Studies show people think feminist men are sexist, and sexist men are feminist.

Discussion in 'Politics & Debate' started by Temporally Displaced, Apr 28, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Temporally Displaced

    Temporally Displaced Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Messages:
    559
    Likes Received:
    46
    That's right. Lots of people (both male and female) cannot tell the difference between a feminist man and a misogynist man.

    There are at least two kinds of sexism. Hostile sexism (HS) is active hostility to, and hatred of women. Benevolent sexism (BS for short) is patronizing towards women, it treats women as fragile, child-like, and innocent. These two types of sexism are not mutually exclusive, people with high levels of HS tend to be full of BS as well (and yes, benevolent sexism was given its name specifically so it could be abbreviated as "BS").

    So you'd naturally expect feminist men who rejected BS to be regarded as upstanding people, while sexist men who endorsed BS to be derided and suspected of being misogynist. Sadly, this is not the case. In her study "Lay misperceptions of the relationship between men's benevolent and hostile sexism," Amy Yeung found that men who rejected benevolent sexism were usually considered to be misogynist, while men who endorsed it were regarded as having positive attitudes towards women. The only exception was when the men explicitly and repeated stated that their rejection of BS was motivated by feminist principles. In that case they were perceived significantly less negatively, but still negatively. This misperception only applied to men, women who rejected BS were correctly regarded as feminist, and women who endorsed it were correctly viewed as sexist.

    Similarly, Rudman and Fetterolf, in their study "How accurate are metaperceptions of sexism? Evidence for the illusion of antagonism between hostile and benevolent sexism" found that most people did not realize that Hostile Sexism and Benevolent Sexism were two sides of the same coin, and assumed that men who displayed BS attitudes towards women would not display HS attitudes as well. Bohner, Alborn, and Steiner did a similar study indicating women did not realize BS was a form of sexism and rated benevolent sexist men as more attractive than nonsexist men.

    I think this explains a lot. If people think that it's misogynist to not put a woman on a pedestal and not treat her as fragile and delicate, then the more successful feminism is, the less successful it will appear. If men are taught that it's good to treat women and men equally, and then act on that belief, society will appear more and more misogynist, since most people believe that treating men and women equally is a sign of misogyny.

    This also means we need to be on the lookout for Benevolent Sexism that is disguised as feminism. If someone says that a man is being sexist because they fail to treat women as emotionally fragile, child-like, pure, etc., that person needs to be called out on it.
     
  2. Fantomn33t

    Fantomn33t Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    3,174
    Likes Received:
    73
    Just to throw in the general forum trends, usually those under your coined "benevolent sexism" individuals usually are the forum
    "White Knights", as such can we use the acronym WK in place of BS because... well BS becomes too jokey.

    Just as well, the issue is of course about contextual ignorance, assuming that the WK's are authentic in trying to help woman and don't understand they are being detrimental in a different manner it is an issue of spreading proper information, sort of the similar issue that with Feminism as a term in general has a good chunk of misinformation spread as it is covers a wide area of topics.
     
  3. Temporally Displaced

    Temporally Displaced Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Messages:
    559
    Likes Received:
    46
    That might be helpful, but I should caution that WK is usually used to refer to men, but women can display Benevolent Sexism too. For instance, a lot of women opposed the Women's Suffrage movement because they thought getting women into politics would taint their fragility and innocence.
     
  4. fluffymoochicken

    fluffymoochicken Guest

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,883
    Likes Received:
    312
    I can relate. I've been called a right-winger just because I don't partake in benevolent sexism.

    It feels really bizarre, too. Here I am, a person who believes in equality for women and respecting them as capable adult human beings, but I'm being told that I'm not a liberal because I think that adult women should be allowed to make their own decisions and watch/participate in a beauty pageant if they so choose to, or that we don't need to tell artists that it's "wrong" to express and celebrate female sexuality just because there's some percentage of women who object to depictions of sexuality.

    It's weird to me that people can call themselves "feminists" while wanting to reduce the freedom of choice for women, to limit the roles women can play in fiction, and to shame and constrict the liberties of artists just to "protect" a group of overly-sensitive women who already had the freedom to not look at sexually evocative works if they don't like them.

    It's so hard to believe that's what passes for feminism these days, in so many people's minds.
     
  5. Gurning Chimp

    Gurning Chimp More Trophy Points Please

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2010
    Messages:
    19,655
    Likes Received:
    2,799
    Hell I admit to having right leaning tendencies and somehow that's automatically a bad thing because I believe all people should be celebrated or called out on their behaviour regardless of race, religion, gender or beliefs.
     
    fluffymoochicken likes this.
  6. Critic_Critic

    Critic_Critic More Trophy Points Please

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2013
    Messages:
    19,235
    Likes Received:
    8,009
    Who's doing that?

    Who's doing that?

    Who's doing that?

    Really? That's their intentions? Because I'm guessing you've never paid actual attention to what any of them had to say. Convenient excuse to make up one of these:

    [​IMG]
     
    Moviefan12 likes this.
  7. Temporally Displaced

    Temporally Displaced Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Messages:
    559
    Likes Received:
    46
    In the case of "people calling themselves feminists who want to limit the choices of women" I would guess that fluffymoochicken is referring to one of these groups:
    1. Feminists who want to take away women's ability to star and act in pornographic movies. Andrea Dworkin is a good example of a prominent person who did this and called herself a feminist.
    2. SWERFs (Sex Worker Exclusionary Radical Feminists) who want to take away women's choices to be a sex worker. Kathleen Barry is an example.
    3. Feminists who want to shame women for choosing to be stay at home moms instead of having a career, because somehow being an office drone is less degrading than being a parent. This isn't a strawman. Sharon Dijksma of the Dutch Labor Party actually tried to get a law passed to financially penalize women for making this choice.

    I would say that 3 is a fairly rare position, but 1 and 2 are fairly common. You should remember that fluffymoochicken didn't say all feminists or even a majority of feminists held these views. They just said some feminists did.

    In terms of "limiting the role women can play in fiction" and "shaming and constricting the liberties of artists," I am guessing that they are referring to the many feminists who complain about the sexualization of female characters in the media. This makes perfect sense, the notion that it is degrading to women to be sexualized is a major part of benevolent sexism. Saying that a character being sexualized is sexist only makes sense to someone who has internalized BS.

    Another thing fluffymoochicken might be referring to is the notion that portraying violence and cruelty against women is somehow worse than portraying violence and cruelty against men. This makes sense if you have internalized BS, since those people consider women to be weak, fragile, and child-like. When "American Psycho" came out there were feminists who claimed it glorified violence against women, and just recently people got ridiculously upset over a variant cover of a "Batgirl" comic that portrayed the Joker attacking Batgirl. Again, saying that that is somehow sexist is full of BS (benevolent sexism).

    I wonder if the reason you think fluffymoochicken is strawmanning is that you are unconsciously engaging in steelmanning. Maybe whenever you hear a crazy feminist argument you assume they are just being inarticulate, and that they really meant to say something reasonable. Sometimes that is the right assumption to make. But other times they really are that crazy.
     
  8. JimB

    JimB More Trophy Points Please

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2011
    Messages:
    11,013
    Likes Received:
    5,365
    I don't say no one at all has such a shallow argument against the cover, but for anyone whose opinions I'd actually bother listening to, that she is being attacked by the Joker has nothing to do with it. The problem is that a tough-as-nails, can-do hero is reduced to a weeping, cringing, simpering puddle of tears and gelatin in a completely uncharacteristic manner instead of gritting her teeth and just fighting back; and that it's a long, hard search to find a single instance of Batman paralyzed by his inability to react to the Joker via any other medium than sobbing.
     
    House, Critic_Critic and Moviefan12 like this.
  9. Critic_Critic

    Critic_Critic More Trophy Points Please

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2013
    Messages:
    19,235
    Likes Received:
    8,009
    Ooh, you must forgive me if I take a moment to revel in this answer. I wasn't expecting to be confronted with a very solid response. Whether he will admit it or not, I'm very confident Fluffymoochicken was actually just referring to Anita Sarkeesian for all three of my questions, but this is better, and totally valid, so I applaud you for that.

    I get that this is a pretty subjective experience-based analysis, but in my experience, none of these are particularly common. Largely because I know a great deal of Sex-Positive Feminists and Feminists who are extremely active in advocating for a safe environment for sex workers. There's a lot of overlap with Feminists who criticize pornography, but I don't know a single one who says women shouldn't be allowed to star and act in pornographic movies. Just that pornographic movies are problematic (there are posters on this board who can better explain that view than myself as I'm decidedly pro-pornography).

    Totally disagree, and thankfully I was able to find a link someone shared with me on Facebook only a little while back that covers this issue probably far better than I ever could: http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/04/empowered-vs-objectified/

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    In actuality, it's more about context. Violence against women is a more sensitive issue than violence against men, so it's very important to see how it's done, rather than getting upset about the very notion of it being done in the first place OR getting very defensive about it being criticized in the first place. For the record, I love American Psycho...

    ...And I totally get why the Batgirl cover was changed, and why it bothered me. There are other people here who can cover that in more detail and better than I could, but the long and short of it was that it was an uncomfortable cover irrelevant to the comic within that would capitalize on traumatic, triggering imagery for nothing much more than shock value, and as the designer pulled it himself, it really should never have been a controversy. If anything, the backlash against that is demonstrative more of internalized HS.

    No, this is a longstanding issue with Fluffymoochicken. You haven't been following it around the forum, but it's pretty specific to him, and a few other similar-minded posters.

    No, actually my attitude is that it is unhelpful to simply write off a person's entire stance, perspective, arguments and beliefs because you can poke holes in maybe one of their ideas. "Be your own Devil's Advocate" is a motto I suggest to people who are hearing or seeing a Feminist's views. Actually listen, actually observe. And instead of finding flaws, ask yourself what points you agree with, what could have led to this individual having this view, and how you can reconcile your opponent and yourself. Because I can guarantee there's more productivity to come from reconciliation than to come from vilification.
     
  10. fluffymoochicken

    fluffymoochicken Guest

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,883
    Likes Received:
    312
    Yup. Obviously, I wouldn't be badmouthing myself, as I do consider myself a feminist.
    Indeed, you hit the nail on the head with that one.

    I feel that sexuality is not something that should be seen as degrading and shameful, and that the people who do think that it is degrading and shameful have a very unhealthy view of sexuality. That's their own personal problem, and it's not fair to shame artists or constrict their creative freedoms just because they don't know how to deal with this particular personal problem themselves.
    Right again. There need not be a double standard. If men are allowed to fight and be heroes in fiction, then women should also be allowed to fight and be heroes in fiction. If men are allowed to be hurt, kidnapped, tortured, etc. in fiction, then women should also be allowed to be hurt, kidnapped, tortured, etc. in fiction.

    What's bizarre about this one is, virtually all feminists agree that we should raise awareness about violence against women, but these certain feminists want to ban and censor any and all depictions violence against women, which would thereby lower awareness of violence against women by making it a sight unseen by many people. What they want is counter-productive, and it's all in the name of "protecting" women from fiction.

    You got everything correct. Well done, man. Finally, someone who understands where I'm coming from, and isn't trying to depict me as some kind of vicious woman-hater or whatnot. I wish I could shake your hand. :D
     
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2015
    Gurning Chimp likes this.
  11. Temporally Displaced

    Temporally Displaced Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Messages:
    559
    Likes Received:
    46
    I think the arguments in the graphic prove too much. In particular, the argument that fictional characters cannot give consent can be used to argue against the author doing anything to characters. For instance you could argue that Bruce Wayne can't consent to undergoing a rigorous training regimen to become Batman. Batman isn't empowering himself by fighting crime, because ultimately the author is the one who is controlling him.

    Ultimately the notion of whether or not a creator has power over a fictional character is not coherent. The storyteller's "power" to shape their fictional world and characters is a completely different kind of "power" from the power a person has to forcibly sexualize someone in real life. The fact that the word "power" is used to describe both of them does not make them the same thing.

    Fictional characters can't consent to things for the same reason rocks can't consent to things, they are not sapient! So arguing that writing a fictional character as wearing sexy clothes is a consent violation in the same way that forcing a real person to wear sexy clothes is absurd. It is equivalent to arguing that cutting a rock in half is a violation in the same way that cutting a human in half is. It isn't wrong to objectify a fictional character, because they really are objects!

    The other points the graphic makes are not as relevant to our discussion, so I won't address them in as much detail, but I also find them problematic for a number of reasons:
    1. The graphic does not argue that sexualization degrades women. It argue that women are already degraded ahead of time by power imbalances, and their sexualization is caused by this. It is degradation that causes sexualization, not the other way around. The problem with this is that a lot of arguments I have seen assume the reverse. They assume that sexualization causes women to be degraded, rather than merely being a symptom of preexisting degradation. One reason I can think of for this is that a lot of people have the internalized BS assumption that sexualization degrades women, and have conflated this with the feminist concept of sexual objectification.
    2. The graphic uses "objectification" to refer to viewing someone as sexual against their desires for you to do so. This presupposes the idea that people have a right to control how other people view them. But that is an argument that proves too much, it is easy to see how absurd it is in a nonsexual context. For instance, by those standards I am objectifying Fred Phelps, because I view him as a hatemonger when he wants me to view him as a righteous soldier of God.
    3. The argument for why some forms of prostitution are objectification also prove too much. They could be generalized to any profession, leading to the conclusion that you are objectifying people by expecting them to work to contribute to society.
    4. The graphic argues that it objectifies women to view them as sexual when they don't want to be. However, it seems like a lot of women don't want to be viewed as sexual because they believe it objectifies them! This is an obvious paradox. I would again suggest that maybe a lot of people conflate objectification with the BS idea that sexualization degrades women.

    But why is it a sensitive issue? I suspect that it is partly because BS views women as fragile and child-like (violence against children is also a more sensitive issue). If we were to base our reactions to violence purely on how common it is, man-on-man violence would be the most sensitive.

    As for why people get very defensive about it being criticized, I imagine it is because they think they are being called sexist, and our society teaches people that if you are sexist you are a Very Bad Person, the Scum of the Earth. People don't like being told that they are dominating sociopath who hates women, wants to keep them as slaves in the kitchen, wants to abuse them, etc. And considering how damaging an accusation of sexism can be, it's only natural that people would get defensive about it.
     
  12. Moviefan12

    Moviefan12 More Trophy Points Please

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2010
    Messages:
    11,759
    Likes Received:
    5,288
    In terms of the Batgirl cover. It was demeaning to her character and from what I understand, overall had nothing to do with the story that was being told in that issue. Men are shown as being strong all the time and was there an overreaction to that cover? Maybe but even though I am fairly new to comics, I side with the party that found it offensive because there was no need to bring up that part of her past. Especially considering that it had nothing to do with the comic. Look I mostly know Batgirl from Batman: The Animated Series and Young Justice and even there, I can tell you that Barbra Gordon was presented as strong character and that cover almost seemed to be diminishing all of her strengths just to make a quick buck. The creative team on Batgirl were even against it and I can't blame them. You wanna do something with The Joker, that's fine but it could have been something else other than that.

    Wow, just wow. I can't believe I'm saying this but that is one of the craziest things I've read in quite a while. The issue a lot of feminists have is that they are tired of women in fiction being treated as nothing more than a damsel in distress and with so many strong female characters popping up, whether it be Elsa, Black Widow, or any others, those characters show stride in making progress in breaking away from that trope. And Batgirl is another name to add to that list but a stunt like that tasteless cover puts things 3 steps back.
     
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2015
    Critic_Critic likes this.
  13. fluffymoochicken

    fluffymoochicken Guest

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,883
    Likes Received:
    312
    I've seen this a lot in discussions from Anita Sarkeesian and her supporters. There's lots of statements along the lines of "This game objectifies women!" or "That game objectifies women!", when in fact the games they're accusing are not guilty of doing any objectification to their female characters. The perceived sexy woman in the games they scorn are only objectified if the person viewing her chooses to objectify her.

    For instance, when I think of Bayonetta, I think of a strong, sexy, and empowered woman who has a deep history and backstory explaining how she came to be the person that she is, as well as a fleshed-out, unique, and really fun personality. When Anita Sarkeesian thinks of Bayonetta, she chooses to ignore all aspects of her humanity and instead focuses in on her outward appearances, then labels her a "fighting fucktoy".

    So Anita thinks of Bayonetta as little more than a fighting object designed for sexual gratification, but I see her as a person. The game is not doing the objectifying; Anita Sarkeesian is doing the objectifying. In fact, in nearly every instance of Anita accusing games of "objectifying", it is really she herself who is doing the objectifying. Nobody has to view a hostage as "an object to be won" instead of a person in need of rescue, but she chooses to say that they've been labeled as objects anyway.
     
  14. Critic_Critic

    Critic_Critic More Trophy Points Please

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2013
    Messages:
    19,235
    Likes Received:
    8,009
    I never got an answer, who's doing that?

    Still a strawman to rephrase their argument for them as them just not being able to cope with personal problems.

    Who's doing this?

    Explain.

    Is there someone here who has tried to depict you as some kind of woman-hater? Or is that another pseudo-narrative you want to feign?

    Do explain how the graphic invokes that particular fallacy.

    No, because consent is not a pivotal issue in undergoing training. Consent is an issue in sexual exploitation. There's a significant difference between the two, and I'm a teensy bit wary that this isn't clear from the outset.

    No, but image isn't suggesting they're the same thing, the image is suggesting that their differences are irrelevant in terms of how they relate to the notion of consent, and sexual objectification.

    Wait, did you actually just compare women to rocks?

    Okay, nevermind that, the point is that we don't consider the feelings and situations and experiences of rocks in our culture as something of value that faces sociological issues we need to combat. Women do. So do men. Comparing women to non-sapient objects is an inadequate comparison, because women are not rocks.

    Just to be clear, the comic is demonstrating the difference between Sexual Empowerment and Sexual Objectification. I'd like to keep those terms in mind, because "consent violation" makes this issue sound like someone's being raped in this example. They are being objectified. That's the pivotal issue.

    Keep in mind the final line: "It is the responsibility of the creator to portray active consent as if the character were flesh and blood". In other words, if a male writer/designer is going to dress a female character in sexually alluring outfits, there should exist a contextual in-universe justification for the decision. The problem is all too often their reasoning is "men like teh boobz" That's objectification.

    Oh Jesus Christ. Please tell me I don't have to explain to you that objectification is wrong to begin with. That there's real-world consequences to the ideologies perpetrated by our media. That the pop culture trend of sexually objectifying women has contributed to societal sense that women have more worth for their appearance than their personality, that they have to starve or vomit out meals or endanger their well-being to look good, that their ability to fornicate is their only opportunity to have value, and which limits the roles and positions that people are ready to accept them in the world. I assumed when we came into this discussion with everyone saying they're a Feminist, that would mean we could all at least agree that Women's Issues should be being confronted and solved, and that objectifying women is bad, and we should be working towards seeing their characters in the media with the same agency and dimensionality as male characters in the media.

    Both wrong. Likely a wrong reading of the graphic, and wrong arguments that you say you've seen. The system is cyclical. That is, power imbalances degrade women. Sexual objectification is a symptom of this degradation. However, sexual objectification reenforces the power imbalance. Which means it's a self-perpetuating problem, rather than a one-way cause and effect dynamic.

    No, the actual line I believe you're referring to is: "On the flip side, even a person who is modestly dressed can be objectified if the "looking" person makes a non-sexual situation sexual without the "looked at" person's permission". The image shows speech bubbles calling out "What a prude!" and "I'd tap that!". Note that these are speech bubbles, not thought bubbles. Nobody is saying that people have a right to control how other people look at or view them. However, the actions people take because they're viewing them as sexual objects tilt the power dynamics away from sexual empowerment.

    No, you'd be objectifying Fred Phelps if you went out of your way to empower yourself at his expense. (I.e. kidnapping him, gagging him and tying him in your basement for you to torture later as stress relief)

    Yeah, that argument doesn't make sense. We're discussing sexual objectification. If someone is pulled into a life of prostitution because they have no other options, they don't desire to do so, and they're abused, discriminated against and criminalized for their circumstance, they are not being empowered, they are being objectified. Other professions aren't comparable to prostitution. Many of these prostitutes would not be able to hold those other professions, be it due to experience or discrimination not getting them these positions to begin with, or due to these positions not providing enough financial support for them to get by on. I'm not sure if you're willfully misunderstanding the comic's argument or not, but read it again please.

    No it isn't. Are you misunderstanding paradoxes? Are you misunderstanding that sexual objectification is its own thing, and it's not like "sexualization leads to objectification, objectification leads to sexualization, therefore sexual objectification cannot exist" ?

    It's faulty logic, however you're misunderstanding it. You've taken power and consent out of the equation, and what those terms mean. If a women wants to be viewed as sexual, you can (that is to clarify, it is possible to) sexualize them without removing from them their power and consent. If a women does not want to be viewed as sexual, sexualizing them is objectifying them regardless of their reasons for not wanting to be viewed as sexual.

    That's simply how society is. If you want to start a movement against violence in the media between men because you feel it should be more of a sensitive issue, then go for it.

    See, this is where I have a problem. Both Hostile Sexism and Benevolent Sexism sound like bad things to me, but juxtaposing BS as an excuse to blame Feminist sensibilities of wanting to combat the issues that they face instead of male-on-male violence is willfully misappropriating our values and notably enabling HS. Which I knew would be my problem with this thread to begin with.

    Whether you have outright aggressive hatred of women or a generally patronizing and demeaning view of women, both are bad, but all too often I see the excuse of "it demeans women to view them as fragile" as an enabler of hostile aggression against women. I've seen rape apologists tell me that vilifying rapists, trying to combat the act of rape, to restrict its commonality, get rapists properly prosecuted, even sympathizing with the victim "assumes women to be fragile creatures incapable of getting over their situations themselves". THAT is when I call BS on your BS, and say that pretending fighting for a good cause is some sort of benevolent prejudice is just twisting values into a horrifying way, and I don't support it one bit.

    I almost couldn't care about their reasons for getting defensive about it being criticized. It will never be a bead of sweat off yours, mine or anyone here's back if a movie or game gets criticized for being violent. I love American Psycho, but if people want to criticize it for its violence, they can do so however or whensoever they want! It simply doesn't affect me, and oversensitivity as though it's a personal affront to criticize an unrelated piece of media is overstepping your bounds as an individual.

    Honestly, I see people being accused of sexism all the time, and I've never seen the slightest bit of an inconvenience affect them for the accusation.
     
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2015
    Moviefan12 likes this.
  15. fluffymoochicken

    fluffymoochicken Guest

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,883
    Likes Received:
    312
    *Removed part of my post. My sincere apologies to MovieFan12.
    Women in fiction aren't exclusively being treated as nothing more than a damsels in distress, nor have they been.


    Now, even aside from the benevolent sexism issue, if you make female superheroes who always effortlessly win with no chances of them ever being harmed in any way, then you run the risk of making them extremely boring and uninteresting heroes. Imagine how hard it is to get people invested in a nigh-invincible guy like Superman, only much worse.
     
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2015
  16. Critic_Critic

    Critic_Critic More Trophy Points Please

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2013
    Messages:
    19,235
    Likes Received:
    8,009
    Wait, so after complaining of people fictionally calling you sexist, you actually just called another poster sexist?

    :banghead

    No one said anything about exclusivity. But if you don't see it as the verrrry common trope it is, then I don't know what to say. Maybe that it's a very nice dreamland you live in. Where everything's all equality and positive multidimensional depictions in the media.

    Thankfully that's not actually what people are asking for. #NeverStopWithTheStraw

    Isn't he like the most popular superhero of all time or something?
     
    JimB and Moviefan12 like this.
  17. Moviefan12

    Moviefan12 More Trophy Points Please

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2010
    Messages:
    11,759
    Likes Received:
    5,288
    Only second to Batman.

    Thank you, this has been a problem for years and people are getting tired of it. We aren't asking for tough as nails female characters that can kick ass. Even though some of them undoubtedly can but we want female characters that are able to go beyond the trope that has been around for centuries.
     
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2015
    Critic_Critic likes this.
  18. Antiyonder

    Antiyonder Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    1,132
    Likes Received:
    69
    Some would also argue that it had to do additionally with Batgirl being fearful, rather than defiant.

    Whereas had it been Batman, Nightwing or Robin in that position, they wouldn't be drawn being fearful.


    As for the problem outside comics, sure getting harassed and/or assaulted, especially sexually is a strong possibility for our gender, probably more than we think, but does it happen to the same exact frequent way it does to female victims?

    I mean take conventions for starter. If a guy goes to a con as He-Man, Hercules or say Conan the Barbarian, is he going to be subject to a lot of unpleasant calls or having female attendees in the same way that a cosplaying woman will if she goes as say Elektra?

    Or heck, as much as it would seem that rape towards men are overlooked, how many times do you hear something along the lines of "well he shouldn't be showing off his chest muscles if he doesn't want to be assaulted"?

    Plus while my thoughts go out to the rape victim first and foremost, there is a non-white knight reason to be troubled by rape even more by man on woman rape. Mainly cause it further paints out gender in a bad light.

    And the victim blamers? Ironically enough the attempt to defend a male rapist tends to be a put down (i.e. they can't help it when in the presence of a sexy woman), which is a slap in the face towards the guys that show a good deal of restraint and self-control.
     
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2015
    Critic_Critic and Moviefan12 like this.
  19. AstaKask

    AstaKask More Trophy Points Please

    Joined:
    May 10, 2013
    Messages:
    2,632
    Likes Received:
    1,323
    Would you accept that women in fiction has a more limited range of roles than men do?
     
    Critic_Critic and Moviefan12 like this.
  20. JimB

    JimB More Trophy Points Please

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2011
    Messages:
    11,013
    Likes Received:
    5,365
    By what standard do you judge this issue?

    First time I've ever done a spit-take without anything in my mouth.
     
    House, Critic_Critic and Moviefan12 like this.
  21. fluffymoochicken

    fluffymoochicken Guest

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,883
    Likes Received:
    312
    Maybe? I don't know? Do you have proof of it to show me? (Not just some anecdotes, please?)

    Either way, that's not what I was talking about. Plus, if they were solely campaigning to increase the number of roles in fiction for women, then I'd be right there with them. But that's not what their primary focus is, most times.

    Instead, they are hoping to limit who women can be, what they can do, or what can happen to them in ways that men are not subjected to.
     
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2015
  22. fluffymoochicken

    fluffymoochicken Guest

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,883
    Likes Received:
    312
    Do you not know the difference between the words "depict" and "call"?
     
  23. Critic_Critic

    Critic_Critic More Trophy Points Please

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2013
    Messages:
    19,235
    Likes Received:
    8,009
    For the record, it's diversity of roles. Number and diversity of roles. Rather than playing one-dimensional love interests in every other film, or damsels in distress for a three-dimensional male hero to rescue over and over and over again.

    C'est l'homme de paille. Le sigh.

    You said "It would only seem crazy to someone who doesn't truly view women as being completely equal to men" in response to Moviefan saying "that is one of the craziest things I've read in quite a while." The word "depict" isn't even in there. You blatantly called him sexist, don't try to pretend you didn't, none of us are stupid enough to fall for that.
     
    Moviefan12 likes this.
  24. fluffymoochicken

    fluffymoochicken Guest

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,883
    Likes Received:
    312
     
  25. JimB

    JimB More Trophy Points Please

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2011
    Messages:
    11,013
    Likes Received:
    5,365
    Do you ever notice how when you're faced with what you represent as someone misunderstanding your point, you almost never actually clarify what you were trying to say, instead asking aggressive questions intended to put your accusers on the defensive? I bring it up because it seems like to me if Critic_Critic was actually misunderstanding you, the quickest way to correct that would be to stop insulting his intelligence and just explain yourself, which makes me think Critic_Critic isn't misunderstanding you at all and you're just trying to deflect attention from his accurate summary of your position.
     
    House and Critic_Critic like this.
  26. Critic_Critic

    Critic_Critic More Trophy Points Please

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2013
    Messages:
    19,235
    Likes Received:
    8,009
    Oh, I see. So if I try to depict you as a misogynist, you'll get all upset, but if I straight-up call you a misogynist you won't mind?

    Just for clarity's sake. I mean, it comes to the same end anyways, the difference in terms doesn't matter much here.
     
  27. fluffymoochicken

    fluffymoochicken Guest

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,883
    Likes Received:
    312
    Nah. I was just pointing out how you were putting words in my mouth.

    That's all I really wanted to show. We should get back on topic, now.
     
  28. Critic_Critic

    Critic_Critic More Trophy Points Please

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2013
    Messages:
    19,235
    Likes Received:
    8,009
  29. Moviefan12

    Moviefan12 More Trophy Points Please

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2010
    Messages:
    11,759
    Likes Received:
    5,288
    As the person that comment was directed at, it is a bit uncomfortable and it does feel as though you are doing what you have accused others of doing for so long. It is rather unfortunate that you felt the need to say that as I've tried to be nothing but kind to you. However, a comment like that makes me question my decision. I would have hoped you would know that from my posts and what I have said in the past that I am for equality for both genders but that appears not to be the case. If I upset you with my comment I apologize. But do understand that even though I still hold true what I said about how women have had it hard for a long time and comments like the ones you've made seem to dismiss what they've gone through as though it was no big deal. And that is why I get irritated, when I see things like what you said. Going back to how this all got started, characters like the aforementioned Batgirl serve as role models for young girls and how would you feel if a young girl saw that cover and Batgirl happened to be her favorite superhero? She be scared and rightly so. Stuff like that is sending the wrong message.
     
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2015
    Critic_Critic likes this.
  30. Critic_Critic

    Critic_Critic More Trophy Points Please

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2013
    Messages:
    19,235
    Likes Received:
    8,009
    Relating back to the OP, my problem is the tactic of writing off people who say this as practicing Benevolent Sexism, as Fluffymoochicken did. Because when it comes down to it, they see the practice of accepting women face inequality and challenging these issues as saying "women are fragile, delicate things". That to me is making much more of a big deal over their small impression then stretched to a grand generalization which conveniently derails the conversation from actually trying to solve the genuine issue at hand.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page