![[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
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
no subject
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.
no subject
no subject
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.
no subject
no subject
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.