And I finds me another good thread to be posting this- naturally, I was late to the party again...
but I'm gonna post it anyways, even if it might be nsfw (due to language, maybe even subject matter).
|
I might be late to the party too, but I feel a need to point out something which I find very important.
Early on in the thread, I think it was the very first page, some people were saying something along the lines of, "But look, there are all sorts of girl who are not portrayed as sexual objects! Saying that women are being presented wrongfully is an overstatement! I can even back up my claims by giving you the following examples of women who are not being presented in a sexual connotation..." and then there will be a list of female characters who are not being presented as sex toys.
This is not a valid comparison. It will be similar to having a killer defend himself by saying, "Well maybe I killed person A, but look! Person B and person C are still alive! I may have shot A but I didn't shot B and C, I am not guilty!"
I am aware that the example is a little bit false since unlike murder, false portrayal of women is not an irredeemable crime if done sparingly and with self awareness. However, a huge enough % of female characters are portrayed as sex toys for there to be a very solid ground to claim that things are not good as they are right now. The existence of female characters who are not objectified is not enough by itself - sexualizing women has to be the exception that proves the rule for us to be a healthy, positive community in this regard.
Edits: corrected some embarrasing grammer, some mistkes might still be found. please excuse my second langauge level of writing in Enligh >_<
I think that the way forward to real progress on this issue is to start objectifying men as well.
I'll start: ooh, Lord Snow, you've got some sexy tusks. Get in the kitchen and make me a sandwich!
|
|
I think that the way forward to real progress on this issue is to start objectifying men as well.
I'll start: ooh, Lord Snow, you've got some sexy tusks. Get in the kitchen and make me a sandwich!
Aye sir, m'lord, right away, sir.
While I'm at it, why don't you be a real man and wash my clothes?
[Bends over and wiggles his bottom in a suggestive way]
How much starch would you like in your collars, mammoth-boy? Also, your trunk reminds me of a really huge...
And now I shall objectify Feytharn:
"Ooh, you've got a pretty mouth."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just a reminder sexualization =/= objectifying. Women are as sexual people as men.
Mincing terms: sexuality =/= objectification.
Sexualization, or turning the purpose of a character into a sexual object rather than a character with sexuality, is objectification.
Objectification of men or women is not bad in and of itself. But writers ought to be conscious of when they are doing this, and not merely applying it out of laziness or ignorance. I think that's the only thing that really bothers me about it.
I don't have a problem with sexualized women. What I can't stand is women going into combat in completely impractical armor and clothing. Exposed vitals, high heels, and almost naked double D breats are all irritating as all get out. Out of combat sexiness, however, is much appreciated.
|
Just a reminder sexualization =/= objectifying. Women are as sexual people as men.Mincing terms: sexuality =/= objectification.
Sexualization, or turning the purpose of a character into a sexual object rather than a character with sexuality, is objectification.
Objectification of men or women is not bad in and of itself. But writers ought to be conscious of when they are doing this, and not merely applying it out of laziness or ignorance. I think that's the only thing that really bothers me about it.
Objectification (in this context) is the treatment of a being with disregard of its (his, her) personality and sentience - I would define that as a bad thing undless part of roleplaying (the other kind). Sexualization is not (sexual objectification is). Sorry but I have to disagree with you. Sexualization (in this context) would be treating / depicting someone in sexual context. That could be objectification (turning that person into a sexual OBJECT, while often demonizing - sometimes literally - sexual desire and sexual free will of women), but it could as well be in terms with that someones personality and free will (as a sexual SUBJECT).
It might be nitpicking, but after a professor had a very heated and bad argument with some (female) students about the use of those terms and the implication that NOT differenciating would imply that women could or shopuld have no 'sexual will' or should not be 'sexual subjects' in a class of mine, I did a paper for that class looking at the historical context 'sexualizing women' (indeed almost always sexually objectifying them) that made me understand some of the scorn my fellow students felt about that topic.
|
I don't have a problem with sexualized women. What I can't stand is women going into combat in completely impractical armor and clothing. Exposed vitals, high heels, and almost naked double D breats are all irritating as all get out. Out of combat sexiness, however, is much appreciated.
Therein lies the problem. What offends A, might not offend B. What offends B, might not offend C. And what offends C, might not offend either A or B.
Paizo has two choices: To just go ahead and do what they're going to do, without worrying much about who they offend, or to produced such a bland and generic product that it has little danger of offending anyone. Of those two choices, I consider the first to be infinitely superior.
I don't have a problem with sexualized women. What I can't stand is women going into combat in completely impractical armor and clothing. Exposed vitals, high heels, and almost naked double D breats are all irritating as all get out. Out of combat sexiness, however, is much appreciated.Therein lies the problem. What offends A, might not offend B. What offends B, might not offend C. And what offends C, might not offend either A or B.
Paizo has two choices: To just go ahead and do what they're going to do, without worrying much about who they offend, or to produced such a bland and generic product that it has little danger of offending anyone.
Pretty much. Paizo is going to get slammed no matter what they do.
Therein lies the problem. What offends A, might not offend B. What offends B, might not offend C. And what offends C, might not offend either A or B.
Hence, they maintain their disgusting position of objectifying goblins. It makes me sick! Sick, I tell you!
Did I ever tell you, Feytharn, that you have a pretty mouth?
Objectification (in this context) is the treatment of a being with disregard of its (his, her) personality and sentience - I would define that as a bad thing undless part of roleplaying (the other kind). Sexualization is not (sexual objectification is). Sorry but I have to disagree with you. Sexualization (in this context) would be treating / depicting someone in sexual context. That could be objectification (turning that person into a sexual OBJECT, while often demonizing - sometimes literally - sexual desire and sexual free will of women), but it could as well be in terms with that someones personality and free will (as a sexual SUBJECT).
It might be nitpicking, but after a professor had a very heated and bad argument with some (female) students about the use of those terms and the implication that NOT differenciating would imply that women could or shopuld have no 'sexual will' or should not be 'sexual subjects' in a class of mine, I did a paper for that class looking at the historical context 'sexualizing women' (indeed almost always sexually objectifying them) that made me understand some of the scorn my fellow students felt about that topic.
Harking back to Jess' edit of the PHB cover, sexualization was the problem. That is, the character was shown in a sexual context when it was inappropriate to the rest of the illustration. No insult, but I've always found the objectification/sexualization differentiation to be a bit of a dodge.
Ooh, Hitdice, your armor platings are so...suggestive....
Back in the kennel, Doodlebug!
|
|
No offence taken, but I haven't tried to dodge anything, in fact I haven't argued pro or contra any kind of illustration in this thread. I just learned (in part through the work on said paper)that not differenciating between sexual objectification and sexualization often (note: often, not always I don't mean to imply that any poster here shares that mindset) follows the (sometimes unconcious) mindset, that sexual desire and acting sexually are male-only traits.
I wasn't saying it was a dodge on your part Fey, just another example of "stealth male bias," if you see what I mean.
If a person of either gender wants to go out and get laid on the weekends (or whenever) that's their business and no one else's, but I don't think anyone calls that "sexualizing myself." I'm not accusing anyone on the thread of doing this, but if sexual will is the only kind of will a person talks about, they've been sexualized and they don't even know it.
This has much to do with the false equivalency of beef and cheesecake that Jess pointed out.
No offence taken, but I haven't tried to dodge anything, in fact I haven't argued pro or contra any kind of illustration in this thread. I just learned (in part through the work on said paper)that not differenciating between sexual objectification and sexualization often (note: often, not always I don't mean to imply that any poster here shares that mindset) follows the (sometimes unconcious) mindset, that sexual desire and acting sexually are male-only traits.
I still think you're on firmer ground with the word sexuality than sexualization. But I see what you're driving at, I'm am — as previously mentioned — mincing terms.
You might even be right - the paper and the discussion were in my native language - German. While the words are similar (and seem similar from looking them up), there might be differences I don't notice. I think, we might talk about the same while using different terms - so, no big deal.
In that case, indulge me a moment:
Sexualize is an active verb which implies that the thing in question was not sexual before it was sexualized. Discussing it under terms of sexuality accepts that everyone has that aspect of their life in some form, and it isn't a "process" that's necessary to impart or even rehabilitate a whole gender into participating.
I'm not sure what the scholarly opinion is in English either, but that's the language that I think is most fair.
As said above, we largely agree anyway, so it's something of a non-issue.