nenena | Gavotte with a strawman.

Entry tags:

Gavotte with a strawman.

Well, it may have taken him an entire month to type out his brilliant response, but Mad Thinker Scott has brilliantly and succinctly responded to an argument that I never made. Now, one cannot comment on Scott's blog without a Yahoo!360 account, and where's the fun in that? I thought that I would continue the discussion over here in my livejournal, where anybody can comment and contribute, regardless of whether they have an LJ account or not. Party in my livejournal, and you're all invited!

But in response to Scott... First, I'm boggled at the continued point-missing. I think in my post I made it pretty clear that a) I have nothing against sexy women or exposed skin in comics, and b) I don't care what you put in your porn, porn is great! What I DO have a problem with is a) objectifying, degrading images of women in comics that are often mistakenly confused for sexy, and b) getting porn splashed all over comic books rated as appropriate for ages nine and up.

Most importantly, regardless of how degrading imagery affects potential male rapists or not, it has been proven to be extremely harmful to girls and women. Hey, there's that link again! How may times do I have to link that damn study before people actually start reading it? I linked it in my comment to Scott that he attempts to address on his blog, but he's conveniently ignored it. Scott still hasn't addressed how sexist imagery harms the mental health of women and girls.

And second, in his defense of pornography and erotica, Scott still seems to have missed my point. My post isn't about pornography or erotica. It's about sexist imagery. There is nothing inherent in pornography/erotica that means that it must contain sexist imagery. So a defense of porn does not equal a defense of sexist imagery. Porn is just like any other classification of media: Some of it is sexist and degrading, some of it is not. My post was about sexism, not about porn. I think that sexism is bad. That doesn't mean that I think that porn is bad. And like I said, proving that exposure to pornography does not increase sex crimes (yes, I knew that, duh) does not prove that exposure to objectifying imagery does not warp how women view themselves and how men view women. Because "porn" is NOT synonymous with "objectifying imagery."

Now, as to what I was ACTUALLY arguing my post, if Scott or anybody else would like to respond, here's how to go about it (because apparently, some hand-holding is required):

1. Prove to me that this (NSFW) is an appropriate cover for a book rated for ages nine and up.
2. Prove to me that this (NSFW) would NOT alienate a huge segment of a comic book's potential market, but that this would.
3. Argue that any of the examples that I labeled as "sexist" in my post are not actually sexist. No, seriously, these examples ARE debatable. I think we can all agree that sexism is bad, but of course we should be able to debate about what is sexist or not. But if you want a real challenge, prove to me that this does not reduce an otherwise awesome female character to an anatomically grotesque sex object, and is thus sexist. I'll give you hint: It's NOT because of the giant boobs, I don't have a problem with the giant boobs. And if you can't see that, then I think we really should step back and question which of us is really hung up on the giant boobs here.

But, as a parting shot, let's break this down a bit:
1. I make a post about sexist, objectifying imagery in mainstream superhero comics.
2. Scott responds by writing a lengthy post about how pornography doesn't harm women.

That, alone, speaks volumes about the current state of superhero comics. Because apparently, they're porn.

Oh, and BTW? My online handle "Kotetsu"? That comes from a porno manga. But if you'd like to still compare me to Anita Bryant, then by all means.

Edit June 16th: Fixed the age boundaries because I finally bothered to look at Marvel's rating system. WHOA.

Edit June 20th: Furikku says it better.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Also, bad stats in that post- how can be prove that internet use and rape stats are not independent variables?

My thing is the solution to sexist comics is better selling non-sexist comics, and a boycott on the offenders. (Honestly, for what Marvel has done lately, I think a boycott would be justified) Problem with that is are other comics a sufficient replacement good for Marvel comics(how elastic is demand so to speak)? I prefer expansive or market-based solutions to corrective solutions in general (the economist in me speaking)

Also, bad stats in that post- how can be prove that internet use and rape stats are not independent variables?

Yeah, the debater in me is itching to tear down the stats that Scott used. Especially if we include statistics not just about rape, but about domestic abuse and assault, which would do a lot to undermine his argument. But eventually I figured, meh, I'd just be muddling the issue further. I stand by my original position that I don't have any problem with porn, and it pisses me off that Scott thinks he's answering any of my arguments by arguing about porn. Or maybe I'm just pissed about the implied comparison between me and Anita Bryant. 0.o;;

Party in my livejournal, and you're all invited!

I brought a big bag of Cheetos- do you have a bowl for 'em?

I skimmed that guy's post and thought it was odd that someone was arguing about porn hurting people, but didn't bother to check on what was being argued, because I didn't care that much and it wasn't making with the funny.

Now I learn that it's another one of those instances where this macro is useful:

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

*Sigh*
Oh well... these Cheetos aren't eating themselves!

Unfortunately, I have no big bowls. (I seriously never realized this until I actually checked this evening. I guess whoever lived in my little Japanese house before me had no need for big bowls!) But I have plenty of small bowls - more than I'll ever need.

We'll just have to spread out the Cheetos in several small bowls, I guess.

(Here via WFA)

Wow. I need to read Devi. (flaming Gothic guns!!!!) Seriously, if the book's as good as the cover, I think us women should go vote all our dollars a Virgin Comics.

Devi is definitely not without its problems. The original Devi (not the "current" one shown on that cover) had a costume that literally consisted of tiny strips of light covering her nipples, and basically nothing else. And the main female villain in the story wears a ridiculously sexist getup. But other than that, Devi is made of awesome. And it is every bit as good as the cover promises. ;)

"a defense of porn does not equal a defense of sexist imagery."

Thank you for putting it so succinctly. I can't recall seeing a bunch of anti-porn diatribes linked off of WFA.

You're welcome!

I've run into Scott before - he pretends to get it while obviously NOT getting it. His arguments seem intelligent yet he often completely skirts the very issue and argues something completely different. I once posted about how we don't see half naked male characters on comic covers, T-Shirts or Toys because men probably wouldn't buy them, but women are supposed to accept and buy half naked women images on comics, t-shirts and toys. He then went into some ramble about store manequins at Abercrombie & Finch.

Anyway, I agree with your points on the NSFW cover.

Also, please check us out at POWER in Comics http://powerincomics.ning.com

I remember that post, I totally have it (http://sequentiallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2007/05/its-hard-out-here-for-fangirl.html) bookmarked. I don't recall if I ever read a response from Scott, though. Normally when I see his blog linked on WFA I do a quick glance at the posts without really, er, bothering to read. I know now that his blog is not for me, which is why I normally don't spend my time reading it. The only reason that his response-to-my-post caught my eye is that he used my name as a tag for the post.

BTW, I think that POWER in Comics is awesome, thanks so much for starting it. I've been intending to sign up, but your comment just galvanized me. ;)

I said something similar to what I put on my Blog on someone's LJ - that's where Scott got me, trying to compare a comic book store to Abercrombie & Finch.

Honestly I found his logic at the end to be somewhat wanting....he quotes a bunch of statistics about women going to college in greater numbers than men (while ignoring the statistic that men are still more likely to make more coming out of college, and other such statistics which obviate the ones he chose) and cites Martha and Oprah as the two examples of financial female superherodom.(Can he name any other off the top of his head? Also, notably Martha and Oprah are big names demographically to women. Can he name a handful of female bigwigs off the top of his head who have the clout of Bill Gates or Steve Jobs AND the mixed demographics? I know there are some, but not with the same clout, I bet.)

He sez: And all of this is going while sexual imagery is booming! So the question for me is how is it possible that sexual imagery is setting women back? It seems as if the exact opposite is the truth!

Um...it's equally logical to ask how much further equality would be along if we didn't have the sexist imagery. You've got a false cause and effect here. Or he may be confusing another effect of a root cause with the root cause itself.

Honestly, it smacks of "You have the porn to thank for all your freedoms and advances. Don't you dare bite the hand that feeds you."

Um...it's equally logical to ask how much further equality would be along if we didn't have the sexist imagery. You've got a false cause and effect here. Or he may be confusing another effect of a root cause with the root cause itself.

My thoughts exactly. There are many holes in Scott's logic, and that's the biggest one right there.

I don't understand why someone would defend sexism so fiercely. Does he really have that much to lose?

-HD

Well, I can't speak for Scott, of course. But in my experience, the number one reason that people lash out against feminists is that they're afraid we're going to take away their precious two-dimensional boobies. Except that nobody is trying to take away two-dimensional boobies. We just want those boobies to be attached to female characters who are written and drawn as people, not as sex objects. I don't want comic book women to be drawn without boobies. I'd just prefer them to be drawn without broken spines. For starters, at least.

I bring Diet Pepsi and Cool Ranch Doritos - and small bowls are good! That way everyone can have one of their own if so inclined. Very civilized. ;)

Y'know, I read your original post a while back, then when I read his yesterday I didn't bother to check who he was responding to because I figured it was an argument I wasn't that interested in. Never connected it to anything I'd already read and on re-reading your initial post I am at a complete loss to explain why he thought you were anti-porn, or that the issue is porn-in-the-sense-of-sexual in the first place. Yah, boggled at the continued point missing does seem the only rational response.

Scott's argument also falls apart because he seems to believe porn is a fairly recent phenomenon. If he wants to compare "non-porn" culture to "porn" culture he'd have to go back to the 1960's, maybe even to the 1950's when Playboy first showed up (from the first, Playboy was full of anti-female, abusive imagery and ideas - the centerfold was usually tastefully done but the rest? not so much...). By the time I was six years old (1966), little kids had access to porn (suburb of St. Paul, MN). At 12, small town Michigan, access to LOTS of porn. And my parents had no porn in the house, nor did any of my relatives, so I had much more limited access to porn than a lot of my friends - but I definitely had access.

The fact that most adults in the 1970's weren't into porn is immaterial to rape stats - rape is mostly committed by guys in their teens and twenties, so (a) the total number of guys in that age range is pertinent (which he ignores) and (b) the fact that most people over twenty don't use porn is immaterial, because the issue is how many guys in that age have or had access to it. And if I, a fairly sheltered female, had access, I think it safe to say the average guy did. Certainly all the guys I knew did. So his claim that rape rates have gone down since the 1970's says nothing about whether there's any connection between porn and sexual abuse.

There is considerable evidence that violent porn influences male attitudes toward women, strong enough evidence that it is very difficult to get funding for lab studies anymore because the research is considered harmful. To quote Edward Donnerstein, who did a number of studies, "The relationship between particularly sexually violent images in the media and subsequent aggression...is much stronger statistically than the relationship between smoking and lung cancer."

There's a list of some studies here (scan down):

http://www.oneangrygirl.net/myth3.html

with links to very brief summaries - I read more on most of them when they were done and the summaries fit my memories, but I don't know that any of them are available on the 'net.

Mind you, there are people who insist that smoking isn't harmful and doesn't cause cancer, so it's not surprising that there are people who insist violent pornography is A-OK, but I'm not one of them.

Personally, I think there's a difference between porn, erotica, and fictional explicit sex, and that until fairly recently porn was extremely problematic because most of the sources included such violent imagery and the rape myth (namely "she wanted it, she asked for it, she deserved it" - and, yes, Playboy pushed that concept right along with the rest of them). With the advent of the internet and more specialized porn sites it may be easier to get the less problematic stuff, but Scott's argument that porn per se is less harmful doesn't fit the evidence. It also indicates (to me) that he has no interest in making any distinction between porn that treats women as human and porn that endorses sexual abuse. *sigh* The difference between hard and soft porn is not pertinent; apparently what matters isn't how graphic it is but how cruel.

Thanks for the party! You're probably wise to keep your focus on the original issue; hope you don't mind my wandering from it a bit.

Sheryl

Cool Ranch Doritos?! I think I'm in love.

As for all of your points about porn, I completely agree. I find a lot of porn extremely problematic. I have a little bit of a psychology background, but my focus is on child development, so I'm not really well-read on the whole how-porn-affects-us issue. Thanks for the link (and the links contained therein), it will definitely be helpful ammunition in the future.

It also indicates (to me) that he has no interest in making any distinction between porn that treats women as human and porn that endorses sexual abuse. *sigh* The difference between hard and soft porn is not pertinent; apparently what matters isn't how graphic it is but how cruel.

THANK YOU. That is a very important distinction to make.

If I might indulge in a TMI for a moment, I do read and watch porn, and I have a taste for bondage/submission. But I want to read and watch porn in which both parties are clearly enjoying themselves and the the whole thing is entirely consensual. Even graphic, hard-core bondage porn can be remarkably humane and respectful. And on the other hand, "vanilla" porn that never shows more than a torn shirt and some humping can be remarkably cruel and degrading if one party is clearly being depicted as raped and abused. So the important distinction to make is not what kind of sex act is being performed or how much penetration is shown; rather, it's whether the people involved are portrayed as human beings, or as sex objects that are "fair game" to be used and abused.

Thanks for the party! You're probably wise to keep your focus on the original issue; hope you don't mind my wandering from it a bit.

I don't mind at all; thank you for bringing such illuminating thoughts and useful information to the party! Like I said, I was tempted (still am) to engage Scott on the porn issue, but in the end I just didn't. I'm happy that the commenters here are bringing it up, though, because it's turned into a really interesting discussion. In my opinion, at least.

So the important distinction to make is not what kind of sex act is being performed or how much penetration is shown; rather, it's whether the people involved are portrayed as human beings, or as sex objects that are "fair game" to be used and abused.

Precisely. Much better summary than mine. From the git go, porn mags argued that women really want and need sex, even against their stated wishes, and that a guy who tricks, traps, coerces or forces a woman to have sex with him is doing her a good deed. Women are presented as too stupid or too evil to honestly recognize and express what they "really" want, therefore the guy gets to decide what's best for any woman he interacts with - and, often as not, what she "really" wants is abusive sex. Men get to define women's sexual needs, in other words, and somehow it turns out that women's sexual needs are to be used and abused. A quote from the very first issue of Playboy, December 1953:

All sophisticated playboys are interested in virginity.... Most men realize that virginity is an unpleasant little matter to be disposed of early in life...[in taking her virginity,] you are actually doing the girl a service. Some may suggest that you are trying to deprive them of something -- trying to take from them a cherished possession. This is nonsense. Actually, you are giving them a new freedom -- a means of enjoying life more fully.... Some difficulties have arisen because of the confusion (in female minds) between virginity and purity. The two have nothing to do with one another, and it is important that you point this out at the proper moment. Thus, armed with our conviction, we are ready to begin. First, of course, we must select a suitable subject.... Once we've found out subject, we are ready for the approach.... [don't bother with non-virgins because] it robs you of the special pleasure of spreading the good news....

Of course it soon became clear it wasn't virgins (a virgin is a person who has not had sex, not just females) but women who "didn't know what they wanted" when it came to sex, and so men should "do her the service" of insisting they have sex anyhow. Is it any wonder repeated studies have shown that half (or more!) of all college guys surveyed would rape, so long as you call it "forced sex" and so long as they were sure they wouldn't get caught? Plenty of guys who claim they hate rape will rape, because they have been taught that women don't know what they want and that their girlfriend owes them sex after they've gone together so long/after he's spent x-amount of money/because she really wants it but lies, etc.

Before porn mags like Playboy came along, rape was having sex with a woman without her permission. Now most people's definition of rape requires a stranger in the bushes and screaming and fighting on the victim's part (which completely ignores how the autonomic system works with most females - fight or flight is more common with males than females) - otherwise it's just rough or unwanted sex and what's she complaining about?

Sorry for the rant, but on reading your response I thought you might like the Playboy quote. Then I wandered. :o I know there are quotes that spell it out more bluntly ("women don't know what they want and will thank you for forcing them"), but that one shows the attitude was there from the first. According to most porn mags, the best BDSM is that without safe words and without the submissive partner ever showing the least bit of interest in it. *sigh* In reality, I'm told (I know a lot of active BDSMers), no good dom will go without a safe word and the best doms tend to have a servant mentality. They may write the plot, but they are shaping it to that particular submissive, with an awareness of that submissive's tolerances and preferences.

As you say, what matters is not the type of sex act but the attitudes of the people involved; particularly pertinent when we're talking dominants with submissives - and abusive guys aren't going to get in a sexual situation unless they're pretty sure they can dominate, so when it comes to abuse, it's always dominant with submissive in some sense of the terms. Bully with potential victim is probably a better parallel, though.

Sheryl

Re: Reposting to fix HTML...

nenena.livejournal.com - 2007-06-17 03:17 (UTC) - Expand

Pssst...not to quibble but I don't know if the pre-1950s were non-porn era, even in terms of mass distribution. For example, there was Victorian porn, which experienced a lot of growth as photography became more popular. Postcard porn was quite common around the turn of the century. There were also Tijuana bibles whose popularity declined with the rise of Playboy. And of course, in prior centuries, while there may not have been mass distribution, there were many like de Sade.

Suffice it to say, the pr0n has been around for a while. And the Victorian era, which was rife with it, is no good example of women enjoying their civil rights.

You're right of course: there was porn, but it wasn't culturally accepted and most guys didn't approve of it. It also did not (from what I've seen) endorse the rape myth, although it probably did support the modonna/where split. What Hugh Hefner did was (1) make porn acceptable for the masses and (2) connect porn to all manner of very negative concepts about women. He also convinced people that Kinsey's studies were legit - in reality, Kinsey's studies were horrible and no one was able to replicate them. Phyllis and Eberhard Kronhausen's attempt to support Kinsey instead gives us the information that most college males in 1960 hoped to "save" their sexuality for their wife, and further believed that intercourse was "too precious" to share with anyone but his eventual wife, and that marriage worked better without premarital sex.

Which is to say, my dad was a man of his age. ;) The Kronhausen's, like Kinsey, did NOT approve of these attitudes - but they were better researchers and honestly reported what was there (as did others). But by 1970, college guys shared Kinsey and Hefner's beliefs instead of those of the last generation.

My point was that, in terms of the 20th century, prior to Hefner what porn there was had little cultural impact. So it's only after Hefner than we can really speak of the modern US as a porn culture.

I don't know how much porn there was in the Victorian era - a fair bit, I'd think, just because so much has survived - but certainly it was around, and certainly prostitution was far more mainstream in the Victorian era than it was in the 1950's (I know more about prostitution in the Victorian era than about porn). In the late 1800's a series of crusades led by various doctors and journalists, (few Christian leaders interestingly enough), led to a turn-around in attitudes toward prostitution and casual sex and (I would suspect) pornography, that ultimately lead to the attitudes of men in the late 1950's that sex was precious and private and not to be treated casually.

Further back, Puritans had a surprisingly balanced view of sex: they believed
men and women's sex drives were equal, that sex outside of marriage was not a good thing but since we're all human it happened and it wasn't the end of the world, and there are church court records of women dragging their husbands in to get fined for not providing conjugal rights. :D It was after the Puritans that the split began where women were supposed to hold the line sexually (families were more spread out so it was harder for the family to influence courting couples - since it was the girl who got pregnant, she got the responsibility for holding the line), and thus the whole idea that women's sex drives were not as strong as men's came to be.

When it comes to sexuality, our understanding of "the way things are" is incredibly fluid, not just from culture to culture but within our own cultural history (for those in the US, at any rate). Sane with male and female roles, for that matter.

I probably should have provided more background on porn since Playboy versus earlier porn, but my post was long enough as it was!

Sheryl

Re: Reposting to fix HTML...

pixelfish.livejournal.com - 2007-06-18 03:30 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Reposting to fix HTML...

furikku.livejournal.com - 2007-06-19 19:24 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Reposting to fix HTML...

shilohmm.livejournal.com - 2007-06-19 23:14 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Reposting to fix HTML...

furikku.livejournal.com - 2007-06-19 23:25 (UTC) - Expand

1. Prove to me that this (NSFW) is an appropriate cover for a book rated for ages twelve and up.

By whose standards?

That may sound flip at first blush, but I think there's an important point worth addressing, lurking quietly in there. (Also: prove that it isn't - but anyway, that's not the point I really want to discuss.)

I can't prove to you that it is appropriate; I kind of doubt that you'll ever feel that it is, regardless of what evidence I might bring. I would, however, venture to say that not all parents of kids aged twelve would find that objectionable reading for their kids. Whether that's due to a more liberal open-mindedness on the part of the parent, or simply not "getting it" as far as what makes it objectionable, not everyone is going to see that cover as degrading/sexist/pornographic/whatever.

Then what? Does it become someone's duty to inform parents of its, um, "sexistness"? Should there be someone demanding that a parent not allow their kids to see that cover? Should your standards for what a twelve-year-old can be allowed to see trump that of a parent with differing views?

Hello, fellow Iowan!

You brought up a good point, and I'll try to answer it as best as I can. What a parent's responsiblity is, versus what a publishing company like Marvel's responsibility is, are two separate issues. I believe that the cover is harmful and inappropriate for adolescents, but since you asked me not to discuss the reasons why, I won't. Do I have the right to prevent any parent from buying that comic for a son or daughter? No, of course not. Do I have the right to express my opinion on my livejournal if I think that this cover is inappropriate? Yes, I do. It's my opinion. Maybe I'll change some parents' minds, but mostly I probably won't. Parents should make their own decisions regarding what they allow their children to read and watch. That doesn't mean that I'm not allowed to express my opinion on the subject, though. I've made my decision, and I'm going to write about why. The simple act of me expressing my disgust is not an affront on the rights of any other parents out there.

All issues of ethics or parental responsibility aside, though, the main thrust of my original post was that the HfH cover is just plain bad marketing. By publishing a cover that only an extremely narrow segment of the HfH fanbase finds appealing, Marvel is just being, well, dumb. They could have put out any number of sexier (and less sexist!) covers, and then they wouldn't have this PR mess on their hands.

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Reposting to fix HTML...

Re: Reposting to fix HTML...

Re: Reposting to fix HTML...

Re: Reposting to fix HTML...

Re: Reposting to fix HTML...

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject