![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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.
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
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
Again I say: It is a mistake to assume that your sampling of humanity is an accurate representation of a true majority of people in general. If I were to poll the aforementioned adult bookstore for opinions of the cover, I'd be foolish to assume that's a true cross-section of the population at large. Likewise, judging a feminist-leaning group of sites as representing the national zeitgeist is equally misguided.
I would suggest the onus is not on me to produce a poll, however, since I am not the challenger in this case. That honor belongs to those who state that the cover is "porn". Because, to recap (as I saw done on some other blog somewhere):
MARVEL: Hey, here's a cover!
FANGIRLS: EEEWWW that's PORN!
MARVEL: What? No it's not.
It's the feminists making the accusation; they have the obligation to prove the charge.
To date, the evidence that "proves" the cover is porn amounts to "I think it is, and so do all these other people."
Although you kind of dismissed the point, the fact that the cover could not be legally prosecuted as being porn aimed at kids suggests to me that the larger world (and the people who define its laws) doesn't see it as porn. If laws are (theoretically, at least) representative of the majority opinion of the populace, the cover just ain't porn.
BUT! If that indeed does not matter (and I suspect that it really does matter - "porn" can be a charged word, used for derogatory effect, and if the word wasn't important, there'd be no need to use that one word over some other more appropriate terminology), and the real point is that the cover is bad for kids, then we should go back to what I said before, and I quote:
In light of that, what harm comes from kids seeing the cover? If the link to "tentacle rape" does not exist, or is rendered moot by previous exposure, then what is left is the "sexist" attributes of the picture, such as the submissive faces and postures - which I will concede do not portray the characters in a favorable, admirable light so as to provide a beneficial example for young girls - but these are no more harmful than the same things shown in mass media of all sorts. And that may certainly be something to protest and strive against, but does not make the HfH cover exceptional in that regard.
no subject
My point was that that's why I hate debating semantics. It's the dynamic nature of language that makes semantics debate a waste of time.
Likewise, judging a feminist-leaning group of sites as representing the national zeitgeist is equally misguided.
Feminist-leaning group of sites? Who what where now? I'm basing my impressions on what I read linked via When Fangirls Attack. It's a *neutral* link-blog that collects links to feminists, anti-feminists, and everybody in between. Again, as I keep admitting, I can only judge popular opinion based on who actually bothers to speak out. And so far.... Yeah, I think this is porn, and so do most other people. Popular opinion IS pretty damning evidence in this context.
FANGIRLS: EEEWWW that's PORN!
Nitpick, but I hate it when people bring this up. Did I just imagine those thirty-some plus male bloggers who also labeled the cover as porn? Did I just imagine those letters from male comic book retailers and artists who also decried the cover as porn? Saying that "only fangirls" see a problem with the cover is dismissive and stupid. Stupid because it ignores the fact that even men (oh my gosh!) can be grossed out by a gross cover, and dismissive because it implies that if only girls are upset then it must not be something worth worrying about.
As for the last part of your comment, I'm tempted to get into it, but then I'd be breaking out the psychology textbooks and miring myself in more tl:dr. But let me say that the idea that just because a child has been exposed to tentacle rape once makes all subsequent exposures moot is... Really, really off the wall. Seriously, that's not how it works.
no subject
They've linked to me once or twice, so I know they don't collect only pro-feminist links. And, granted, the site's fairly new to me.
Buuuut, I think calling the site "neutral" is inaccurate. One can present things without comment and still show bias in the things which are shown. The site itself may not actually enter the battle, but my sense is that the majority of their links are pro-feminist. The site name itself suggests an affinity with feminism, and the people listed as the curators are, judging by what I have read of their writings, fairly pro-feminist.
The reason I would take issue with using a selection of WFA posts as representing the larger population in general is that how WFA collects its links is not taken into account. Just to illustrate my own experience: Not everything I've written on comics and feminism has been linked to on WFA. I'm not complaining, mind you, but it does demonstrate that there is some sort of discrimination going on, whether that's overt or unconscious. It could be that some of my writing wasn't interesting enough, or was already covered by someone else, or maybe nobody bothered to report my blog that day. (I have never submitted my own writings (or anything else) to WFA, any links to me happen without my direct participation.) But those writings were not linked to, the opinions weren't made part of the WFA experience, and thus the total WFA experience skewed slightly away from my own viewpoints. You didn't get to see my thoughts on some matters, even though I wrote and made them available to the public. To WFA's credit, they do tend to link to only reasonably articulate blog posts on their various subjects, which means that I (thankfully) don't click many links to pointless "OMG I HATE GREASY SEXIST FANBOYS AND MARVEL ARG" blather - but that does seem to indicate that WFA skews towards a more rational, smarter viewpoint. Even a good bias is still a bias.
I'm not ascribing any malice to all this, mind you, but it illustrates why basing one's view of popular opinion on one community's collective gestalt is a dicey proposition at best. Assuming that WFA's selection process is automatically unbiased and even-handed is a leap of faith I personally can't make. Would it be unreasonable to assume that the majority of WFA's regular readers are feminists to some degree? Would it be out of line to further suppose that those people are the ones who send in most of the links featured on the site? And wouldn't that make one think that some bias is inevitable?
I mean, a site like 4chan.org lets anyone with differing viewpoints post, but that hardly makes it either neutral or a fair representation of what the world at large thinks... even if 4chan posters outnumber WFA-linked blogs by a factor of about seventeen billion.
To quote Sam Jackson, "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
Re: Fangirls - I wasn't trying to imply that only girls object to the cover, but it is my impression that females were the first to voice objection, and are likely in the majority when taking the objection as a whole.
If I actually thought a girl's opinions were automatically not worth addressing, there'd be 100% less posts by me in your Comments section...
But let me say that the idea that just because a child has been exposed to tentacle rape once makes all subsequent exposures moot is... Really, really off the wall. Seriously, that's not how it works.
Let me rephrase, then: Once a child does understand tentacle porn (whether it's though a single exposure, repeated viewings, or however), what further harm could the cover do - and if a child does not understand tentacle porn, what harm could the cover do? The principle remains - the HfH cover could not "teach" anyone anything more about "tentacle porn" than they already know.
no subject
Once a child does understand tentacle porn (whether it's though a single exposure, repeated viewings, or however), what further harm could the cover do
Repeated exposure = culmulative harm. That's basic psychology. It's not about "understanding" what tentacle porn is. It's about exposure to the messages that it sends, over and over again. I think now might be the time to direct you to the link (http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/sexualization.html) that Scott has had so much trouble reading, as well as to the link (and the links listed on the link) that
and if a child does not understand tentacle porn, what harm could the cover do?
That child is still going to see her heroes stripped of their heroism and dignity, half-naked and chained and cringing in terror, while fluid oozes on the bare breasts of the woman who looks like she's about to burst into tears. That? That's a punch in the gut. And kids are going to get the sexualization behind the image, even if they've never seen tentacle porn before. I've been there. My friends, comic book readers who grew up with me, have all been there. I grew up watching Amara from the New Mutants chained to a lab table and screaming with her breasts mostly exposed on the cover of my favorite comic book; and there have been countless other images too, but that's the one that's always freshest in my mind. Even at the tender age of eight years old I understood that my favorite character was being offered up as wank material for skeevy old men; and I understood that it wasn't just that she was young and hot that made that image exciting, it was the idea of imminent sexualized violence. Do you know what kind of a message that sent to me? Do you know what kind of message that sends to young girls? What kind of message that sends to young men?! To quote one of the aforementioned ladies behind WFA, "It's like someone handed you an S&M novel starring you as the sub." *
* Quoted vaguely from memory, because the newsarama blog is down right now. But that was the bit that struck me the most. Anyway, the link should be here: http://blog.newsarama.com/2007/06/15/just-past-the-horizon-on-reflection/
Plus, the links mentioned above apply here as well, if you really must ask what the harm is.
no subject
You're right that the compilers of WFA are two self-proclaimed feminists. They are also human. There's just two of them, they can't read the entire internet every day. ;) If you haven't been submitting your own links, then I don't think it's fair to say that "the WFA experience" might be biased because your voice is missing. And if the majority of WFA skews feminist, that might very well be because the majority of the blogosphere skews feminist.
You're kind of trying to refute my point but also making it at the same time...
WFA can't read the entire internet every day. And if they aren't made aware of an article or post, they can't link to it. But even if they omit things through no fault of their own, that does not somehow make it less of an omission. If I run a poll on some subject, but I only have enough gas money to take me through the one town where I live, it may not be my fault that I can't do a wider poll throughout the country, but that doesn't change the fact that my poll only shows the opinions of my own town, not the entire USA or the rest of the world.
Look, simple acid test: None of the posts in WFA that I have seen reference God in any way that indicates strong belief (there may be some - I haven't seen it). But I know, from other sources, that the US skews towards Christianity, and that there is a very large devout population of Christians out there, even on the Internet. (I'm not, myself, for the record.)
So one would think that if WFA was a true representation of a cross-section of America, you'd see more musings on how feminism relates to Jesus, whether superheroines are living good Christian lives, or however else these subjects might interact - but if it's there, it isn't prominent. If an aspect of US life is so conspicuously absent, how can you seriously call WFA an unbiased site, or "the best damn gauge"? Again, I'm not ascribing malice or deliberate neglect to it, but I seriously don't fathom how things jump from "this is how a particular group of blogs we link to thinks" to "therefore, this is an accurate measure of how the USA in general thinks". If that were the case, then feminism would already dominate the US, and we probably wouldn't be having this discussion, because there'd be far fewer things for feminists to object to.
If somebody has written something about the cover, it gets linked on WFA.
That's how we guage public opinion. Other than that, what can we look to? Mind-reading?
Perhaps by exploring other communities, ones that may be less comfortable or friendly? And again, writing about it does not in and of itself guarantee a link on WFA, as my own case shows. Unless we search outside of WFA, we can't know how many others have written about the subject that have just been missed for one reason or another. That lack of information, however, does not logically justify classifying WFA as "public opinion".
Amara on a lab table, huh? If it wasn't buried under stacks of other stuff, I'd drag out the box with my older comics - because I don't remember anything like what you're describing at all. Wouldn't have figured Claremont or Simonson for it, either. Hm.
Deleted and reposted for borked HTML, sorry.
And if you would argue that a more accurate sample of America's public opinions would include more Christians... Well, how do you think your typical Christian would react to the HfH cover? ;) If anything, the typical comics blogger will probably have a much more liberal definition of porn, and be much less likely to take offense at violent imagery, than your typical American citizen.
As for exploring other communities, I lurk regularly at Newsarama, and like I said oh so many comments up, I'm basing my impressions on "public opinion" on what I see being said in and around Newsarama, too. Surely Newsarama provides a fairly accurate cross-section of comics fandom, right?
And who says that the "biased" (oh no, they share the same opinions!) corners of fandom don't count?
Look, you're telling me to look "outside" my normal corners of fandom. Because I might find a theoretically large group of people who think that the cover is A-OKAY. (Which does not actually make the cover A-OKAY, but whatever.) Well, my corners of fandom are pretty damn large. You mentioned before that some burden of proof is on me. Well, I've shown you my numbers. They're here (http://girl-wonder.org/forums/viewforum.php?f=2), here (http://community.livejournal.com/scans_daily/tag/heroes+for+hire), here (http://forum.newsarama.com/search.php?searchid=700961), and here (http://womenincomics.blogspot.com/). If you want to argue that my assessment of public opinion is wrong, then by all means, do present some significant amount of public opinion to the contrary.
You asked me to prove that people don't like the cover. Well, here you go: Those people linked above? Most of them don't like the cover. I can only show you what I know people are saying. If there are a lot of other people who do like the cover, then show them to me. Don't just sit there and argue that they might, theoretically, exist. I think that I'm not the one with a burden of proof here.
You wanna prove me wrong? Please prove it.
Amara on a lab table, huh? If it wasn't buried under stacks of other stuff, I'd drag out the box with my older comics - because I don't remember anything like what you're describing at all. Wouldn't have figured Claremont or Simonson for it, either. Hm.
My comics are currently in storage in another continent, so I can't exactly go back and check. I remember that the blurb on the cover was "One of the New Mutants will be changed FOREVER!!!" Which totally didn't happen in the story, but meh, that's a cover blurb for you.
Re: Deleted and reposted for borked HTML, sorry.
...
Surely Newsarama provides a fairly accurate cross-section of comics fandom, right?
Yes, but "comics fandom" is only a fairly small percentage of "the public".
I think my claim that "a lot" of people don't like the cover still stands.
Never said that a lot didn't.
You asked me to prove that people don't like the cover.
Actually, no. Please don't put words in my mouth. What I did say is that it's the burden of people objecting to the cover to prove that it is "porn". Its natural legal state at this moment is: "not porn". I will readily concede that a "lot" of people don't like the cover at all - and that a lot see it as porn - that's not my point. What I have been saying all along is that taking a small biased section of a group and applying their standards to imply that the entire group feels the same way is Bad Science. I think I have already given examples of that.
To say that the world at large (or even just the USA) regards the HfH cover as porn is simply not in evidence. Most of the US doesn't even know it exists. Maybe a majority would see it as porn, maybe not, it's not the point. I simply object to presenting a biased inference as objective fact.
Because I might find a theoretically large group of people who think that the cover is A-OKAY. (Which does not actually make the cover A-OKAY, but whatever.)
Keep in mind that the reverse is true - the opinion of a large group or even a majority does not actually make something evil porn, either.
Re: Deleted and reposted for borked HTML, sorry.
You're talking about Bad Science. Maybe this would be bad science if we were talking about a verifiable fact like "a lot of people have brown eyes." But we're not. We're talking about a word and how people use it. Well, I'm going to assume that you don't have any formal training in linguistics, but let me reiterate: Semantics is based purely on what "a lot" of people say.
a lot see it as porn
Yes. That is the ONLY standard of proof required right here.
I simply object to presenting a biased inference as objective fact.
But you and I both agree: a lot see it as porn. That's the only "fact" that we need.
the opinion of a large group or even a majority does not actually make something evil porn, either.
Evil, no. Porn? Yes. Porn is defined by people. Its boundaries change across time and space. If a lot of people say that something is porn, then it's porn.
And if you keep bringing up the legal definition, I'm really going to bust out the Linguistics tl;dr. But briefly, let me say: Legal definitions are inherently more restrictive than common-usage definitions. This is also Linguistics 101, and I hate to keep bringing up that phrase because it's an appeal to authority, but whatever. It's something that somebody who has studied linguistics knows, but not something that somebody who hasn't studied linguistics might not know. Anyway, an appeal to a legal definition in an argument about "how people use a word" is automatic fail.
And this whole damn semantics argument? STILL a convenient way to skirting the issues about what's really wrong with the cover.
no subject
And here's why that argument fails and dies:
Marvel isn't going to care.
Marvel is not likely to fall in line with your definition of porn just because "the majority" of comics fandom (a claim of which I'm still skeptical) calls the HfH cover porn. Because, as I've mentioned before, selling porn to kids is a serious legal charge. Do you seriously think they'll say "oh, you got us! We're selling porn to kids and by admitting that we've left ourselves open to civil lawsuits and criminal charges, woe is us!"
Marvel is going to look at covers to FHM and Maxim - not porn. They're going to look at artwork elsewhere that may be similar that is also available to minors that is not considered porn. They will scour the earth, if need be, to find other examples of questionable material that can be accessed by kids and is not considered porn by the world at large. And they will turn to their lawyers, who'll shrug their shoulders, bill them a few thousand dollars, and say "we dunno what the fuss is, this doesn't look like porn to us." Then they will send Joe Quesada out to say, "we're sorry some of you don't like it, but it really isn't porn, we don't see what the problem is, and we don't know what kind of porn you're talking about, anyway--"
Oh wait, they already did that.
If they change the cover, it will be due to fan outcry and bad publicity, but NOT because they consider the cover "porn". As a publisher, they deal with things the way the world at large defines them, and yes, the way the law defines them, not just "comics fandom". If comics fandom is really so insular that it has the luxury of defining words at a disconnect from the rest of society, then... well, there is indeed no reason to continue, is there?
But let me continue, because I can already hear you saying, "Maxim, FHM? Those aren't porn and they aren't like the HfH cover, why bring them up? They have nothing to do with it!"
Maybe, maybe not: if a large enough group defines something as porn, you say, then it is porn.
(But what if that group is ignorant or just plain stupid, or has an agenda to push when it calls things porn?)
Consider this example: Here is a link (http://www.gaiaonline.com/artarena/index.php?mode=vote&postid=342247) to a picture I drew, posted on a site called Gaia Online. If you'd care to peruse the comments (nine pages worth), you will see that there are comments that approve of the picture for being "hawt", some non sequiters, some calling the figures "fat", and quite a few - possibly a majority - calling it perverted, hentai, and/or "porn".
Is it porn? If so, then a Maxim cover is porn. You say your linguistics arguments are not "O'Reilly speak", but it's the same principle - if you get enough people to call something "porn" or "left-wing extremist", it becomes that thing.
But, as you like it. The cover is porn. My picture is porn. I'm a leftist commie fanatic, and red is now the new green.
To hopefully cap off the lingustics/semantics battle, if the definition of porn is widened to include non-explicit imagery (by which *I*, at least, mean no visible genitals, female nipples, or the byproducts thereof, and "mystery fluids" don't count), then the word itself will become diluted, so that things like my picture become porn. Two things could happen in that case: "porn" retains its taboo cachet, and brings on a ultra-conservative-style crackdown on anything vaguely erotic - or "porn" loses much of its negative connotations, so that saying "that kid is reading porn" becomes no more scandalous than "that kid is looking at a swimsuit poster".
no subject
Is it porn? If so, then a Maxim cover is porn.
"If my catgirl picture that I posted on Gaia online is porn, then all Marvel Maxim covers are porn." Come again?
You say your linguistics arguments are not "O'Reilly speak", but it's the same principle - if you get enough people to call something "porn" or "left-wing extremist", it becomes that thing.
I am really not impressed by your tactic of making a comparison to Bill O'Reilly every time you run out of ways to refute an argument. I've seen it in your blog posts, I see you doing it repeatedly in the comments here, and frankly, it's getting annoying. "You sound just like Bill O'Reilly!" is not an argument.
And besides, thousands of individual bloggers decrying an image as porn =/= a lone crackpot like Bill O'Reilly and a few of his friends repeating the same phrase thousands of times.
As for the capper: Well, yes. Sometimes words get diluted and lose their meaning. Sometimes we come up with new words to replace the old words. It's that whole "language is dynamic" thing again. But really, I don't see how any of your alarmist slippery-slope arguments follow from the concession that the HfH is pornographic. It's not any different from the way that most people (excluding you, apparently) are using the word "porn" already, anyway.
no subject
Again, you're sidestepping away from the point: your right to voice your opinion is not at issue here. Whether the "comics fandom" can define porn in a different manner than the rest of the world and expect it to stick, is.
Let me put it another way: who are you trying to convince, when you write a post like this? Your comics fandom that already agrees with your definition of "porn"?
Or someone like me?
A Maxim cover generally features a female clad in a bikini or otherwise scanty clothing. The characters in my picture are in scanty clothing. Calling one porn should naturally imply that the other similar picture is also porn, no? And for the record: do you consider either to actually be porn? Why/why not?
"You sound just like Bill O'Reilly!" is not an argument.
No, it's a comparison. And O'Reilly, though I loathe his guts, is far from a lone crackpot, when you consider the other personalities on Fox News with similar viewpoints and tactics, as well as the "Fox News fandom" that keeps his show's ratings depressingly high.
I make the comparison repeatedly because it is apt, though some may be loath to admit it. The only things that separate the two groups are the differing political viewpoints which each party believes to be absolute truth. Tactics appear alarmingly similar.
It's not any different from the way that most people (excluding you, apparently) are using the word "porn" already, anyway.
You don't say "comics fandom" here, though you made a point of distinguishing between that and the general public (what *I* consider "most people") a few posts back.
Which did you mean?
no subject
no subject
Several posts back, I was talking about comics fandom. Now, I'm going to talk about the general public.
Comics fandom is probably the most porn-positive left-leaning slice of online fandom that you'll find. Comics fandom probably uses the most restrictive definition of porn that you'll find.
I'm fairly convinced that if you asked the "general public" you'd find most of them MORE eager to apply the "porn" label than most of comics fandom. I mean, several comments up you characterized the "general public" as openly Christian, Jesus-loving, and much more conservative than comics fandom.
I'm boggled at the disconnect here.
Tactics appear alarmingly similar.
What "tactics"?
Indisputable truth #1: Language is dynamic.
Indisputable truth #2: "Porn" is a subjective term that changes over space and time. What makes a particular image pornographic is a social construct. (Ex: In China 300 years ago, feet were constructed as erotic, therefore an image of a woman's bare feet was pornographic. The same is not true in China today.)
Indisputable truth #3: "Porn" is defined by how people use it.
Look, you can't change the way that language works. Bill O'Reilly knows that and tries to use it to his advantage. So what? When Bill O'Reilly calls someone a "left-wing extremist," he's shooting off at the mouth. Me? When I call something porn, I've given you proof. As much proof as can be mustered for something inherently socially constructed like the definition of "porn," mind you. I've linked you to the dictionary definitions, the sheer numbers who agree, and even given you a free linguistics lesson that you would normally have to pay to take a college class for. You can keep your fingers plugged in your ears and keep repeating that the fundamental truth about how language works is JUST LIKE BILL O'REILLY OH NOES!!! And I can keep getting increasingly annoyed at your sheer determination to single-handedly create an all-new, all-obnoxious variation on Godwin's Law.
Subjective, relative, socially-constructed terms (yes, even terms like "left wing" and "extremist") are "defined" by the majority of the people that use them. Of course Bill O'Reilly tries to get people to agree with his use of words. That's just a duh given. So does every other politician or pundit. Me? I'm not trying to get anybody to agree with me. I'm showing you that most people already agree with me. Whether you agree or not, I don't care. That's the beauty of language, right there.
no subject
The fact that you think a picture with no exposed naughty bits is "porn" leads me to think otherwise. I have yet to see a right-wing Christian group define anything lacking so much as a nipple as "porn". Even O'Reilly, when he's criticizing rap videos for having half-naked women flaunting it onscreen, doesn't call it "porn". (Porn-like, "disgusting" - but not porn.)
In fact, my impression is that a great deal of supposed "left-leaners" are every bit if not more so prudish about porn than conservative America, especially when the porn isn't - eh, what's a good word - respectful, or defined as "healthy". It was the Clinton Administration that came out with the Digital Millennium act, after all.
My impression is also that this prudishness is also more prevalent in the young. The US has got a weird divide going on, with a marked increase in media's sexual content - while at the same time a focusing on sex crimes and child abuse in the news is fostering an anti-sex hysteria that gets drilled into kid's heads. Even as actual rape and child abuse statistics decline, a greater push for awareness and vigilance is intoned menacingly in the news.
It is my completely unscientific opinion that younger folks today are far more likely to develop a distaste for sexual content than, say, my generation. In an environment where the message seems to be that perverts and rapists lurk just around every corner, I think that can't help but affect how even people who consider themselves sexually "open-minded" develop. Which leads to Gaia Online, and a population that skews towards the young calling my picture "porn".
You still haven't said yea/nay regarding "is my picture (or an FHM magazine cover) porn", and I'd be interested to hear that answer, because I've provided a picture with particular characteristics, and a sampling of opinions from the population of Gaia Online, a site that as I type this has 31,847 users online, and has had a top record of 86,738 simultaneous connections, with a bit over 8 million accounts. I have no way of knowing how wide and varied the selection of folks commenting on my picture are, but if that sampling is an accurate cross-section of Gaia's user base, and can be applied to the entire Gaia population, a surprisingly huge number of people will see my picture as porn. And that, true, would bear out your assertion that the HfH cover is porn, because if my picture is porn, that cover certainly must be. And that would also indicate that the dilution of the word mentioned earlier is already underway.
So I would like to hear it from you, and I'll consider the matter discussed and over with: Do you think my picture is porn? (And the secondary question is: does the answer depend on Gaia's reaction and definition?) If it is, then I am a pornographer, and I guess I'll have to adjust to my new role in the world. If not, then you'll have to explain to me why not, and why that reason trumps a population that potentially exceeds that of "comics fandom".
no subject
If not, then you'll have to explain to me why not, and why that reason trumps a population that potentially exceeds that of "comics fandom".
Did the entire population of Gaia Online comment on your picture?
So I would like to hear it from you, and I'll consider the matter discussed and over with.
I'll hold you to that, pal. Because your alarmist, increasingly disconnected-from-reality ramblings about porn and the tyranny of dynamic language are growing tiresome. And the Digital Millenium Act was about copyright protection, not about censoring or limiting access to porn.
Re: Deleted and reposted for borked HTML, sorry.
Since I can't read the actual report you linked to, and the nearby summaries seem a bit vague for my tastes, I will, for the purposes of this discussion, assume that the image can harm kids. I just don't have the proper tools to argue otherwise.
Now, Marvel may not have given it an appropriate rating if that's true. And if so, it is right to criticize them for that. Bad on Marvel.
However, I don't think it's fair in that case to only criticize Marvel, or even blame them the most. Or even blame the retailers who might leave the things on the racks in plain sight.
I think, ultimately, the lion's share of the blame rests with the parents, if some kid gets hold of a copy of that comic - and if harm is done, they are the ones to hold accountable.
It is a parent's responsibility to monitor and, if need be, censor what their child sees. It is their duty to talk things out with their kids if they experience some troubling stimuli. It is the parent's standards that will determine what is appropriate for a child to have. It makes no sense to think that, if Marvel gives the okay for kids as young as nine to see the HfH cover, a truly concerned parent will not even bother to look at the cover and what's depicted thereon to make up their own mind whether their precious darling's headmeats will explode. After all, you don't look at the cover and say "oh, Marvel says it's okay for ages 9 on up, it must be harmless" - why would any concerned parent? A rating is a guideline, not a command from God - it can't force the books into kids' sweaty fingers.
(A quick aside about Marvel's ratings: yes, that rating says 9 and up, but right next to it it also recommends that parents review the material before unleashing it on their kids. Me, I think that's a sensible policy.)
Placing the entire responsibility for kid brain damage on Marvel is letting parents abdicate their own responsibility. But, if some parent thinks it is okay (despite the voices of the comics fandom), or just doesn't care enough to keep bad evil comics out of kids' hands, it can't be the duty of some non-parent to make those parenting choices for them. And I don't think it is fair to make Marvel primarily responsible for other people's kids and their mental health.
Re: Deleted and reposted for borked HTML, sorry.
Asking Marvel to be responsible for its own ratings is NOT the same as asking Marvel to be responsible "for other people's kids and their mental health." Or else why have ratings?
Besides, the rating thing may be the biggest and most glaring problem with the cover, but it certainly isn't the ONLY problem. The cover is still a punch in the gut to most of the people who were reading Heroes for Hire, to fans of Misty Knight or Felicia or Colleen, or to anybody who doesn't want his or her superhero adventure stories ruined by a trigger-inducing image of, in our friend Scott's words, "a depiction of violent behavior in pictures intended to cause sexual excitement." But the general sexism of the cover is beyond the scope of this post, since this whole thing started as a clarifying response to Scott's continuing struggles with reading comprehension.
no subject
Let's face it: keeping track of what a kid experiences in popular media and limiting that can be a difficult, time-consuming chore. Parents, understandably, would probably welcome things that would take some of that burden off. But to rely on a rating is to let someone else set standards for you, whether it is the RIAA with CD labels, the MPAA with movie ratings, the video game labels, the largely ineffectual (these days) Comics Code Authority, or Marvel's self-made ratings. If a parent trusts any of these over their own standards, I feel they deserve whatever may happen. In my opinion, the fact that raising a kid is incredibly hard work does not absolve a parent from having to do that hard work, or from accepting the consequences if they fob that work off on someone else.
Besides, the rating thing may be the biggest and most glaring problem with the cover, but it certainly isn't the ONLY problem.
Perhaps not, but that would seem to kind of contradict our earlier exchange:
Suppose Marvel re-rated Heroes for Hire #13 to, say, an 18+ rating?
Then I wouldn't have a problem with it.
If we've dealt with the "marketed to minors" business sufficiently, I have no further beef with anyone who doesn't like the cover - so long as such protest doesn't eventually deprive me of my ability to buy the comics and that cover. Then, it'll kind of gripe me. But your right to express yourself (and my right to respond to that expression) I hold inviolate.
no subject
Suppose Marvel re-rated Heroes for Hire #13 to, say, an 18+ rating?
Then I wouldn't have a problem with it.
Not really. When I said "I wouldn't have a problem with it" I meant that I wouldn't be spending my time blogging or writing to Marvel about it. I would still think that it sucks because of its inherent misogyny. But I generally don't waste my time writing about sexism/racism when it shows up in adult-oriented media, because I find the way that it invades all-ages media much more alarming and immediately harmful.
Just to clarify.