![[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 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.