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

(deleted comment)

# a person’s value comes only from his or her sexual appeal or behavior, to the exclusion of other characteristics;

What this means is the picture is only trying to look sexy. Like cheesecake does. This means that any picture that is just trying to look sexy is sexist.

# a person is held to a standard that equates physical attractiveness (narrowly defined) with being sexy;

Physical attractiveness (narrowly defined) can be equated with sexy. That’s what physical attractiveness is. Is it possible for someone to be both physically attractive and not visually sexy? If you said, “I’m physically attracted to him” or “I’m attracted to his physicality” wouldn’t that mean that he is sexy? Using this quality, any picture where the person is physically attractive is going to count as sexist. Which means that any attractive image of a woman is going to count as sexist. The article brings up the Sports Illustrated photos, for instance. If you look at a beautiful woman in a bikini, you are sexist.

# a person is sexually objectified—that is, made into a thing for others’ sexual use, rather than seen as a person with the capacity for independent action and decision making; and/or

First of all, let’s note that comic characters are “things” not people. They do not have the capacity for independent action or decision making. They are objects for our fantasies, sexual or otherwise. That’s why they were created. Face it, Tiger, she was created to be an object of sexual fantasy. Second, this again means that any picture where the intent is only to create lust is objectifying because the intent was to create something for the viewer, not for the viewed who are fictional. Mysteriously, this means that the fictional creations should be viewed as people with their own rights and decision making ability, and the desires of the viewer who paid to read the book are moot or the comic is sexist.

# sexuality is inappropriately imposed upon a person.

Again, let’s note, no one on the cover of HFH is a person. They are all blobs of ink that look like people. You can not impose anything upon a person who does not exist. “To impose” implies that one is forcing something upon another against the other’s will, but the fictional creations do not have a will. Further, let’s note that they are the products of pulp fantasy, so one has to wonder what is “inappropriate.” The whole point of fantasy is that you do things in it that would be inappropriate in real life. While virtually all romance readers would tell you that rape is inappropriate, many romance readers engage in rape fantasies.

I think if you look at the report again, you’ll see that virtually all sexual imagery would count as sexualization under their definition. For instance, the report mentions promiscuous photos on MySpace. It doesn’t say anything about what other elements are on the pages. It just says there are sexy photos that the posters put up of themselves on the pages. How is that sexist? If I put a sexy photo of me (if there were one) on my blog, would that be sexist? And as noted before, the report refers to porn generally as being what it is talking about. It doesn’t differentiate between types of porn. But you said that not all porn was sexist. So if the report suggests that porn generally is sexualized imagery and that sexualized imagery is sexist, isn’t the report saying the opposite of what you say?

Dude, I deleted and reposted that comment to fix typoes. Why'd you have to respond to the deleted comment? Now my comment thread looks all messed up, and it's your fault. :)~ Anyway:

a person’s value comes only from his or her sexual appeal or behavior, to the exclusion of other characteristics. What this means is the picture is only trying to look sexy. Like cheesecake does. This means that any picture that is just trying to look sexy is sexist.

Graaaaaaaaaa no that's not what that means! A picture of a woman looking sexy at the exclusion of any other characteristics is sexist. For example, Power Girl. A picture of Power Girl looking sexy while showing a cocky expression on her face, or pulling back a fist, or posing with her hands triumphantly on her waist - that would be fine. Because that's Power Girl, and that's what her personality looks like. But a picture of Power Girl posing like a limp blow-up doll with no expression on her face - that's sexist, because it robs her of her personality and displays her as a passive fuckdoll. Or, for other explanatory examples: See here (http://vejiita4eva.livejournal.com/158773.html), or here (http://blog.newsarama.com/2007/05/04/just-past-the-horizon-obligatory-power-girl-boob-post/).

BTW, this is the exact same song and dance that you and I had in the comments on the previous post. Frankly, I'm boggled that you still don't get it. I've tried. I've explained it in tiny words. I've given you lots of links to read. I don't know what else I can do. If you don't want to see or understand the difference, then what else can I do?

# a person is held to a standard that equates physical attractiveness (narrowly defined) with being sexy. Physical attractiveness (narrowly defined) can be equated with sexy. That’s what physical attractiveness is. Is it possible for someone to be both physically attractive and not visually sexy? If you said, “I’m physically attracted to him” or “I’m attracted to his physicality” wouldn’t that mean that he is sexy? Using this quality, any picture where the person is physically attractive is going to count as sexist. Which means that any attractive image of a woman is going to count as sexist. The article brings up the Sports Illustrated photos, for instance. If you look at a beautiful woman in a bikini, you are sexist.

No. Are we reading the same language? Just no. That sentence, no matter how much you parse and diagram it, means that holding a narrow standard of physical attractiveness as the only way to be sexy is what's sexist. There's nothing wrong with equating physical attractiveness and sexiness. What's wrong is when a narrow standard of physical attractiveness is the ONLY standard for "sexiness," as opposed to body types which do not fit the standard, character traits like personality and intelligence, athletic performance, etc.

At this point we're so far removed from anything having to do with the HfH cover that I don't even know why I'm bothering. But like I said, your stupid, it burns.

OK, so I'm gay and I have a picture of a sexy guy on my computer. I know nothing about him except that he has a hot look. It's just a picture of him naked and it's sexually appealing. Is that sexist?

And I you did notice that you added the word "only" to that sentence, right? You put it in all caps. You did it in italics. But it doesn't appear in the original sentence. It just doesn't. We are reading the same language, but you are adding words to it to make that sentence mean what you want it to mean. If it had the word "only" in it, I might agree with what they were looking at. But it's not there not matter how you try to pretend it is by emphasizing it. As long as “only” is not in the sentence, the study’s definition of sexualization is overly broad and that’s why it appears to include all porn despite the fact that neither of us would include all porn as sexist. Sexualization and sexist are not the same thing.

The word "only" is in the original sentence. Here it is again (bolding mine):

a person’s value comes only from his or her sexual appeal or behavior, to the exclusion of other characteristics

What do you want, a screenshot of the report? I'm not making up or adding words; you're just not reading them.

Yes, in "a person’s value comes only from his or her sexual appeal or behavior, to the exclusion of other characteristics" the word "only" appears. And if that's all they looked at, I might agree with them. But they go further and say, "a person is held to a standard that equates physical attractiveness (narrowly defined) with being sexy" and include that as also being sexualization. And in that case you added the word "only" to change the meaning of the second sentence.

According to the study, having either the characteristics of the first sentence or the second sentence makes the work sexualized. But if we use the second sentence, any work that shows that someone is sexy because he or she is physically attractive is sexualization. That means that all the physically attractive women in comics, if they are shown to be sexy, are sexualized and harmful to girls.

Oh, okay, you're talking about the second criterion. You could have made that clearer in your above comment.

Well, let's look at that sentence again:

a person is held to a standard that equates physical attractiveness (narrowly defined) with being sexy

a standard = a restrictive set of parameters.

"A person is held to a restrictive set of parameters that equates physical attractiveness (narrowly defined) with being sexy"

physical attractiveness = sexy. A = B. That doesn't exactly leave wiggle room for C = B or D = B, if the standard is always that A = B.

Even if that's not clear from a diagram of the sentence, it should be abundantly clear from the entire rest of the report.

But if we use the second sentence, any work that shows that someone is sexy because he or she is physically attractive is sexualization. That means that all the physically attractive women in comics, if they are shown to be sexy, are sexualized and harmful to girls.

No. Again, read the damn report: The parts that talk about physical attractiveness relate to a culmulative affect. The problem isn't that one woman of a particular body type is presented as sexy. The problem is that most every woman in any given media (for example, comic books) is portrayed as sexy, and is portrayed as such because they conform to a narrowly defined body type.

And again, we're so far removed from the HfH cover right now that it's not even funny. But you keep bringing the stupid, and I, in my foolishness, keep trying to teach you how to read.

A picture of Power Girl looking sexy while showing a cocky expression on her face, or pulling back a fist, or posing with her hands triumphantly on her waist - that would be fine. Because that's Power Girl, and that's what her personality looks like. But a picture of Power Girl posing like a limp blow-up doll with no expression on her face - that's sexist, because it robs her of her personality and displays her as a passive fuckdoll.

So what does Power Girl look like when she wants to have sex? And isn't it a good thing that guys would view a powerful, assertive woman as an ideal woman to have a sexual relationship with?

Putting Power Girl into a sexual pose doesn't rob her of her personality anymore than you or I have been robbed of our personality when we are in sexual positions. I am not robbed of my personality or power just because someone views me sexually. The problem with feminist theory is that it assumes that guys can’t think two things at one time. But I assure you, we can. We can think that someone is sexy, even want to see that someone in a provocative pose, and still think that person is dynamic, powerful, bright, ambitious, self-aware, etc. etc.

So what does Power Girl look like when she wants to have sex? And isn't
it a good thing that guys would view a powerful, assertive woman as an
ideal woman to have a sexual relationship with?

So comic books are your personal wank material now. Good to know!

I can only assume from this rather bizarre response that:

A. You agree that seeing a character in a sexual pose does not negate the characters other traits like assertiveness, competence, intelligence, and strength.

B. You agree that it is a good thing for people to think that women can be both powerful and sexy.

C. You have some kind of unusual problem with other people’s masturbation habits.

D. You didn’t understand that when I said I was gay that meant that I didn’t find Power Girl sexually attractive.

A. You agree that seeing a character in a sexual pose does not negate the characters other traits like assertiveness, competence, intelligence, and strength.

Right. Unless she's drawn in such a way that does negate her other character traits. Like the Micheal Turner cover and HfH cover. You seem to be arguing my point for me.

B. You agree that it is a good thing for people to think that women can be both powerful and sexy.

Right again.

C. You have some kind of unusual problem with other people’s masturbation habits.

When they insist on turning mainstream superhero comic books into their own personal wank fantasies, then yes. Otherwise, WTF? If people want to beat off to superheroines, they can just look at superheroine porn. Stop trying to ruin the real comics for the rest of us.

D. You didn’t understand that when I said I was gay that meant that I didn’t find Power Girl sexually attractive.

I did understand. The fact that your comment was incredibly stupid meant that I couldn't help mocking it, regardless of your avowed sexual preferences or not. My apologies.

You agree that seeing a character in a sexual pose does not negate the characters other traits like assertiveness, competence, intelligence, and strength.

Right. Unless she's drawn in such a way that does negate her other character traits. Like the Micheal Turner cover and HfH cover. You seem to be arguing my point for me.

Oy. A single image can not negate all the other images. Remember when you kept using the word “only?” You put it in all caps and italicized it. Remember?

OK, if Power Girl were only, ONLY, only shown in poses that projected sexuality like that cover where she looks like she wants to suck cock, I’d agree that it was a sexist portrayal. However, that is one image of many. Within that comic, she is going to be the forceful leader of the JSA and undoubtedly kicking the ass of some bad guys. She isn’t even shown that lusty on all covers she appears on as the article you linked to demonstrates. This cover is an aberration.

You have changed your criteria from “if she is ONLY shown as the subject of sexual desire, it is sexist” to “if she is EVER shown as the subject of sexual desire, it is sexist.” Surely, Power Girl is not rolling up her sleeves and shifting her weight to one foot and smirking as she does on those covers in the linked article when she wants to seduce someone. And just as surely, it is not sexist to portray Power Girl as a sexual being.

It can not be true that if you ever show Power Girl looking like her primary emotion at the moment is lust that the image is sexist. Just as you don’t suddenly lose your personality when you act in a way that suggests that you want to get laid, so too can Power Girl still be viewed as an assertive, competent, and energetic character before, while, and after she is in a pose that suggests sexual desire.

Sexist and sexy are not the same thing. And I would think that a feminist would be happy that DC was promoting the idea that powerful women are sexy and are sexual beings, not just badasses who don't care about sex.

A single image can be a sexist image. I really shouldn't have to be explaining this in such tiny words.

A single image can be a sexist image if it is portraying something inherently sexist, let's say a guy standing above a woman who is on her hands and knees and wearing a dog collar, but looking lustful is not inherently sexist. While it is true that the image of Power Girl on the cover is not showing her being assertive or aggressive or rolling up her sleeve and being ready for action, it is not true that an image of her not doing those things NEGATES the other images. Certainly, anyone could see her in one image that portrayed one characteristic and still think of her as also having the characteristics that we saw in earlier or later images.

Power Girl, like you and me, can in some instances be filled with lust, while in other instances be filled with rage, joy, determination or any other emotion. Lust does not negate any other emotion one has felt or will feel.

Lust is not demeaning. Lust is not a sign of weakness. Lust is neither sexist nor feminist.

(deleted comment)

So with your definition, if I look at a Tom of Finland drawing with its impossible anatomy that has the drawing passively invinting me to lust after him/it, that is objectification and inherently sexist, so I am sexist when it comes to men even though, I would never agree that men should be paid less or treated as objects or be subjected to sexual discrimination or sexually harrassed or any of the other behaviors associated with sexism. Does that sound right?

If Powergirl were shown lusting after a character in the story, that would be different. (And if she were being drawn with impossible anatomy, a broken spine, and in a passive stance that is completely out of character, that would still be sexist image.) Put the Micheal Turner PG cover? That's showing her lusting after the viewer. No, not even lusting. She's just standing their passively, inviting the viewer to lust after her. She's not even displaying any emotions. That is the DEFINITION of objectification. That is INHERENTLY sexist. She's being displayed for the viewer to wank over, not being displayed as a character or as a person.

If you'd like to see an example of lust done right, I'd point you to the Black Canary/Green Arrow wedding cover solicit. (http://girl-wonder.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2488) Those are two characters clearly lusting after each other, but they're not displayed as passive fuckdolls in the process.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to prove with that incredibly stupid and off-the-wall example. What, that people can be unintentionally sexist sometimes? Well, duh?

Are you looking at porn, or are you looking at a drawing in a mainstream comic book? (Context matters. That's the point of my first post, this second post, and the entire rest of this thread that you keep missing.) Besides, the important thing here isn't whether *you* are sexist or not. It's the person who made the drawing who is being, I'll assume unintentionally, sexist. You enjoying the drawing is different. But if a bunch of men complained about the drawing and then you showed up on a message board telling them to shut up and be happy that you can lust after a "strong" man like Tom of Finland, then you are definitely being sexist. And finally, this is an incredibly stupid example, because a man looking at a man is different from a man looking at a woman. If we lived in an egalitarian society, it wouldn't be different. But we don't, and it is. It's that "male gaze" concept that I noticed you've also had a lot of trouble understanding recently.

You don't seem to understand how "sexism" or any other "-ism" works. A lot of well-meaning, well-intentioned people can be sexist. Or racist. Or heterosexist. Or transaphobic. Especially today, when *overt* displays of sexism/racism are socially unacceptable, but covert, ingrained sexism/racism still permeates society. A lot of people do and say sexist things without realizing that they are sexist. Including you. That's why we normally don't say that *a person* is sexist or racist. We say that certain actions are sexist or racist, whether unintentionally or not. Everybody has their moments.

I still can't believe how far off the main topic you've dragged this conversation with your continuing incoherent gibbering.

If you don't understand that well-meaning people can do sexist things without holding blatantly sexist beliefs... At this point, I would suggest that you take a good, hard look in the mirror and think long and hard about some of your behavior in this thread over the past couple days. I'm sure that you think that women shouldn't be discriminated against. I'm sure that you think that the sexes should be equal. I'm also sure that you don't seem to realize how incredibly sexist your online behavior and attitudes are. (Hint: it's NOT because of your sex fantasies or what you want to see in a comic book. Even though you keep trying to make it about that.) You really might want to step back and think about that.

I think if you look at the report again, you’ll see that virtually all sexual imagery would count as sexualization under their definition. For instance, the report mentions promiscuous photos on MySpace. It doesn’t say anything about what other elements are on the pages. It just says there are sexy photos that the posters put up of themselves on the pages. How is that sexist?

"Promiscuous" photos, key word. That section of the report is talking about girls who are taught that the only way to be popular and make friends is to display their bodies; the message is that they only have value because of their bodies. That they can't have value without displaying their bodies. Yes, that's sexist.

And again... READ. Not every part of the report relates to the discussion that we SHOULD be having about the HfH cover. I'm beginning to think that it was a mistake to ask you to read the report, because now you clearly seem intent on a) applying bizarro interpretations to the relevant parts of it and b) quoting irrelevant parts of it back at me in order to disprove some point that I'm not making.

And as noted before, the report refers to porn generally as being what it is talking about. It doesn’t differentiate between types of porn. But you said that not all porn was sexist. So if the report suggests that porn generally is sexualized imagery and that sexualized imagery is sexist, isn’t the report saying the opposite of what you say?

No, not really. And even that were true - even if the report and I disagreed about the potential value of porn for an adult audience - THAT STILL DOESN'T UNDERMINE THE IDEA that exposure to sexualized imagery like that on the cover of HfH 13 is bad for kids.

Learn to debate. I linked to the report because it supports the idea that the HfH cover is harmful to young readers. You can point out disagreements between my general feminist stance and the specific position of the report all you want. It doesn't change the fact that the report still supports the idea that the HfH cover is harmful to young readers.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Gavotte with a strawman.

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