puts women in that weaker position of being killed, hurt, beaten and then having to be avenged by male character.  A woman is hurt so that the male character can rise up and defeat the wicked villain for beating up on the poor, helpless woman.  That is the negative aspect of that trope and one which you continually state while at the same time not acknowledging as a bad thing.  Yes, I’m glad you think violence against women is bad.  Violence against women is not made better because a man took up the fight and beat up the bad guy.

[Chris Brady]

I'm out.

[Beguile's Mistress]

The news industry has a motto:  If it bleeds it reads.  Readers either buy the hard print papers, magazines and non-fiction books or they read the material on websites that charge advertisers by the view.

Product testing and market research are two things I work with and know something about.  One of two things happens with almost every product on the market.  It is tested and researched for market appeal before it hits the shelves to see who will buy it or market studies are done after release to see who bought the product.  No company is going to spend money developing, packaging and advertising a product without wanting to know if it will sell.  That would be stupid.

Intellectual property is another matter.  Sales will tell you whether or not the item is selling.  Research will tell you who is buying.  The next step is to market to that group specifically but also to any fringe group in the crowd.  It's why they have pre-release showings..

Pre-release gets the word out about something new and creates desire but they also find out from the audience what they liked or dislike about the movie, game, book, etc.  There is a story/legend in Hollywood that when the movie "High Noon" was previewed the audience hated it because the opening bars of theme song for the movie were played to the point that it was ridiculous.  The movie score was redone before theater release.

The selling game has a motto of it's own.  "Sex sells."  When the studies tell the seller men are the primary market for something the female body is used to sell it.  Hence, the pinup calendars automotive and tool companies hand out.  Want to make money for your group or a charity?  Calendars again with curvy women and well-endowed men either blatantly displayed or hinted at.  That is only one example. 

The industries are slowly changing with advertising geared to single parent families, same sex couples and older parents of young children.  Viagara and Cialis commercials actually use actors who look old enough to need the stuff.

As long as the biggest market for video games, comic books or graphic novels is the teen-age and young adult male and as long as there are studies showing sex is part of the reason why there will be objectification.  I think it was Opie from "The Andy Griffith Show" who said he could tell the difference between good ladies and bad ladies in the comics he read because of the size of their chest.  That was in the 60s? 

It all boils down to money and if you want to change it you'll begin demanding more realism and stop buying the games, etc. that objectify anyone.

[gaggedLouise]

From a review of a Lara Croft game a couple years ago: "The point of the game is to have you look at Lara's bazookas, and I'm not referring to her actual firearms."  ;)

You can certainly see that books - both fiction and non-fiction - are getting increasingly tailored for some particular class of people. Comes through both in the choice of subjects, in the key characters and in how it's written or framed. Romance books or exotic/travel books for women, books about war, sci-fi and tech adventure for the guys. The neogothic and vampire boom appeals to both sexes, but it's also mostly an adolescent/younger adults thing (Charlaine Harris and Stephanie Meyer may be older women, but I reckon fairly few people above forty read a lot of vampire books...).

It's really a downer when you sense as a reader that the author is just checking all the boxes for the group he/she's been told the book will be marketed to. Still worse when you can see that they're actually fighting the potential of their own novel to make it more strongly sellable. I felt that very strongly when I read Tell Me No Secrets by Joy Fielding. For most of the book it's a thoroughly believable, exciting and in-depth story of a woman prosecutor in an exposed position dealing both with a series of female disappearances, personal threats and her own past. And it steers clear of all the standard spiced clichés of the stalker/mad-avenger thriller genre. The women in the book are generally not objectified or used for quick thrills; the whole story is told from the angle of the lead character, who is both committed, capable, angry and sometimes vulnerable (and of course trying to come to terms with a relationship, but that's not the main point...). Then in the last chapter it essentially jumps down into all the B-movie crap the book has so far studiously avoided. Impossible solutions that don't fit with the rest of the story at all, characters turning into paper dolls. I'm sure someone told Fielding, or she felt compelled that way, that she had to have a good and gutsy sharp twist at the end, and so she went on to inject a series of shocks in the final chapter. And disrupted her own book.

[Ephiral]

I'd suggest the Bechdel test as a good illustration of the sheer pervasiveness of objectification. It's intended for movies, but works in a lot of places. In order to pass the Bechdel test, a movie must feature:

1. At least two named female characters...
2. ...who have a conversation...
3. ...that isn't about a man.

Not that difficult, right? Start keeping an eye out for this in the movies you watch. Then come back and say objectification of women isn't a problem, or that men get it the same.

[Shjade]

Deep in the 80's to 90's there was an arc in Ironman in which Tony Stark's drinking got bad.  REAL bad.  Down to the point where he would black out, and even when he was Ironman, to the detriment of the state of New York.

Don't know about you, but I don't want to have an addiction problem as part of a power fantasy.

You want it as part of a sexual fantasy?

I assume you brought this up because Iron Man was held up as an example of male sexualization. I don't find alcoholism that sexy, myself, regardless of gender, so...there goes that claim, then, I guess?

@Ephiral: while it's a fun game to play, the Bechdel test is, well...let's just say "flawed."

[Ephiral]

You want it as part of a sexual fantasy?

I assume you brought this up because Iron Man was held up as an example of male sexualization. I don't find alcoholism that sexy, myself, regardless of gender, so...there goes that claim, then, I guess?

@Ephiral: while it's a fun game to play, the Bechdel test is, well...let's just say "flawed."

Not holding it up as the be-all end-all, just a litmus test/eye opener. Also note that your link specifically cites something more restrictive than the original test, then finds fault with that.

[Shjade]

The version you posted here is more restrictive than the original test, and the faults found are demonstrative of the faults in the original as well (which, as is pointed out, wasn't meant to be taken seriously in the first place).

[meikle]

I'll be happy when we have movies with all-female casts that aren't about witches or sisterhood.

Let's see some women dancing around to Stuck In The Middle With You and chopping off ears.

[Kazyth]

... are you sure you're just NOT seeing them where you don't want to see them?

Again, you're pointing to exceptions that are small, small parts of the greater whole.  Yeah, Tony Stark had a drinking problem.  And it was dark, and bad.  But he got over it.  Was it in there to teach a lesson?  Maybe.  But then again isn't drinking to excess something generally considered 'cool' by teenagers?  I know it was when I was in High School and College, among just about every peer group except maybe the Uber Christians.  And the thing of it is, you knew Tony was going to get over it.  Because he's a Man and Men don't let things beat them.  Just like you know Batman is going to beat the bad guy.  And so is Iron Man.  They are stronger than any addiction, any setback.  Male Power Fantasy.

And as for Batman, yeah, he wanted a family.  His parents alive.  But they were killed, and he became Batman.  Whatever he wanted, he gave it up to STAY Batman.  He never has a family, never gets married, he sacrifices it all to be a badass with all the toys who beats the crap out of his opponents and always has the right tricks to win.  So yes, he is still a badass.  Maybe they wanted to show a bit of a more human, vulnerable side to him, but in the end, he's still goddamn Batman.

Jessica Drew is an exception.  Remember I mentioned those?  Pointing to one character, one example, and saying "This, right here, this disproves everything everyone is saying that I don't like" does not work.  And if I recall, her powers don't have anything to do with fear.  She can fire blasts of bioelectricty, but she also has a pheremone that attracts men and repulses women, doesn't she?  How much fun can that be?

Frankly, sometimes being in the middle of a hobby means your view is limited.  Forest for the trees, and all that.  Just because you don't get why something offends someone doesn't mean it isn't legitimate, or that it is being blown out of proportion.  The flaws you scrutinize and look for are different than the flaws another person will scrutinize and look for.  One person and one person's views don't negate a problem, anymore than folks who think it's fine and funny to be racist in a comedy or whatever negate the racism.

80's cartoons and their positive messages at the end of the shows don't negate the fact that the cartoons were made to sell toys.  Toys to little boys mostly, who couldn't care less about, or were just starting to learn about, breasts and sex and the rest.  And they kept their messages simple.  "Don't be a bully", "Don't shoplift", etc.  It's like saying that the kids who grow up today watching Teletubbies and the like who go on to make comics and shows and all the rest won't be sexist or unfair to women, because Teletubbies wasn't.  There are plenty of other mediums and shows that did and do perpetuate the problem.

As to your rant about the Woman in the Fridge, again, why not show weaker men getting victimized instead of women and children?  Why always take the easy way?  There are plenty of ways to show someone is big and bad and mean without having to have them rape a women, or mutilate, or murder her.  Why do women always have to be shown as the weaker ones?  Because it's easy, because the audience expects it.  It's lowest common denominator, and it's too much effort for many of them to really make the effort.

I have a feeling that the people on E who feel strongly about this subject -have- looked deeper.  As have many others who take exception to objectification of women in all forms of media.  Sure, there are knee-jerk reactionists, but there always are on both side of any issue, and they are often the loudest.  But that doesn't mean that every person who feels strongly that this is something happening and is wrong fall into that group, my self included.  And thus far, I've yet to see a single thing brought up that actually goes any distance toward disproving that this is an issue.

[Beguile's Mistress]

There is a movie from 1939 titled "The Women" with a total female cast.  It was about divorce and infidelity primarily but that was an important topic of the time.

I'd love to see a movie like that taking up some of the current issues women deal with.  I'd like it to have women producing, directing, scoring, editing and writing as well.

[Shjade]

I'll be happy when we have movies with all-female casts that aren't about witches or sisterhood.

Let's see some women dancing around to Stuck In The Middle With You and chopping off ears.

That sounds like sisterhood to me, but what would I know. >.>;

I have Girl Scouts waiting in my Netflix queue, I'll let you know if it might be something you're looking for. ;p

[gaggedLouise]

John Ford's "7 Women" too (sometimes runs on TCM). His final film, and a really interesting choice of subject and cast. The (white, American) women in the film belong to a protestant mission, they are taken hostage by a Mongol warlord in northern inland China in the late 19th century and have to find a way to handle the situation, escape, negotiate their release or get killed or enslaved together. To achieve that they have to work down some barriers, both between themselves and vs the ordinary Chinese.

[Sethala]

To try and break down your points meikle, would it be fair to say that the problem isn't necessarily how the industry treats female characters, but rather that there's an under-representation of strong female leads and an over-representation of female background characters, especially as victims?

[Kythia]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Women_(2008_film)

There is a movie from 1939 titled "The Women" with a total female cast.  It was about divorce and infidelity primarily but that was an important topic of the time.

I'd love to see a movie like that taking up some of the current issues women deal with.  I'd like it to have women producing, directing, scoring, editing and writing as well.

The women  It is literally the worst thing that has ever happened..  Not just the worst film, thats way too low a bar.  The absolute nadir of human chievement.  The single high point is the vague realisation that everything since then is better and humanity can only improve from that point.

[Kazyth]

... I don't know about it being the worst thing ever.  Worst in the vein BeMi is looking for, but worst overall?  I think that still belongs to Manos: The Hands of Fate.  Yup.  It was painful to watch even when MST3K covered it.

[consortium11]

One more thing that's getting up my craw, this whole 'Women in Refrigerators' movement lambasting the comic industry for showing women getting assaulted.  Is it horrific when it happens?  HELL YES.  And what do you think most comic reading boys think when they saw Kyle Rayner's girlfriend murdered and stuffed into an ice box.  You think we were giggling and masturbating to it?  NO.  We want to kill the fucker who did it.  We want grab Major Force and beat the living shit out of the bastard for doing it, in all the worse and most painful ways we could think of.

I grew up in the 80's watching kids cartoons, and most of them had these morality plays at the end, warning us kids about dangers, like strangers, odd looking syringes and the like, and frankly, I'm pretty sure that a lot of the comic writers ALSO grew up watching G-Force (AKA Battle of The Planets) or He-Man, or She-Ra and the like, and whenever they use such a situation (the aforementioned Women in Refrigerators) it's there not to titillate, it's there to galvanize and show that beating on those weaker than you is WRONG.

Unfortunately I think you missed why people object to "fridging".

Alex DeWitt's (the original "woman in fridge") entire character arc was basically to look pretty for Kyle Raynar, to be the "boring" voice of reason and then to be brutally murdered and stuffed into a fridge so that he could get extra motivation. Rather than being a well-rounded character with a real emphasis on her own dreams, motivations and ambitions she was essentially a plot-device to show how evil Major Force was and to give Kyle a reason to angst. The issue with it isn't that the audience is giggling away, the issue is that for far too long female supporting characters would be, at most, one note stereotypes who then die (or are injured/hurt) in a gruesome and demeaning way simply so the male central character has additional motivation or something to angst and go grim-dark about. Identity Crisis was basically one long fridging for Sue Dibny and Lian Harper's death in Cry for Justice was used as little more than a way for the primarily male character leads to cry "Justice!" and kill people.

As for a general sexualisation point in comics... just look at this prmo image:



The central male character? He's posed to be mighty and powerful. The two female mains? Well, Natasha is giving us the classic "show your bum while looking over your shoulder so there's a flash of boob" pose which basically every female character ends up stuck in at least once and Tigra is giving us her best "I'm a filthy sex kitten... meow!" pose and look. And this is by no means a rare occurrence.

The issue isn't that the characters are sexy; the majority of main comic book characters are drawn to be sexy/handsome/beautiful. The issue is the sexualisation of them. Black Widow and Tigra would still be sexy characters if drawn in more "normal" poses. The issue is how they're deliberately posed in a sexual way. It's not completely limited to women... DC have a long history of titillating butt-shots of Dick Grayson at least partly as a knowing wink to their slash/gay readers, but he is very much the exception, not the rule.

[Beguile's Mistress]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Women_(2008_film)
The women  It is literally the worst thing that has ever happened..  Not just the worst film, thats way too low a bar.  The absolute nadir of human chievement.  The single high point is the vague realisation that everything since then is better and humanity can only improve from that point.

I'm not sure which version you are commenting on.  I've never seen the 2008 version so I can't make a comparison and didn't attempt one. 

[Silk]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Women_(2008_film)
The women  It is literally the worst thing that has ever happened..  Not just the worst film, thats way too low a bar.  The absolute nadir of human chievement.  The single high point is the vague realisation that everything since then is better and humanity can only improve from that point.

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

No really that film was painful

[gaggedLouise]

Nine - the movie - struck me as painfully sexist, objectifying and keen to reduce all the female characters to vanity dolls trying to tease up the famed director star. The cast was simply a dream team - Nicole Kidman, Marion Cotillard, Sophia Loren, Daniel Day-Lewis, Kate Hudson, Penelope Cruz and more - the scenography was expensive, but that didn't help it. All the women, except Loren (as his mother) looked and acted like a parody of the idea that women can think only of the man they want. Maybe it was supposed to be half ironic, but that didn't work either. Bleh.

[BlightRaptor]

Nine - the movie - struck me as painfully sexist, objectifying and keen to reduce all the female characters to vanity dolls trying to tease up the famed director star. The cast was simply a dream team - Nicole Kidman, Marion Cotillard, Sophia Loren, Daniel Day-Lewis, Kate Hudson, Penelope Cruz and more - the scenography was expensive, but that didn't help it. All the women, except Loren (as his mother) looked and acted like a parody of the idea that women can think only of the man they want. Maybe it was supposed to be half ironic, but that didn't work either. Bleh.

I now recall the release of that film in my video store. I remember seeing it and thinking "hmm.. this is kinda sexist." The cover shows one dude surrounded by some pretty actresses (pretty, if you're into that sorta thing.) But what I remember most is all the wives and girlfriends dragging their guys to the counter with it in hand.

"Oh come on it'll be fun!"
"Uggghhh...."
"There's hot chicks in it!"
"Uggghhh...."

I'm not really going anywhere with this, just thought I'd share an amusing memory.

[gaggedLouise]

LMAO! I saw it twice on a cable movie channel and it was such a mix of the sexist and the schlocky that I kept zapping back to the news sometimes, while my mind kept swinging between annoyance, anger and bewilderment.

Actually, never managed to watch it through to the end.  ::)

[Skynet]

The selling game has a motto of it's own.  "Sex sells."  When the studies tell the seller men are the primary market for something the female body is used to sell it.  Hence, the pinup calendars automotive and tool companies hand out.  Want to make money for your group or a charity?  Calendars again with curvy women and well-endowed men either blatantly displayed or hinted at.  That is only one example. 

The industries are slowly changing with advertising geared to single parent families, same sex couples and older parents of young children.  Viagara and Cialis commercials actually use actors who look old enough to need the stuff.

As long as the biggest market for video games, comic books or graphic novels is the teen-age and young adult male and as long as there are studies showing sex is part of the reason why there will be objectification.  I think it was Opie from "The Andy Griffith Show" who said he could tell the difference between good ladies and bad ladies in the comics he read because of the size of their chest.  That was in the 60s? 

It all boils down to money and if you want to change it you'll begin demanding more realism and stop buying the games, etc. that objectify anyone.

I think that this is changing.  I can't really say for comic books, but video game players are an increasingly diverse demographic.

Here are some articles I found on a quick Google search:

According to this survery, women over 18 years of age are one of the fastest growing demographics.

There's about 130 million females partaking in online PC gaming.

[Cyrano Johnson]

It is literally the worst thing that has ever happened..  Not just the worst film, thats way too low a bar.  The absolute nadir of human achievement.  The single high point is the vague realisation that everything since then is better and humanity can only improve from that point.

Funny, I felt exactly this way about 300.

[Healergirl]

I feel that way about war and action  movies.

My family has been cursed to have many who served in actual combat branches, and blessed that a large percentage of them survived it.

There  are exceptions, perhaps I've been spoiled by Blackhawk Down, Band of Brothers, Saving Private Ryan.  The original Die Hard well, Just Works like a Swisswatch.  More likely it's the result of being a small child, sitting piled in an armchair with my brothers, listening to our grandfather dad and our uncles with assorted other friends of theirs all swapping stories stories of what Real Combat is like.

I freely admit I was a Shellhead (Iron Man) fan in my teens, but those literal war stories probably explain why I've never really gotten into Comics.  Superheroes, well, frankly, even of the X-men, how many would survive sustained combat?  Iceman, Colussus, are arguably bulletproof.  The others?

A very long time ago, Marvel experimented with the "New Universe", the sudden emergence of superpowers in the modern world.  It struck me that one of the developing themes was how dangerous those powers were to the user, many new  superbeings killed themselves off in short order, others were gunned down by police to protect bystanders.  And the federal  government jumped right on them using the "clear and present danger" clauses.  One of the themes the creators planned to develop was the use of Soft Power.  Come under the federal umbrella, and we will shield you from those pesky lawsuits for damage that are piling up.

It was not popular.  Too close to reality.

Marvel also had a wonderful series, Damage Control, about the city services in NYC who had to clean up after a super-being throwdown.    It failed fast, the target audience does not want to worry about what happens when a lawyer serves a summons for damages against a Hero because said Hero threw a police cruiser at Something Dire.   Perhaps with a handcuffed arrestee still in the back, laying down out of sight.

My point is that despite a very strong desire to increase female readership, the core audience (as a group) of comics does not want to change, this is escape, wish-fulfillment, and they want sex kittens with big boobs and big tight asses.  And if Females superheroes are thought to be too powerful, well, they get nerfed.  Routinely.  Franky, that has always bugged me a hell of a lot more than sexploitation.  In fact, the Nerfing of Power Girl back in the day was pretty much the catalyst for me dropping comic readership all together.  Not that I particularly cared for Power Girl... but it drove home to me what was going on.  I found other uses for my time and money.

[Tairis]

So my question would be if the 'industry' (pick one) is sexist then what is the solution? That's always my issue when this discussion comes up. Everyone complains but I never really see any valid solutions.

Better writers? They exist. Good ones create completely well-rounded characters. Bad ones... don't. It's not just restricted to the female characters. (Seem Jimmy Olsen's entire existence in 80% of superman. The poor bastard is literally just a Macguffin with red-hair). Want them to stop drawing females as hyper-sexy divas in comic books? Too bad. That'll happen about the same time that Hollywood starts casting ugly people in half their roles. Last I checked... 99% of women don't look anything like the average hollywood starlet. People like pretty people. They like sexy people.

It's a trend that has improved over the years in the sci-fi/fantasy/comicbook realm but it'll never change completely. They've become much more than they were. But I don't see anyone with a magic wand that's somehow going to make every piece of fiction perfect. Nor do the same to the people reading it. Some people are dumb. Some people are sexist. Some people are racist. Or a thousand other undesirable traits.

That's life. You vote with your wallet. Buy the things you do like, don't buy the ones you don't. But unless you're going to have some female 'sexism' czar... I don't see what you plan to accomplish by being outraged that Catwoman is always drawn with improbably large breasts. Critique a work because the writing is bad in general. Not just because it portrayed a specific gender badly.

Edit: I am a little confused on the whole 'females getting nerfed in comics' things. I'm more a Marvel than a DC type, but off the top of my head I can think of Jean Grey (one of the single most powerful people in the entire marvel-verse) and Storm from the X-Men as major 'heavy hitters' in the Marvel-verse and that's just from the X-Men that I remember back in the day. Don't recall them ever getting nerfed over much.

[Skynet]

Better writers? They exist. Good ones create completely well-rounded characters. Bad ones... don't. It's not just restricted to the female characters. (Seem Jimmy Olsen's entire existence in 80% of superman. The poor bastard is literally just a Macguffin with red-hair). Want them to stop drawing females as hyper-sexy divas in comic books? Too bad. That'll happen about the same time that Hollywood starts casting ugly people in half their roles. Last I checked... 99% of women don't look anything like the average hollywood starlet. People like pretty people. They like sexy people.

It's a trend that has improved over the years in the sci-fi/fantasy/comicbook realm but it'll never change completely. They've become much more than they were. But I don't see anyone with a magic wand that's somehow going to make every piece of fiction perfect. Nor do the same to the people reading it. Some people are dumb. Some people are sexist. Some people are racist. Or a thousand other undesirable traits.

That's life. You vote with your wallet. Buy the things you do like, don't buy the ones you don't. But unless you're going to have some female 'sexism' czar... I don't see what you plan to accomplish by being outraged that Catwoman is always drawn with improbably large breasts. Critique a work because the writing is bad in general. Not just because it portrayed a specific gender badly.

The graphics are but one part.  And the problem is less "beautiful/handsome people" so much as other factors.  One is that the sexualized outfits are the norm in many superhero comics; there's not too many female superheroes in practical-looking suits and armor in comparison to the stripperific designs.  Also, rubber spines and impossible positions (Escher Girls is a good Tumblr providing examples of this).

And there are also tropes (like women in refrigerators) which happen disproportionately to female characters in comics.

Yes, there's always going to be prejudice, but doesn't preclude room for improvement.  Several decades ago, there were no superheroes of color in comics.  This changed around the 70s, but they were often stereotypical.  Now there's more three-dimensional ones such as Storm and Cyborg.

Progress is slow, but it does come.  And I hope that such discussion inside and outside the fandom brings it about in regards to the aforementioned heroes.

[Tairis]

Well I'm certainly not arguing that artists often fail horribly at anatomy. And again it's not restricted to women. Rob Liefield for example. Shudder.

My point is mostly screaming 'sexism' and going on a tirade is rarely as effective as simply addressing the work as a whole. The former easily triggers a backlash both justified and unjustified. The latter they can't really argue with. Bad writing is just bad writing.

[Ephiral]

Well I'm certainly not arguing that artists often fail horribly at anatomy. And again it's not restricted to women. Rob Liefield for example. Shudder.

My point is mostly screaming 'sexism' and going on a tirade is rarely as effective as simply addressing the work as a whole. The former easily triggers a backlash both justified and unjustified. The latter they can't really argue with. Bad writing is just bad writing.

So... don't point out blatant sexism when it's happening because someone might not like it? Fuck that noise. You can claim it's not there all you want, but there aren't any artists continually getting work by tracing male characters out of porn, for example.

[gaggedLouise]

So... don't point out blatant sexism when it's happening because someone might not like it? Fuck that noise. You can claim it's not there all you want, but there aren't any artists continually getting work by tracing male characters out of porn, for example.

Ephiral, the key reason Michelangelo's David or any depiction of St.Sebastian (naked, tied to the pillar and bleeding from arrows) haven't been branded as speaking a picture language out of porn is that they are long since part of the canon. But if it had been the book rule to look up works of art and bash them as infected with porno stereotypes when those works were made, they would have been on the list as well. Maybe the hunt wouldn't have begun there, but in time the label would have stuck to them too.

It's a no-brainer that David can be tagged "objectifying male nudity", and he even shows his organ. Link it up with the fact that David in the Bible is clearly a macho man and you have a type A case of simplifying, bigoted intentions.

[consortium11]

Ephiral, the key reason Michelangelo's David or any depiction of St.Sebastian (naked, tied to the pillar and bleeding from arrows) haven't been branded as speaking a picture language out of porn is that they are long since part of the canon. But if it had been the book rule to look up works of art and bash them as infected with porno stereotypes when those works were made, they would have been on the list as well. Maybe the hunt wouldn't have begun there, but in time the label would have stuck to them too.

It's a no-brainer that David can be tagged "objectifying male nudity", and he even shows his organ. Link it up with the fact that David in the Bible is clearly a macho man and you have a type A case of simplifying, bigoted intentions.

I think Ephiral's point is more that a number of comic artists (Greg Land is particularly infamous) have been known to literally trace stills/photos from porn shoots as the basis for their female characters. There's a reason virtually ever female Land draws ends up have an "orgasm face".

[gaggedLouise]

I think Ephiral's point is more that a number of comic artists (Greg Land is particularly infamous) have been known to literally trace stills/photos from porn shoots as the basis for their female characters. There's a reason virtually ever female Land draws ends up have an "orgasm face".

I think that really depends on how and why the artists or their audience are using such styles and tactics. Franco Saudelli's The Blonde comic album abounds in cunningly bound and gagged women, some of them tortured (not heavily) or kept waiting, clearly some of those pictures are derived from the language of porno, but Saudelli also uses it to tell a satiric tall tale of media/corporate corruption and depraved journalism - the reporter and the tv channel in the story are effectively conniving with the abductress to get the most out of the juicy story, while they feign sympathy for the victims - and it's not that hard to read it as a satire on the Italy that Berlusconi would emerge from and come to lead: sexual escapades on the tv, in private and flunky journalism.

And for older examples, well, there's any number of female characters and heroines in what are now appreciated literary classics which were blasted, when those books first appeared, as being the kind of stuff that could only appeal to men who want to read about saucy hookers and sluts. Madame Bovary, Lady Chatterley's Lover, Strindberg's Miss Julie (which had to be toned down a bit in its language to be considered printable or possible to stage, even though the editor was a friend of the author - and it was still seen as scandalous when it came out in 1889; the uncensored version only appeared a century later after, get it, a forensic run-through of hundreds of corrections in the original longhand manuscript...)  Okay, I'm not claiming every hot comic book is like Madame Bovary, the point is I don't think criticism of a graphic novel, a book, a hiphop rhyme or a painting should always entail the critic nailing down half a dozen stereotypes that might be spied out in the fabric of the work.

[meikle]

It's a no-brainer that David can be tagged "objectifying male nudity", and he even shows his organ. Link it up with the fact that David in the Bible is clearly a macho man and you have a type A case of simplifying, bigoted intentions.

The statue where his junk is carved to suggest fear-induced shrinkage?

[Healergirl]

tairis,

i didn't go on a tirade, and I hope I'm not seen as doig sonow.

I Just decided I didn't like what I was seeing, reading... and stopped buying comics.  Anecdotes are not the most reliable data (but they are data), and selection bias is certainly at work here... but I know quite a few women who used to buy comics and stopped for similar if not identical reasons.

Now on the flip side?  Conan is certainly objectified in the comics.  All that bare skin, Manly Muscle?  In the original stories, he wore actual clothes, and as much armor as he thought the situation demanded.  Yes, Howard/Conan was a big believer in armor.     In fact, in Beyond the Black River, Conan expressly credits his survival on the frontier during heavy fighting to his armor. His barbarian upbringing  and considerable combat experience gave him the skill to move far more quietly in armor than his very unfortunate Pict opponents would have been able to believe, had they survived long enough to think about it.

Even when in his thief phase, he wore a helmet, and light leather armor.  As a soldier, he always wore a chainmail shirt and helmet, often greaves, not frequently carried a shield.

When King, he wore the best  full-plate armor available.

In comics?  Beefcake on display.

Meikle,

From the rumors about Michalangelo... I suspect the model he used was a grower, not a shower.

[gaggedLouise]

The statue where his junk is carved to suggest fear-induced shrinkage?

Well, I don't think old Mick was into the idea that courage is always enshrined in the size of the dick.  ;) Even if he was personally gay.

[Sasquatch421]

[Pumpkin Seeds]

The point is not in that the women are attractive or even sexy.  Truth be told there are few if any heroic characters, male or female, that are actually ugly.  With rare exception the majority of all heroic characters are attractive.  Even with roleplay the majority of characters played are extremely attractive individuals and those that are not the lack of attractiveness tends to be a sort of niche or background item.  The point many feminists are trying to make is that women become sexual items to grab the attention of a male audience and their actual storylines and character are secondary to that purpose.  Female characters are lost to become male plot devices, to become sexual objects to gain teenage boy fantasy and in general are simply throw away characters. 

Attractive women is not the problem.  Women treated as objects rather than subjects is the problem.

[Cyrano Johnson]

In comics?  Beefcake on display.

Basically the thing to remember is that the audience for these images was originally, and largely remains, adolescent boys. (Even if the actual demographics of the readership have moved on, this remains the basic ideal viewer of the superhero comic that most artists, consciously or not, are drawing for, and much of the adult fanboisie still relates to the material at this mental level.) The women almost always represent what adolescent boys fantasize about -- hence the frequency with which they're absurdly sexualized and reduced to refrigerated plot points in male storylines -- and the men almost always represent what they would like to be, sexually and otherwise. Hence when Frank Miller moved the Spartans into comics, they had to be bare-chested and wearing absurd little loincloths: you couldn't have armour getting in the way of manliness.

[Healergirl]

Cyrano,

Adult fanboise... such a delightful turn of phrase, I will have to remember that.


Frank Miller didn't have the, well, balls to show True Spartan Manliness of back and chest armor, greaves, and raw manliness on display waving in the breeze, which would have been historically accurate. 

That may not be entirely fair, he might have, but his publishers certainly did nt.

Beefcake Conan, Beefcake Spartans...   And Superman?  Batman?  Their costumes?    Briefs outside of their tights?   I have to wonder about the perhaps not so repressed homoerotic yearnings of many comic artists - and the adolescent male target readership.

[gaggedLouise]

So who's looking at who now?  ;)

[Sethala]

Some interesting thoughts from everyone in here, so first off, thank you all for commenting.

I've thought about it a bit, and I'm also not sure what should be done about it.  We do have some good examples of strong female characters in media, but I think the issue is that the ratio is completely off.  There's not enough strong females, and too many victimized ones in stories.  The problem isn't what happens to a female character in an individual story, however; it's what happens to them in the majority of stories.

So, what can we do?  Well, to be honest, all I can think of is raising awareness and refusing to buy something that offends you.  Part of the issue is that there's nothing wrong with a specific bit of media doing something objectionable - it's all part of free speech and expression of art.  So, trying to go on a campaign to say that item X is horrible and demeaning to women?  Yeah, that's reasonable, it gets everyone aware of the problem.  But trying to go on a campaign to prevent item X from being published/sold/etc?  That's where it crosses a line into censorship.

An example: there's a Japanese card game called Tanto Cuore, where the objective is each player tries to hire (anime-styled) maids to work for them.  The company that's localizing the games put up a fundraiser for one of the expansions on Indiegogo late last year.  A group of people tried to petition Indiegogo to take it down because it was objectifying the women in the game as just subservient housekeepers.

Now, if Indiegogo had decided to pull the campaign because it violated their rules, I'd question the decision, but I wouldn't be upset - it's their website, and they get final say on whether they want a certain project on it.  (Kickstarter actually denied the game for this very reason.)  However, if this group had succeeded in pressuring them into pulling it, I'd be very upset, as it would be a case of the group actively trying to prevent the product from being sold - it's not their reputation that's being affected by the game in any way; they can simply ignore it, and there's also the idea that if they tried to run a fundraiser anywhere else, it would get the same reaction.

[Tairis]

Healergirl, I wasn't referring to any of your comments specifically and everything I've seen from you is completely reasonable. I meant the more extreme reactions...

So... don't point out blatant sexism when it's happening because someone might not like it? Fuck that noise. You can claim it's not there all you want, but there aren't any artists continually getting work by tracing male characters out of porn, for example.

Like this.

I never said not to point out sexism. What I did say was that the shrill cry of outrage about it is far less effective than simply critiquing bad writing, plot holes, and general logical inconsistencies that you can usually find in such works. Because one comes off as someone looking to 'clean up' or 'fix' something that thousands of people love but that you're effectively accusing of being sexist pigs for doing so.

Here's an example, using one of my favorite games/universes in in recent history. Mass Effect. I love the characters, the setting, all sorts of stuff about it. Within the Mass Effect universe you have a species called the asari. Mono-gendered all female blue space aliens with a culture that encourages their 'maidens' (basically their equivalent of teenagers and 20 somethings) to go out in the world and get freaky. Quite a few different asari specifically mention being strippers and the like.

Sexist? Of course they are. They're quite literally an adolescent fantasy. It's an entire race of hot blue women that have tons of lesbian sex, are strippers, wear tight clothing, and will literally sleep with anything.

Now what do you think happened when some of the expected 'This is so horribly sexist! You're all man-children that objectify women!!!' threads popped up? People rushed to defend the game and universe they enjoyed. Some of their points were valid, some weren't. But really the only thing the screeching outrage caused was alot of arguments, a slight increase in awareness, and a lot of hurt feelings.

But more objective critiques of the work as a whole? Oh there was still plenty of arguing (see the entire 'Ending/Extending Cut' fiasco for example) but rarely did it reach the fevered pitch of rhetoric and flame baiting that the simple cry of 'Sexism!' did. Some of those discussions even mentioned the flaws in the background of the asari (the problem of parthenogenesis as a reproductive method for such an advanced life form, etc) but without turning into two sides that are never going to agree screaming at each other.

The 'I'm mad and I'm not going to take it' and getting worked up into a self-righteous froth by pointing out the most extreme examples you can think of? Works when you're dealing with issues of actual abuse. Or child hunger. Or any issue that actually involves people being harmed. Comic book characters drawn by guys that fail at anatomy sometimes and definitely don't get out enough? Not so much.

In the meantime, vote with your wallet. Call out bad writing and bad artwork. But don't get yourself worked up over what is, in reality, a minor problem that's a minor problem in the grand scheme of things and one that's been steadily improving as time as gone on anyways.

[Cyrano Johnson]

Tairis, part of objectively critiquing a work also includes objectively pointing out when it is being sexist or racist or otherwise generally shitty. Demanding that all critiques carefully tip-toe around such dangerous things to focus on subjects that won't raise hackles is demanding that critiques not be objective; real objectivity faces up to facts whether they raise hackles or not. Now of course this kind of thing will provoke defensiveness, rank-closing, diversionary tactics -- like attempting to pretend this is all "frothing" or "outraged screeching" or various other versions of "you're just being hysterical" or "you're the real sexist / racist / whatever" -- but that's to be expected. Any calling-out of sexism or racism or other form of hatefulness or bigotry, at any time and in any place, provokes that kind of childishness.

But it also provokes thought -- even in people who won't outwardly admit it -- and more importantly it establishes that there are points beyond which you cannot go and still be considered a decent, upstanding chap by other people. The sad fact of it is that racism and sexism haven't been beaten back over the last decades of the twentieth century by reasoned argument; there's been plenty of it, but by far the more powerful and necessary weapon to actually change behaviours is shaming. Even the most sexist and racist dickhead in the world still wants to be thought of as a good person. He will celebrate his sexism and racism in any setting that allows him to think those are good, or at any rate neutral qualities; of course he (or she) will scream and yell "help help I'm being repressed" in any setting that doesn't... for a while. But eventually he will have to face the choice between ostracism or changing; he can only stay the same if his local circumstances still allow him to think that sexism or racism are okay things that his circle of friends and family will either celebrate or at least tolerate.

It's a shame that it has to come down to that, but that's what it comes down to. That above all else is why there aren't anti-miscegenation laws any more. Or to take up a different example, it's what shifted the social balance against homophobia: gays were able to turn the tables on those who portrayed them as deviant, evil predatory monstrosities and establish that they were people's sons and daughters, friends and neighbours. The method of shaming that was used against them has been turned against the people who would demand that parents disown their own children to live up to the dictates of two-thousand or twenty-five-hundred year-old religious documents... and now find that they really can't explain why. It's all part of the same phenomenon.

You don't have to like it, of course. Personally I'd rather that people be simply able to engage in a rational argument and change their beliefs when they find their arguments don't hold up. But it doesn't work that way. It's easier to shrill "you're being shrill!" than it is to accept that your argument is flawed. That's just how humans work.

I think it's fair to ask what more can be done, though. Expecting to engage people in a rational conversation -- which is what the "Women in Refrigerators" thing was originally about -- is noble as far as it goes but will only get you so far. Really the main thing to be done is for people who don't accept these shitty standards to create their own comics and prove there's a market for them. We're at the beginning of that process now (google "Project Rooftop" if you want to see a lot of good examples of emerging new aesthetics), and so much the better.

[Cyrano Johnson]

Frank Miller didn't have the, well, balls to show True Spartan Manliness of back and chest armor, greaves, and raw manliness on display waving in the breeze, which would have been historically accurate.

There's a lot Frank Miller didn't have the balls for (like facing up to the actual sexual politics of Sparta). I don't think it's unfair to say so. The guy has pretty much dug his own hole at this point.

Beefcake Conan, Beefcake Spartans...   And Superman?  Batman?  Their costumes?    Briefs outside of their tights?   I have to wonder about the perhaps not so repressed homoerotic yearnings of many comic artists - and the adolescent male target readership.

Certainly a case of repression in the early comics -- cf. a lot of the boy sidekicks, there are really a lot of old frames that involve Batman spanking Robin -- but the old comics artists lived in a pretty repressed society that way. In the latter generations it gets harder to distinguish between that and hetero fantasy-mongering, but it's all the Kinsey scale anyway...

[Incidentally, a really great book involving a (fictionalized but historically perceptive) account of the early days of comics and their creators? Michael Chabon's The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay. If you haven't read it, it's a really great -- sympathetic, interesting, well-rounded and well-written -- examination of the whole phenomenon from the inside out. I highly recommend it.]

[Cyrano Johnson]

Also, you know what'd be pretty great? A supervillain with the Male Gaze as a superpower. He looks at women and their bustlines grow, their costumes shrink, they feel the sudden urge to be Sexier... (Hey, I never said my fantasies weren't sexist... :P)

Complemented of course by a heroine with the Female Gaze superpower, which transforms any male she looks at into a long-haired, doe-eyed, pouty-lipped coverboy secretly yearning to be tamed by the right woman. In a meeting with Captain Malegaze, they immediately transform each other into stereotypes completely uninterested in one another who promptly wander off in search of other partners. ;)

[gaggedLouise]

Also, you know what'd be pretty great? A supervillain with the Male Gaze as a superpower. He looks at women and their bustlines grow, their costumes shrink, they feel the sudden urge to be Sexier... (Hey, I never said my fantasies weren't sexist... :P)

Complemented of course by a heroine with the Female Gaze superpower, which transforms any male she looks at into a long-haired, doe-eyed, pouty-lipped coverboy secretly yearning to be tamed by the right woman. In a meeting with Captain Malegaze, they immediately transform each other into stereotypes completely uninterested in one another who promptly wander off in search of other partners. ;)

I remember this detective/glamorous crime comic, called The Aristocrats, where the main characters - a band of English noble gentlemen and their wives/girlfriends actually, hanging out at horse races, country parties and so on when not catching the crooks, or actually they were moving on both sides of the law a bit -.had a neat gadget in their car, a hidden see-through scanner which could present an undressed vision, in true colours, of anyone its sights were aimed at, for the use of those in the front seats (normally, the guys). It was used at some points just for the enjoyment, and yes that was pointed out with a scoff by one of the ladies in the...strip.

The other thing I remember that comic adventure for is the mid-level gang boss they chased over lots of scaffolding at a construction site, and his taunt "You'll never catch me, you Polypuses!" (one of the amateur spooks, in tie and bowler hat, replied "What an inelegant expression!")  ;D

[meikle]

I never said not to point out sexism. What I did say was that the shrill cry of outrage about it is far less effective than simply critiquing bad writing, plot holes, and general logical inconsistencies that you can usually find in such works. Because one comes off as someone looking to 'clean up' or 'fix' something that thousands of people love but that you're effectively accusing of being sexist pigs for doing so.

Maybe if people don't want to be called sexist pigs, they should stop defending all the sexist crap they like?

Maybe?

Just because lots of people are sexists doesn't make the sexist crap they like less sexist, btw.

Also, I think you're totally missing the fucking point, but that's okay, a lot of the people on your side of the issue do: the goal is not to get everyone together to say, "Mass Effect is evil."  I don't even think the Mass Effect issue is really much of an issue, because while the asari are universally pretty, they're also universally badass; they're not just eye-candy.  We don't see them brutalized solely for the sake of eliciting a reaction from male characters.  We do see them blowing stuff up and committing atrocities and being heroes on their own terms, though.

The goal, though, is not to make people think that something sucks in general, the goal is to make people see that certain popular elements are actually pretty fucked up, so can we stop using them?  The issue is not any particular individual work (though there are some egregious offenders, like Scarlet Blade (aka: Male Gaze: the RPG)), but the cultural pervasiveness of the ideas.  We can point out asari strippers, and we can point out the wizard from Dragon Saga or whatever it's called, and we can point out the old Lara Croft, and yeah, in any individual case, you can just shrug and go, "Yeah, but that's just the tone they wanted for that game" or whatever.  The issue is when it's the tone they want for every game, the issue is when "women suck!" is the assumption rather than the exception in media, the issue is when women are considered inferior protagonists but excellent murder victims for engaging male protagonists and readers, etc etc; it's a pervasive, cultural issue, and yeah, it extends beyond the games; video games don't turn normal people into violent killers, but just like any media, they still influence their audience.

Also, seriously, the idea that perpetuating a cultural norm of sexism doesn't hurt anybody -- wow, that's fucked up.  That is incredibly fucked up.  And the problem is improving, but it's only improving because we're no longer allowing it to go unchallenged.  This kind of thing doesn't just happen without people making it happen.

[Healergirl]

tairis,

Thank you!  This entire subject is a mine field for explosive feelings, I was worried abut how i might be coming across.

Cyrano Johnson,

Miller... I'm trying to be charitable to Miller.  After Sin City... that's pretty hard to do.  And thank you for the book recommendation!

gaggedLouise,

The aristocrats... yet another for me to add to the list, thank you.

[consortium11]

I never said not to point out sexism. What I did say was that the shrill cry of outrage about it is far less effective than simply critiquing bad writing, plot holes, and general logical inconsistencies that you can usually find in such works. Because one comes off as someone looking to 'clean up' or 'fix' something that thousands of people love but that you're effectively accusing of being sexist pigs for doing so.

But the "shrill cry of outrage" wasn't (generally) coming from some malicious feminist monstrosity surveying the cultural landscape, honing in on some niche area they had little understanding or enjoyment of and declaring it sexist and all those who liked it sexist. It was... and is... coming from people who enjoyed, loved and were deeply engaged with the area in question. Gail Simone, the lady who picked up on the "fridging" cliché became one of the most respected comic book writers in the industry, regularly handling important titles for the Big Two. Much of the "feminist critique" or whatever people want to call it of video games comes from people (of both sexes) who enjoy and play video games. It's one of the reasons people do end up issuing "shrill cries of outrage" (and I have to say I'm somewhat uncomfortable with that wording)... it's because they love the medium in question.

Moreover, when has "simply critiquing bad writing, plot holes, and general logical inconsistencies" ever worked? Even in general as opposed to specifically sexist issues? In danger of dragging us off-topic people did all of that for the original Mass Effect... and were rewarded with a Mass Effect 2 (and DLCs) with even more bad writing, plot holes, and general logical inconsistencies. When it was pointed out again we got Mass Effect 3. And throughout it all the series continued to get plaudits for its "epic" story and brilliant writing. The same can be said about Fallout 3, a game with so many plot holes it's surprising that anything qualifies as a plot at all... and yet it is regularly lauded for its writing. To steal an argument from an earlier thread, the civil rights movement didn't find success by getting black people to quietly take aside those who racially abused them and explain in polite terms why it was wrong...

[Skynet]

Moreover, when has "simply critiquing bad writing, plot holes, and general logical inconsistencies" ever worked? Even in general as opposed to specifically sexist issues? In danger of dragging us off-topic people did all of that for the original Mass Effect... and were rewarded with a Mass Effect 2 (and DLCs) with even more bad writing, plot holes, and general logical inconsistencies. When it was pointed out again we got Mass Effect 3. And throughout it all the series continued to get plaudits for its "epic" story and brilliant writing. The same can be said about Fallout 3, a game with so many plot holes it's surprising that anything qualifies as a plot at all... and yet it is regularly lauded for its writing.

A big part of that is because video game journalism is riddled with graft and corruption.  Jeff Gerstmann, a reviewer, was fired for giving Kane & Lynch a 6/10 score.  Turned out the company who makes the game was paying for advertising on the site Gerstmann worked for, and were expecting a good review.

And I can't remember it, but I saw an Angry Joe Show episode where an employee for a company making a sci-fi game was paid to do a review of said game.  Talk about conflict of interest!

Not really related to sexism, but if the so-called journalists and reviewers are on the take, genuine issues with plot and characterization can get swept under the rug by the gaming media.

[consortium11]

A big part of that is because video game journalism is riddled with graft and corruption.  Jeff Gerstmann, a reviewer, was fired for giving Kane & Lynch a 6/10 score.  Turned out the company who makes the game was paying for advertising on the site Gerstmann worked for, and were expecting a good review.

And I can't remember it, but I saw an Angry Joe Show episode where an employee for a company making a sci-fi game was paid to do a review of said game.  Talk about conflict of interest!

Not really related to sexism, but if the so-called journalists and reviewers are on the take, genuine issues with plot and characterization can get swept under the rug by the gaming media.

The issues with mainstream video game 'journalism' (and I use that term very loosely) are a thread or more in and of themselves. One only have to look at the tragically named "doritto-gate" to see the basically endemic corruption (or at the very best complete lack of journalistic ethics) in the industry. More one only has to look at the number of 'journalists' (all too often PR representatives in all but game) who quickly end up as PR representatives to see what the career goal for many journalists is.

[Tairis]

Tairis, part of objectively critiquing a work also includes objectively pointing out when it is being sexist or racist or otherwise generally shitty. Demanding that all critiques carefully tip-toe around such dangerous things to focus on subjects that won't raise hackles is demanding that critiques not be objective; real objectivity faces up to facts whether they raise hackles or not. Now of course this kind of thing will provoke defensiveness, rank-closing, diversionary tactics -- like attempting to pretend this is all "frothing" or "outraged screeching" or various other versions of "you're just being hysterical" or "you're the real sexist / racist / whatever" -- but that's to be expected. Any calling-out of sexism or racism or other form of hatefulness or bigotry, at any time and in any place, provokes that kind of childishness.

No argument there. It does need to be pointed out (which is where we do get things like the 'Women in Refrigerators' trope and similar things. I don't want to give anyone the impression that these things should be ignored. But at the same time I find them to be drastically blown out of proportion. And yes, 'shrill' is something of a loaded word but it's also just my opinion. I've had far too many encounters where I'm not 'allowed' to have an opinion because I'm a white male, so clearly I'm 'oppressing' women (or insert other minority/special interest group here) just by existing.

A somewhat tangential example but it can easily be applied to comic-cons:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20957848

The article is regarding protests about 'Booth Babes'. And I don't mean 'some people commented that it was sexist and a debate began'. I mean people showed up at CES holding protest signs. Really? Forty years ago (or even now) people go out and hold protests against war. Against corporate corruption. This is... about employing attractive women to garner attention to their product in an industry full of men. Is it sexist? Maybe abit. But it's certainly not the greatest tragedy on Earth worthy of picketing.

Another example? The 'Dickwolf' controversy from Penny Arcade back in the day.

You should never tip toe around any part of a critique. But if the only thing that you're bothering to critique is how sexist the game is? You're quickly going to go further and further down the path of opinion.

Some examples are going to be pretty damn easy. Dead or Alive Beach Volley Ball? Yep, sexist. Asari? See below. I'm not even generally ON the 'this is sexist' side of things but apparently I actually find them MORE sexist than the person that's on the other side of the debate from me!

Where is the line drawn, for example? How much fleshing out does a female character need before she's no longer 'Fridge bait'? I might say 'well, she needs to have been established as having a life outside the main character'. Someone else might think that's not enough. She needs to have had her own story arc. Or that she needs to have had X amount of screen/book time.

This isn't just about sexism or female objectification either. Racism and most the other 'isms' can fall into the same trap.

My bottom line opinion: never curtail your critique of any work. But if you find that every critique you're issuing is on the exact same problem? It might not JUST be the work in question that has the issue.

Maybe if people don't want to be called sexist pigs, they should stop defending all the sexist crap they like?

Maybe?

Just because lots of people are sexists doesn't make the sexist crap they like less sexist, btw.

Also, I think you're totally missing the fucking point, but that's okay, a lot of the people on your side of the issue do: the goal is not to get everyone together to say, "Mass Effect is evil."  I don't even think the Mass Effect issue is really much of an issue, because while the asari are universally pretty, they're also universally badass; they're not just eye-candy.  We don't see them brutalized solely for the sake of eliciting a reaction from male characters.  We do see them blowing stuff up and committing atrocities and being heroes on their own terms, though.

And this is pretty much sums up my entire point about WHY these arguments fail. Someone gets incensed and any actual dialogue tends to get lost in the wash. Clearly since I don't agree with you I'm a sexist pig that doesn't see the truth.

Also, seriously, the idea that perpetuating a cultural norm of sexism doesn't hurt anybody -- wow, that's fucked up.  That is incredibly fucked up.  And the problem is improving, but it's only improving because we're no longer allowing it to go unchallenged.  This kind of thing doesn't just happen without people making it happen.

You're right, nothing changes if someone doesn't say something. So say something. But I'm not going to get behind the idea that there is some sort of male conspiracy to perpetuate a 'cultural norm of sexism' by drawing anatomically incorrect women (and men). If something is bad, point out that it's bad and support the things that are good. Not crusade to fix 'insert industry here'.

Edit: Forgot this one, oops.

But the "shrill cry of outrage" wasn't (generally) coming from some malicious feminist monstrosity surveying the cultural landscape, honing in on some niche area they had little understanding or enjoyment of and declaring it sexist and all those who liked it sexist. It was... and is... coming from people who enjoyed, loved and were deeply engaged with the area in question. Gail Simone, the lady who picked up on the "fridging" cliché became one of the most respected comic book writers in the industry, regularly handling important titles for the Big Two. Much of the "feminist critique" or whatever people want to call it of video games comes from people (of both sexes) who enjoy and play video games. It's one of the reasons people do end up issuing "shrill cries of outrage" (and I have to say I'm somewhat uncomfortable with that wording)... it's because they love the medium in question.

And as I pointed out above, I have no issue pointing out flaws. But when 'hey this character is poorly written and just here for T&A' turns into 'you're perpetuating horrible sexism/rape culture/etc' as I usually see these things do? I find it hard to take them seriously.

Moreover, when has "simply critiquing bad writing, plot holes, and general logical inconsistencies" ever worked? Even in general as opposed to specifically sexist issues? In danger of dragging us off-topic people did all of that for the original Mass Effect... and were rewarded with a Mass Effect 2 (and DLCs) with even more bad writing, plot holes, and general logical inconsistencies. When it was pointed out again we got Mass Effect 3. And throughout it all the series continued to get plaudits for its "epic" story and brilliant writing. The same can be said about Fallout 3, a game with so many plot holes it's surprising that anything qualifies as a plot at all... and yet it is regularly lauded for its writing. To steal an argument from an earlier thread, the civil rights movement didn't find success by getting black people to quietly take aside those who racially abused them and explain in polite terms why it was wrong...

Well, it's both lauded and hated for its writing. Which isn't helped by the fact that it had quite a few writers, some better than others. By going by that logic if people deciding the work as a WHOLE was bad, how exactly is yelling about how sexist character A is going to accomplish anything more?

(And in my personal opinion Bioware is always a mixed writing bag. Their characters tend to be excellent and compelling, their plots much less so.)

Edit again: Also quoting again for emphasis:

the civil rights movement didn't find success by getting black people to quietly take aside those who racially abused them and explain in polite terms why it was wrong...

This. THIS. This is what drives me crazy. This isn't the bloody civil rights movement. Nobody is making women sit at the back or the bus or become sex slaves to comic book writers or whatever. It's a freaking character in a comic book! To me comparing the level of sexism today to what women or black people actually had to deal with 40-50 years ago is the sexism equivalent of Godwin's law.

[Cyrano Johnson]

I don't want to give anyone the impression that these things should be ignored. But at the same time I find them to be drastically blown out of proportion. And yes, 'shrill' is something of a loaded word but it's also just my opinion. I've had far too many encounters where I'm not 'allowed' to have an opinion because I'm a white male, so clearly I'm 'oppressing' women (or insert other minority/special interest group here) just by existing.

I find it very hard to believe you've had encounters where you're not allowed to have an opinion just because you're a white male and oppress people just by existing*. On the other hand, I find it very easy to believe you've had encounters where you've pissed people off with aggressive cluelessness to the point where they've told you to just leave off. Attempting in a lordly manner to dictate the "proportion" in which things should be happening will do that.

(Protip: people feeling strongly about something is absolutely not an excuse for you to say that it's "being blown wildly out of proportion." It's a cue for you to listen, because maybe they've had experiences you haven't. "Blown wildly out of proportion" is the kind of language -- shrill language -- you reserve for when people are being criminally accused or tossed from the walls into the Pit of Despair. It's really, really not the card you play when people are merely annoyed or aggravated by a thing.)

[* Not that it's impossible for that to happen. It's just that it happens way less often than defensive (usually white male) geeks like to pretend it happens.]

This is... about employing attractive women to garner attention to their product in an industry full of men. Is it sexist? Maybe abit. But it's certainly not the greatest tragedy on Earth worthy of picketing.

So, it's not worth picketing a sleazy environment in which women feel frequently unsafe, humiliated, harrassed and assaulted because Rosa Parks had it worse? I doubt the good Sister would agree with you. Using the civil rights movement as an excuse to defend the sexist geek culture misses the very point of the civil rights movement so profoundly that I have to think Martin Luther King himself would take you to woodshed. Jesus.

Another example? The 'Dickwolf' controversy from Penny Arcade back in the day.

Probably not something you want to bring up. Yes, the original controversy was silly to an extent: on the other hand, Penny Arcade's would-be "supporters" scored something of an own-goal when they responded to it with an outpouring of rape jokes, rape threats and generally juvenile, stupid and embarrassing behaviour. The behaviour of their so-called "allies" probably gave Gabe and Tycho more pause than anything, which hardly makes the case that the complaint was ultimately out of line.

Where is the line drawn, for example? How much fleshing out does a female character need before she's no longer 'Fridge bait'?

It's a worthwhile debate to have. What's not worthwhile is saying there's no debate to have and it's all just being "shrill."

Racism and most the other 'isms' can fall into the same trap.

And by the same token there are fuck-ton of open racists out there who think they can get away with it by just claiming that anyone who calls them out is being "shrill" or hysterical or otherwise irrational. Luckily, it doesn't work that way.

And this is pretty much sums up my entire point about WHY these arguments fail. Someone gets incensed and any actual dialogue tends to get lost in the wash

Or maybe someone gets incensed because certain people try to undermine or outright kibosh actual dialogue while hypocritically claiming they're doing the reverse. That's an understandable reason to get incensed, and it happens all the time, and "someone getting incensed" is not in fact an excuse to claim all dialogue has ceased. That claim is bullshit. What we need is less bullshit.

[Cyrano Johnson]

Also:

This. THIS. This is what drives me crazy. This isn't the bloody civil rights movement.

Someone who draws lessons from the civil rights movement is claiming that they have tactical lessons to learn from the CRM; they're not necessarily claiming their circumstances are identical to disenfranchised blacks in the Sixties. So, that's a stupid and insulting thing to try to imply. You'll find that people are more charitable to you when you extend to them the simple charity of not trying to make stupid and insulting implications like that.

[Cyrano Johnson]

The other thing I remember that comic adventure for is the mid-level gang boss they chased over lots of scaffolding at a construction site, and his taunt "You'll never catch me, you Polypuses!" (one of the amateur spooks, in tie and bowler hat, replied "What an inelegant expression!")  ;D

So awesome....  :D

[Oreo]

Please lower the temperature of the thread to avoid a Staff intervention and lock/cool down period.

Thank you.

[gaggedLouise]

Clipping this bit from a (slightly edited) pm reply from me last night to somebody who had gotten in touch after following this thread - in an off-the-cuff way I believe this caught something:

I think part of the trouble is that many people, especially many women, get off on being objectified sometimes or once in a while, (also on getting appreciation, nice gazes, freebies and gifts linked to such objectifying playfulness) and as long as they feel they don't lose control or standing personally from it. But saying "I like being seen to be a good-looking, enticing doll, I like being put on a pedestal - at least by persons whom I trust" without having it read as implying something wider about how other women should be seen, and should accept to be seen, is difficult when the discussion is a public one. Either it's instantly read as "she thinks other women should accept to be dollified and looked at that way too, because she gets off on it" or you are urged to explain that "I do NOT condone other women getting objectified, though I like to be objectified and glammed up myself" but that's a difficult position to hold, it just doesn't sound good. It can come out awkward or weak even though it's perfectly legit to say: what I'm saying about myself is not translatable to other women everywhere.

In Bogart's day, I think women were more willing to sort of accept with a smile that okay, being a woman I can't reject objectification outright and on principle, we women have to live with it to a degree. You could grudge it personally, you could show that it was not *always* okay, maybe not permitted by you here and now, but most of the time it was basically perceived as part of the female condition. Anyone can see that in movies and books from let's say the forties into the sixties. Today that's not nearly as granted, and of course this ties in with many more women having a career, making solid money or living as singles: many women expect that they can have total control over how they are seen, treated and looked at, all times - and expect other women to *support* their personal/political ideas on this. From there, it translates to how women are pictured in ads, in comics, in movies etc. And that creates more tensions on these things: "why are you not on my side, on our side?"

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Being admired is not the same as being objectified.  Having someone compliment an article of clothing, a hair style, recent weight loss or simply being attractive is not the same as being an object.  Men enjoy the same admiration and quite openly.  Telling a man that he smells good or that he is handsome is something that many men instantly respond to and are more than willing to accept.  Women are the same in that regard.  Being happy with a compliment does not strip a woman of their personality, their intellect and their purpose.  That, once again, is objectification.  To simply make someone an object. 

[gaggedLouise]

Okay, but I don't think the line is a razor sharp one. Some people do enjoy it a good deal when they're showed off, or get to play off against other people's gazes - past, present or anticipated round the corner - even though they are aware on some level that those gazes pass by (deny) some of their more human, live and ordinary sides. Or that you, the attractive person, are acting under more or less strict directions from behind the scenes: walk the carpet like this, talk in this vein, smile like this etc. And at the same time, this incites envy in other people - "that person is stealing the spotlight on all of us" - and that's part of the reason why discussing it can get so heated.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

So the discussion on women being treated equally in comic books and video games becomes heated because people (men and women) enjoy being complimented and admired?  I do not follow this train of thought.  Certainly some people like being shown off by another, but I would argue that is a minority of people.  The argument becomes heated because to one side this argument is insulting and to the other the argument is an attack on a much loved hobby. Anita Sarkeesian wasn't threatened with brutal rape and had her accounts hacked so that various images of computer game characters raping her could be displayed because women "enjoy" being admired or objectified.  This was done because the icons of a beloved hobby were being threatened.

[gaggedLouise]

But some of those who enjoy the hobby (as receiving it, feeling sexy and special in the eyes of strangers etc) are women. And yes, when a minority of people feel their pleasure, their sense of self is getting attacked by what they see as a big, overbold and bigoted horde (the rest of us, or the "silent or not-so-silent majority", whatever) it can get very raw and ugly. And personal.

Besides it's objectification focusing on some people's looks, appeal and presence - real or imaginary people -  I am talking about, not equality as a general thing. Welcome to keep reaching into equality but I'm no part of that discussion topic as far as this thread goes.


*checking out now for some time*

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Certainly some people that enjoy comic books, video games and that culture are women.  Just as black people enjoyed movies at a time when racism was rampant in Hollywood and there are homosexual people that enjoy hip-hop despite the many lyrics and artists that are hateful of them.  People can enjoy a part of culture that does treat them poorly without enjoying that aspect of the culture.  Many women that play video games and read comic books have spoken out against such genres.  This does not mean that women will just throw down their comic books which they have grown to love, simply demanding as a paying audience that better female characters are presented to enjoy. 

Also, objectification is not simply admiring someone’s physical presence and beauty.  Objectification is more complex than simply looking at a woman’s breasts or a man’s behind.  I believe the definition has been brought up many times before as being different than simply admiring a beautiful body or a sexual pose.  Immanuel Kant’s thoughts on objectification are quite influential to modern feminist theory and involve the lowering of a person’s rational self so that another views that person as an object or a thing.  Feminist Theory has several aspects to objectification.

instrumentality: the treatment of a person as a tool for the objectifier's purposes;
denial of autonomy: the treatment of a person as lacking in autonomy and self-determination;
inertness: the treatment of a person as lacking in agency, and perhaps also in activity;
fungibility: the treatment of a person as interchangeable with other objects;
violability: the treatment of a person as lacking in boundary-integrity;
ownership: the treatment of a person as something that is owned by another (can be bought or sold);
denial of subjectivity: the treatment of a person as something whose experiences and feelings (if any) need not be taken into account.

None of these involve admiring, looking or “checking out” another person or giving them a compliment. 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-objectification/

In a sense we are discussing equality.  We are discussing the equality of female characters to be on par with male characters for their treatment and depth.  Just as myths, legends and faerie tales set the tone for a culture; women are asking that icons of our modern day culture reflect the accomplishments and complexities of a modern day woman.

[Shjade]

Where is the line drawn, for example? How much fleshing out does a female character need before she's no longer 'Fridge bait'? I might say 'well, she needs to have been established as having a life outside the main character'. Someone else might think that's not enough. She needs to have had her own story arc. Or that she needs to have had X amount of screen/book time.

Generally speaking, the degree to which one is fleshed out prior to being stuffed in a fridge is, more or less, irrelevant. If the character is brutalized mainly to motivate or otherwise influence some other character's story, rather than because it is the culmination of their own separate story, it kinda doesn't matter how deep a character we're talking about in that fridge.

Maybe think of it like this: Hero comes home to find his girlfriend's corpse tied to his bed. The body is quite obviously mutilated; he doesn't need a coroner to tell him what happened to her to get the gist of how long and painful the experience was before she was finally put out of her misery. This is what finally makes him realize he got his powers to save people from ending up like her, not just for making himself happy.

Now if I tell you his girlfriend was previously the star of what then becomes Hero's series, a successful heroine in her own right and a progressive mayor of her city when she wasn't doing the vigilante thing, does that change the above paragraph at all?

Not so much. In fact, it might actually make it worse that the well-established female character got chucked for a male replacement (perhaps because the writers think he'll be more popular).

On the other hand, if Heroine gets killed off and that's just the end of her series, as its own thing, well, I'm not saying that's necessarily a good thing, but at least it's not a Fridge issue anymore.

[Sethala]

Anita Sarkeesian wasn't threatened with brutal rape and had her accounts hacked so that various images of computer game characters raping her could be displayed because women "enjoy" being admired or objectified.  This was done because the icons of a beloved hobby were being threatened.

My thoughts on that are, yeah, some people are bigoted idiots that take things way too far.  On the other hand however, one thing I see with Anita (and other "feminists" that come under this type of attack) is that they tend to be very receptive to troll attacks, they talk about it like they have a real fear of getting raped because of it (not that I'm trying to say they don't actually have a fear of it, or that it's unlikely, etc), and that generally serves to incite the trolls to keep doing it.  It's the idea of a bully picking on someone because their victim responds in a way that they like.  Now, would all these threats stop entirely if she would stop talking about them and brush them off as no big deal?  Maybe, maybe not, but I think most of them would move on to someone else that's more receptive.

Which makes me think, actually... I see a lot of people like this that keep talking about the rape threats and whatnot as a horrible thing, but are there any feminists that have gone on to brush it off and ignore it that still get targeted as heavily?

[consortium11]

My thoughts on that are, yeah, some people are bigoted idiots that take things way too far.  On the other hand however, one thing I see with Anita (and other "feminists" that come under this type of attack) is that they tend to be very receptive to troll attacks, they talk about it like they have a real fear of getting raped because of it (not that I'm trying to say they don't actually have a fear of it, or that it's unlikely, etc), and that generally serves to incite the trolls to keep doing it.  It's the idea of a bully picking on someone because their victim responds in a way that they like.  Now, would all these threats stop entirely if she would stop talking about them and brush them off as no big deal?  Maybe, maybe not, but I think most of them would move on to someone else that's more receptive.

Which makes me think, actually... I see a lot of people like this that keep talking about the rape threats and whatnot as a horrible thing, but are there any feminists that have gone on to brush it off and ignore it that still get targeted as heavily?

I'm not sure a 'defence tactic' (for lack of a better term) which is based around letting rape threats (however hypothetical) and pretty serious verbal abuse slide as "no big deal" is really something we want to push. 

[Skynet]

I think that lots of online anonymous threats aren't genuine, but that doesn't make them any less terrible.  Especially when it's a concerted effort by many people against one person.  Trolls definitely go for easy targets and ones who respond to their threats, but it still reflects badly on the trolls.

It reminds me of a story I read on Something Awful:

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

This guy was working as a cashier at a video game store.  A new game would come out in a few days.  One customer falsely assumed that they had copies the game in the back room, and repeatedly asked if he could just buy it right then and there.

When informed otherwise, the customer refused to believe it, and threatened that the cashier "wouldn't get home tonight" by saying he put a bomb in his car.

This was a ludicrous lie, but the cashier said "I'll go take a look, then" and called the police in the back room.  There was no bomb, and the threat was empty, but the police came out with a bomb squad anyway.  They arrested the customer and dispersed the crowd.  "No goddamn game is worth threatening to blow shit up!" one cop said.

The whole "my threat wasn't genuine!" isn't a valid excuse.  Espeically when it has malicious intent to intimidate someone.

[Sethala]

I realized after I posted earlier that it really sounds like I'm blaming the victim here.  I'm not, but there's no easy way I can figure to make the point that going out on speeches and saying how horrible it is doesn't actually help matters.

Going to that story about the cashier, what if that cashier didn't call the police, but then went on to give a speech about what happened to tell people what to watch out for and what not to do.  I think people criticizing him for that speech by saying he should have called the police would have a valid point; even if he knew that the threat was empty, he shouldn't be subjected to such abuse (and yes, it is abuse), and the guy doing it should be punished by what society would deem acceptable (in this case, fines/jail time as assigned by a judge).

Back to online threats, I also agree that it's abuse, and that the people doing it should be punished... but now we hit a wall.  These threats are anonymous, and unlike the cashier story, you can't call an internet-cop to go arrest them.  So I suppose my question here is, what -should- be done about cases like that?  Like I said, I think the best idea would be to mostly brush it off, inform people that have the ability to do something about it (honestly I have no idea who that would be, unfortunately), but otherwise ignore it and... well, I suppose hope that it goes away.  It's not an ideal solution, by far, but having too significant of a reaction is likely to only make things worse.

[Ephiral]

The best solution we have available is to shine a spotlight on it, stand in solidarity with the victims, and show that we, as a society and on the whole, do not find this shit acceptable. To push back. Cultural taboos are far more effective at shutting down bigotry than any law.

[Sethala]

Perhaps, and while I think it works for most members of society, unfortunately I don't think it would work to deter many of the trolls.  I will say that I would love to be proven wrong about that, however.

I don't think I can really add much to that topic however, so to try and get the thread back on the main topic...

Generally speaking, the degree to which one is fleshed out prior to being stuffed in a fridge is, more or less, irrelevant. If the character is brutalized mainly to motivate or otherwise influence some other character's story, rather than because it is the culmination of their own separate story, it kinda doesn't matter how deep a character we're talking about in that fridge.

Maybe think of it like this: Hero comes home to find his girlfriend's corpse tied to his bed. The body is quite obviously mutilated; he doesn't need a coroner to tell him what happened to her to get the gist of how long and painful the experience was before she was finally put out of her misery. This is what finally makes him realize he got his powers to save people from ending up like her, not just for making himself happy.

Now if I tell you his girlfriend was previously the star of what then becomes Hero's series, a successful heroine in her own right and a progressive mayor of her city when she wasn't doing the vigilante thing, does that change the above paragraph at all?

Not so much. In fact, it might actually make it worse that the well-established female character got chucked for a male replacement (perhaps because the writers think he'll be more popular).

On the other hand, if Heroine gets killed off and that's just the end of her series, as its own thing, well, I'm not saying that's necessarily a good thing, but at least it's not a Fridge issue anymore.

My understanding of the problem isn't that stories contain characters that exist only to further the main character's story arc by dying, but that those characters are often female, by a significant majority.  If it were a more even mix, it wouldn't be as much of a problem; I mean, I don't see anyone ever complain about how Spider-Man treats Uncle Ben (at least the recent movie versions; never got into comics when I was young), or Uncle Owen's and Aunt Beru's deaths in A New Hope.  As far as I can tell, those characters are getting the same sort of treatment; it's just that male examples are much more rare that's the problem.

[Shjade]

I suspect Uncle Ben's completely off-page "Oh and he killed your Uncle" death doesn't quite stand on the same terms as discovering Uncle Ben hacked up and left on your porch in a paper bag, either.

[Tairis]

I find it very hard to believe you've had encounters where you're not allowed to have an opinion just because you're a white male and oppress people just by existing*. On the other hand, I find it very easy to believe you've had encounters where you've pissed people off with aggressive cluelessness to the point where they've told you to just leave off. Attempting in a lordly manner to dictate the "proportion" in which things should be happening will do that.

(Protip: people feeling strongly about something is absolutely not an excuse for you to say that it's "being blown wildly out of proportion." It's a cue for you to listen, because maybe they've had experiences you haven't. "Blown wildly out of proportion" is the kind of language -- shrill language -- you reserve for when people are being criminally accused or tossed from the walls into the Pit of Despair. It's really, really not the card you play when people are merely annoyed or aggravated by a thing.)

[* Not that it's impossible for that to happen. It's just that it happens way less often than defensive (usually white male) geeks like to pretend it happens.]

Well I don't have a handy catalog of my life to display for you and from the tone of the response it sounds like you're not going to believe anything I have to say anyway but suffice to say it has occurred. Mostly in the college setting where I was effectively told that as a member of the ones 'in power' I can't understand and am complicit in the crimes of my race/gender. And thus my viewpoint/argument is arguing on behalf the oppressive status quo.

So, it's not worth picketing a sleazy environment in which women feel frequently unsafe, humiliated, harrassed and assaulted because Rosa Parks had it worse? I doubt the good Sister would agree with you. Using the civil rights movement as an excuse to defend the sexist geek culture misses the very point of the civil rights movement so profoundly that I have to think Martin Luther King himself would take you to woodshed. Jesus.

I don't seem to recall the article saying it was the women working as booth babes at the convention that were the ones doing the complaining/picketing. It wasn't that CES or anywhere else had made complaints of assault or unsafe work environments. That I would have understood. My point is more than picketing about what amounts to evolution (men like to look at attractive women) seems a rather considerable amount of effort on the part of people that weren't even being affected by it.

Also watching the report one of the detractors says 'it's focused on a very narrow, shrinking part of the industry'. Which logically means the practice is already going to be heading for a decline if its losing its effectiveness.

Somehow I doubt Martin Luther King would wish to subject me to violence because I disagree with you in a debate. But I refer to the comparison as the Godwin's law of these debates because it works on much the same principle. As soon as you bring it up you're trying to associate one group or another with the thing you're referencing and things tend to go down hill from there. Maybe that's not your intention but it's hard not to see it as that when you bring it up in this sort of debate.

Probably not something you want to bring up. Yes, the original controversy was silly to an extent: on the other hand, Penny Arcade's would-be "supporters" scored something of an own-goal when they responded to it with an outpouring of rape jokes, rape threats and generally juvenile, stupid and embarrassing behaviour. The behaviour of their so-called "allies" probably gave Gabe and Tycho more pause than anything, which hardly makes the case that the complaint was ultimately out of line.

So... person A pointed to an innocuous joke in a webcomic known for random over the top jokes and effectively called the writers/artists sexist supporters of rape culture. People that disagreed with her argued back and the worst elements quickly degenerated into hate spewing. That's kind of my entire point for this hence why I brought it up. This is the stuff I have an issue with. I don't have a problem with 'hey, this character is poorly written and seems to only exist for eye-candy for men'.

My problem comes when that changes from 'this isn't good writing, here's the problems with how it portrays character A in a sexist or objectified manner, here's why I'm not buying/supporting/etc this product' to 'you're sexist, this whole industry is sexist, this is a crisis'. Which is what it always seems to become. I believe someone already linked in this thread the video from one of the big youtube game bloggers about the same issue but if not I'll dig it up later. Sums up my feelings rather well.

It's a worthwhile debate to have. What's not worthwhile is saying there's no debate to have and it's all just being "shrill."

And by the same token there are fuck-ton of open racists out there who think they can get away with it by just claiming that anyone who calls them out is being "shrill" or hysterical or otherwise irrational. Luckily, it doesn't work that way.

Except how often is it a debate? And how much more often does it become a bunch of people from group B calling Group A 'sexist' and Group B calling Group A 'prudes'?

I call people out for being irrational because they are. There isn't a dialogue, there's one side claiming the other is wrong and demanding they change. Then the other side digs their heels in and refuses to change.

Or maybe someone gets incensed because certain people try to undermine or outright kibosh actual dialogue while hypocritically claiming they're doing the reverse. That's an understandable reason to get incensed, and it happens all the time, and "someone getting incensed" is not in fact an excuse to claim all dialogue has ceased. That claim is bullshit. What we need is less bullshit.

Sorry, but yea, it is a good claim that dialogue as ceased because when people start becoming vicious, screaming, angry, and/or vindictive. They're not talking about solutions and compromises anymore. They're just interested in proving their side as the ones that are right. See American politics. (And probably everyone else's politics too but I don't live in those other countries so I'll leave their political systems be). There's a difference between impassioned and incensed. One can drive you to achieve, the other just drives logic and rationality out of the window.

[Tairis]

This is probably going to be a double post but I wanted to keep them separate for easy of readability. If that's not kosher in these parts do tell and I'll try to combine them.

Generally speaking, the degree to which one is fleshed out prior to being stuffed in a fridge is, more or less, irrelevant. If the character is brutalized mainly to motivate or otherwise influence some other character's story, rather than because it is the culmination of their own separate story, it kinda doesn't matter how deep a character we're talking about in that fridge.

That's a thought that I've had as well. My take away from the entire trope is more the 'throw away' nature of the character than anything. Because people dying as motivation for other people? That's a story device as old as the written language pretty much. Death, love, and honor are the major motivating factors for I'd say 90% of all the 'good' characters film, books, and other media.

So the only way I can address the problem of the trope would be in the manner in which that device is used. If the character in question is shallow and pretty much the only mention is how important they are to the main character, then they're not really much of a character. And since even now the majority of well known super heroes are straight males this often makes said character their wife/girlfriend/or lover it can be seen as women being 'disposable'.

The over the top level of the death also has to factor into it I think, as was also pointed out.

[Sethala]

I suspect Uncle Ben's completely off-page "Oh and he killed your Uncle" death doesn't quite stand on the same terms as discovering Uncle Ben hacked up and left on your porch in a paper bag, either.

True, but it was the only case I could think of offhand that would be popular enough that everyone knew it.  I could mention Edward Roivas's death in Eternal Darkness (his granddaughter and the main character, Alex, shows up at his house to find the police there and his body lying in a pool of blood, sans head), which is quite a bit closer, but I'm not sure if anyone here would know what I'm talking about.

[consortium11]

My problem comes when that changes from 'this isn't good writing, here's the problems with how it portrays character A in a sexist or objectified manner, here's why I'm not buying/supporting/etc this product' to 'you're sexist, this whole industry is sexist, this is a crisis'.

So what happens when people repeatedly say the first thing, point it out to multiple writers/artists over multiple years and still very little changes? At what point can someone say that a creator who repeatedly creates sexist works, has this pointed out and continues to do it anyway is sexist? At what point can someone say that about an industry that does the same? Women in Refrigerators has/was going as a site since 1999... and yet a decade later the awful Cry for Justice was a major DC event based almost entirely around a blatant fridging. Identity Crisis, another infamous fridging, took place in 2004. And that's to say nothing of the way art is still drawn in comics. I enjoy comics, I read a lot of comics both from the Big Two and more "indy" publishers. I even enjoy some comics which are blatantly sexist. I just don't pretend that the comics aren't sexist or that the industry as a whole doesn't have an issue.

Sorry, but yea, it is a good claim that dialogue as ceased because when people start becoming vicious, screaming, angry, and/or vindictive. They're not talking about solutions and compromises anymore.

This seems suspiciously close to the tone argument/fallacy...

[Tairis]

So what happens when people repeatedly say the first thing, point it out to multiple writers/artists over multiple years and still very little changes? At what point can someone say that a creator who repeatedly creates sexist works, has this pointed out and continues to do it anyway is sexist? At what point can someone say that about an industry that does the same? Women in Refrigerators has/was going as a site since 1999... and yet a decade later the awful Cry for Justice was a major DC event based almost entirely around a blatant fridging. Identity Crisis, another infamous fridging, took place in 2004. And that's to say nothing of the way art is still drawn in comics. I enjoy comics, I read a lot of comics both from the Big Two and more "indy" publishers. I even enjoy some comics which are blatantly sexist. I just don't pretend that the comics aren't sexist or that the industry as a whole doesn't have an issue.

So my question then becomes what does viciously attacking that industry accomplish?

Some writers just aren't that good. Calling them sexist, etc in a combative, attacking manner isn't going to suddenly make them better. Half the time even blatantly obvious critiques don't work on artists (Rob Lieffield *shakes fist*) And by taking the 'everyone is sexist for reading these' etc road you alienate some of the people that could have been on your side by insinuating negative qualities that they might not even possess (admittedly there are some that DO possess those negative qualities, but they also aren't likely to change). I haven't seen the comics industry do a 180 since 1999 (the 'fridge' start date) for example.

Comics have changed over the years based on society as a whole. One generation of writers has retired or phased on, another one steps in, new stories are written. The change comes from new blood and new readers changing the target audience. We've seen some shifts and changes. But if we're going to see a drastic '180' style change it's only going to come about if the people reading the comics stop buying the comics. The 'big two' especially are all about money.

What is not going to get the predominantly male readership of comic books to stop buying comics? Attacking their hobby and them as individuals.

If a particular author has proven themselves to be beyond the pale? Then you should stop buying their work if that's how you feel. And there is nothing wrong with pointing that out to other people. But do it in a reasonable manner.

This seems suspiciously close to the tone argument/fallacy...

The tone argument fallacy (which is already a shaky one) would apply if I was saying that the only thing that matter was the tone and that the tone somehow invalidated the facts. I'm not claiming that there's no sexism in comics or any other industry. I'm simply stating that when two groups of people get angry and self righteous about an issue it turns into a game of scoring points. Not of actually fixing anything. Human beings get their feelings hurt and want to hit back until it devolves into scenarios like the 'Dickwolf' thing.

[Ephiral]

So my question then becomes what does viciously attacking that industry accomplish?

So now it's a "vicious attack" on the entire industry if a fan who loves comics, buys works that they can support, and wants them to be better points out that fridging is an issue, or that DC's handling of the Batgirls as compared to their handling of the Robins is problematic, or the bullshit that Gail Simone went through recently, or how horrible the standard female T&A shot is, or Greg Land. Good to know.

Some writers just aren't that good. Calling them sexist, etc in a combative, attacking manner isn't going to suddenly make them better. Half the time even blatantly obvious critiques don't work on artists (Rob Lieffield *shakes fist*) And by taking the 'everyone is sexist for reading these' etc road you alienate some of the people that could have been on your side by insinuating negative qualities that they might not even possess (admittedly there are some that DO possess those negative qualities, but they also aren't likely to change). I haven't seen the comics industry do a 180 since 1999 (the 'fridge' start date) for example.

If the bad writers are pointed out as having serious problems, enough that people object and stop buying their works... well, soon they stop getting decent work. (See: The joke that is Frank Miller's recent career.) And who exactly is taking the "everybody is sexist for reading these" angle? I've seen a lot of "You should probably think about this before reading these.", but the former appears to be a total strawman as far as this thread is concerned. Once again, as has already been pointed out to you: The people complaining loudest about this are fans who want to see the thing they love become better.

What is not going to get the predominantly male readership of comic books to stop buying comics? Attacking their hobby and them as individuals.

If a particular author has proven themselves to be beyond the pale? Then you should stop buying their work if that's how you feel. And there is nothing wrong with pointing that out to other people. But do it in a reasonable manner.

The tone argument fallacy (which is already a shaky one) would apply if I was saying that the only thing that matter was the tone and that the tone somehow invalidated the facts. I'm not claiming that there's no sexism in comics or any other industry. I'm simply stating that when two groups of people get angry and self righteous about an issue it turns into a game of scoring points. Not of actually fixing anything. Human beings get their feelings hurt and want to hit back until it devolves into scenarios like the 'Dickwolf' thing.

I, uhh... think you might want to reread the part immediately above the last paragraph there. And the numerous other times you've said that the tone of the arguments invalidates them or turns them into "vicious attack [on the] industry".

[Skynet]

...or the bullshit that Gail Simone went through recently...

I haven't really kept up with her lately.  What happened?

[Ephiral]

I haven't really kept up with her lately.  What happened?

As of December 2012, she was DC's only long-term female creator. She helmed a title that did better than the majority of their line, coming in at #17 in overall sales, with its first trade ranking at #4 on the New York Times list. She had a huge fanbase who would buy literally anything with her name on it.

Then she was summarily fired, for no readily apparent reason. Via email.

Then the fanbase collectively lost its shit, DC realised she was basically a license to print money, and they hired her back. But still - it should not have taken that.

[Tairis]

So now it's a "vicious attack" on the entire industry if a fan who loves comics, buys works that they can support, and wants them to be better points out that fridging is an issue, or that DC's handling of the Batgirls as compared to their handling of the Robins is problematic, or the bullshit that Gail Simone went through recently, or how horrible the standard female T&A shot is, or Greg Land. Good to know.

So two things:

1) No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that taking it to the extreme doesn't help anyone which is often what the 'argument' devolves into. Such as the whole thing about Dragons Crown as was brought up on the first page. Pretty much with history repeating itself where both the original critic and the creator/artist for the game turned it into a giant shit flinging storm until both of them actually calmed down and had an actual conversation.

2) I'll leave the other with this simple question: How is that everyone seems to know that Gail Simone was fired from Batgirl because the DC executives are sexists that hate money... but I can type in a google search of 'Why was Gail Simone Fired' and get NO actual facts about said firing even from the woman in question? Just a lot of theories.

The industry ain't perfect, but the above is kinda part of my issue in a nutshell. Because this latest (of many) idiotic decision on the part of a comic book publisher involved a well known woman then it's automatically assumed it was sexism that resulted in her being fired.

If the bad writers are pointed out as having serious problems, enough that people object and stop buying their works... well, soon they stop getting decent work. (See: The joke that is Frank Miller's recent career.) And who exactly is taking the "everybody is sexist for reading these" angle? I've seen a lot of "You should probably think about this before reading these.", but the former appears to be a total strawman as far as this thread is concerned. Once again, as has already been pointed out to you: The people complaining loudest about this are fans who want to see the thing they love become better.

I wasn't or wasn't trying to single out anyone in this thread. Though by the second page you have someone claiming that every counter argument against them is fallacious and things went down hill from there to further comments of 'person A doesn't see it from my way ergo they're 'part of the problem'. My point, however, was regarding the 'campaign/movement' in general that springs up around these sorts of incidents that devolve into nothing more than flame wars and shit slinging.

Haven't actually read Frank Miller's recent stuff (I did read All Star Batman and Robin awhile back. That was both awful writing but somewhat entertaining in a train wreck sorta way so I can definitely believe his stuff has declined).

I, uhh... think you might want to reread the part immediately above the last paragraph there. And the numerous other times you've said that the tone of the arguments invalidates them or turns them into "vicious attack [on the] industry".

And I've said, over and over, in this thread that I think people should critique and call out problems they see in the works they love. I also said that once it turns into a witch hunt or campaign against some perceived 'evil' or 'conspiracy' then it quickly devolves into nonsense of people yelling at one another. The tone fallacy is not a magical shield that lets someone be as belligerent as they want and still claim the moral high ground. It's meant to prevent someone from saying 'The sky isn't blue because I don't like how you said it was blue'.

This thread is taking entirely too much of my time so I'll leave it with as brief a summation of my argument as possible rather than continue to beat my head against the wall:

Sexism exists, it will probably always exist, some industries do have bad elements in them or others that are not trying to be offensive but simply didn't think a plot line or idea through as much as they should have. And people have the right to critique, complain, boycott. But they shouldn't expect favorable reactions from the people they are asking to change if they go about it by being vicious or accusatory about it.And there is not a grand conspiracy of sexism 'keeping women down' that needs some sort of great campaign or civil rights comparisons.

The world we live in is pretty damn good compared to where we were thirty years ago. And many things are continuing to change. Want to help it change? Great. Be active, be reasonable. But don't act like the greatest crime against humanity that's been perpetrated in recent memory is that someone drew too many comic book characters with bad anatomy or too skimpy of a costume.

Instead have a reasonable discussion about a social issue and move on with your life.

That's exactly what I'm doing.

[Ephiral]

2) I'll leave the other with this simple question: How is that everyone seems to know that Gail Simone was fired from Batgirl because the DC executives are sexists that hate money... but I can type in a google search of 'Why was Gail Simone Fired' and get NO actual facts about said firing even from the woman in question? Just a lot of theories.

...well, that's just it. She's a highly-respected writer, who was performing not just adequately but well above average, and had a long history of doing so and a dedicated fanbase. About the only visible point of friction was her repeated requests to use female characters that were shelved without explanation. There are a few possible reasons DC would fire its only female creator under these circumstances, let alone do it via email. Not one of them paints DC in a good light, particularly on gender issues.

The industry ain't perfect, but the above is kinda part of my issue in a nutshell. Because this latest (of many) idiotic decision on the part of a comic book publisher involved a well known woman then it's automatically assumed it was sexism that resulted in her being fired.

When her job performance was way above many of her male peers? When she visibly brought in more money than them? When, once again, the only visible point of friction was "Hey, I've got this great idea for Steph..." "No." "How about Cass?" "No, dammit."? There is a high bar of evidence required to show that the firing was justified. DC has failed to even pretend to provide any, even in light of the massive shitstorm. In fact, they immediately rehired her, which strongly indicates that there wasn't a legitimate issue that was worth losing the money she brought in.

I wasn't or wasn't trying to single out anyone in this thread. Though by the second page you have someone claiming that every counter argument against them is fallacious and things went down hill from there to further comments of 'person A doesn't see it from my way ergo they're 'part of the problem'. My point, however, was regarding the 'campaign/movement' in general that springs up around these sorts of incidents that devolve into nothing more than flame wars and shit slinging.

It's not "If you don't see things exactly my way you're part of the problem" so much as "If you don't acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, the other side actually has a point - and spend at least a good five minutes thinking about things from their perspective - then yes, you are likely encouraging the problem." It's possible to disagree - don't get me started on second wave feminists, for example - but it's not possible to bury your head in the sand and claim that anybody who wants you to at least understand the issue you're discussing is the real problem.

And I've said, over and over, in this thread that I think people should critique and call out problems they see in the works they love. I also said that once it turns into a witch hunt or campaign against some perceived 'evil' or 'conspiracy' then it quickly devolves into nonsense of people yelling at one another. The tone fallacy is not a magical shield that lets someone be as belligerent as they want and still claim the moral high ground. It's meant to prevent someone from saying 'The sky isn't blue because I don't like how you said it was blue'.

...except here's the thing: You don't get to set limits on what's "too belligerent". Especially not when your standard for that appears to be "mentioned the word sexism".

Sexism exists, it will probably always exist, some industries do have bad elements in them or others that are not trying to be offensive but simply didn't think a plot line or idea through as much as they should have. And people have the right to critique, complain, boycott. But they shouldn't expect favorable reactions from the people they are asking to change if they go about it by being vicious or accusatory about it.And there is not a grand conspiracy of sexism 'keeping women down' that needs some sort of great campaign or civil rights comparisons.

For fuck's sake. That line I bolded? Is a massive and blatant strawman. You are arguing against nobody in this thread. Seriously, search it for the word "conspiracy". Civil rights comparisons were drawn because, as has been pointed out, social justice movements can learn lessons from those of yesteryear. And one of the most consistent repeated lessons - in slavery, in women's suffrage, in the civil rights movement, in the gay rights movement - is that being quiet and polite does not work.

[gaggedLouise]

But some of those who enjoy the hobby (as receiving it, feeling sexy and special in the eyes of strangers etc) are women. And yes, when a minority of people feel their pleasure, their sense of self is getting attacked by what they see as a big, overbold and bigoted horde (the rest of us, or the "silent or not-so-silent majority", whatever) it can get very raw and ugly. And personal.

Besides it's objectification focusing on some people's looks, appeal and presence - real or imaginary people -  I am talking about, not equality as a general thing. Welcome to keep reaching into equality but I'm no part of that discussion topic as far as this thread goes.


*checking out now for some time*

Okay, but I don't think the line is a razor sharp one. Some people do enjoy it a good deal when they're showed off, or get to play off against other people's gazes - past, present or anticipated round the corner - even though they are aware on some level that those gazes pass by (deny) some of their more human, live and ordinary sides. Or that you, the attractive person, are acting under more or less strict directions from behind the scenes: walk the carpet like this, talk in this vein, smile like this etc. And at the same time, this incites envy in other people - "that person is stealing the spotlight on all of us" - and that's part of the reason why discussing it can get so heated.

Certainly some people that enjoy comic books, video games and that culture are women.  Just as black people enjoyed movies at a time when racism was rampant in Hollywood and there are homosexual people that enjoy hip-hop despite the many lyrics and artists that are hateful of them.  People can enjoy a part of culture that does treat them poorly without enjoying that aspect of the culture.  Many women that play video games and read comic books have spoken out against such genres.  This does not mean that women will just throw down their comic books which they have grown to love, simply demanding as a paying audience that better female characters are presented to enjoy. 

Also, objectification is not simply admiring someone’s physical presence and beauty.  Objectification is more complex than simply looking at a woman’s breasts or a man’s behind.  I believe the definition has been brought up many times before as being different than simply admiring a beautiful body or a sexual pose.  Immanuel Kant’s thoughts on objectification are quite influential to modern feminist theory and involve the lowering of a person’s rational self so that another views that person as an object or a thing.  Feminist Theory has several aspects to objectification.

instrumentality: the treatment of a person as a tool for the objectifier's purposes;
denial of autonomy: the treatment of a person as lacking in autonomy and self-determination;
inertness: the treatment of a person as lacking in agency, and perhaps also in activity;
fungibility: the treatment of a person as interchangeable with other objects;
violability: the treatment of a person as lacking in boundary-integrity;
ownership: the treatment of a person as something that is owned by another (can be bought or sold);
denial of subjectivity: the treatment of a person as something whose experiences and feelings (if any) need not be taken into account.

None of these involve admiring, looking or “checking out” another person or giving them a compliment. 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-objectification/

In a sense we are discussing equality.  We are discussing the equality of female characters to be on par with male characters for their treatment and depth.  Just as myths, legends and faerie tales set the tone for a culture; women are asking that icons of our modern day culture reflect the accomplishments and complexities of a modern day woman.

  Writing of people who "enjoy the hobby" and don't want it challenged, I was thinking of real-life objectifying behaviour - real life gestures, talk and interplay, and including the one who is receiving it (often women, but not always). A lot of the arguments about objectification as a choker of equality that I've heard over the years (not just this thread) draw sweeping parallels between objectification in comics, books, art and in real life: the one is attacked as a means of undermining the other, and the underlying idea often is "if you accept objectifying images in art, adverts, comics, movies you will perpetuate them in your own life as well "or in the lives of other women. And vice versa: if you're a guy and objectify women irl you're likely to want the female characters in your video games and movies to be big-boobed props who are not driving the story. As far I can see Anita Sarkeesian's criticisms of video game gender mapping and gamer culture relied to some extent on those lines (but I haven't read her in depth).

But anyway, when I said quite a few women accept and enjoy getting objectified in some situations, as long as it does not lead to long-term serious loss of control or reputation, I was thinking more of r/l objectifying activities, gazes, hints and talk than how game characters are framed and pictured. Some women actually do enjoy receiving a measure of objectification in daily life, they are not against it on principle and they like it personally, but it's not seen as kosher today to come out and say that in a public space, in print, especially not for women. I honestly think we need to realize that

1) Not all women feel the same about clearly receiving objectification themselves, of being "dolled up", getting clearly looked at for satisfaction and nipped in the butt, playing up to get that kind of thing going, or receiving the protective cover of a man (often, but not always, the partner) that allows them the space to act the coquette in a safe way. Some women loathe all of that, but not all women.

2) What you wish for yourself doesn't have to translate directly to what you think is right on principle for everybody else. And if somebody claims that her general (political and moral) principles are perfectly aligned with what she wants for herself, we don't have to buy that without questions.

3) Many people want their relationship at home to be permeated by flavours that they do not see as a yardstick for wider society. Just because a woman wants things to have some feel of Bacall vs Bogart at home, likes old musicals and loves vintage clothing doesn't mean she wants to be treated like a fifties housewife or secretary when she steps out the door, or when she is discussing let's say politics, religion or books. Or wants to see a sharp throwback to what colleges or courtrooms could be like for women in the old days. I think we have to acknowledge that people are not of one piece in that way. 

One more point, objectification and reducing someone to a powerless tool are often discussed in a way that starts on one level, maybe a language level, and then moves to harder and more real-life stuff. That kind of thing might happen when someone is getting pushed down too, of course, but it's also a way to trump up an argument, to make a hen out of a feather.The other day I saw some columnist in a paper around here saying "I think the question must be raised, can you ever accept taking somebody else's name upon your marriage without bending down into submission for the guy with part of your person? ---My name is so unique to myself that I can barely even envisage losing it without losing a vital part of myself!" (though in the next part of the piece, she noted that there was actually one other person with the same first and last name, someone living in the same city of course, and due to googling they were sometimes getting confused by strangers, "name contamination" sort of:they had never really met). That kind of "raising a question" talk can sometimes be done as just a loud, contrived way of really stating "This is HOW it works: no one can adopt the family name of the person she's marrying without letting herself be objectified and forced into submission". It's ostensibly argued from "this is how I feel about it" to "this is a general law that can or does apply to everybody, especially all women". Logically it's paper thin and besides there's not such a rock hard social pressure these days on women to adopt their hubby's family name, so you could say it's really raising one's own prickliness to a pristine virtue, but it's precisely the hook-up between a personal "I feel this way, this happened to me" (no matter how embellished that part may have been) and a general claim: "Everybody needs to think this way" that makes it hard to discuss without risking to be pictured as sexist or patronizing just because one *is* discussing it, and not just buying the claim. A technique for making one's own doodled tune sound unchallengeable and morally superior,

[Healergirl]

Ephiral,

Please, for the love of humanity, don't even mention S*c*nd  W*v*  F*m*n*sts in this context.

The incautious  use of Names can Summon, you know....

Yes, I am Third Wave, if one insists I put a label on myself.  The Riot Grrl Movement...   *sigh*  Those were the days.

Those SWF women, insisting it was their way or the highway, and we pretty much ignored them when we could.  Ignoring them was the worst thing we could do to them.  And we knew that of course.

[consortium11]

Ephiral,

Please, for the love of humanity, don't even mention S*c*nd  W*v*  F*m*n*sts in this context.

The incautious  use of Names can Summon, you know....

Yes, I am Third Wave, if one insists I put a label on myself.  The Riot Grrl Movement...   *sigh*  Those were the days.

Those SWF women, insisting it was their way or the highway, and we pretty much ignored them when we could.  Ignoring them was the worst thing we could do to them.  And we knew that of course.

And all tied together with a nice dose of trans-phobia which seems if not endemic then at least as a strong undercurrent of the remnants of the second wave.

[Ephiral]

And all tied together with a nice dose of trans-phobia which seems if not endemic then at least as a strong undercurrent of the remnants of the second wave.

This is the overwhelming majority of my issue with them, yes.

[gaggedLouise]

Barbie - World of Pink

The Barbie Dreamhouse Palace, where even the kitchen is pink, has opened the doors to its first European operation in - former East Berlin. German feminist action groups are urging to "occupy Barbie's house" (see here and here), while Mattel may also be counting on that some controversy would have publicity value.

Now this is a "game world" I would agree is blinkering and objectifying in a not so good way, and stifling to girls' perception of what it means to be female sometimes. But of course it's about smaller girls (and their parents and friends), not about adolescent or adult gamers. But Barbie Dreamhouse is very much an online game thing too, with wide appeal around the worl (on the other hand,the Dreamhouse would make a fabulous gurlesque setting!), and that kind of pinkification and plain gender streamlining does warrant some discussion.

[Cyrano Johnson]

Mostly in the college setting where I was effectively told . . .

See, I've been around the college setting more than a time or two -- especially the humanities, where critiques of white male privilege are likeliest to happen -- and I've seen the kind of arguments that get summarized this way. And I've seen how often those summaries are actually incompetent, kneejerk defensive, unfair, nonsensical or even just flat-out lies... and how often their authors then have the nerve to complain about other people being shrill and irrational.

Now, whether or not you're actually doing any of that I can't know. One time in a hundred there actually may be someone literally saying "white male = eeevil." It happens just often enough to be theoretically in the realm of possibility. But let's just say I'm very, very skeptical. The number of times I see this claimed to have supposedly happened to a white guy -- who also just happens by the way to think, or imply, that criticizing sexism in comics (just for example) is vicious abuse --  is wildly disproportionate to the amount of times it is likely to have actually happened. And I have seen how you reached far too easily, with far too little cause, for the "you're just being shrill and irrational" cudgel in this context.

Somehow I doubt Martin Luther King would wish to subject me to violence because I disagree with you in a debate.

Yes, Tairis, it's what we call a figure of speech.

But I refer to the comparison as the Godwin's law of these debates

... because you're not paying attention to whether people are proposing learning from the tactics of the CRM and whether they're claiming their circumstances are equivalent. And having failed to pay that attention, you're complaining about other people's rationality. Between this kind of carelessness and your constant strawmanning, which Ephiral has already pointed out... well, I wouldn't quite go so far as to say that you're not truly interested in rational debate. But I would say that you present the picture of a man ignorant of the fact that he's the problem (or at minimum of the ways in which he's contributing to the problem).

Basically, next time you want to wade in and accuse people of being shrill and irrational, have better reasons for doing so than you did when you tried it on this thread. You might get a more sympathetic response.

(I'd just be repeating the above points to most of the remainder of your post, so I'll leave this at that.)

[Oniya]

As a staff reminder, civility is one of the most important rules in this part of the forum.  Condescension is just as improper a debate tool as strawmanning.

[Cyrano Johnson]

Heh, curious, I thought that was a lot more civil than my last response to Tairis. Condescension wasn't my intent at any rate, but I guess it didn't come across that way. My bad.

[Didact]

Barbie - World of Pink

The Barbie Dreamhouse Palace, where even the kitchen is pink, has opened the doors to its first European operation in - former East Berlin. German feminist action groups are urging to "occupy Barbie's house" (see here and here), while Mattel may also be counting on that some controversy would have publicity value.

Now this is a "game world" I would agree is blinkering and objectifying in a not so good way, and stifling to girls' perception of what it means to be female sometimes. But of course it's about smaller girls (and their parents and friends), not about adolescent or adult gamers. But Barbie Dreamhouse is very much an online game thing too, with wide appeal around the worl (on the other hand,the Dreamhouse would make a fabulous gurlesque setting!), and that kind of pinkification and plain gender streamlining does warrant some discussion.

Slightly off topic, so spoiler:

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

See, I've got a problem with that. Not the idea of disapproving of Barbie and not wanting Barbie dolls for your girl-children - I get that. I don't like Barbies. It's the whole "occupying" thing that bugs me. By making people have to brave a crowd of angry activists, aren't they basically telling other people what they should or shouldn't be able to do, and implicitly passing judgment on people who don't do what they want? How is that better than letting kids buy the toys they want? And if they really wanted to send a message to Mattel, why not protest at their regional headquarters?

It also seems like they're unable to distinguish between normative and non-normative depictions, which is a recurring problem with activists of all political stripes. And that's not mentioning the burning cross.

[meikle]

One time in a hundred there actually may be someone literally saying "white male = eeevil."

Mm, straw feminists.

[Skynet]

Mm, straw feminists.

Given the GIFT, Skarka's Law, and the Internet, when I do run across somebody exemplifying the traits of a strawman I sometimes wonder whether it's the genuine article, or a troll trying to be annoying and/or damage the name.

[gaggedLouise]

See, I've got a problem with that. Not the idea of disapproving of Barbie and not wanting Barbie dolls for your girl-children - I get that. I don't like Barbies. It's the whole "occupying" thing that bugs me. By making people have to brave a crowd of angry activists, aren't they basically telling other people what they should or shouldn't be able to do, and implicitly passing judgment on people who don't do what they want? How is that better than letting kids buy the toys they want? And if they really wanted to send a message to Mattel, why not protest at their regional headquarters?

Well, I think the word "occupy" was used in a sense that was a bit less literal than that. It's not as if those German feminist groups could actually form human picket chains around the building all day long, week after week,  physically stop tourists from getting in and so on. If they as much as took the holidaying visitors gently by the arm or the elbow, if they would frequently go that far while trying to make contact and get the talk going, many of them would get arrested for trespassing and obstruction in public for sure. And as to the numbers of activists, this kind of thing is nothing like Zuccotti Park. The loan of the word "occupy" is a half ironic nod to Occupy Wall Street or the student occupations and sit-ins of the sixties, rather than any kind of literal description of what they're up to.

You could argue of course that the place in front of the Barbie Dreamhouse is a private property - it is now owned by Mattel. Just as Zuccotti Park was a privately owned area. But demonstrations and public rallies for specific causes have a right to be  part of life in any major city, and it's unreasonable to claim that you should only be allowed to organize a rally or a demonstration in the city if it's a cause and an event for which you have already secured the support of a majority of those living in the town.

By the way I suspect that the "occupation" or attention-raising scheme was also aimed at Berlin's city council. If Mattel were able to buy this spot in a very attractive area (near one of the main squares of eastern Berlin, and of pre-Nazi Berlin) and build an extremely striking house there, a house that jumps out like a pink elephant and not in a good sense, then they must have gotten clearance from the city planning and building office (allocation of buildings of this kind is less of a free-for-all in Europe than it sometimes is in the U.S.). You wouldn't get permission to set up a McDonald's within fifty meters of the Brandenburg Gate; I understand there have been some questions whether it was a good idea to put the Barbie house where it is now.