![[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.
Re: Reposting to fix HTML...
Do you happen to know of any publications one might check out to read more on any of this?
Re: Reposting to fix HTML...
I ran across the Victorian stuff researching prostitution in that era (focusing on the U.S. western states), but as I recall Ellen Rothman’s Hands and Hearts; A History of Courtship in America and Karen Lystra’s Searching the Heart: Women, Men, and Romantic Love in Nineteenth-century America touched on some of that, as did Reay Tannahill’s Sex in History from a different angle.
A good pro-life or pro-choice history of abortion through the late 1800’s should end up discussing the change in sexual attitudes through that period. Most of the pro-life ones will say the doctors at the forefront were motivated by their growing medical knowledge which showed that there was a living being before “quickening,” and by better understanding of sexually transmitted disease; most of the pro-choice ones will focus on the AMA collecting power through the campaign and on the Nativists feeling threatened by immigrants. ;) But going on my reading the info on the change in attitudes should be more closely parallel.
Most books on Puritans challenge the myth that they were antisex. A quick google turned up an essay on a romance site that lists among Puritan myths;
Puritans thought sex was evil and condemned those, especially women, who enjoyed it. False. This is myth is wrongly implied by most modern-day uses of the word "puritan," as in this famous line, attributed to H.L. Mencken: "A Puritan is someone who is deathly afraid that someone, somewhere, is having fun." In fact, Puritans had no particular issue with sex. They knew that both men and women were subject to sexual desires. They certainly knew that women experienced arousal and orgasm - conventional Protestant wisdom of the 16th and 17th centuries was that women might grow ill or mad if they didn't experience regular sexual release. Puritans thought that sex should only happen in the marriage bed, and that adultery and premarital sex were sins. They also thought that married couples should embark upon lovemaking prayerfully - they should always remember that sexual pleasure is a gift from God. In all these attitudes towards sex, they were in perfect agreement with Anglicans and other Protestants of the same period, and with quite a few modern-day Christians as well.
http://www.likesbooks.com/puritans.html
And Sex in Middlesex: Popular Mores in a Massachusetts County, 1649-1699 by Roger Thompson would be a good source, as I recall.
I know I’ve read a couple of authors discuss the evolution of the attitudes toward woman’s sexuality as families got more spread out that I outlined, but I can’t remember either of their names. I know Nancy Cott discusses how there was a sea change in the Victorian era, where the image of women changes from the more carnal sex to a “passionless” image, but she is not who I am remembering and the change from society and families holding the responsibility of sexual restraint to women holding it happens earlier.
After a quick google I’m pretty sure it wasn’t Intimate Matters, either, but I didn’t find the authors I’m remembering (the first author discussed it as the other’s theory so it could be in Intimate Matters but if so I’m guessing they weren’t completely sold on it and I was thinking when I first heard of it the author liked it). At any rate, I read that theory about the shift of responsibility and went, “Yes! Of course!” but I no longer have the names of the pertinent books. *sigh*
That help?
Sheryl
Re: Reposting to fix HTML...
Thank you very much.