|
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.
I really think this is all on the part of Jealousy of whom ever is making the argument. A divinely proportioned face can facilitate the mating response in men more than a divinely proportioned body in a bikini. The women who yell at beautiful swordswomen in nothing more than a scalemail top and loin cloth and yet still can tear up orcs with a mighty swing of her sword has got to remember something.
It's a Fantasy. Those women are no more flesh than they are. The women who work out to get those proportions and shapes in muscle have to really work at it. And some of them take 'roids. If these daughters of Eve are yelling about how someone is dressed or undressed is showing them up, then what they need to do is to do is remember one thing.
The human being are sexual animals as well as spiritual ones. Sexuality is part of the core of how we interact with each other. When a young man sees a woman who can bust heads and looks great doing it, he's seeing a potential sex partner. One with which if he could win, he could -- you know -- make strong babies. Men fantasize about bedding such a woman, because it would be the ultimate in taming. Each of these she-devils with a sword represent the vicereal ideal of taming a female that is potentially stronger than you into a submissive mate. She represents a challenge.
However, according to Quantum Mechanics, we attract like to like. When I was a kid, watching Lalla Ward on Doctor Who was the best thing ever, I thought she was SOOOO SEXY, because she was intelligent. Sure, I'd love to bed and sex up Red Sonja -- but her personality is repulsive to me. Lalla was it! Me, at the young age of nine, would have instantly asked her to marry me.
When I found out that she paired with Richard Dawkins, I was floored. However, the She-Devil with a sword is something that is -- impossible for me to hook up with. She killed things with her sword and I couldn't really have an intelligent conversation with her.
Screaming she's a sex object, and they don't know what really attracts lovers to lovers. They are just jealous. However, if they knew, they wouldn't yell at it and chalk it up (rightly) as an adolescent fantasy. Not every woman need to dress like a tart to attract a man.
You can be highly intelligent and attract a mate as long as you look as pretty as you can. you can be very emotional and attract an emotional mate, but in no way is that magazine promoting the idea that all women has to buff out and wear skimpy clothes to attract a mate. The tragedy is, they are suggesting such a thing and it makes them look absolutely foolish.
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.
/Seconded.
Thanks for mansplaining it to everyone.
That's a really ugly term thejeff, a highly sexist term used to degrade others, belittle their views, and to try and gender-shame them into silence.
And a nicely descriptive one. That I've been guilty of a time or two. Though I try to avoid it.
Oh well, whilst I find it even more surprising that you don't disagree with my position - and actually credit it as accurate, I at least appreciate you are up front about it.
|
|
Well I would disagree, but I've gotten tired of explaining the difference between being *ist against the dominant group and against the subordinate one.
More importantly, regardless of the term I used, what do you think of the rant I was responding to?
Poor little women, just jealous and worried about finding a man. That's all this fuss is about.
Interesting you decoded my "rant" that way. Really, I could have said what I really felt. What if the girl on the mag was as God created her? How do you think they'd respond?
Mansplaining? Really, it's the truth. They're jealous of manufactured beauty.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Go forth! You should try to make them feel better, too!
There may also be a slight mis-communication. "Sexual advertising", as I'm using it, doesn't mean "looking for sex", just displaying your own attractiveness.
Yeah, I took "sexual advertising" literally. I'm afraid I was completely misunderstanding you. I might have misunderstood sunbeam's meaning as well. If so, I apologize.
And thank you for your clarification.
Okay... here we go. I'm hoping I can respond to sunbeam at least as coherently and respectfully as he posed his argument. (Thank you for that, BTW.)
I think I can agree with you on a certain level, about who human beings are. I recognize a lot of the atavistic and vestigial drives that can be a large force in shaping who we are, and what we do. I feel those urges stirring, and often fail to suppress them, even when I really want to.
But, I happen to believe that the veneer of rational thought is thicker than it is thinner. Also, I have put a lot of stock in that ghost in the machine, and that informs many of my actions as well. :)
I also buy into feminism (a good call on your part, but really, come on, fish in a barrel in this case), in that I think women and men should strive for social and civil equality. So I've got two mojo-tastic forces punching at my brain stem in this particular instance; one secular, my feminist gung fu, scanning for folks being oppressive, marginalizing and belittling, and one religious, my Christian outlook, telling me that the best idea is to be kind to everyone.
(Also, for what it's worth, born and raised in the American southwest. But so many people in forums think I'm British... maybe I just have that flavour?)
So that goes to explain my viewpoint, I suppose, but I don't think I've gotten what I had hoped to get across in this thread, and for that, I blame my angry, angry reptile brain.
I think, if you look back on my posts, you'll find that, aside from a bit of ill-advised snarkiness that indicated that the artistic stylings you enjoy are damaging to women's self-esteem, I haven't tried to tell you what you should like. If my posts have come across that way, I can only blame my impatience and lack of communication skills.
I don't want to tell you what you should like. I respect your God-given (and I've been drinking grapefruit juice, so I'm not going to change that phrase :P ) right to enjoy what you enjoy. I don't even want to judge you for it, even though you'd never know that by how poorly I've worded things here.
I just wanted to put the idea out there that sometimes, ideas can make impressions on that reptile brain you spoke of, and that despite knowing in the smart, human, rational parts of our minds that those ideas are, as thejeff so eloquently put it: "crap", with constant bombardment from media, from society, from peers who unintentionally share bad mojo, and from people who actively seek to belittle and harm others, those bad ideas can shape and even harm people's growth and development.
Do I think people are horrible for liking images of scantily clad women, or suggestive posing or outfits, or for thinking anyone is HAWT? (Thanks, comrade Doodle, I'm never going to be able to spell that any other way!:P) I don't, honestly. I recognize that as the human condition, and, in a lot of cases, a good thing.
I'm just hoping to raise the idea that, for a given quantity of women, that's the majority of what they see. To quote David Willis, it's "the background radiation of their lives". By and large, they don't get to have the dynamic, capable and kick-butt role-models that are so readily available for men. They get role-models who serve as eye-candy, plot devices and reasons for men to be heroic.
Some people would disagree with me about this. And that's their right. But I see it. I sometimes feel embarrassed to take my niece to my favorite comic shop, just because of how poorly women are portrayed on the covers of the comics I love.
So I don't want to tell you you're a bad person for liking what you like. I don't think you're a bad person for liking what you like.
I just want you to realize, that while you're enjoying your fin-de-siècle age, and your She-Devils-with-a-Sword-Red-Hair-(and-a-lot-of-it)-and-a-chain-mail-bikini- that-doesn't-chafe, there are a whole lot of people who want something very different, who maybe even need something different, and, for the most part, it's so much rarer that they get it.
Well I would disagree, but I've gotten tired of explaining the difference between being *ist against the dominant group and against the subordinate one.
There is no explanation that I would accept on that topic anyway, so probably not worth spending your time on. Denouncing Xism whilst engaging in Xism just makes someone a hypocrite as well as an Xist.
More importantly, regardless of the term I used, what do you think of the rant I was responding to?
More important to you perhaps, but to me, outright sexism and gendershaming was more noteworthy than the other posters personal opinions that I happen to simply disagree with. One is a flawed personal worldview, the other was about purposefully shaming and degrading.
...on the cusp, on the cusp..to hide this thread, or not to hide this thread...
Hide the thread.
But turn it around, and have Obama compliment Kamala, and it brings to that forefront that women are judged by their appearance, not on their actions or accomplishments.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Man, has this topic made me a touch grumpy. I'm not going to bother quoting individual people because I saw these depressing statements by several posters, so I'll just address the points.
- But sex sells! So what? If the most brutal forms of racism sold, would that be OK? How about religious persecution, showing Muslims getting blasted? Can I use that to sell stuff? What about brutal images of real life death? That be OK?
No? Then why does 'sex sells' somehow make it all OK? Using sex to sell teaches two things - that it's OK for men to treat women as a commodity for there pleasure, something backed up in recent studies showing the worst offenders in domestic violence and sexual assaults literally look at a naked woman and see an object. And it teaches women there value is based on appealing to that objectification.
Of course a lot of women want to be seen as attractive. Why? Because society has hammered into her since before she was old enough to walk and talk that her worth is based on being attractive, and she needs the 'quiet dignity' of Barbie
to accept getting groped, catcalled and insulted without complaint.
- But woman want to wear bikinis when they go the beach, so clearly they want me to look at them! Really? If a woman is wearing a bikini in the office, she might want you to look. If she's wearing it at a beach she probably wants to swim or sunbath. If she's wearing it in the middle of a battle while every guy around her is covered head to toe in heavy armour, she's probably being objectified.
The idea that some of you guys can't quite grasp the idea that some clothing is appropriate in one situation, say a beach, and not in another, such as a galactic firefight, is kinda depressing. The simple fact is, a woman is dressing for her, not for you. If you appreciate what she's wearing, cool. But you don't get to judge her on it. As apparently a bunch of folks going down to a beach do.
As for the gentlemen involved in this fiasco...really? 'You don't agree with me, and therefore it is vital to my free speech that you don't express your opinions and views.' Seriously? I love that. Free speech only applies to me - when you use you're violating my all powerful free speech and have to stop.
The depressing bit is, they've probably gotten away with that view point there whole life. That there free speech is the only actual free speech, and anything said against them is censorship. And by playing those cards it's probably gotten them plenty of support, justifying to them there views (no matter how old and outdated, and sexist, they may be).
Man, what a depressing topic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then I go to the beach and look around.
My God! They expose their ankles! How can they want to be more than sex objects, when they FLAUNT THOSE ANKLES! And that way they show off their hair! How can men be blamed for staring, when women wantonly expose their hair and faces!
Let's face it, if women at the beach were completely covered, you'd be making the same excuses, because wantonly showing off their eyes in public means they totally want to be treated as sex objects
Objectification:
And four tunes, covering most, if not all, of the bases:
Ruff Neck
So Alive
You Make Me Feel
Right In Time
OHFWA! approves of all of them--well, except the Saudi Arabian government.
It's fine for women to dress in bikinis if they want. It's fine for men to look at women in bikinis and appreciate it. Men and women find each other attractive, and dress to be attractive to other people - all fine.
What isn't as fine is women being used as packaging to sell something. They're not a label, or a 40% off sticker. By treating them as one you create problems. For a start, you create the kinda guys who sees them as objects.
Plus, it really isn't hard for women to be attractive and not in crazy poses or the least amount of clothing possible to not end up on the X-rated shelf.
I think it boils down to this - you put a women in a chainmail bikini bending over to show off her breasts next to a bunch of heavily armoured fighters, and you see something there to be sexy - not a good fighter, not a cunning strategist, not even a person, but a sex object. Put the same women there in the same armour and pose, and you're showing a person.
Women deserve to be seen as people.
Pretty simple, really.
I generally dislike women being used as an adornment to sell things to me because frankly I find it insults my intelligence - "Why would I buy your cruddy new sports drink? Oh HURR DURR you had a promotional girl hand me one wearing a bikini, maybe she'll like me if I buy it HURR DURR".
It's like they want us to look at the shiny dangly bits to take our mind of critically questioning their products.
Well I would disagree, but I've gotten tired of explaining the difference between being *ist against the dominant group and against the subordinate one.There is no explanation that I would accept on that topic anyway, so probably not worth spending your time on. Denouncing Xism whilst engaging in Xism just makes someone a hypocrite as well as an Xist.
More importantly, regardless of the term I used, what do you think of the rant I was responding to?More important to you perhaps, but to me, outright sexism and gendershaming was more noteworthy than the other posters personal opinions that I happen to simply disagree with. One is a flawed personal worldview, the other was about purposefully shaming and degrading.
Most important of all, in my limited understanding, "mansplaining" is when a male condescendingly explains something to a female.
I don't think Adamantine Dragon is a woman.
As for the beach:
I wonder what our European brethren, with their nudist resorts and whatnot, make of the idea that bikinis are mere sexual advertising.
Do I think people are horrible for liking images of scantily clad women, or suggestive posing or outfits, or for thinking anyone is HAWT? (Thanks, comrade Doodle, I'm never going to be able to spell that any other way!:P) I don't, honestly. I recognize that as the human condition, and, in a lot of cases, a good thing.
All of our elected offices in OHWFA! are already filled but there are many open positions on the OHDFA! Executive Board, Ms. Pippi.
I roll my eyes at Hawkeye Initiative.
If I want men posing in ways that defy physics, I will put on my metaphorical glam pants and mark-float my happy nonexistent hindquarters over to some JoJo Pose.
Go ahead, try to mock and threaten me on basis of attempting to deride my sexuality in light of this.
COME AT ME SIS-BRO.
|
I generally dislike women being used as an adornment to sell things to me because frankly I find it insults my intelligence - "Why would I buy your cruddy new sports drink? Oh HURR DURR you had a promotional girl hand me one wearing a bikini, maybe she'll like me if I buy it HURR DURR".
It's like they want us to look at the shiny dangly bits to take our mind of critically questioning their products.
Was this one time a guy came to me in a train station and gave me a promotional brochure advertising a random product the nature of which I don't remember. The brochure had a picture of a beautiful woman, underneath which the brand name was written.
I asked the guy if I get the woman when I buy the product, to which he replied with a negative. I asked him why is she there, and he kind of mumbled and faded into the shades, presumably to find another victim.
As for the beach:
I wonder what our European brethren, with their nudist resorts and whatnot, make of the idea that bikinis are mere sexual advertising.
As an european, woefully unrepresentative of other europeans because of my gnomishness, I think that bikinis are "sexual advertising". Or I would think it if the term wasn't so ugly (huug !).
By "sexual advertising" I mean: it's designed to stimulate the male (and lesbian, I suppose) audience, and to look attractive in a sexual way. And bikinis are convenient when it's really hot on a beach, too*, I won't deny it.
That said, as a well behaved male, I've learned from society to be mildly sexually titillated when on a beach and not to react by jumping on the female perpetrator (I jest !) Ho, and I'm respectful of women, in general, as I am of men.
To me, and that's a very personal view, nudists are weirdos who like to go butt-naked because "it's natural", and pretend there's nothing sexual about that. Let just say nudism is not my sexual perversion of choice ;-).
On the subject of "sexual object", which floats in this thread and titillates my smartassness, I dare say that many women want to be treated like sex objects... when between the sheets, that is. Many men want to be treated as sex objects too, when in the same circumstances. So that's all good, I guess.
Regarding the original subject of this thread, I readily confess I have not read the linked article. I am easily bored by the subject of sexism, but intrigued by the subject of sexes (I mean, male and female).
* I speak from conjecture here, and not from personal experience.
I asked the guy if I get the woman when I buy the product, to which he replied with a negative. I asked him why is she there, and he kind of mumbled and faded into the shades, presumably to find another victim.
Hey I've asked that too, "Does it come with a free woman?" and the response is always the same.
You know Andrew, if the point it to illustrate sexuality (and some of the silliness) it might have helped if those guys weren't depicted at 157 years old. Do you see Betty White in those poses?
|
|
This reminds me of when Obama complimented Kamala Harris on her appearance. He had to backpedal fast and apologize for that.
The irony was that she had actually complimented Obama on his appearance in the past, and no one thought anything of it.
It makes perfect sense once you realize how people tend to judge other people by default, versus how feminism would like to see it done.
The general default(not in all cases of course) is...men are judged by their actions/accomplishments, women are judged by their appearance. So Kamala complimenting Obama on his appearance doesn't matter, because no one is going to judge him based on how he looks. They might like his look, but what he does and what results he gets are going to be the standard.
But turn it around, and have Obama compliment Kamala, and it brings to that forefront that women are judged by their appearance, not on their actions or accomplishments. This is anathema to feminism, which wants men and women judged the same, that is by accomplishments and actions. So Obama commenting on her looks raises that question of whether her career in office and as California attorney general is somehow less important than how hot she is.
You say that feminism wants men and women to be judged by the same criteria? That the President and the Attorney General both should be judged on their competence in their respective job?
I would hope so, and it's what I want too! Is my gender relevant when you read this post? Just in case it is, I'm male.
I'm confident that Kamala is judged on her competence rather than her looks. The President can choose from a HUGE pool of talent; does anyone believe he would make his decision re: 'Who do I want as my Attorney General' based on sexiness?
She complimented him on how he looked. He then complimented her on how she looked. How can it be that she did nothing wrong but he did?
If the goal of feminism is that men and women should be treated equally well, and judged by the same criteria for the same quality, then surely a situation where men and women can compliment each other on how they look, while still judging them by their competence in their respective professional capacities, is the desired goal! We want the President and the Attorney General to be able to do this; it's what we want!
But if we criticise the man involved as 'sexist' when he does, how will we ever attain that goal?
As for the beach:
I wonder what our European brethren, with their nudist resorts and whatnot, make of the idea that bikinis are mere sexual advertising.
In short? I don't want to see you naked.
Sure, there's a few people who can pull it off, but 90% of the people at the beach are German tourists, and the few lookers does not make up for that.
*shudder*
Of course, I've never been to a nudist resort. Presumably your attitude might be different if hanging out with folks while nekkid is the entire point of being there.
But normal beaches, in the tourist season, are an eye gouging experience.
...what was the question, again?
Hey hey hey... It seems to be an adopted policy that literally EVERYONE can look good if they put in the effort to do so. Or, otherwise put, if someone does not look good, say some german tourist or so, it is ENTIRELY their own fault for not putting in the effort. Don't try telling anyone that looks have anything to do with nurture here, okay?
Don't try telling anyone that looks have anything to do with nurture here, okay?
I... didn't realize I was. Sorry!
|
Hey hey hey... It seems to be an adopted policy that literally EVERYONE can look good if they put in the effort to do so. Or, otherwise put, if someone does not look good, say some german tourist or so, it is ENTIRELY their own fault for not putting in the effort. Don't try telling anyone that looks have anything to do with nurture here, okay?
Actually, this raises the even thornier point of strong women in fiction who *don't* look conventional attractive either being sidelined or killed. TV Tropes highlighted this with Vasquez from Aliens: she's a Marine, with superior training and combat skills to Ripley...yet she's *not* the heroine? OK, Rioley was pretty kick-ass, but I wouldn't mind seeing a film where it was a woman like Vasquez who was the central character.
Oh, and JonGarrett: just to depress you further, there *are* authors who use fighting Muslims to sell books, their names are Tom Clancy, Jack Higgins and another Tom whose last name I won't use because he has a habit of popping up in forums here his name gets mentioned...anyone familiar with Baen books will know who I'm talking about.
Actually, this raises the even thornier point of strong women in fiction who *don't* look conventional attractive either being sidelined or killed.
Hey, if Vasquez had put on a frilly dress and stayed home on Earth she could have lived a long and happy life! (At least until the T-1000 came looking for her foster son.)
I doubt Ripley being the heroine in Aliens had anything to do with Weaver being more "conventionally attractive" than Goldstein.
I have always found Weaver to be 'meh', now Vasquez, on the other hand... she made my young teenage blood run rather hot.
Peh. Trying for snark and getting it wrong is so painful. I need to stop hurrying out posts. What I meant was a sarcastic remark about how "nature couldn't have anything to do with looks".
Anyway, my point is that yes, many people do clean up well, and some bad looks are due to lack of effort. However, a cleft lip, even if corrected, a scar, psoriasis, countless other malformations and wounds, or just simply an unattractive facial configuration can shoot a person's prospects of being attractive to hell forever. A short man gets the same, and there is nothing they can do about it. Ifgiven a choice, children, always go for being attractive over being ugly, you know? And yet... So many keep repeating the mantra that "anyone can be attractive if they just put in the effort"... Placing the responsibility for their unattractiveness on the person, who could have put in the effort.
In the discussion above, people say it was bad of Obama to talk about Kamala's looks. Nobody asks why either Obama or Kamala got to their respective positions ahead of a massive field of applicants, or how much their being attractive helped that. Certainly, neither lack other qualifications... But when was the last time you saw a top politician with any kind of disfiguration? Because there is no shortage of female ones, black ones, gay ones. Before too long, I fully expect a female american president... But I seriously couldn't imagine an ugly one.
Yes, there is a gender salary gap... But nobody talks about an attractive-based one. In all likelihood, it is far bigger.
Regarding Vasquez: She was a grunt who happened to be female. Movies need more similar characters. A movie about a woman trying to fight sexism in her career as a grunt means very little in comparison to Vasquez. When the trait in question becomes merely one of many, that iswhen progress has occurred.
Hey hey hey... It seems to be an adopted policy that literally EVERYONE can look good if they put in the effort to do so. Or, otherwise put, if someone does not look good, say some german tourist or so, it is ENTIRELY their own fault for not putting in the effort. Don't try telling anyone that looks have anything to do with nurture here, okay?Actually, this raises the even thornier point of strong women in fiction who *don't* look conventional attractive either being sidelined or killed. TV Tropes highlighted this with Vasquez from Aliens: she's a Marine, with superior training and combat skills to Ripley...yet she's *not* the heroine? OK, Rioley was pretty kick-ass, but I wouldn't mind seeing a film where it was a woman like Vasquez who was the central character.I doubt Ripley being the heroine in Aliens had anything to do with Weaver being more "conventionally attractive" than Goldstein.
Much more to do with Ripley being the heroine of the previous movie. It was her movie from the start. Vasquez was just one of many Marines, basically there as cannon fodder. (Who got some cool characterization along the way, one of the things that made it a great movie.) It's also a fairly common trope for the hero not to be the professional soldier/cop/etc.None of which isn't to say that a film starring a Vasquez-type character couldn't be cool.
Also, it should be pointed out that Ripley wins the day by her superior stevedoring abilities--which, I think, is just as gender-role bashing as Vasquez's superior soldiering abilities.
But yeah, Ripley is the hero because, um, it's her series.
Also, it should be pointed out that Ripley wins the day by her superior stevedoring abilities--which, I think, is just as gender-role bashing as Vasquez's superior soldiering abilities.
Vasquez was a female marine in an "everyone's gonna die" sort of movie, so that she died wasn't much of a shock. That she was there at all, is all kinds of cool in its own right - women are woefully under-represented in cannon fodder roles too!
(Also, Vasquez is an interesting example because there's a whole other issue to take with her character than she's a female that dies. But I digress.)
|
|
Peh. Trying for snark and getting it wrong is so painful. I need to stop hurrying out posts. What I meant was a sarcastic remark about how "nature couldn't have anything to do with looks".
Anyway, my point is that yes, many people do clean up well, and some bad looks are due to lack of effort. However, a cleft lip, even if corrected, a scar, psoriasis, countless other malformations and wounds, or just simply an unattractive facial configuration can shoot a person's prospects of being attractive to hell forever. A short man gets the same, and there is nothing they can do about it. Ifgiven a choice, children, always go for being attractive over being ugly, you know? And yet... So many keep repeating the mantra that "anyone can be attractive if they just put in the effort"... Placing the responsibility for their unattractiveness on the person, who could have put in the effort.
I get your point - it's the equivalent of the 'if you're so smart, why ain't you rich' thing that puts responsibility for poverty on the poor person rather than on society/his employers/the government.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmmm. The way I see it:
When a story takes a well-designed, interesting, and fully realized character and adds sexuality, it's an improvement.
And when a story takes a flat, cardboard, one-dimensional character and adds sexuality, it's still an improvement.
So... what was the objection again? If you don't like flat, dull characters, fine. But sexing them up is irrelevant to that.
Except that it's not an improvement to add sexuality to a flat, cardboard, one-dimensional character. If anything, it makes things worse, as it looks like (and is often the case) that that character's just there so male readers have eye-candy. I'm sorry, but I don't think a 1D character is improved when 1 becomes 34 and another 'D' joins the first.
Of course it is. Sexuality is inherently interesting to most male and many female readers.
And '50 shades of grey' featured the flattest one dimensional characters going round, pure fantasy drivel, yet a BIG hit with the ladies.