Are sexists just sexually frustrated?

[bookitty]

I know you are being poetic here but you have to be careful. Someone will satisfy that hyperbolic request and declare victory.

Look at Jigg, for example. He apparently thought I believed ALL female characters in comics were sexualized (even though it was clear I didn't). He pops back with a semi-serious response (Ma Kent, and Aunt May of all people) and felt proud of himself. Sure he didn't prove a damn thing but its the sort of thing that derails threads.

OMG! You are like totally psychic!

ETA: Going all the way back to the actual OP. There is a certain small subset of male comic book readers who are extremely sexist. The interesting thing about them is that they don't have to be anonymous. They are as rude at comic con as they are online. I suppose one could stretch a few guesses with some general layman's psychology/sociology and say that the objectification of females has given them a warped entitlement. Except that you find the same small subset everywhere else as well.

 

[tyr_13]

Not every superhero has Superman powers.

 

[truethat]

Don't even know what that means. Consider for a moment the natural confirmation bias that we all have that female superheros are always sexualized but male superheros are just made "bigger" as if that has nothing to do with sexuality?

Hm.

 

[tyr_13]

How do men definitely have it better? This is what we were talking about in the date rape thread.

Why is it that when Big Beefy Batman meets sexy purring Catwoman we only see Catwoman as being sexualized?

Why is her taunting him not a mockery of his sexuality? Why is it automatically that when a male and female have a sexually tense moment she is being objectified but he is not? Quite often the "sexy" female is an empowered female character, often the Villian or enemy of the superhero and the superhero is brought to his knees.

Just consider the scene in Superman where he's thrown in a pool and rescued by Miss Teschmacher and she makes him kiss her first. I mean come on.

Number, consistency, and severity of things including but not limited to how skimpy the outfits are.

Almost every character in comic books gets blatantly sexualized eventually. However, the female characters have it done to them consistently and when it makes no sense. Yes, it happens to the male characters too, the not making sense part, and it's just as wrong there.

They gave Raven a visible thong and tramp stamp. They gave Raven a visible thong and tramp stamp.

 

[truethat]

They had "spiderman" wake up in bed covered with "semen" that he runs around shooting out of his wrists.

Yes the trampstamp and thong could be sexualized. But so are many of the other things. Men running around with underwear on, and cut muscles designed to look sexy? Cod pieces on many of the costumes enhanced.

They are all sexualized.

 

[truethat]

double post

 

[Morrigan]

Yeah, it's just sexualisation, it's not sexism at all...

Oh wait...

 

[truethat]

Wow Morrigan one example awesome. Now we have four, should we keep going? Male and female characters are sexualized in the superhero genre. My question is why do we only seem to care or notice that the women are the ones being sexualized.

 

[bookitty]

They had "spiderman" wake up in bed covered with "semen" that he runs around shooting out of his wrists.

Yes the trampstamp and thong could be sexualized. But so are many of the other things. Men running around with underwear on, and cut muscles designed to look sexy? Cod pieces on many of the costumes enhanced.

They are all sexualized.

[qimg]http://content.artofmanliness.com/uploads//2011/03/batman-and-robin-full.jpg[/qimg]

Psssst...we're talking about comic books.

 

[KingMerv00]

Directed at everyone (except truethat because I refuse to get sucked in again):

As much fun as it is to post examples, it doesn't really prove anything. Is there any way we can objectively measure how much each gender is sexualized? Could I make an argumentum ad Googleum? It's not a perfect way of randomizing comic book images but it's better than nothing.

 

[truethat]

psst No kidding.


King Merv how silly.


Exactly, so we can't evaluate for "sexiness" we can only evaluate our own confirmation bias. We don't see male suprheros as overly sexualized even though most of them depict men bulked up and running around half naked or with skin tight costumes on.

So the problem isn't the comic, it's the perception of society. Why are we so biased that only the females register as sexualized and the males do not?

One more example of the way men are dismissed as the aggressor and females are depicted as victims. That's that meme again!

 

[bookitty]

Directed at everyone (except truethat because I refuse to get sucked in again):

As much fun as it is to post examples, it doesn't really prove anything. Is there any way we can objectively measure how much each gender is sexualized? Could I make an argumentum ad Googleum? It's not a perfect way of randomizing comic book images but it's better than nothing.

Ugh, I am multi-tasking right now so don't have time to google-fu. But, if you could find the stats for the readership of the major comic labels, it might be a start. Marvel tends to be a bit more T&A than DC. The Vertigo* line has historically (not sure what they're up to these days) had comics with strong storytelling, strong female characters with less overt sexuality.

Women tend to be less attracted to comics in which the female characters are insipid. A strong/lacking female readership might indicate a sexualized focus. (In either direction I might add. I know women who positively drool over John Constantine.)

*Yes, I know Vertigo is DC. Sheesh!

 

[truethat]

More bias because if we're talking about sexuality and what's interesting sexually to an audience let's definitely only talk about heterosexual men. The rest don't count. They don't count usually because we can't use them as the "predator" to the woman's "victim" so we just gloss right over em.

Plenty of gay men enjoy comics.

 

[KingMerv00]

Ugh, I am multi-tasking right now so don't have time to google-fu. But, if you could find the stats for the readership of the major comic labels, it might be a start. Marvel tends to be a bit more T&A than DC. The Vertigo* line has historically (not sure what they're up to these days) had comics with strong storytelling, strong female characters with less overt sexuality.

Women tend to be less attracted to comics in which the female characters are insipid. A strong/lacking female readership might indicate a sexualized focus. (In either direction I might add. I know women who positively drool over John Constantine.)

*Yes, I know Vertigo is DC. Sheesh!

Not following you. How would readership ratios prove that female characters are more sexualized?

 

[Naive1000]

Okay, I know the feminists here will attack me for this, but I'm all for objectification. What are we trying to do neuter the human race? Sexualized images are not crimes against humanity. We all objectify people in our minds, on TV, and in media. As long as you don't treat individuals as objects, but as individuals I can't see the problem. We seem to want to criminalize sexuality and sensuality. Are their no sex-positive feminists left here? Has no one here ever thought of someone sexually but would never treat that person that way in real life. Is the idea of personal responsibility so obsolete that we can't trust people to keep fantasy and reality separate. Just seems that if you're going to attack comic books maybe you should also attack harlequin novels as well.

 

[bookitty]

Not following you. How would readership ratios prove that female characters are more sexualized?

Female readership tends to go down when female characters are rebooted into primarily sex objects.

 

[KingMerv00]

Okay, I know the feminists here will attack me for this, but I'm all for objectification. What are we trying to do neuter the human race? Sexualized images are not crimes against humanity. We all objectify people in our minds, on TV, and in media. As long as you don't treat individuals as objects, but as individuals I can't see the problem. We seem to want to criminalize sexuality and sensuality. Are their no sex-positive feminists left here? Has no one here ever thought of someone sexually but would never treat that person that way in real life. Is the idea of personal responsibility so obsolete that we can't trust people to keep fantasy and reality separate. Just seems that if you're going to attack comic books maybe you should also attack harlequin novels as well.

Not sure how to respond to this.

I won't attack you because I don't understand who or what you are mad about. We aren't using any of the same definitions, including but not limited to "objectify", "sexualization", and "sex-positive feminist". Furthermore, you are either being hyperbolic or fighting a straw man. No one wants to "criminalize" or "neuter" a damn thing.

Restate what you are saying but define your terms and cut back on the exaggeration.

 

[bookitty]

Okay, I know the feminists here will attack me for this, but I'm all for objectification. What are we trying to do neuter the human race? Sexualized images are not crimes against humanity. We all objectify people in our minds, on TV, and in media. As long as you don't treat individuals as objects, but as individuals I can't see the problem. We seem to want to criminalize sexuality and sensuality. Are their no sex-positive feminists left here? Has no one here ever thought of someone sexually but would never treat that person that way in real life. Is the idea of personal responsibility so obsolete that we can't trust people to keep fantasy and reality separate. Just seems that if you're going to attack comic books maybe you should also attack harlequin novels as well.

Straw, straw, straw.

I've already said that there is a time and place for overt-sexuality. Objectification has it's place but a little variety is nice sometimes.

Some major themes of harlequin novels - a woman will not be attracted to a man unless he forces the issue, women are helpless without a man - are considered problematic among feminists.

Sex-positive feminism is allowing women to embrace their own sexuality honestly and on their own terms, whether this means celibacy or serial one-night stands. It does not mean that all women should be comfortable with being merely objects of desire to everyone. A woman who wears a mini-skirt to impress a date is not asking to be objectified by every man in the room.

ETA: A little fyi. You may want to avoid words like neuter. The implication that the human race will die out if men are not allowed to treat women as sexual objects really makes men look bad.

 

[truethat]

Okay, I know the feminists here will attack me for this, but I'm all for objectification. What are we trying to do neuter the human race? Sexualized images are not crimes against humanity. We all objectify people in our minds, on TV, and in media. As long as you don't treat individuals as objects, but as individuals I can't see the problem. We seem to want to criminalize sexuality and sensuality. Are their no sex-positive feminists left here? Has no one here ever thought of someone sexually but would never treat that person that way in real life. Is the idea of personal responsibility so obsolete that we can't trust people to keep fantasy and reality separate. Just seems that if you're going to attack comic books maybe you should also attack harlequin novels as well.

Oh no let's not mention them. SHHHHHHHH Fabio is not sexualized at all. And all those VC Andrews books not sexualized at all. ONLY WOMEN YA HEAR. It never happens to men. Men are the perpetrators and women are the victims.

Snap snap. Pay attention.

Of COURSE it's a straw straw straw because heaven forbid we ever discuss reality. Nope it's the "idea of objectification and over sexualization of women" that matters.

David Beckham pix, STRAW MAN. Romance Novels STRAW MAN.

This

In North America, romance novels are the most popular genre in modern literature, comprising almost 55% of all paperback books sold in 2004.

Who is buying all these books that are "oppressive in theme to women" Oh wait WOMEN that's right.

Irrelevant I tell ya. It's only the comics that sexualize women. Resume.


When a woman "embraces her sexuality" she's doing a good thing. You go sister. When a man does it he's jacking off in the bathroom before he goes out on the town to drug young women and drag them home by their hair to rape them.

 

[Naive1000]

...[snip]...
Sex-positive feminism is allowing women to embrace their own sexuality honestly and on their own terms, whether this means celibacy or serial one-night stands. It does not mean that all women should be comfortable with being merely objects of desire to everyone. A woman who wears a mini-skirt to impress a date is not asking to be objectified by every man in the room.

Yes, because every man should be forced to look away by law. Only women should be able to express their sexuality, because male sexuality is bad. That's why there's all that feminist hate for men who have decided to fulfill their own desires and live their own lives without marriage being vilified as boys who won't grow up. If women do it it's empowerment, if men do it it's an attack on women. If women sleep around we can't shame them, but men who sleep around are creepy scum using women. Aren't these the new gender roles that many feminism are pushing. I though feminism was suppose to free us from gender roles, not just attack half of them.

And please, point out the straw I'll be happy to address it.

Sorry, I don't know a gender neutral term for neuter, is there one? De-sexualize? And I never specified gender. Since both objectify the other. Isn't it sexist to imply only men do it?