| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People only mention a drug induced haze after Doodlebug has left the thread for the day? Talk about a missed opportunity!
(Bubble, bubble, bubble...)
That's three, Doodlebug!
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, this is part of the point I've been snarkily making.
The other part is that the idea that fantasy art is in any way different than People Magazine photos, summer blockbuster movies or beer commercials is ludicrous in the extreme.
Sexy renditions of the female form have been part of human culture as far back as anthropologists have been able to dig sculptures out of the dirt. Just as phallic renditions of the male form have been.
You don't hear a lot of complaints about all the overt phallic symbolism of the male part of the population though. But there's always some hoopla going on about how women are "sexualized" by our culture.
Ever visit the Washington Monument?
So, help me out here. Your argument thus far has been "...women want it both ways. They want to complain when men look, but they also do everything they can to be worth looking at."
Every woman? Some women? A few women?
Then you gave me an assignment to check out "men's" and "women's" magazines, campare the two, then google plastic surgery and then assigned me a position I had never taken to defend; explain to you how men are obsessed with looks.
Which "men's" and "women's" magazines? GQ? Cosomo? Guns and Ammo? Women's Weekly? Good Housekeeping? Time?
You do realize that these are all publications bent on making money, a good portion of them catering to parts of our culture obsessed with youth and beauty, and aren't really representative of any major portion of the poulation at large? And as far as women spending more on cosmetics than men... do they even make cosmetics for men? And some women have plastic surgery, does that mean that the Sci-Fi and Fantasy industry doesn't sometimes marginalize and objectify women?
Then you went on to write about cartoons written by men to lampoon certain feminist positions, and how they pointed out the hidden truths these brave men went on to expose.
You then defend sexist representations of women in popular culture by comparing them with... sexist depictions of women in popular culture.
Then, you come up with a defense for the objectification of women with an appeal to fertility idols and fetishes from the late Holocene. And you also get in the shot that, "Hey there were male fertility idols, too!"
Lastly, you came up with the argument that people don't complain about the phallic monuments men have built for themselves in a society they largely controlled. Yeah... they sure haven't. But if you feel the Washington Monument is objectifying men in some way, then make your argument.
But none of this addresses the point, again, that's been slightly obfuscated by the title of the thread. This whole thing was never really about Chain Mail Bikinis. The commentators at SWFA wrote some pretty demeaning things about thier "lady peers", and THAT, along with the years of the marginalization and objectification of women in the industry, was what the kurfuffle was about.
And darnit, I'm just so frustrated that I allowed myself to use up part of my lunch time to bother with this.
Come to think of it, Sunbeam was probably thinking that "Red Nails" inspired the module "Dwellers of the Forbidden City". That is true. The module's own author said so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But none of this addresses the point, again, that's been slightly obfuscated by the title of the thread. This whole thing was never really about Chain Mail Bikinis. The commentators at SWFA wrote some pretty demeaning things about thier "lady peers", and THAT, along with the years of the marginalization and objectification of women in the industry, was what the kurfuffle was about.
And darnit, I'm just so frustrated that I allowed myself to use up part of my lunch time to bother with this.
Pippi, I'm not "defending" or "attacking" any point of view. I'm simply pointing out that people tend to complain about the weather.
Sorry your lunch was affected. Have a good weekend. Go to the beach. :)
Pippi, I'm not "defending" or "attacking" any point of view. I'm simply pointing out that people tend to complain about the weather.
They do, but that never really changes anything.
But people also complain about perceived social injustices, and that, combined with actually doing something, hopefully, makes things just a little bit better, for someone, somewhere.
Sorry your lunch was affected.
No one to blame but myself. But thank you.
Have a good weekend.
Thanks. You too.
Go to the beach. :)
Too burny. I'm going to a bunch of Game Shops for Free RPG Day. Then getting something for my father.
You'd be wrong. Red Sonya in Howard's original story is a very tough, grizzled fighter who spends most of the story either insulting or saving the main character. The only reference to her being a woman is, after saving the protagonist for the second (or third, depending on how you read it) time, he surprisedly comments that he thought she hated him. To which she shrugs and says "a woman can change her mind, can't she?"
That's without even getting into some of the other strong female characters that Howard wrote, such as Dark Agnes.
IIRC, in the CONAN stories whilst the women are usually there to be rescued (and sometimes scantily-clad, although, as mentioned above, not as often as the artists thought they were), there's also a few times when the female characters save Conan's life. Also, Conan had a relationship with a badass female pirate captain who was presented as a strong figure, IIRC (and it's been years since I read them, so I may be totally misremembering this).
No-one would call Howard a feminist and it's possible to detect hints of patriarchy and sexism even in his positive female portrayals, but certainly * by the standards of his time * Howard was not an outrageously sexist author.
Then I go to the beach and look around.
This appears to be a logical fallacy. A woman not wanting to be treated like a sex object is fully compatible with the fact that, on a beach on a really hot day, they may also not want to wear fur coats. One is about objectification and the other is about comfort.
Pippi, would it offend you if I said that my empathy for the aggrieved woman sci-fi author declined significantly when she opined "and if I helped strengthen the sisterhood and made other women feel better, then it was all worth it"?
I mean, how is that not sexist? Does that clue you in on what I mean by "wanting to have it both ways" and the rampant hypocrisy so often on display?
This appears to be a logical fallacy. A woman not wanting to be treated like a sex object is fully compatible with the fact that, on a beach on a really hot day, they may also not want to wear fur coats. One is about objectification and the other is about comfort.
Yes, it is obvious that in the area of outdoor comfort we are restricted to wearing tiny little butt-floss thongs with postage stamp sized boob-covers or else we must wear a fur coat.
Your logic is infallible.
This appears to be a logical fallacy. A woman not wanting to be treated like a sex object is fully compatible with the fact that, on a beach on a really hot day, they may also not want to wear fur coats. One is about objectification and the other is about comfort.Yes, it is obvious that in the area of outdoor comfort we are restricted to wearing tiny little butt-floss thongs with postage stamp sized boob-covers or else we must wear a fur coat.
Your logic is infallible.
AD, is that seriously the only thing you see people wearing on the beach?
Also, Conan had a relationship with a badass female pirate captain who was presented as a strong figure, IIRC (and it's been years since I read them, so I may be totally misremembering this).
You are, correctly, remembering Bêlit, who appears in Queen of the Black Coast by Howard.
This appears to be a logical fallacy. A woman not wanting to be treated like a sex object is fully compatible with the fact that, on a beach on a really hot day, they may also not want to wear fur coats. One is about objectification and the other is about comfort.Yes, it is obvious that in the area of outdoor comfort we are restricted to wearing tiny little butt-floss thongs with postage stamp sized boob-covers or else we must wear a fur coat.
Your logic is infallible.
AD, is that seriously the only thing you see people wearing on the beach?
Of course not Hitdice. But I see plenty of it. Especially among women in their late teens and early twenties, which just happens to be when most people (man or woman) are considered the most attractive.
If you think I notice this stuff, you should hear my wife and daughter...
Besides, that was my point anyway Hitdice. A woman can wear a wide range of bathing suits of varying degrees of modesty, but a very large fraction of young women choose to wear the most revealing suits possible. Why anyone would wear something that makes them look butt-naked from the back is a mystery to me, but I see a lot of it on the beach.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People only mention a drug induced haze after Doodlebug has left the thread for the day? Talk about a missed opportunity!
(Bubble, bubble, bubble...)
That's three, Doodlebug!
Aaargh!!!! I'll get you yet, Dicey!
Actually though, you'll like this:
Went to go pick up my car which means that although I now have access to a vehicle, I now have even less money (frickin' fallin' apart '97 Towncar!--What? No, sorry, baby, I was just kidding). The dudes at the place kept smiling more than often, which was weird, because they're not a particularly friendly bunch. I paid the bill, got my keys and walked out to the lot. The first thing I noticed was that they had given the Doodlemobile a complimentary cleaning, which, I am afraid, she badly needed.
And then I noticed, on a piece of paper, placed on the passenger seat
Now I really have got something to do. See you cats later!
[bubble bubble bubble]
PS: Belit was hawt!!
This appears to be a logical fallacy. A woman not wanting to be treated like a sex object is fully compatible with the fact that, on a beach on a really hot day, they may also not want to wear fur coats. One is about objectification and the other is about comfort.Yes, it is obvious that in the area of outdoor comfort we are restricted to wearing tiny little butt-floss thongs with postage stamp sized boob-covers or else we must wear a fur coat.
Your logic is infallible.
AD, is that seriously the only thing you see people wearing on the beach?
Of course not Hitdice. But I see plenty of it. Especially among women in their late teens and early twenties, which just happens to be when most people (man or woman) are considered the most attractive.
If you think I notice this stuff, you should hear my wife and daughter...
Besides, that was my point anyway Hitdice. A woman can wear a wide range of bathing suits of varying degrees of modesty, but a very large fraction of young women choose to wear the most revealing suits possible. Why anyone would wear something that makes them look butt-naked from the back is a mystery to me, but I see a lot of it on the beach.
That was my point too; I don't think bathing suits and magazine contents (vs covers) have all that much to do with each other. No insult, but it just seems like you can't far enough past your own sexual repression to have a clear headed conversation about the thread topic.
(Yes, I'm the one who invoked Doodlebug's name to make a weed joke.)
@ Doodlebug:
Dude, I think you just double ninja-ed me! :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pippi, would it offend you if I said that my empathy for the aggrieved woman sci-fi author declined significantly when she opined "and if I helped strengthen the sisterhood and made other women feel better, then it was all worth it"?
I mean, how is that not sexist? Does that clue you in on what I mean by "wanting to have it both ways" and the rampant hypocrisy so often on display?
I wouldn't be offended, but I'd be a little confused at how this seems to be hypocrital? What exactly is hypocritical about it? I hope this doesn't come off as confrontational, I just honestly don't see it.
It makes me wonder how you define "sexism", too. There's no corallary that states "if women feel better, men must feel worse" or, "if sisterhood is strengthened, brotherhood is weakened".
LOL, I love all this constant hyper-analylsis of our "misogynist" tendencies in any number of hobbies, genres or whatever. The cries of "misogynist!" run rampant when any photo or picture of a girl is created that drips with raw sexuality. "That's not fair to women!" I hear. "Women don't want to be presented that way! We are more than just sex objects!"
Then I go to the beach and look around.
Right. Sure.
AD, this was your first post on the thread. It talks about a bunch of things that aren't all that connected with the thread topic.
Pippi, would it offend you if I said that my empathy for the aggrieved woman sci-fi author declined significantly when she opined "and if I helped strengthen the sisterhood and made other women feel better, then it was all worth it"?
I mean, how is that not sexist? Does that clue you in on what I mean by "wanting to have it both ways" and the rampant hypocrisy so often on display?
I wouldn't be offended, but I'd be a little confused at how this seems to be hypocrital? What exactly is hypocritical about it? I hope this doesn't come off as confrontational, I just honestly don't see it.
It makes me wonder how you define "sexism", too. There's no corallary that states "if women feel better, men must feel worse" or, "if sisterhood is strengthened, bortherhood is weakened".
So do a little replacement Pippi. Let's say the original authors said "If I helped strengthen the brotherhood [of male sci-fi writers] ...." would that give you pause?
| 1 person 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.
While objecting to the "stuff men like is bad" interpretation of what you were saying, you compared the art in question to a booger.
In your analogy men are children who need to be shown "proper" behavior by women. Its condescending.
Publisher, Chief Creative Officer
|
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.
You should read the title story in the anthology "Sword Woman." Dark Ages woman is forced into an arranged marriage and ends up killing her would-be husband on the altar and running off to be an adventurer beholden to no man. It's amusing stuff.
So do a little replacement Pippi. Let's say the original authors said "If I helped strengthen the brotherhood [of male sci-fi writers] ...." would that give you pause?Pippi, would it offend you if I said that my empathy for the aggrieved woman sci-fi author declined significantly when she opined "and if I helped strengthen the sisterhood and made other women feel better, then it was all worth it"?
I mean, how is that not sexist? Does that clue you in on what I mean by "wanting to have it both ways" and the rampant hypocrisy so often on display?
I wouldn't be offended, but I'd be a little confused at how this seems to be hypocrital? What exactly is hypocritical about it? I hope this doesn't come off as confrontational, I just honestly don't see it.
It makes me wonder how you define "sexism", too. There's no corallary that states "if women feel better, men must feel worse" or, "if sisterhood is strengthened, bortherhood is weakened".
Would that ever even need to be said? The Brotherhood of Male Sci-Fi Writers needs no strengthening, like, whatsoever.
On the other hand, I miss Forry J Ackerman.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Removed a post.
There are plenty of other threads for discussing sexism, societal perceptions of gender, and how gender is portrayed in media. There are also other forums for that. But while you are on these forums, you will abide by the forum rules and refrain from personal attacks and insults. If you choose not to abide by our forum rules, you will have to deal with the consequences of that.
Please post civilly folks—this is a hot button topic and I think people need to take a big step back from the keyboard. Go outside. Go get some dice, some roleplaying games, read a book, but don't belittle and denigrate other posters. This is not the place for it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So do a little replacement Pippi. Let's say the original authors said "If I helped strengthen the brotherhood [of male sci-fi writers] ...." would that give you pause?
Ah. I think I see it now.
I have to admit, it would, but that's mostly because the system is geared towards, and largely populated by, male, white writers. They have the power.
In the spirit of the replacement therapy here, what if it had been a statement given by suffragettes in the 19th century, perhaps Alice Paul reporting about her actions "if I helped strengthen the sisterhood and made other women feel better, then it was all worth it" would you think she was sexist in pushing for equality?
While objecting to the "stuff men like is bad" interpretation of what you were saying, you compared the art in question to a booger.
In your analogy men are children who need to be shown "proper" behavior by women. Its condescending.
You're right. I apologize.
I hadn't intended it as a literal analogy, and didn't take into account how it could be offensive.
I'll say what I meant, then, and try not to be metaphorical.
It seems that a large majority of the time, when a complaint of this sort is made, someone takes "I dislike sexism" to mean that "men are bad, and stuff men like is bad".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[Enters stage left, wearing a harmonica-rack and carrying a beat-up ol' guitar. Is noticeably more clean-shaven than usual and is wearing a tie.]
Ahem.
Um, this is for a certain someone out there tonight. She, uh, well...uh, she knows who she is.
PS, bikinis are sexual advertising pure and simple.
So a woman couldn't possibly be wearing one because she wants an even tan, or she finds it fashionable, or she thinks it's comfortable, or that the one-piece she normally wears in public isn't clean?
It always has to be sexual advertising?
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.
You should read the title story in the anthology "Sword Woman." Dark Ages woman is forced into an arranged marriage and ends up killing her would-be husband on the altar and running off to be an adventurer beholden to no man. It's amusing stuff.
Thank you for the recommendation, everything I have ever read by Howard has been delightful, even when marred by racist and anti-gay attitudes. And let's face it, "Vale of the Lost Women" was hawt.
I should say, to the whole thread, that I hereby admit that I unjustly maligned Howard with a cheap shot in my original post.
I don't think Howard was a thorough-going reactionary (and it wouldn't affect my appreciation of his writing, even if I did) and wouldn't rate him any worse than, say, ERB, or, say, Hemingway.
But I still think if you added up all of Conan's chicks, more of them lean towards shrieking, helpless damsels in distress rather than willful, independent (or, at least, until Conan comes around) pirate queens.
Doodlebug, just read Picnic on Paradise and you'll see it done right. (But, sadly out of print.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why is this an issue? If you don't like the cover, don't buy it. If enough people don't like the cover, the market will deal with the problem.
*cough*
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.
Doodlebug, just read Picnic on Paradise and you'll see it done right. (But, sadly out of print.)
[Scribbles furiously]:
--Joanna Russ
--Samuel Delaney
--"Sword Woman"
--Barbara Ehrenreich from Sister Margatroid in that other thread
--Those two books about the Old Testament from Comrade Samnell from that Private Message
--Jeremy Scahill from my comrade
[Throws down pencil in frustration while contemplating all the books he wants to read and his inevitable mortality]
You know what? Screw this! I'm just going to re-read all those Greyhawk books by Rose Estes...
Also, I hope that Lord Dice, Ms. Pippi, all the rest of you dudes and dudettes don't mind if I strive daily to strengthen the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OMG, at least the Choose Your Own Adventure series was interactive!
Edit: Also,it's Samuel R. Delany, with no second "E." (This is one of those rare moments when spelling really matters).
It always has to be sexual advertising?Not always, but particularly with the skimpier ones, it's the way to bet.
Of course the same argument could be made about the skimpy cover outfits.
Oh, thejeff, that makes me so sad. It really does.
I don't think you really need to bet about why a girl is wearing what she's wearing. SHE should be the one to decide on the significance of her wardrobe.
I'm not trying to say that the average person would take this train of thought, but do you know how many times I've heard "She was wearing that, so she was asking for it" as a defense for horrible things?
And those people really believe that. They follow the idea that X outfit is "sexual advertising, pure and simple" to its ugly, logical conclusion, and then get mad or call the woman a "tease" or worse for wearing something so obviously geared for sex, and advertising falsely.
It's nothing I would ever even remotely accuse anyone involved in this discussion of, but ideas like this can justify actions like those, if only the tiniest bit, in the heads of others, from time to time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another warning to keep it civil.
It's pretty straight-forward really: it's a warning to stay civil, that's all. Not saying you're being uncivil, just stay civil.
Peace, bro.
\/
I want She Devils with a Sword, Red Hair (and a lot of it), and a chain mail bikini that doesn't chafe (like I said, I'm drinking a beer). And I don't really want to hear from someone that I really shouldn't like that kind of stuff.
Paizo EmployeeI apparently have to link this in every Red Sonja/chainmail bikini thread:
Red Sophia: What do you think of these?!
Hee hee!
I must not go into many chainmail bikini threads; I haven't seen that.
|
Maybe we need a 'Hot Button Nuclear Death Plague' section of the message boards.
Enter at your own risk, no holds barred, etc.
Personally, though, I appreciate how civil the Paizo boards are compared to the rest of everything. I also like the way the Mods delete our occasional jerkier moments, which saves us the embarrassment of explaining exactly what we meant after we've cooled off and can't remember at all exactly what we meant.
On "Sexual Advertising":
OHWFA! recommends that all young lads should take their cue from this rock parable:
You know that chick that used to dance a lot?
Every night she'd be on the floor, shaking what she's got
Man, when I tell you she was cool, she was red hot, I mean that chick was steamin'
And that time over at Johnny's place, well this chick got up and she slapped Johnny's face
Man, we just fell around the place, if that chick don't want to know, forget her!