![[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
In regard to the HFH cover, the definition you supplied for pornography was “the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement.” OK, I can go for that. But the HFH cover is “a depiction of violent behavior in pictures intended to cause sexual excitement.” It is not depicting erotic behavior. You are eroticizing violent behavior. In order for it to be pornography, the behavior should be sexual in nature. Most of the definitions I’ve seen use the term “explicitly sexual.” The HFH cover is “implicitly sexual.” Implied sexuality is not porn. I saw an old Joe Schuster glamour shot of Lois in the book “Men of Tomorrow” where she is a negligee and looking back over her shoulder with smoldering bedroom eyes. It is absolutely a depiction of a behavior in a picture intended to cause sexual excitement, but I don’t believe the behavior is erotic enough to rise (or lower) to the point that we can call it pornography. Porn, in the definition of most people, is explicitly sexual, not just implicitly sexual. I’ll give you that the cover is to a degree sexual imagery. I would even say that the people who wrote the article you linked to would say that it is sexualized imagery. But it is not pornography. It is similar to the covers that are on real tentacle porn, but let’s fact it, if someone bought this and expected to find hentai, he’s going to be disappointed because while this has the tentacles, it does not have the porn.
no subject
Q.E.D.