Are sexists just sexually frustrated?

[tyr_13]

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.

I readily admit that in this case I'm going completely by my own subjective experience. For a long time I rejected that comic books were any more sexist in the form of being sexualized against women than against men. I could think of a mountain of times it happens to the men too. Then I got into comics a little more and realized that there did seem to be a difference. I attribute it to a few writers and executives having an undo influence on the field and either accidentally pushing stupid sexualization because of their lack of understanding what they were doing or doing so for sales.

Really though, the industry isn't fair to men. I actually believe it would be easier and more fair to find examples that weren't sexualized than those that were. Besides that, the mythos get so jumbled and rewritten, that it would be hard to say, for example, that Raven is an example of a character who wasn't unfairly sexualized, besides the revamp stupidity.

 

[tyr_13]

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]

Oh I admit that the men get it too, a lot. I don't think it's alright, and that it happens to women doesn't reduce or dismiss it happening to the men.

My example was notable not because the I believe that the tramp stamp, which probably isn't the nicest way to put it but communicates exactly what I'm talking about, and the thong are unfairly sexualizing. It's notable because that's what Raven would have believed from previous characterization.

 

[truethat]

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?

YEP

 

[JJM 777]

Is there any way we can objectively measure how much each gender is sexualized?

I think that in most sex mags it is quite obvious, which of the genders is sexualized. As for comics... (browsing through my copy of 1001 Comics You Must Read Before You Die)... indeed nearly all comics classified as "erotic" by comic historians focus on female nudity. Male nudity is a rare thing on center stage, and then it is aimed for a male readership... Tom of Finland, anyone?

Is this news to someone that sexual adult entertainment is consumed mostly by a male readership? "Men´s magazine" and "women´s magazine" mean very different things at least where I live. Hustler is a men´s mag, Vanity Fair is a women´s mag.

That's a pretty narrow definition (...) It assumes that discrimination in more subtle ways isn't really sexism.

I intended to define that discrimination based on gender is the thing in sexism, no matter what the gender and what the extent.

The problem is that SEX is the default and almost exclusive setting for ALL female characters in comics.

Not even close to the truth. You really need a copy of some extensive comic history book, for example 1001 Comics You Must Read Before You Die.

Look back a mere 100-150 years. Women weren't hypersexualized in media then. (...) Social attitudes are far more flexible than you think.

I am fully aware of what a state religion in monopoly position is capable of.

Now the difference is free access to information uncensored by the church or anyone else either. That makes harnessing people´s natural lustful instincts a lost cause, methinks.

The fact that you can make money on sexism (male or female) doesn't say anything about whether or not it should be encouraged. Appeals to racism, homophobia, and xenophobia can all reap rewards

The article linked in the OP did not include any gender discrimination that I would have noticed. I didn´t see there a woman who wanted to be priest but was barred from doing so. There were some women who wanted to be sexy and were not barred from doing so.

Sexualisation would become more of a problem if people get sexualised against their will. Like a male congressman commenting to the press that a female congressman talks good, wonder if she is good in bed too. Such unsolicited sexualisation annoys many women, and rightfully so I think.

But if a company sells pictures of sexualised women to men who want to buy pictures of sexualised women, I don´t see where the problem is, and whose problem it is, and who has the moral authority to interfere in this exchange, and what would the moral authority be based upon. Brute force? Okay.

 

[Polaris]

I've floated around various feminist/anti-feminist websites in the past few months. Naturally, I bumped into my share of misogynist radicals. They come in all flavors:

• Alpha, beta, and omega males lamenting "the game"
• Men looking for foreign women because American women don't want traditional roles
• People missing the good ol' days
• Religious dingbats
• People who want the right to smack their spouse around
• Bitter divorcees who want to tear down marriage, alimony, and child support
• Hypermasculine dudebros who are afraid of feminization

It's all a rich tapestry.

How is the bolded misogyny?

 

[Naive1000]

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

First you'd have to define "sexualized". For women and men it can mean different things. If you go by the classic idea of what men are suppose to be and what women are suppose to want from them then men in comic books are hyper sexualized: usually wealthy, major risk takers, physically impressive, stoic, and classically masculine.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

The next thing is the implication that getting laid is easy. Yeah, telling someone that has struggled for two decades to accomplish something that it "isn't that hard to do" is not going to improve their mood.

Whether or not it improves your mood, the percentage of men who get laid at some point in their life is a lot higher than the percentage of men who graduate high school, get a degree, run a marathon or do anything else you might see as noteworthy or impressive.

Objectively speaking, getting laid at some point is easy in the irrefutable sense that nearly everyone does it.

That doesn't mean getting laid right now is easy.

 

[bookitty]

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?

Wha? That makes no sense at all. Feminism is all about wanting to opt out of harmful gender roles. Now if they are also saying that they don't want to get married because all women are scheming whores who are just looking for a baby-daddy paycheck, then yes, feminists might have a small problem with it.

Do whatever you want in the privacy of your own brain - objectify people, be a big old racist, contemplate murder, kick a puppy, I don't care, nobody does. There are no "thought police" because we don't have the technology (cue dystopia derail.) The only way anyone ever knows what goes on inside anyone's brain is when they act on it. Acting on it makes things problematic.

 

[Morrigan]

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.

Did you even read the text in the bubbles? The whole point about that example was that it went beyond just sexualisation/objectification, and was downright sexist. Basically, in that snippet, the woman's explanation of why she's showing off her boobs instead of having a superhero symbol on the chest like the other superheroes, is because she's too dumb and vapid to come up with a symbol. Then, she starts crying because... who knows. Possibly she's sad at being dumb and vapid. Or because girls cry when they're upset.

 

[truethat]

Did you even read the text in the bubbles? The whole point about that example was that it went beyond just sexualisation/objectification, and was downright sexist. Basically, in that snippet, the woman's explanation of why she's showing off her boobs instead of having a superhero symbol on the chest like the other superheroes, is because she's too dumb and vapid to come up with a symbol. Then, she starts crying because... who knows. Possibly she's sad at being dumb and vapid. Or because girls cry when they're upset.

Yes ONE comic example. Not the entire genre.

 

[KingMerv00]

How is the bolded misogyny?

As written, it might not be. Looking to marry a housewife isn't an inherently bad thing as long as you recognize that women who don't want that aren't lesser beings. When I wrote that bullet point, I was referring to a subcategory of misogynist that not only wants a housewife but thinks ALL women should be housewives and moan about the liberalization of western world.

See the site anglobitch.com for a sample of what I mean.

 

[jiggeryqua]

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.

I don't know what your motivation is, but I'm not the topic of the thread, and your personal attacks are the biggest derail so far.

I do understand that feminism exists beyond patriarchal critical thinking requirements, so I shouldn't be at all surprised that you think 'exceptions prove the rule'. They do not. Nor do examples that support an argument prove an argument, as has also been suggested (though it was one of the cornerstones of feminist media criticism - see the work of the Glasgow Media Group, for example).

I think the 'nasty behaviour' you claim I exhibited in another thread will be my post (singular) in the bubbling feminism thread. I decided against getting any more involved in that thread because remarks like yours were pretty much guaranteed. Gallantry is inherently sexist, by the way... If you're interested in a civilised discussion rather than mud-slinging I'd consider justifying my remarks in private, if you'd like to PM me with your particular issues.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Well yeah, except that male characters never fight, walk, stand, or sleep in contorted potions. It's very difficult as a female comic reader to identify with a hero who must have both tit and ass in every single frame regardless of physically impossible it is.

A small sampling of examples:
http://eschergirls.tumblr.com/

Truethat,

Did you miss the link above? ONE example?

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Who cares if comics are sexist? Sex is good. Superheros are beyond human. They are superhuman. Their sexuality is too, superhuman.

It's aaaall good.

 

[KingMerv00]

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.

Point out the straw? The whole thing pretty much. Who said we want to criminalize anything or punish you for sexual thoughts? I mean this sincerely, you are honestly arguing past us. Once again I ask you to separate hyperbole from reality:

What exactly do you think we want? Why do you think we want it?

Side note. I think this vid seems on target:

 

[KingMerv00]

Who cares if comics are sexist? Sex is good. Superheros are beyond human. They are superhuman. Their sexuality is too, superhuman.

It's aaaall good.

I suddenly want a beer.

 

[Naive1000]

Wha? That makes no sense at all. Feminism is all about wanting to opt out of harmful gender roles. Now if they are also saying that they don't want to get married because all women are scheming whores who are just looking for a baby-daddy paycheck, then yes, feminists might have a small problem with it.

Do whatever you want in the privacy of your own brain - objectify people, be a big old racist, contemplate murder, kick a puppy, I don't care, nobody does. There are no "thought police" because we don't have the technology (cue dystopia derail.) The only way anyone ever knows what goes on inside anyone's brain is when they act on it. Acting on it makes things problematic.

I was talking about things like this: Link, Link, Link, Link, and Link. That men are boys if they don't play the game by societal standards. If men opt-out they're somehow all pot smoking, xbox playing losers. Because no rational man would choose to skip the whole married life or miss out on dedicating themselves to the rat race. Or in Japan, women don't want sex but the men well they're "herbivore men" (nice and derogatory).

To the second point why does it have to be in a person's brain only. If there's a market and consenting adults want to do it or be it then where's the problem. And "thought police" isn't just referring to things in one's mind, it's also about curtailing ideas that certain people don't like. Making sure that those ideas aren't allowed.

Did you even read the text in the bubbles? The whole point about that example was that it went beyond just sexualisation/objectification, and was downright sexist. Basically, in that snippet, the woman's explanation of why she's showing off her boobs instead of having a superhero symbol on the chest like the other superheroes, is because she's too dumb and vapid to come up with a symbol. Then, she starts crying because... who knows. Possibly she's sad at being dumb and vapid. Or because girls cry when they're upset.

Why is it when I point out in media a man made to look bad, it's always, well he's an individual, but one woman is made fun of and it's indicative of misogyny? Why is he an individual, but she's not? I can't figure out the dynamic there.

 

[Naive1000]

Point out the straw? The whole thing pretty much. Who said we want to criminalize anything or punish you for sexual thoughts? I mean this sincerely, you are honestly arguing past us. Once again I ask you to separate hyperbole from reality:

What exactly do you think we want? Why do you think we want it?

I was replying to the article and the comments, where some were talking about criminalizing what they saw as objectifying women. I thought that's what we were all talking about. It is the subject of the thread, and I saw no one arguing against it. So, I stated my opinion on it.

 

[truethat]

I was talking about things like this: Link, Link, Link, Link, and Link. That men are boys if they don't play the game by societal standards. If men opt-out they're somehow all pot smoking, xbox playing losers. Because no rational man would choose to skip the whole married life or miss out on dedicating themselves to the rat race. Or in Japan, women don't want sex but the men well they're "herbivore men" (nice and derogatory).

To the second point why does it have to be in a person's brain only. If there's a market and consenting adults want to do it or be it then where's the problem. And "thought police" isn't just referring to things in one's mind, it's also about curtailing ideas that certain people don't like. Making sure that those ideas aren't allowed.



Why is it when I point out in media a man made to look bad, it's always, well he's an individual, but one woman is made fun of and it's indicative of misogyny? Why is he an individual, but she's not? I can't figure out the dynamic there.

It's simple men are the "predators" and women are the "victims" that's the rules.

So if something bad does happen to a man or men, like being forced to pay for an unwanted child and called a dead beat dad and threated with jail because some woman you had sex with lied about being on birth control, that's just not that big of a deal. it doesn't matter. To ask for it to matter is pretending you don't already have tons of male privilege. You're just being greedy now.

You see?

 

[bookitty]

I was talking about things like this: Link, Link, Link, Link, and Link. That men are boys if they don't play the game by societal standards. If men opt-out they're somehow all pot smoking, xbox playing losers. Because no rational man would choose to skip the whole married life or miss out on dedicating themselves to the rat race. Or in Japan, women don't want sex but the men well they're "herbivore men" (nice and derogatory).

To the second point why does it have to be in a person's brain only. If there's a market and consenting adults want to do it or be it then where's the problem. And "thought police" isn't just referring to things in one's mind, it's also about curtailing ideas that certain people don't like. Making sure that those ideas aren't allowed.



Why is it when I point out in media a man made to look bad, it's always, well he's an individual, but one woman is made fun of and it's indicative of misogyny? Why is he an individual, but she's not? I can't figure out the dynamic there.

None of those articles was written from a feminist standpoint and every one of them has an example of harm that can be traced to the expected gender roles. The same gender roles that feminist have been saying are problematic for many years. I really don't see how you can lay this on feminism.