Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bauglir]

Also, this thread just reminded me of Thri-Kreen Erotica, and I curse the day I read it. Even if the punchline is amazing. (I'm not linking the story, it's a pretty explicit sex scene)

[Bohandas]

What if it What if the comic book defined Starfire as unisex or being "wasp woman shaped" with male reproductive parts?  Would people still have a problem with the untypical womanly figure?

How the character is presented is important. If the comic book goes out of its way to portray her with "womanly" attributes, and then claims something weird like unisex or having male parts, then it's going to confuse readers. If the reader thinks she's female and she "really" isn't, and is portraying these negative stereotypes, then there's still an issue.

What if it were done specifically to subvert or deconstruct the trope?

You remind me of Sancho Panza.

I've never read Don Quixote so I hope that's a good thing xD

That depends on whether your worldview is more grounded in Romanticism or Pragmatism. Sancho Panza was Don Quixote's sidekick went along with Quixote's claims of knighthood and such on faith, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

[Bohandas]

The other is that if a character isn't going to be treated as human in writing style, then it should be obviously differentiated in appearance.  Which I can kinda understand the thoughts behind, but still nags at me as a restriction on artistic expression.

You can't make art without considering it's implications.

WTF?!?!?!?!? That is the most bizarre statement I've ever heard. The only other time I've ever encountered a statement comparable to that that was stated so bluntly and not made for humorous effect was in a class on the history of the Second World War, during a discussion of the policies of the Nazi regime (and I only single out the Nazis specifically, because (IIRC) even most other toltalitarian regimes that censored art and the press at least had the presence of mind to refer to the policies euphemistically; that they dressed it up in more pleasing terms shows that those other regimes at least understood how insane and abusive such an idea is, even if they were willing to ignore those facts) (and yes, I know that you are not suggesting that artists who disagree with your views should be shot. I'm just saying that the underlaying idea and unapologetically blunt statement thereof are reminiscent).

[kaijyuu]

What if it What if the comic book defined Starfire as unisex or being "wasp woman shaped" with male reproductive parts?  Would people still have a problem with the untypical womanly figure?

How the character is presented is important. If the comic book goes out of its way to portray her with "womanly" attributes, and then claims something weird like unisex or having male parts, then it's going to confuse readers. If the reader thinks she's female and she "really" isn't, and is portraying these negative stereotypes, then there's still an issue.

What if it were done specifically to subvert or deconstruct the trope?

Well, I guess we're back to whether it's good or bad writing.

Is the author getting the message across they're trying to convey? Then sure. If sexism isn't their intention, and they know what they're doing, the audience won't be confused and a sexist work won't result.
If it's a bad author who can't convey what they want, they can have a sexist work that isn't intended to be one. I was assuming this to be the case with the unisex or wasp woman... thing.

It's totally possible to have a unisex wasp women with male parts that acts and looks stereotypically female and exhibits "negative" stereotypes without the work ultimately becoming sexist if they're a really good writer and able to justify/subvert/deconstruct/whatever all the crap they're putting on the page. Hell I might even read it for the absurdity alone.


This is all because I follow Death of the Author pretty rigidly. I wouldn't say an author that makes an unintentionally sexist work is sexist themselves, but... miscommunication kills, and all that.

You remind me of Sancho Panza.

I've never read Don Quixote so I hope that's a good thing xD

That depends on whether your worldview is more grounded in Romanticism or Pragmatism. Sancho Panza was Don Quixote's sidekick went along with Quixote's claims of knighthood and such on faith, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

I consider myself pretty damn idealistic (so, romantic I guess?). I guess I'll take it as a complement.

[Leafsnail]

WTF?!?!?!?!? That is the most bizarre statement I've ever heard. The only other time I've ever encountered a statement comparable to that that was stated so bluntly and not made for humorous effect was in a class on the history of the Second World War, during a discussion of the policies of the Nazi regime.

Did someone say Godwin's Law?  Yes I think someone did.

(Association fallacy to the Nazis isn't a very good thing to do)

[Nadaka]

I was going to write the following about sex in comics... And then I read the article.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Seriously, what this looks like is the usual "race of strange-skinned nymphomaniac female aliens."  That's close enough to the typical earth woman portrayal that I'm not happy with it.

Which I understand to be total shallow bullshit excuse for objectifying fantasy.  Agreed there.

I just wonder at how far condemnation of such a thing should go, and whether people believe in setting absolute boundaries and why.

Almost all of the "traditional" Marvel/DC comic book tradition is "objectifying fantasy" for both genders and has been to some degree since the golden age. I don't think its particularly fair to single out its over sexualization of women without noting its over sexualization of men as well. I am fairly certain that there are far more traditional US comic books featuring well oiled nearly nude Olympian god men with bulging codpieces in action poses than there are of scantily clad women draped across the scenery. I seem to recall there were even some people claiming that the comic book industry was nothing more than thinly veiled homosexual propaganda?

Im not saying that there are not sexism and gender equality problems with comic books, just that this particular gripe isn't necessarily a gender issue.

Ok, yea. I can see where that is a problem. Turning issue #1 (and presumably that sets the tone for the rest of the comic) for the female characters into skin mags without any depth is a pretty sexist thing to do.

[Bohandas]

Here's my gripe. I believe that many of the claims of "sexism" here are strawman arguments. I put it to you that the sexism of the comic could be balanced by turning Robin or Cyborg into a sex object just as surely as it could be by reverting Starfire to not being a sex object, but that if this method were used the complaints would still remain, or possibly grow even louder.

[Leafsnail]

2 wrongs don't make a right.

[kaijyuu]

Mmm yeah, "balancing" the sexism doesn't work. It isn't a fight between genders with one side winning or losing; it's about promoting double standards and prejudice. Being prejudiced against both genders does not make it any better.


And yes, it would be a strawman if we were calling the authors misogynistic assholes. We're not (or at least I'm not, heh). We're just calling their work misogynistic, and probably not intentionally. Big difference.

[Bohandas]

2 wrongs don't make a right.

Mmm yeah, "balancing" the sexism doesn't work. It isn't a fight between genders with one side winning or losing; it's about promoting double standards and prejudice. Being prejudiced against both genders does not make it any better.

That is a strawman argument as well.

"Sexism" properly refers to unequal or discriminitory treatment based on one's sex. If one of the male characters were turned into a pointless sex object then both sexes would be being treated equally just as surely as if Starfire was not a sex object.

Similarly, "Prejudice", in the modern sense of the term, denotes a preformed opinion that is applied to some BUT NOT ALL.

[Vector]

I'd be complaining in that case because it was a skin mag and childhood heroes who were never actually my heroes, blah blah blah, but not because of simple sexism.

Smut is smut--I've got no problems with that (speaking as though Robin and Starfire were the only featured characters).  If this were on, say, an internet kink meme, I'd roll my eyes and move on.  De gustibus non disputandum est, and everyone's got different sexual preferences.  Often, in my opinion, shitty, but that's okay.

But this isn't supposed to be straight-up smut, porn, whatever.  This is the story of who Starfire is.  And Starfire is a woman whose sole purpose, whose sole desire, is to satisfy men.

[kaijyuu]

Definition of sexism:

Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.


It's not all about "unequal" treatment.

Reminds me of that saying some people like to toss around: "I'm not racist, I hate everyone equally!" Well if you hate people on the basis of race, regardless of if you hate every race equally, you're still a racist bucko.

Similarly, "Prejudice" denotes a preformed opinion that is applied to some BUT NOT ALL.

Not necessarily all. It still certainly can be.

[ChairmanPoo]

What if it What if the comic book defined Starfire as unisex or being "wasp woman shaped" with male reproductive parts?  Would people still have a problem with the untypical womanly figure?

How the character is presented is important. If the comic book goes out of its way to portray her with "womanly" attributes, and then claims something weird like unisex or having male parts, then it's going to confuse readers. If the reader thinks she's female and she "really" isn't, and is portraying these negative stereotypes, then there's still an issue.

What if it were done specifically to subvert or deconstruct the trope?

You remind me of Sancho Panza.

I've never read Don Quixote so I hope that's a good thing xD

That depends on whether your worldview is more grounded in Romanticism or Pragmatism. Sancho Panza was Don Quixote's sidekick went along with Quixote's claims of knighthood and such on faith, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

I disagree. In the first novel he humored Quixote while trying to keep him from following his madder ideas. While illiterate, he's a practical, down-to-Earth thinking, in contraposition with Quixote's (crazed) idealism.
In the second novel, as Quixote goes progressively saner, he does become  more idealistic (the reasons behind this are open to interpretation), but he's still depicted as a clever man, not a romantic fool (eg: the Barataria incident).

[Bohandas]

Definition of sexism:

Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.


It's not all about unequal treatment.

Two out out the three aspects (and, I might add, the most important two) mentioned in that definition are though. And I should point out that whether stereotyping is part of it varies by definition. Websters defines sexism as "prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women"; In this definition sexism is completely defined as a difference in treatment and opinion.

[Vector]

Bohandas, stereotyping hurts the people stereotyped.

Therefore, stereotyping is part of sexism.

Referring to dictionaries cannot eliminate or alter this essential truth.