|
Discussions here on the boards heightened my awareness of such art:
Science fiction authors attack sexism amid row over SFWA magazine
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's almost impressive to see every single pro-chain mail-bikini lined up in one post.
But we don't need this thread: the debate has been covered at great length in other threads.
Suffice to say: Sunbeam, search out those threads and each of your paper-thin arguments will be pulped.
Oh,and congratulations on being a man.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
OHWFA! supports the discussion of hawt female writers of yore.
OHWFA! does not support misogynist hate mail against females who disagree.
OHWFA! does not support ordering female sci-fi writers to get male sci-fi writers coffee.
OHWFA! has no position on chain-mail bikinis on cartoon characters.
OHWFA! does support chain-mail bikinis on live human beings who want to wear them, though.
|
Here's to hoping this thread doesn't die just because we've argued about it before. Opinions change over time and arguments evolve.
Right or wrong, I'm not ashamed to admit I recently both Godwin's The Cold Equations primarily because of the cover--turns out, it's one of the best collections I've ever read, bar-none. Had it been published with a plain cover, I'd likely have never glanced at it twice.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with Sunbeam here. I'll add something new to the table when I can.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's almost impressive to see every single pro-chain mail-bikini lined up in one post.
But we don't need this thread: the debate has been covered at great length in other threads.
Suffice to say: Sunbeam, search out those threads and each of your paper-thin arguments will be pulped.
Oh,and congratulations on being a man.
It is rare to see such a classic example of an Ad Hominem.
Thank you, GeraintElberion for that wonderful demonstration.
|
Paizo staff are some of the most right-on people you will meet, but they still put sexy babes on the cover of stuff. It has been discussed before - put an ugly dwarf (i.e. the race) on the cover, it doesn't sell as well as having a sexy babe on the cover. People may not like it, they may chose to boycott it, but until the rest of society follows suit this will not change. I don't think that most people will buy something just because of the cover, but as Andrew says above, you are probably more likely to pick something up and find out more about it - i.e. potentially buying it - than if the cover was plain or aesthetically unpleasing.
OHWFA! does not support misogynist hate mail against females who disagree.
...so, non-misogynistic hate mail against females who disagree is okay? :p
(Tip of the day: Don't be a douche. Don't send hate mail to anyone, m'kay?)
...note to self: add Slaunyeh to Hate Mail list at earliest convienence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hate mail is for pathetic losers. If they REALLY wanted to cause a ruckus, it's far better to send the target's email address to a hundred or so porn sites, for further distribution to the central spam-delivery organizations.
...note to self: add Slaunyeh to Hate Mail list at earliest convienence.
I would much rather be on your Hat Mail List, sir!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OHWFA! does not support misogynist hate mail against females who disagree....so, non-misogynistic hate mail against females who disagree is okay? :p
(Tip of the day: Don't be a douche. Don't send hate mail to anyone, m'kay?)
OHWFA! does not have a position on hate mail in general.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of words, but to heck with this Neopuritanism.
This isn't about puritanical beliefs or an effort to "de-smutify" SF. It's about treating half of the human race as something other than eye-candy.
And really, so few people responded to the cover as their main issue with this... issue. It was just a visual reminder of the casual and unconcerned sexism that exists in the SF (and by extension, fantasy) industry.
Luckily for you, I don't think you have anything to worry about, you'll continue to have all the bosoms and bums your heart desires, and young women will get to be continually reminded every time they go to purchase genre fiction that, by and large, they exist to satisfy men's fantasies. Because sex sells, and the dollar is the bottom line.
But if they're good, "those people" will be hopefully be able to "maintain [their] quiet dignity, like a woman should."
OHWFA! does not have a position on hate mail in general.
Doodlebug, what does OHWFA stand for, please?
"Men are bad and the stuff men like is bad" isn't going to work in a base thats so heavily male dominated. Beating people to a pulp with swords and blowing their heads off with bolts of flame or laser pistols is always going to appeal to more guys than women.
And isn't that a scale mail bikini?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now see, you've managed to put things in a box you find convenient. One that fits the basic assumptions of your world view.
Boy, howdy, have I ever!
Answer this question: Is there anything wrong with being eye-candy?
Nothing at all, I hope someday somebody will find themselves liking the way I look. :)
An exhibitionist?
Nope. If that's what makes you happy, and if you can find people who aren't put off by you exhibiting yourself, then it sounds like you've got a great match going.
If so, what is the rationale?
I don't. So, no rationale.
Do you view people who like to be looked at as less than you in some way?
Of course not. That's silly! I myself, would like to have somebody find me attractive. I think a lot of people do.
What I'm hearing from you is that you think you are some kind of enlightened individual, whereas it seems to me you want to impose your values on other people.
I apologize if I gave you that impression. I would really just prefer that people take into consideration that their actions affect more people than just themselves.
I'd actually think most people in the SF industry would at least profess values you would be comfortable with.
I actually think that , too!
Whether their behavior follows from those things is another matter.
I believe that if folks are able to avoid internalizing sexist views, their behavior generally follows suit.
Hmmm I gather from you that if I were to purchase something with a lurid cover, that means I want every woman I meet to "Make me a sandwich?"
You are really bad at gathering! :)
I occasionally like sexy stuff. I think there's a place for sexy stuff.
There's nothing wrong with finding somebody attractive, or wanting to feel attractive. The problem lies in feeling that that's the only reason anyone would want to pay attention to you. That all you are is eye-candy. That all you have to contribute in a meeting of your peers is your ability to get coffee.
Objectifiers of Hawt Women for Anita (Sarkeesian)!
Thank you.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Men are bad and the stuff men like is bad" isn't going to work in a base thats so heavily male dominated.
Good grief! Who's arguing that? I'd call that a pretty radical interpretation of the text.
I had a similar conversation with my six year old nephew a few weeks ago:
Me: "Honey, don't pick your nose and wipe it on stuff, use a tissue."
Him: "Wahhhhh!"
Me: "What's wrong?"
Him: "You hate me!"
Me: TT_TT
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
For the record, as a SFWA member, the controversy wasn't over the chainmail bikini cover nearly as much as Reznick and Malzberg's thoroughly dumb response to it in the most recent issue, in which they accused anyone who disagreed with them of being a fascist and censoring free speech, etc. (Which is silly, when you consider that the SFWA Bulletin is the official publication of a professional organization.) They used the Bulletin as a soapbox for their Angry Old White Guy rant, and the SFWA membership responded overwhelmingly that we don't want to be represented by that. To call that censorship, as they did, is like saying that someone who doesn't vote for you for public office is somehow "censoring" your views.
In any case, it seems like this thread is in serious danger of slewing away from the original issue into a broader discussion which, as noted, already has assorted threads on these boards. Please stay on topic and be nice to each other. We're all friends here (or should try to be).
For the record, as a SFWA member, the controversy wasn't over the chainmail bikini cover nearly as much as Reznick and Malzberg's thoroughly dumb response to it in the most recent issue, in which they accused anyone who disagreed with them of being a fascist and censoring free speech, etc. (Which is silly, when you consider that the SFWA Bulletin is the official publication of a professional organization.) They used the Bulletin as a soapbox for their Angry Old White Guy rant, and the SFWA membership responded overwhelmingly that we don't want to be represented by that. To call that censorship, as they did, is like saying that someone who doesn't vote for you for public office is somehow "censoring" your views.
In any case, it seems like this thread is in serious danger of slewing away from the original issue into a broader discussion which, as noted, already has assorted threads on these boards. Please stay on topic and be nice to each other. We're all friends here (or should try to be).
I'm sorry. I've been more fussy than usual, lately. I need to go back to my usual sleep schedule.
Apologies all around.
"Men are bad and the stuff men like is bad" isn't going to work in a base thats so heavily male dominated.Good grief! Who's arguing that? I'd call that a pretty radical interpretation of the text.
I had a similar conversation with my six year old nephew a few weeks ago:
Me: "Honey, don't pick your nose and wipe it on stuff, use a tissue."
Him: "Wahhhhh!"
Me: "What's wrong?"
Him: "You hate me!"
Me: TT_TT
What do you have against boogers? You prude!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What do you have against boogers? You prude!
There I go again, leaving out vital information.
His boogers are highly acidic, and we were in the State Hermitage in Saint-Petersburg. I didn't want him melting Peter I.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, well then, that explains it.
Discussions here on the boards heightened my awareness of such art:
Science fiction authors attack sexism amid row over SFWA magazine
Another thing that hasn't been brought up is that the actual image is kind of "meh."
There are so many better images (including a chainmail bikini clad woman) that could have been used.
That said, a cover featuring a woman in a skimpy outfit in an impossible pose probably advertises something misogynistic. I can't find the article, but a scifi author hired an acrobat to pose in the poses used on his covers and a professional acrobat couldn't achieve some of the chest-and-butt-stuck-out-with-back-arched-and-bending-over poses.
Check out The Hawkeye Initiative.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem wasn't just the chainmail bikini. (I have no problem with scifi/fantasy art of scantily clad women (heck, I have some of it hanging in my home). The problem is when that's the only way, or the overwhelming majority of the ways, women are shown, because it communicates that women are only there to be decorative.) It was the chainmail bikini on an issue that also had two male authors discussing how they thought their female editors and colleagues looked in bikinis.
I am a professional, and no colleague of mine should be discussing in a professional context (or any public context, really) how they think I'd look in a bikini. That's irrelevant to my job. It has no place in an industry publication. That, in combination with the cover, made the SFWA look like an organization that didn't consider women to be legitimate professionals.
Edit: ninja'd by Sutter
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is not being scantly clad, the problem is that the women wearing those revealing clothes are also standing in poses that imply one thing and one thing only - that they are sexual objects.
Scantly clad males will display a muscular body standing in an empowering way, showing how strong they are. Women will be standing in such ways that you could usually see both their breasts and their backsides, and if not so then at least you have to make sure their crotch is hidden behind nothing more than a piece of cloth that can blow away with even the slightest gust of wind, because it's suggestive.
constructing an image like that is not about creating "eye candy" or showing something that has to do with the book - it's about getting the attention of men by showing them what they expect to see.
This is highly immoral since right now, the world is a tougher place to live in for a girl. I can only imagine the constant humiliations. Any and all book covers that portray women as sexual objects propagate and exacerbate the current situation.
The argument that the industry can sell better with such covers is moronic at best. You can also get more money in life by stealing for supermarkets or not paying in restaurants or any number of other ways, each of them every bit as immoral as being a sexist in public.
This goes for Paizo too, by the way. One of the only thing they are at fault with is sexist art in their products - I hope that if their argument is "but we need more money and these covers sell better", that they will also be totally cool with people downloading their books from free online - those people want more money, too, and they are getting it by not paying for the stuff they want. It's not as if Paizo stuff want more money because they can't afford food, they want it because they spend money on improving their lives, buying books and going to movies. And if the argument is "but bikini babes are part of the genre"... well, I guess that that's a good enough reason to propagate sexism in our world. Sure.
Without scanty clothes and impossible poses on women, there would never have been a Hawkeye initiative.
|
|
Weird...I actually find women more attractive in normal clothing. In fact, I'd say that the iconic picture of Iomedae, in plate armour with a long cloak, is way way better than any picture of Dejah Thoris. Heck, that's why I play a female Paladin, despite being male and not particularly strong. Now I'm not a prude or a stern elder in a Scottish church, I'm just stating my preference.
What annoys me is that there are plenty of strong Sci-Fi female characters who *aren't* competitors for Miss Fanservice: Commander Ivanova from Babylon 5; Captain Janeway from Voyager (OK, a flawed character, but a positive step forward); and Rommie and Beka Valentine from Andromeda. Yet still...the Red Sonja archetype is the standard trope used for women in Sci-Fi, while for men it's a power-armoured space marine. This, I feel, could be inverted.
I shall end with a rant that explains this as being why I stopped liking Mass Effect. Excluding femSheps, there were three strong female characters in the first one, and none were fan-service-y: Ashley wore flak armour; Tali wore an encounter suit; Liara wore a lab coat. All were talented in a particular area, all had well-developed characters and arcs; all were realistic. Then in ME2, we got Australian catsuit lady, a psychic who wore her tattoos, and an alien warrior-nun with a Power-Girl-esque suit window. And none of them were nearly as compelling as the ladies in the previous game... OK, rant over
|
|
The problem is not being scantly clad, the problem is that the women wearing those revealing clothes are also standing in poses that imply one thing and one thing only - that they are sexual objects.
I completely disagree: the two examples you gave are of women who look, to me, very much 'in charge' of things.
The problem is not being scantly clad, the problem is that the women wearing those revealing clothes are also standing in poses that imply one thing and one thing only - that they are sexual objects.
Imply? In the vast majority of Conan stories (at least the ones by Howard, deCamp and Carter), women are only sexual objects.
My favorite one being the deCamp story where they introduce the remorhaz. Storyline, as I recall: boy meets girl, boy schtups girl silly, boy passes out, girl gets eaten by monster, boy kills monster.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Men are bad and the stuff men like is bad" isn't going to work in a base thats so heavily male dominated. Beating people to a pulp with swords and blowing their heads off with bolts of flame or laser pistols is always going to appeal to more guys than women.
Science fiction and fantasy fandom has had a very, very large female component for years. Even back in the 1970s you'd find signifcant numbers of women at SF conventions, though still a minority, and today you'll probably find numbers hewing closer to parity.
The New York Times ran an article criticising GAME OF THRONES for being aimed at men, but polls and studies showed that about 42-45% of the viewers were women. As a moderator on Westeros.org, I can say there've been times in the history of the board when women have made up the clear majority of the people (55-60% or so), and right now it's almost exactly at parity.
The notion that 'only boys like science fiction and fantasy' was never true in the first place, and certainly is not true now. What has changed is the Internet, which has made it much clearer that women are an active and large part of the fandom and are prepared to speak up about issues that pre-Internet they wouldn't have, or wouldn't have had the platform to do so (the major SFF magazines and fanzies, which is where fandom was heavily centered up to the 1990s and the arrival of the Internet, were dominated by male editors).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is, though, women portrayed in this fashion..OK, using the Red Sonja example. She is, essentially, a one-note character, her entire thing is hitting people with swords and looking sexy. Can anyone tell me one thing about the character, besides maybe her backstory (a misogynist variant on 'Dark Lord burned my village down')?
Now compare that with Sydney Bristow, the heroine of Alias. Did she occasionally dress in a certain way? Sure. But that wasn't *all* she was about. She was a well-rounded, well-defined character, she was as intelligent as non-Mary Sue characters can be...and she didn't try to storm bio-weapon facilities while dressed as a go-go dancer.
|
|
That *is* a point - I do understand about context, time it was written, etc. And I don't demand that women - on the page, screen or reality - dress a certain way (that really *would* be sexist). My real objection is to fictional female characters who look a certain way...and have zero other characteristics.
|
|
I completely disagree: the two examples you gave are of women who look, to me, very much 'in charge' of things.The problem is not being scantly clad, the problem is that the women wearing those revealing clothes are also standing in poses that imply one thing and one thing only - that they are sexual objects.
Sure, except for they also pose in completley absurd pustures. You will never see a man in such positions like those except for in the Hawkeye initiative.
Look for example at the rouge from the cover of "Haunting of Harrowstone", one of the links I provided. Now stretch your memory hard and try to find an example of a male character in a piece of paizo art who displays his backside so gloriously in mid jump. When you realise there is none, ask yourself why do males get to jump like actual human beings, and females have to at least show *something* sexy, never matter how rediculos it is to show that part given the situation. glaring example.
Sunbeam - I love sexual activity, both as something I experience myself and as something to see or read about, really. I just think that it shouldn't come at the cost of degrading anyone else. I get that you like seeing scantly clad women, and that's fine, but do understand that those are offensive to other people.
Why should I bow my knee to you, or anyone like you, in any way pertaining to "morality," or "the one accepted way to live?"
Why? because the way you think now is hamrful to half of this world's population. For the very same reason that going around the street and insulting people is unacceptable in our society, being sexit towards women and thinking it's reasonable to address them as nothing more than objects is unacceptable. If you can't understand or accept that, I have nothing more to say to you.
Shout out for Ursula Le Guin's Language of the Night:
"The women's movement has made most of us conscious of the fact that SF has either totally ignored women, or presented them as squeaking dolls subject to instant rape by monsters--or old-maid scientists desexed by hypertrophy of the intellectual organs--or, at best, loyal little wives or mistresses of accomplished heroes. Male elitism has run rampant in SF. But is it only male elitism? Isn't the 'subjection of women' in SF merely a symptom of a whole which is authoritarian, power-worshipping, and intensely parochial?
"The question involved here is the question of The Other--the being who is different from yourself. This being can be different from you in its sex; or in its annual income; or in its way of speaking and dressing and doing things; or in the color of its skin, or the number of its legs and heads. In other words, there is the sexual Alien, and the social Alien, and the cultural Alien, and finally the racial Alien."
--"American SF and the Other," 1975.
As SF/F's preeminent anarchist, she, of course, goes on to examine the genre's rampant class elitism (Vive le Galt!). It's a fascinating collection and I highly recommend it for readers interested in such things.
I'm nowhere near as familiar with genre fiction as many of you are, but I wonder if a counterhistory to rampant male heterosexuality in the genre can be drawn. In particular, I'm imagining a line from Lovecraft to Peake's Gormenghast to Le Guin's The Tombs of Atuan about the deformations of intense sexual repression.
Those are the only examples that I can think of off the top of my head, but, like I said, I'm not as well versed in this stuff as many of you (I'm mainly thinking of Werthead's blog here.)
A case of the original being more progressive than the update...weird.
Oh, I wouldn't be so sure of that. I haven't read that particular Howard story, but I haven't read much in his ouevre that would lead me to believe it's "progressive."
"The Vale of Lost Women" and all those stories with monstrous-looking "Negroids," I'm looking at you.
Original description of Red Sonya:
It was a woman, dressed as von Kalmbach had not seen even the dandies of France dressed. She was tall, splendidly shaped, but lithe. From under a steel cap escaped rebellious tresses that rippled red gold in the sun over her compact shoulders. High boots of Cordovan leather came to her mid-thighs, which were cased in baggy breeches. She wore a shirt of fine Turkish mesh-mail tucked into her breeches. Her supple waist was confined by a flowing sash of green silk, into which were thrust a brace of pistols and a dagger, and from which depended a long Hungarian saber. Over all was carelessly thrown a scarlet cloak.