Racism

[Shiritai]

I'm not a fan of Anita Sarkeesian at all, but if you are really trying to kick her out of feminism a la Paglia and WAP (you didn't say so explicitly but I think that was implied), I'm pretty surprised. I'd say that if you want to overrule someone's feminist ID, you should really be able to show that they're at odds with a major feminist organization, that they're active in conservative politics (or at the very least have conservative fans and supporters), are on the wrong side of a legal battle, or are provably disingenuous. If any of those applies to Sarkeesian, I'm not aware of it.

It's sufficient to say she's harmful to feminism, really. What she calls herself doesn't really matter; if her actions support inequality then she's a terrible example of a feminist, and if she's a terrible example of a feminist then she's hardly representative of feminism as a whole.

Edit: Think of Martin Luther. People could argue about whether he's a True Christian™, but he's obviously not a good *representation* of a christian, because you've got so many subgroups. In fact, in groups with lots of subgroups, *no one individual* is a good example.

[Orion]

You should figure out how set-subset relations work.

Saying "I am not a feminist because I disagree with Anita Sarkeesian" is exactly like saying "I do not believe the sky is blue, because I disagree with killing all the jews."

Alternatively, I could ask someone to clarify what their position is, in a confusing thread where values are being implied more than stated. Which I did.

Obviously it's stupid to say "I'm not a feminist because Sarkeesian is." Which I guess is part of what Vynon is saying? Even so, I'm curious whether DSM is calling her a bad feminist, a non-feminist, or just one flavor of feminist that isn't mandatory to the feminist experience.

[Kaelik]

You should figure out how set-subset relations work.

Saying "I am not a feminist because I disagree with Anita Sarkeesian" is exactly like saying "I do not believe the sky is blue, because I disagree with killing all the jews."

Alternatively, I could ask someone to clarify what their position is, in a confusing thread where values are being implied more than stated. Which I did.

Obviously it's stupid to say "I'm not a feminist because Sarkeesian is." Which I guess is part of what Vynon is saying? Even so, I'm curious whether DSM is calling her a bad feminist, a non-feminist, or just one flavor of feminist that isn't mandatory to the feminist experience.

He's saying that she may or may not be a bad, but she is clearly only one flavor of feminist, and that vyn declaring himself not a feminist because he disagrees with specifically one subset of feminism is fucking stupid.

And yes, vyn is clearly saying that, and he is clearly being an idiot. Though to be fair, vyn very well may not be a feminist, since he spends all his time saying extremely stupid misogynist things.

[OgreBattle]

If you believe in democracy and a world without terrorism, then you're a Republican!

[DSMatticus]

I have said zero things about Anita Sarkeesian in this thread that were not comedic paraphrasings of Vnonymous's inner unthought. So while you're not wrong that I think exceptionally poorly of Anita Sarkeesian, I haven't actually said that here. I said it in a bunch of other threads, at least some of which I think you were participating in? But I'll answer anyway, just wanted to make a note that I think you are confusing my mockery of Vnonymous's conclusions as acknowledgement of some of his premises, and you just happened to get lucky. But a lot of Vnonymous's premises are just as crazy as his conclusions, and I don't acknowledge those at fucking all. So be careful there.

The work of Anita Sarkeesian and a lot of the "indie popculture journalists dabbling in feminist commentary" (is there an easier way to refer to that crowd? And nobody fucking say SJW) has an undercurrent of sex negativity and an unstated assumption that expressions of male sexuality are inherently objectifying or harmful. "This female character is overtly sexualized" is not a valid complaint, nor is "this male character is overtly sexualized." Sexualization is not objectification or any other form of diminishment, and to suggest that the former implies the latter is to take such a dim view of male sexuality as to be outright misandrist. I don't actually have to remind myself that attractive women aren't walking fleshlights. That is a problem I have never had. Expressions of sexuality (which includes overtly sexualizing a character) are not harmful or evil or sinful or whatever the fuck "just because". Fuck the fundies. There are legitimate problems with the way society sexualizes things, but they are things like this:

1) Entertainment industries are overwhelmingly male-dominated. Women's perspectives are cripplingly underrepresented in the media we consume. That is a real feminist issue. That is institutionalized sexism. But that doesn't mean that showing cleavage is sexist, anymore than a guy accepting a paycheck which is unfairly higher than his female coworker's is sexist. There's an onus on us, as a society, to eradicate institutionalized sexism. But there's no onus on individual creators to censor their sexuality because they have better access to a megaphone or on individual male workers to turn down paychecks higher than their female coworkers. And if you think the fact that tits are plastered everywhere is what's keeping women out of entertainment, that's actually pretty fucking patronizing. There's a lot of overt sexism in the industry, like sexist jokes and sexual harassment and good ol' affinity bias of white guys who run things picking other white guys to run things and a culture which still teaches women in no small way that they are second class citizens not suited for such things. Those are the things keeping women out.

2) A lot of these bloggers are basically "people on the internet who maybe took some classes in college and believe in egalitarianism" and have barely fucking read any literature on the matter, but they do (accurately) understand that the media frequently sexualizes women for the purposes of objectifying them. The relatively simple philosophical question of parsing out the why and the how of that being inappropriate simply hasn't occurred to them, and sometimes their outrage ends up being mindless, reactionary bullshit no better than what Vnonymous has done here.

3) Body image problems are a real thing. And given that the media which causes them is so male-dominated, it's not really a surprise that women are hit harder by them than men. That's a real feminist issue. And even if the media weren't male-dominated, and equal parts men and women hated their bodies, that would still be an issue even if it weren't a feminist issue. I don't think we're ever going to completely fix this problem, but I do think getting some fucking diversity (see 1 above) into the industry would longterm reduce body image problems in women drastically while increasing body image problems in men by a much smaller amount. Diversity in entertainment is the obvious first step to solving this problem.

And as an aside, I just want to note the depressing and hilarious fact that porn is more body type inclusive than Hollywood, and that the Hollywood ideal is not even the most common body type in men's pornography. "Hollywood gives young girls body image problems" seems to have less to do with male sexuality in general and more to do with an inexplicable weird obsession on the part of Hollywood with that particular ideal. I would bet good money that the AVN's are more body type inclusive (and probably on most other metrics, too) than the Oscars. Why? I genuinely don't understand why it is this way.

So yeah, I am not a fan of Anita Sarkeesian. A lot of people are able to correctly identify bullshit when they hear it even if they don't have enough experience with the subject matter to articulate why what they're hearing is bullshit. Anita Sarkeesian spews bullshit, and she spews bullshit that sometimes crosses the line into being genuinely offensive against a group so privileged (men) that they have zero experience understanding why they're offended. And there are a lot of shitty people waiting in the wings to tell those men "because sexism is over and feminists just hate men, duh." Anita Sarkeesian has probably done more for misogyny than she has feminism, and the demographic of people who give a fuck about Anita Sarkeesian skews young. The harm she's managed to inflict will be nontrivial and long-lasting. Allow me to direct your attention to Vnonymous, a man who believes he is an egalitarian but actually repeats nonsensical anti-feminist fearmongering. He understands that Anita Sarkeesian has crossed the line, but isn't really smart enough to figure out where the line is or how she crossed it so now he's "accidentally" become a sockpuppet for actual misogynist shitbags.

[Orion]

My theory is that pornography is more inclusive than Hollywood for three reasons. First, it's consumed in secret, so the audience doesn't worry about being judged. Second, it's ignored by the media, so you get none of the concern trolling and scaremongering you get when Hollywood does something different. Third, there's no mass culture for porn, no equivalent to the Oscars. Hollywood "plays it safe" with body type because they want the whole country to watch their movie; porn studios go in with the knowledge that niche success / cult classic is the best they can hope for.

EFDIT: Also, I'm fairly sure Vynonymous, specifically, hated feminism long before Sarkeesian was a thing. He hates her because she's a feminist, not vice versa, and may well never have watched her.

[Whipstitch]

Why? I genuinely don't understand why it is this way.

I suspect part of it is because the "Old Hollywood Glamour" wing of the fashion industry is built on elitism and a veneer of exclusivity. So if you're ordinary, you're not ideal, and if you're too overtly sexy that can be a strike against you too, since coded sex negative buffoonery is increasingly one of the only forms of outright elitism that is widely acceptable in many circles. That's part of how you end up with major fashionistas being dismissive of Kate Upton on the grounds that she's too common and too "obvious" to fit anywhere but the men's mags.

[Orion]

But a lot of Vnonymous's premises are just as crazy as his conclusions, and I don't acknowledge those at fucking all. So be careful there.

"Be careful" about... asking questions for clarification? I'm baffled by this attitude. Yeah, I don't want to get confused about what premises you do and don't buy into, which is why I'm checking and not assuming anything.

Anita Sarkeesian spews bullshit, and she spews bullshit that sometimes crosses the line into being genuinely offensive against a group so privileged (men) that they have zero experience understanding why they're offended.

Oh, don't worry, she says baffling and borderline offensive stuff about women sometimes as well.Mattie Ross from True Grit is not a feminist character, for instance. To her credit, she does praise the decision to offer a serious role to a young woman, refers to the character as "captivating", discusses her favorite scene, and calls her "a breath of fresh air" that "subverts gender roles." She just can't bring herself to call it feminist character writing, which makes me think she's blinkered by stupid ideological commitments more than hampered by lack of ability. Because, and I'm not making this up, "we don't see Mattie questioning capital punishment" and real feminists prioritize "empathy, compassion, and nonviolen[ce]". Also, the "legend of the last princess" section of "Tropes Vs. Women: Damsel in Distress, Part 3" is a travesty, although for reasons that are difficult to summarize.

So while you're not wrong that I think exceptionally poorly of Anita Sarkeesian, I haven't actually said that here. I said it in a bunch of other threads, at least some of which I think you were participating in?

Yes, kind of. We talked about gamegate. I asserted that the gamegate well is irretrievably poisoned and only an idiot would sign on to something named by Adam Baldwin. However, I've been wanting to thank you / give you some credit since then. You did point out in that thread a lot of unsavory stuff about Watson, Sarkeesian, and Quinn which I didn't know beforehand. I looked into it more after I bowed out of the thread, and it was eye-opening. I haven't changed my stance on gamergate, but I've been reconsidering who my friends are.

[icyshadowlord]

Sometimes I wonder, does antisemitism count as racism?

Anyway, most people should know that Anita's full of shit by now.

[Starmaker]

And if you think the fact that tits are plastered everywhere is what's keeping women out of entertainment, that's actually pretty fucking patronizing.

Assassin Princess[/url]]When I was at school to get my degree in comic book art at SCAD, I was one of maybe ten girls in the major during my first year. All the professors were male. One time, a TA was giving us a drawing assignment, to a class of about 15 guys and 5 girls. The assignment was a character drawing exercise, giving a gender, age and defining trait.

“OK, so this row of students,” he said, pointing out one row, “I want you to draw for Monday…hmmm…OK, draw like, a 12 year old girl, like a SEXY, really sexy 12 year old girl. Make her like, as sexy as you can. And THIS row”-he pointed to the next row of tables- “draw a 12 year old boy, but don’t make him sexy, because that would be really weird. Just make him look cool, like a really cool little kid.”

I kid you not, he wanted our assignment to be a drawing of a “sexy 12 year old girl.” We women complained about the double standard from the 12 year old boy assignment (as well as the extremely disturbing pedo vibe) and with much eye rolling and “women, amirite?” looks, he relented and said both children characters could be drawn cool, not sexy. For the record, the male students did not voice any concerns about the “sexy 12 year old girl” bit.

This kind of shit went on the entire time I was enrolled.

[DSMatticus]

I am pretty sure that is exactly an example of "the industry is unashamedly male-oriented and in dire need of a kick to the nuts from diversity" with a side of creepiness. Setting aside the age thing (because that is a whole 'nother can of worms), the jawdropping thing about that anecdote is not that a professor wanted a character drawn sexy, it is that they with a complete and total lack of self awareness wanted a female character drawn sexy but could not even fathom that anyone might ever draw a male character the same way, which makes it pretty obvious that he is a man who has only ever worked on projects lead by men staffed primarily by other men and men-men-men. And the rest of what she had to say boils down to "employers would rather talk to me about how I look than how my portfolio does and I have a bunch of creeper stories about men trying to smell me." I.e. casual sexual harassment everywhere.

That said, I suspect she and I would not see eye to eye on when and why depictions of sexualized characters are harmful, but she doesn't really go into it in detail. But her experiences fit the problem I described exactly.

[nockermensch]

Sometimes I wonder, does antisemitism count as racism?

I can't even.

EDIT:

Assassin Princess[/url]]When I was at school to get my degree in comic book art at SCAD, I was one of maybe ten girls in the major during my first year. All the professors were male. One time, a TA was giving us a drawing assignment, to a class of about 15 guys and 5 girls. The assignment was a character drawing exercise, giving a gender, age and defining trait.

“OK, so this row of students,” he said, pointing out one row, “I want you to draw for Monday…hmmm…OK, draw like, a 12 year old girl, like a SEXY, really sexy 12 year old girl. Make her like, as sexy as you can. And THIS row”-he pointed to the next row of tables- “draw a 12 year old boy, but don’t make him sexy, because that would be really weird. Just make him look cool, like a really cool little kid.”

I kid you not, he wanted our assignment to be a drawing of a “sexy 12 year old girl.” We women complained about the double standard from the 12 year old boy assignment (as well as the extremely disturbing pedo vibe) and with much eye rolling and “women, amirite?” looks, he relented and said both children characters could be drawn cool, not sexy. For the record, the male students did not voice any concerns about the “sexy 12 year old girl” bit.

This kind of shit went on the entire time I was enrolled.

Look, this is a real problem, but what I see happening here (and I worked and I'm friends with professional illustrators) is that artists are market oriented, and if you go for the lowest common denominator of what makes commercial success, it's sexy girls and cool boys. Ignoring the disturbing pedo angle, the instructor was actually asking the class to draw "commercially viable" girl and boy characters. You can see the product of this mindset for example, in MMOs or RPGs where the same costume looks sexy on female models and cool/imposing on males.

This needs to be addressed and fixed if we want to see more equality, but the solution is deeper and more complex than "it's the men's fault".

[Vnonymous]

DSMatticus, you are continually refuting arguments that have been made only in your own imagination. It has never been my position that feminism is a global conspiracy designed to kill all men and institute a matriarchy over the entire globe. A feminist political party tried to make the claim that peeing while standing up reinforces the patriarchy. This is something that actually happened and it was reported in the mainstream media. That was reported on in the telegraph, not fucking 4chan. I said that it was an example of something that people who called themselves feminists and professed to believe in the principles of feminism did - and even if they're not the largest feminist political party in Sweden they are still a feminist party (and morons, to boot).

My position has been "Feminists say and do a lot of stupid things. Feminism is a word that describes an incredibly broad category of beliefs, individuals and organisations. When I say 'feminist' I am referring to the popular, mainstream conception of feminists. This includes sex negative feminists, Anita Sarkeesian, Women's Studies Departments, Academic feminists and feminist media pundits. The vast majority of these people claim that if you disagree with their positions you are a misogynist. Therefore, I am a misogynist." I use the word in the same sense that the vast majority of people do when they use it. My point regarding sets and subsets is that you are assuming that "feminism" refers strictly to your perfect, enlightened viewpoint with no errors. You are saying that the vast majority of people who call themselves feminists are lying, that feministing and jezebel are actually sexist hives of misogynist trolls, that women's studies departments across the western world are a patriarchal conspiracy theory designed to make feminism look stupid, that feminist political parties are concern trolls from 4chan, that Valerie Solanas was a secret conservative and that a vast amount of factual information is misogynist fiction. You don't have to be browsing the "manosphere" to see fucking Anita Sarkeesian or Jessica Valenti. She has appeared on the Colbert Report and in several popular newspapers as well as a multitude of gaming blogs. You don't have to go to fucking Stormfront to see Feminist Frequency or Tropes vs Women. YOU believe that Anita Sarkeesian is a scam artist and an idiot, exactly the same as I do. Are you now a puppet for the same evil conspiracy theory you're claiming that I parrot?

And really, the definition of feminism as the theory of social, economic and political equality between the sexes is incredibly vague and imprecise. There is actually debate between sex negative and sex positive feminists. There is debate between radical and non radical feminists. And, of course, if you take that definition as is I disagree with it - I don't think the majority of women should work as firemen or any other job where physical strength plays a direct and important role, and this is not equality.

But honestly, this is going to be my last post in this argument unless you actually react to what I'm saying and not something you thought up in your head. You somehow believe that I exclusively get my information from underground conspiracy sites where evil MRAs sit around curling their mustaches when all of this shit has been in the mainstream media. Anita Sarkeesian is not a fucking obscure person. The Colbert Report is not 4chan, and neither is the Telegraph. Richard Dawkins is not fucking Julius Evola. You're imagining this gigantic, unflattering context for my posts and you are wrong. I do not even know what positions these evil conservative boogeymen are meant to be holding, but if they like Bayonetta and dislike Anita Sarkeesian you're making them look more reasonable, not less.

[erik]

I see happening here (and I worked and I'm friends with professional illustrators) is that artists are market oriented, and if you go for the lowest common denominator of what makes commercial success, it's sexy girls and cool boys. Ignoring the disturbing pedo angle, the instructor was actually asking the class to draw "commercially viable" girl and boy characters. You can see the product of this mindset for example, in MMOs or RPGs where the same costume looks sexy on female models and cool/imposing on males.

This needs to be addressed and fixed if we want to see more equality, but the solution is deeper and more complex than "it's the men's fault".

Damn, and I thought I excessively gave benefit of the doubt as a habit.

The commercially viable angle is bullshit. Tons of successful game characters aren't sexy. Possibly a majority, certainly a plurality.

There's probably an argument out there for attractive characters being good for some markets, but not ignoring the creepy pedo aspect, that instructor obviously would drive people, especially women, away from the profession, which was part of the point.

This kind of shit went on the entire time I was enrolled

Right there. I give people the benefit of the doubt but I don't feel the need to be apologist for a pedosexistdouchebag.

[Orion]

Okay, Vynon, I think you've actually established a reasonable discussion point. I mean, calling yourself a "misogynist" is senselessly provocative grandstanding; words mean things; if you want to convince us you don't hate women you would be better off arguing that the feminists you're opposed to are misusing the word. That aside, you've got a reasonable form for an argument: feminism is a big tent, lots of feminists believe lots of things, but if large numbers of the most visible and influential feminists call you a misogynist than either you are a misogynist or feminism is misguided. That's reasonable.

I have to wonder about your examples though. Where is Hilary Clinton, for instance? What about Planned Parenthood, NOW, Gloria Steinem, and hell, lets throw in Emma Watson. Now, for the feminists you do mention. I'm not aware of any legitimate beef with Valenti. I'm not saying there isn't one; I haven't followed what she's been up in the last ten years, though she was pretty unobjectional when I read her in my teens. I haven't seen any quote from the european left suggesting that peeing standing up reinforces the patriarchy, only that it gets pee everywhere. I'd be very surprised if you actually knew anything about academic feminism. Also, it doesn't matter one whit what Valerie Solanas believed, because she was one mentally ill person who is only remembered because she happened to know Andy Warhol, her manifesto was self-published because there was no market for it, and she died in ignominy without starting or affiliating with any organziation, submitting to any publication, giving any lectures, or doing anything else at all successfully. The fact that you're talking about her really does make it sound like you hang out on dubious websites, because she's not someone whose name just pops up in normal conversations.

So yeah, basically, I question whether everyone on your naugthy list belongs there, and whether they're really more prominent than people who should be on your nice list.

[Maj]

I have to wonder about your examples though. Where is Hilary Clinton, for instance? What about Planned Parenthood, NOW, Gloria Steinem, and hell, lets throw in Emma Watson.

Thanks. I was going to say something like this. What I've seen happen in the last year or so is an upwelling of people reacting to the women who say they don't want to be considered feminists. And in the process, they're showing everyone that feminism didn't actually go anywhere. It's summed up by Hillary's famous line, "Would you ask a man that question?" It's on point, snarky, immediate, and doesn't go for the overblown idiocy like penises being weapons. From what I've seen, it often includes discrimination against men.

Feminism is coming back, and those who don't recognize it by clinging to the hysterics of the nut-jobs in the corner should be duly ignored.

[DSMatticus]

The beginning and end of the discussion on whether or not Vnonymous has a legitimate point is "the feminists want men to piss sitting down!" There are obviously stupid/terrible people doing stupid/terrible things in the name of feminism. There are stupid/terrible people doing stupid/terrible things in the name of every movement you have ever heard of. I am (correctly) calling bullshit on Vnonymous because he rejects feminism on that basis, which is exactly like saying you reject civil rights on the basis of the existence of black supremacists. I am (correctly) calling bullshit on Vnonymous because he claims to know that the majority of feminists are stupid/terible while simultaneously linking to controversies manufactured out of thin air by anti-feminist fearmongerers. And I am (correctly) calling bullshit on Vnonymous specifically because he is a slimy little shitweasel who thinks he can get away with lying about what his arguments were when they get shat on.

And sure enough, his last post:

My point regarding sets and subsets is that you are assuming that "feminism" refers strictly to your perfect, enlightened viewpoint with no errors.

Again, the actual substance behind Vnonymous's arguments is a refusal to understand set-subset relationships. That's it. He's upset that black supremacy Feminist Frequency exists, so he's declared that he doesn't believe in the civil rights movement feminism and if that makes him a racist misogynist so be it.

Here's this conversation with the subject matter replaced by white guys and serial killers:

Vnonymous: "I'm just not that big on white guys anymore. Jeffrey Dahmer fucking killed and ate people, okay. That's not alright."

DSM: "You are a dumbass. Set-subsets, how do they work? Fallacy of composition much?"

Vnonymous: "Hey, look, I'm not talking about your super special brand of white guyness where you don't run around killing and eating people. I'm just talking about white guyness, and how it makes me uncomfortable because of its association with murder and cannbalism."

DSM: "I also am not talking about my 'super special brand of white guyness.' I am talking about how you are a moron who can't elementary set theory. Stop being a whiny dumbass and go learn something."

Vnonymous: "Stop misunderstanding me! I don't care how perfect you think your specific variety of white guyness is. Jeffrey Dahmer killed and ate people and that's not okay. I can't support that!"

[hyzmarca]

I am pretty sure that is exactly an example of "the industry is unashamedly male-oriented and in dire need of a kick to the nuts from diversity" with a side of creepiness. Setting aside the age thing (because that is a whole 'nother can of worms), the jawdropping thing about that anecdote is not that a professor wanted a character drawn sexy, it is that they with a complete and total lack of self awareness wanted a female character drawn sexy but could not even fathom that anyone might ever draw a male character the same way, which makes it pretty obvious that he is a man who has only ever worked on projects lead by men staffed primarily by other men and men-men-men.

It wasn't a professor that said the stupid thing, it was the TA. There is a profound difference.

A professor has his name on the door and is paid fairly large sums to lecture once or twice a week while the TA does all the real teaching work but most of his time and effort is spent falsifying research to satisfy his grant-givers so that he can get more and larger research grants.

A TA is an underpaid and undertrained graduate student who does all the real teaching work while high on massive amounts of Ritilan and Red Bull and gets an average of three hours of sleep every night because all of his effort and attention is focused on his Masters Thesis.

It's unsurprising that a TA would say something incredibly stupid.

[Orion]

OH NO SHE DIDN'T. I just dug up one of the old Sarkeesian threads and somebody linked a video where she went after Amanda Palmer of all people. And not even for any of the actually fucked up stuff Amanda Palmer did (such as Evelyn Evelyn). No, she wants to complain about Who Killed Amanda Palmer. Seriously, I have no words.

[tussock]

Sexualization is not objectification or any other form of diminishment, and to suggest that the former implies the latter is to take such a dim view of male sexuality as to be outright misandrist.

I don't see any of that. What I see is people pointing out ad infinitum that there's near constancy in the ridiculously porny portrayals of women in various industries (like, mainstream comics, until recently anyway), while having nothing but power-fantasy and problem-solving male characters.

Not the body types. Not the fact that it's conventional. Like, the costume and pose switches are hilariously revealing. Putting the same female character into the power-fantasy costume and a power-fantasy pose makes them look strong, and putting the same male characters into the porny costume and dislocated-spine-so-you-can-see-my-ass-and-tits-at-the-same-time poses looks, ...

Well, it's surprising, isn't it, because you never see it in the comics. And it's not just the comics. Hell, it's not just art, female empolyees are often sexualised in ways male employees are not by uniforms, though that it also improving, slowly.


The fact is there's fuck-all art where the princess saves the prince, and so much of it where she tries to help but is injured and becomes a burden he so easily bears. Obviously the pirate Wesley needed carried around, because that movie was about subverting tropes, but it's rare, and even then used for comedic effect.

If you need a name for that, people are calling it the Patriarchy. The omni-present "know your place" vibe, where the male hero of the story is totally feminist, but still has to save or avenge his woman, if she's in the scene at all. Buffy was a powerful leading female (originally as humour, again), very popular, and yet how many more turned up in response? There must be more, right?

And as an aside, I just want to note the depressing and hilarious fact that porn is more body type inclusive than Hollywood

random-X is more good-Y than Hollywood has a great many solutions.

--

It's unsurprising that a TA would say something incredibly stupid.

No one is really surprised by the Patriarchy. That's kind of the point.

[Koumei]

OH NO SHE DIDN'T. I just dug up one of the old Sarkeesian threads and somebody linked a video where she went after Amanda Palmer of all people. And not even for any of the actually fucked up stuff Amanda Palmer did (such as Evelyn Evelyn). No, she wants to complain about Who Killed Amanda Palmer. Seriously, I have no words.

Has Amanda Palmer ever said or done anything fucked up, rather than just singing some creepy-ish songs? I recall the incident where she took her robe off mid-song to berate the Daily Mail for being a rag that was focused not on her performance but on "a boob slipped out it was totally epic!", which is a great approach. That I know of, she generally has come across as pretty cool and with a healthy attitude.

Edit: okay, the "volunteer musicians won't be paid in money" thing (which she later backed down on, actually paying money) was shitty, but also completely par for course in the industry (backing down on it isn't), and isn't bad for feminism. Or race, which is apparently the original topic here. I'm not sure the "Oasis" thing is going to count against her either, but I don't know?

[Orion]

She and a friend once did a tour "in character" as fictional conjoined twins who had been orphaned survivors of sex abuse doomed to work as circus freaks until Amanda discovered them. I'm not really okay with that.

EDIT: I loved Oasis though.

[hyzmarca]

Sexualization is not objectification or any other form of diminishment, and to suggest that the former implies the latter is to take such a dim view of male sexuality as to be outright misandrist.

I don't see any of that. What I see is people pointing out ad infinitum that there's near constancy in the ridiculously porny portrayals of women in various industries (like, mainstream comics, until recently anyway), while having nothing but power-fantasy and problem-solving male characters.

Not the body types. Not the fact that it's conventional. Like, the costume and pose switches are hilariously revealing. Putting the same female character into the power-fantasy costume and a power-fantasy pose makes them look strong, and putting the same male characters into the porny costume and dislocated-spine-so-you-can-see-my-ass-and-tits-at-the-same-time poses looks, ...

Gay, I believe is the word your looking for. Hawkeye in those poses tends to look gay.

But even then, it wouldn't be so incredibly flamboyantly gay if not for the fact that the Hawkeye Intuitive artists go out of their way to add florishes like pouty lips and sparkles in his eyes, or if they didn't insist on having him hold his bow and arrows when the original art included swords or guns.

But in a lot of cases, it's entirely the costume.

Just look at this

It's a standard jump-kicking through a window action pose. And it would be perfectly reasonable if they were wearing pants.

Once again, perfectly reasonable except for the costume.

She's about to stab somebody who tried to sneak up behind her while she was climbing a wall. He looks like he's about to kiss somebody.

This is actually perfectly reasonable, it just looks bad with a bow and arrow.

She's kneeling down to check someone who has been shot while someone sneaks up behind her, so she turns around and points a gun at him as she's standing up.

This one works in the context of vaulting over someone's head. The hawkeye version looks stupid because there is no one to vault over.

This one looks pretty good, the biggest complaint is that it was drawn by a terrible artist.

I can totally identify with Clint in that one.

In this case, it's totally the facial expression that makes the difference. Where Starfire is drawn with a somber expression, as fits the circumstance, Clint is drawn to look like an inapproperiate douchebag.

Or in this one, it's the bow that's the problem. That shot only really works if you're shooting fireballs from your hands.

This one is actually reasonable. He's stopping to address someone behind him while his attention is mostly focused in front of him. It's still spine-bendingly uncomfortable, but it's meant to give a full view of his face while keeping his body oriented away to show that he's focused in that direction.

In the original, Danger Girl is about to shoot some people, or perhaps has already shot them, but needs to address someone slightly behind her and to her side.

/tumblr_n5lvo8E2n11sg9iu2o1_500.jpg

This one is entirely the costume. It would actually look better if Wolverine was naked.

Here Queen Sonja is killing some monster with a pair of swords and Hawkeye is, I don't know what he's doing. But in both cases, it's the costume that's the problem.

Again, it's the costume that's the problem. Take away the bare middrift and it's perfectly reasonable.

This one looks worse because he's using a bow instead of a gun.

In this one we've got a badly drawn variation of the horse stance and deadpool isn't looking where he's shooting. Psylocks legs are drawn more stupidly, but her aim is better, because she's not shooting anything, she's using a psychic knife.

Or this one, Wonder Woman is punching someone while blocking bullets behind her. I don't know what hawkeye is doing. And, in any case, it's entirely the costume that makes it look bad, particularly in the butt area.

Or the Avengers poster, where Black Widow is shooting someone off screen with her wrist-mounted gun and is using a stance that gives her a more stable aim.

Or this one, where Black widow is using centripetal force from you leg rotation to power a 360 degree spin so that she can shoot a bunch of people with her wrist guns. Which is stpuidly complex, but looks cool.
Hawkeye, meanwhile, is using a bow, making that technique useless for him.

And then there's this jump kick to the face, which would look better if those performing it were wearing pants. Again, it's entirely the costume.



Of course, I'd be dishonest if I didn't admit that the reason many of those sexy costumes and poses look gay on Hawkeye is that they're designed to be sexually attractive to men.

But even when a female character is overtly sexual, it does not follow that she is a sex toy for men. Poision Ivy is overtly sexual, but I would not want to fuck her. That's a quick way to die. Her sexuality is a weapon that she uses against others. The same is true for Morrigan from Darkstalkers, a lifedraining succubus. Sex with her would be invariably lethal.

Rather, the reason that many female characters are drawn sexy isn't to present them as submissive fucktoys, as it were, but the opposite. Sexual power is a subset of power. Sexuality is a form of power. Characters who flaunt their sexuality generally do so because they're completely in control of it and comfortable with it, and because it gives them power over overs. If you're attracted to someone then they do have a measure of power over you.

Sometimes this is more literal than others. In One-Piece, if you're attracted to Boa Hancock then she can turn you to stone, an obvious metaphor for something, but also lethal.

The issue is not that women are treated as sex toys or objects. The issue is that sexual power is treated as a very female (though not necessarily feminine) sort of power most of the time, with a few exceptions.

Most of the scantily-clad women you see in comics and games are very powerful and in absolute control of their sexuality. They dress provocatively to flaunt their power, not to submit to others. And they're likely to be on top in any sexual relationship they might have.

There is, however, a lot of room to open a dialog about how women can flaunt their sexuality in our society but men can't without being seen as creepy or gay.

In other words, we need more Captain Jack Harkness.

[angelfromanotherpin]

It's a standard jump-kicking through a window action pose. And it would be perfectly reasonable if they were wearing pants.

I'm going to stop you right there. Because I want you to actually *look* at this first pose of the Huntress. I want you to actually figure out what her spine has to look like to facilitate that pose. Look at her senselessly arched back and off-center neck.

That you see that as 'perfectly reasonable' just tells me that you have become accustomed to accepting women posed like they're made out of rubber.

[hyzmarca]

It's a standard jump-kicking through a window action pose. And it would be perfectly reasonable if they were wearing pants.

I'm going to stop you right there. Because I want you to actually *look* at this first pose of the Huntress. I want you to actually figure out what her spine has to look like to facilitate that pose. Look at her senselessly arched back and off-center neck.

That you see that as 'perfectly reasonable' just tells me that you have become accustomed to accepting women posed like they're made out of rubber.

I can't even tell that her back is arched i that picture, there is too much glass in the way.

But really, it's a standard jump kick. It's a badly drawn standard jump kick, but it's the same sort of jump kick that people use in real life.



The contortions are basically due to the need to keep her full face in the frame, instead of just half her face.