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

I’m afraid you are mistaken. For instance, if you look at the section of music videos, you’ll see that while some of it talks about what the women are doing, it makes a point of talking about revealing outfits or partial nudity without talking about what the women are doing while wearing (or not wearing) the outfits. It talks about how women are nude more often in the movies. And how about this, “Others have noted that Disney’s female characters today (e.g.,The Little Mermaid, Pocahontas) have more cleavage, fewer clothes, and are depicted as “sexier” than those of yesteryear.” Notice that there is an issue with “sexier” not “sexist.” The section on Sports Illustrated talks about how there was an emphasis in women’s sexuality, but it didn’t say that women were put in demeaning, sexist roles. Or the section on MySpace where it just says that girls pose provocatively, but doesn’t say anything about sexist content.

And look at this quote! “Pornography is readily available on the Internet (Griffiths, 2000), with one source estimating that 12% of all Web sites are pornography sites, and 25% of all search engine requests are for pornography (English, 2005). Extensive data on children’s and adolescents’ exposure to sexually objectifying material online is lacking; however, a Kaiser Family Foundation (2001) study found that 70% of teens 15–17 years of age had accidentally encountered pornography on the Internet, with 23% saying this happened somewhat
or very often.” Do you see anything about sexist imagery there? Because that looks like it’s talking about porn in a very general sense as being part of that “extremely harmful” stuff … and didn’t you say that you liked porn? Surely, you must agree that the report mentioned porn as part of the sexualization you think is extremely harmful and fun, right? That is the reason they brought it up, right?

I’m not saying that the report doesn’t talk about what it calls “sexist imagery,” but you are wrong when you say that it “makes a pretty clear distinction between the two.” It frequently just refers to nudity or sexual without saying that there is anything inherently sexist in the images. Even when it says that women are portrayed as “sexual objects,” it doesn’t say what that means. I suspect that it means that the primary intention of the image was to inspire lust, but that doesn’t make the image inherently “sexist,” as someone who says she enjoys porn must agree.

As for the HFH cover not being porn, I stand by that. You’ve seen porn and you know that in porn you see sex organs. You see nipples. You see penetration or in soft core porn you see something that implies that penetration is taking place. The HFH cover only does those thing is you extrapolate and think, “I know what happens next in tentacle porn! The clothes are ripped off and then the tentacle slides in while the girl resists but then she likes it and …” While you can extrapolate the HFH cover into tentacle porn, the fact of the matter is that all that is really happening on that cover is that scantily clad women are bound and beaten and some monsters are coming toward them from below. What is actually happening is not much different than what has appeared on SF comic mags since the Golden Age.

How to parse English:

Extensive data on children’s and adolescents’ exposure to sexually objectifying material online is lacking; however, a Kaiser Family Foundation (2001) study found that 70% of teens 15–17 years of age had accidentally encountered pornography on the Internet, with 23% saying this happened somewhat
or very often.

Translation: We don't know how much porn is sexually objectifying, we only know how often kids look at porn.

And my position is that porn is bad shit for kids to be looking at, regardless of whether it's sexist or not. Adults are a different issue.

[stuff about porn]

So "porn" has to, by definition, show nipples and genitals? And imagery that is strongly suggestive of sex but stops just short of showing the nipples is not porn?

I think that the dictionary (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/pornography) and most English speakers would challenge your definition of porn. So you're saying that this (http://www.alphahentai.com/blog/banners/insatiable.jpg) isn't a pornographic image? Or this (http://alphahentai.com/blog/cga/bihin/bihin_139.jpg)? Especially the latter. Hmm, let's see... Bound woman, clearly in pain and afraid, being showered with an unknown sticky substance coming from an unknown source offscreen. But her clothes are still on, so that's NOT porn?

And BTW, Misty Knight's nipples should be visible in the HfH cover, they were just moved to an anatomically impossible location.

So "porn" has to, by definition, show nipples and genitals? And imagery that is strongly suggestive of sex but stops just short of showing the nipples is not porn?

I think that the dictionary and most English speakers would challenge your definition of porn.

I did a quick search on the word, and definitions vary. A dictionary does not require explicit content for something to be defined as porn - others do (http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/p/p0451600.html).

I myself do not classify things without explicit content as "porn". And, it would seem, neither does any official agency that deals with the matter.

For, has anyone reported the Heroes for Hire cover to the authorities? Have the authorities taken action? After all, you're not supposed to show "porn" to kids - it's illegal. So if your version of porn is the commonly accepted version, and thus the cover is indeed porn, it should be actionable.

I submit that while most people would see sexually-based imagery in the picture, few would actually call it "porn", and my guess is that, unless you can find a prosecutor with a personal axe to grind, you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone willing (or able) to bring real legal action against Marvel or various retailers for showing "porn" to minors over that image. (Or, for that matter, the examples you link to.)

A picture of a knife in a hand, menacing some person, is not a picture of actual violence, is not a picture of murder. It may imply such is forthcoming, but taken on its own, without further context, it cannot logically be called as such.

The dictionary that you quoted said "sexually explicit." Again, I don't think that nipples or genitals have to be visible in order for an image to be sexually explicit. Like the images that I linked in my above comment. Would you say that those are not sexually explicit?

And again, my argument doesn't rest on whether the cover meets the legal definition of "porn" or not. Whether you call it porn or whether you don't call it porn, you have to admit that it's clearly a sexual image on some level. And my argument is, that's inappropriate in this context.

But if you want to split hairs about the definition (which frankly doesn't fucking matter, but whatever), I give you this: "Porn" is subjective. It's a nebulous term that evolves over time. It is also a term that, like so much of language, is largely defined by majority rule. Now, I can't even count the number of times I have read blog posts in which people called out this image as "porn" or "hentai." Even random people on the street (http://ang-band.livejournal.com/3164.html) agree. I can count the number of people I've read who insist that it is not porn, and that's on one hand. That would be you, Scott, and two people in the videos linked above.

A picture of a knife in a hand, menacing some person, is not a picture of actual violence, is not a picture of murder. It may imply such is forthcoming, but taken on its own, without further context, it cannot logically be called as such.

Fuck, I would call that a "violent" image. The promise of impending murder is violent. Just like the promise of impending sex is sexy.

Would you say that those are not sexually explicit?

I would say those are sexually suggestive, not explicit.

Fuck, I would call that a "violent" image. The promise of impending murder is violent. Just like the promise of impending sex is sexy.

Ah. And yet, the scene I described could, in different contexts, be unrelated to violence in any way. Suppose in a subsequent image the hand gripping the knife offers it to the other person - "here, go ahead and cut the cake". Such an image might be a prelude to murder, or it might be completely harmless, or it might intentionally mislead you into believing murder is imminent. What makes it violence (or not) to you are your expectations and assumptions. The second image you posted earlier - that could be dishsoap, though it's likely evoking something else for most people who are sexually aware.

The only people who are going to associate the Heroes for Hire cover with "tentacle rape" are those who actually know what "tentacle rape" is. I was 12 in 1978, when manga had not made significant inroads into the U.S. and there was no World Wide Web. Had I seen that cover then, I would not have seen it as imminent rape, but as "uh-oh, monsters!" It may well be true that 12-year-olds today are able to more easily see things like tentacle rape and therefore get the reference that the cover makes - but at that point, one could argue that the damage has already been done. It's near impossible to un-know something. If a 12-year-old already knows what tentacle rape is, is the HfH cover going to add anything significant to that knowledge? If they don't, is the cover going to magically implant that connotation in their heads?

Even random people on the street agree.

Eh, no, those aren't "random people on the street". Everyone I saw was a student at an art school, and one could make the argument that such a selection is going to skew certain ways. Probably more politically liberal, more likely to be idealists, more likely to be familiar with comics and/or manga. They all appear to be in a similar age bracket. Without trying to analyze it too deeply, it appears that in some instances she's trying to lead her interview subjects to come to some conclusions about the cover. Would she have had the same results if she'd taken the cover and shown it to random people at an adult bookstore? At the mall? In a different state?

And whether your experience in reading blog posts is indicative of the population in general will, in similar fashion, depend a lot on which blogs you select, and whether that selection is truly a varied cross-section of humanity. If you stick to, say, what I've seen over the last few days at When Fangirls Attack, you are going to get a predominantly anti-cover reaction, peppered with a few dissenting opinions here and there. But I'm aware of other communities where this cover would be considered rather tame (if it is even noticed at all).

There's also another factor involved: what people care enough to post on the subject? Surely people who are profoundly offended will feel the need to speak out - a person who is noncommittal on the issue may not see any reason to either defend or attack the cover. And where in the equation do the "backlash" posters fit? It's easy to dismiss their opinions as ignorant and illogical, but they are opinions all the same.

I think it is dangerous to assume that because you only predominantly see one side, that side is actually the majority opinion - and if the majority opinion is the determining factor, that implies that if the majority thinks something like the cover is fine (or at the least unoffensive) then that settles the question of whether it's acceptable. If you learned that the number of people who object to the cover, worldwide, was maybe a 20% minority (which I'm not trying to imply, just using it as an example number), would that then make it all okay? I kind of doubt you'd see things like that.

This kind of argument makes me uneasy since it's the kind of thing I see on Fox News - to wit, in order to marginalize "liberal" issues, they are called "extreme" and "far left". By using those sorts of words, Fox's anchors and reporters can make a liberal issue seem to be the banner of frothing madmen - and then, having established that benchmark, they can present moderate stances as "liberal", and left-leaning right-wing stances as "moderate". After that becomes accepted, the standards can be shifted further, until anything slightly liberal is labeled an extremist viewpoint.

To call something with no explicit content "porn" to me seems a similar tactic. If you establish that the HfH cover is porn, then it's that much smaller a step to work towards defining a Maxim cover as porn.

Let me ask you this: Suppose Marvel re-rated Heroes for Hire #13 to, say, an 18+ rating? Or better yet: are there any conditions at all under which that cover could be released and be seen as acceptable in your eyes?

Okay, I'm not touching the argument about the definition of "porn" anymore, because like I said, it fundamentally doesn't matter. Whether you call it porn or not, that doesn't change anything that's wrong with the cover.

(Although I'm a bit boggled at the line that you're drawing between "suggestive" and "explicit," but whatever. I hate semantics with a burning loathing passion, so I'm not going to get into that anymore.)

Suppose Marvel re-rated Heroes for Hire #13 to, say, an 18+ rating?

Then I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Or better yet: are there any conditions at all under which that cover could be released and be seen as acceptable in your eyes?

Lea Hernandez did a pretty sweet remix of the cover here (http://divalea.livejournal.com/456637.html). Actually, speaking of Lea's livejournal, she recently posted a letter (http://divalea.livejournal.com/457357.html) that she recieved from Eisner-winning comics retailer Richard Neal about the cover that you might find interesting. She has a couple other letters from comics retailers posted in her journal, only one of which is indifferent to the cover.

http://stop-him.livejournal.com/36172.html --That's my feelings on comics retailers, Eisner-award-winning or otherwise.

And, well, I'm sure that, of all the retailers interested in contacting Lea Hernandez, most of them would be against the cover. How many retailers who support the cover would feel like telling her they support the cover? If I were a retailer, why would I bother? To get her to scold me, to pick a fight? Seeing a comment in Lea's LJ from someone who supports Lea's position is not particularly amazing... and anecdotal examples of "I hate the cover too" only carry so much weight.

The remix - I was asking more about the release of the original cover - I don't foresee anyone handing the cover back to the original artist and saying "do it again, but not wrong and evil this time."

As for semantics: well, if you don't want to go there, I won't belabor the point too much. I will close, though, by saying that if you insist on defining something as porn which other people do not see as porn, it's an argument that will resurface repeatedly.

The retailers didn't contact Lea Hernandez; she contacted them and asked for commentary. Not all of the responses that she's posted have condemned the cover, either. My point, though, is that a lot of people - a LOT of people - are still calling out the cover as porn. You can make unfavorable comparisons to Fox News all that you want, but that doesn't change the fundamental way that language works. Subjective terms are defined and applied by majority rule. That's not O'Reilly-speak, that Linguistics 101. Am I wrong in assuming that a majority sees the cover as porn? I can only base my impressions on what I hear and see people actually say. I'm not psychic and I can't read the minds of the "silent" majority who may or may not theoretically like the cover. But if they don't throw their hats into the ring, then the people who DO speak out are the ones who get to define and apply labels to the HfH cover. And right now, the majority has voted for porn.

If you'd really like to prove or disprove that point, then go ahead and make a poll or something. Ask people what they really think. But right now, the jury - or at least a jury - has already spoken.

The remix - I was asking more about the release of the original cover - I don't foresee anyone handing the cover back to the original artist and saying "do it again, but not wrong and evil this time."

Actually, whichever editor at Marvel is responsible for the cover *should have* done that the moment that s/he saw the artwork submitted in the first place. It's not an uncommon practice. And then we wouldn't have this bruhaha on our hands.

Of course I agree that the cover isn't forseeably going to be changed, now that it's out there and made public. My point in linking to the remix was to show how the same concept could have been executed without sucking. Since you've clarified that you were asking about the release of the original cover, though... Well, then, my answer would be no. Not unless Marvel changes the age rating on that book, at least.

As for semantics: well, if you don't want to go there, I won't belabor the point too much. I will close, though, by saying that if you insist on defining something as porn which other people do not see as porn, it's an argument that will resurface repeatedly.

No, it's an argument that surfaces when people want to argue about semantics rather than discussing what's actually wrong with the cover. Whether you call it "porn" or "sexually explicit" or "sexually suggestive" or whatever, it's just splitting hairs. That doesn't change the fact that there's a tentacle dripping fluid on Felicia's exposed breasts while she's bound in chains, making a face that looks like she's crying, and cringing away in horror.

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

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject