Sexism

[Alpha Gryph]

Oh it certainly isn't done more often with male characters! Where do you think the image of 'the perfect woman' as a small, slender, demure, painted, submissive, sweet, quiet, etc. etc. doll who loves to cook and clean, and never interrupts, and has a soft voice, and constantly comments on how big and strong her man is, etc. etc. came from? It is unquestionable that both genders are romanticized and distorted in fiction.

Hmm, I guess that is true. Maybe I just don't watch too many of those movies. The female characters are always so sassy.

 

Though I did forget about the women being overly beautified with lots of "boobage"

[elderberrysyrup]

I don't think it's accurate to say that one gender is more distorted than the other when it comes to popular fiction in any form, as both genders are equally warped out of reality. A male is tough, mysterious, strong. A female is sex appeal, and whatever 'tough' she has is really an exterior to a soft inside that is revealed only to the tough, strong man.

[wonton55912]

I see sexism as a problem, mostly because my parents are.

 

Seems the only thing women are good for (in the mans eyes where I'm from) is cooking, cleaning, and... uh... not gonna say it here. Do not agree.

 

We women could do things if we didn't follow the freaking stereotypes.

 

Of course that's just my perspective and I'm like the complete opposite of a psyhcologist so I'm probably not all that right...

[philpot123]

If Edward and Jacob are "ideal male stereotypes," I and every other kind hearted genuine male looking for a prospective partner in the world are royally ed. Sadly, I cannot be an immortal sparkly bloodsucker with a smell for your blood, nor can I be a shapeshifter with chiseled abdominals who rarely wears a shirt. I cannot grant you eternal life in vampire form, neither can I impregnate you with a demon child. I'm, sadly, real.

 

 

But yes, sexism towards females is very prevalent in literature. All female characters come across the same and that's just... yeah. Clearly not realistic. But then, when is fiction ever realistic? It's usually what the AUTHOR believes is "perfect." So, yup, that would be the author's problem...

Edited February 8, 2012 by philpot123

[Rosedamai]

If Edward and Jacob are "ideal male stereotypes," I and every other kind hearted genuine male looking for a prospective partner in the world are royally ed. Sadly, I cannot be an immortal sparkly bloodsucker with a smell for your blood, nor can I be a shapeshifter with chiseled abdominals who rarely wears a shirt. I cannot grant you eternal life in vampire form, neither can I impregnate you with a demon child. I'm, sadly, real.

Haha. Laughed out loud on the subway.

[Obscure_Trash]

Link to a feminist site, heh, one step closer to a female chauvinism

 

Aaaaaaand I'm out. If you have the slightest belief that I may be able to get you to support or at least see the need for gender equality though our conversation, then I'll go back and read the rest of your post and debate and discuss with you.

 

~

 

Speaking of sexism in literature, but taking the opposite turn, anybody here seen Sucker Punch?

 

This blog sums up my thoughts pretty well: http://www.lunalindsey.com/2011/03/analysi...h-feminist.html

 

The first time around I was disappointed. My friend watched it and I decided to try again (I've ruined quite a few movies the first time by expecting something totally different) and each time I watch it, I like it more. It's got some impressive subtle nuances. :3

 

I've also been in love with the characters Michael Crichton used. <3

(And Tamora Pierce, of course!)

[philpot123]

Haha. Laughed out loud on the subway.

Glad I could make someone smile

[WereJace]

Aaaaaaand I'm out. If you have the slightest belief that I may be able to get you to support or at least see the need for gender equality though our conversation, then I'll go back and read the rest of your post and debate and discuss with you.

 

~

 

Speaking of sexism in literature, but taking the opposite turn, anybody here seen Sucker Punch?

 

This blog sums up my thoughts pretty well: http://www.lunalindsey.com/2011/03/analysi...h-feminist.html

 

The first time around I was disappointed. My friend watched it and I decided to try again (I've ruined quite a few movies the first time by expecting something totally different) and each time I watch it, I like it more. It's got some impressive subtle nuances. :3

 

I've also been in love with the characters Michael Crichton used. <3

(And Tamora Pierce, of course!)

I really, really, really, really, really wanted to like Sucker Punch, and I do get the message, I just thought it was poorly handled and that the movie turned into an incoherent mess. I'm willing to give it another chance, and I think that I should, keeping several similar reviews in mind, but I have been around far too many people who thought it was awesome because of the fantasy sequences and not the deeper meanings (three separate arguments about the rapeyness of the outermost layer and counting!).

[Obscure_Trash]

I really, really, really, really, really wanted to like Sucker Punch, and I do get the message, I just thought it was poorly handled and that the movie turned into an incoherent mess. I'm willing to give it another chance, and I think that I should, keeping several similar reviews in mind, but I have been around far too many people who thought it was awesome because of the fantasy sequences and not the deeper meanings (three separate arguments about the rapeyness of the outermost layer and counting!).

I do definitely wish that it had been done in a different manner; I can't disagree there. There are definitely those who don't take it as it was (hopefully) meant, which is bothersome and a reason I've only watched it with one friend. x3

[WereJace]

I do definitely wish that it had been done in a different manner; I can't disagree there. There are definitely those who don't take it as it was (hopefully) meant, which is bothersome and a reason I've only watched it with one friend. x3

All of my critique really comes from my movie nerdiness, not so much from my feminism.

 

My current minor media obsession is Leverage, which is a popcorny action-drama-comedy thing TNT does that I really like for its two main female characters. Sophie and Parker are strong individuals on equal footing with the rest of the team, known (and occasionally feared) for their expertise in their respective fields. Though there are romantic subplots, they don't choke out the rest of the plot. It's an added bonus that Sophie as an older woman, is presented as attractive and sensual.

[Kelkelen]

http://www.overthinkingit.com/2010/10/11/f...cter-flowchart/ <-- I think this is a great breakdown of the many 2D female stereotypes found in fiction. And funny, too!

 

Oh, and here's a nice TVTropes article on The Bechdel Test. One of the few things that convinces me we've all still got a long road to equality ahead of us.

 

Nice video to illustrate The Bechdel Test as well; it explains it very clearly. It's not a gauge of whether any one specific work of fiction is good or bad, sexist or not sexist -- it just sheds light on an overall trend that says something about our societal view of women and stories.

[Princess Artemis]

Nice video to illustrate The Bechdel Test as well; it explains it very clearly. It's not a gauge of whether any one specific work of fiction is good or bad, sexist or not sexist -- it just sheds light on an overall trend that says something about our societal view of women and stories.

The comments on this are amazing. The video was very calm and talked about a trend, and the comments are reacting as if it was fire and brimstone psychotic frothing rage that personally called them out.

[Kelkelen]

The comments on this are amazing. The video was very calm and talked about a trend, and the comments are reacting as if it was fire and brimstone psychotic frothing rage that personally called them out.

I know! I was amazed at how many comments were arguing against points she'd already dealt with right at the start of the video -- that it wasn't a gauge of a movie's worth or whether it was sexist, that it was just noting a societal trend, etc. Lots of "HOW DARE YOU! YOU'RE WRONG for saying (insert thing that was in no way said here)!!!"

[Obscure_Trash]

All of my critique really comes from my movie nerdiness, not so much from my feminism.

 

My current minor media obsession is Leverage, which is a popcorny action-drama-comedy thing TNT does that I really like for its two main female characters. Sophie and Parker are strong individuals on equal footing with the rest of the team, known (and occasionally feared) for their expertise in their respective fields. Though there are romantic subplots, they don't choke out the rest of the plot. It's an added bonus that Sophie as an older woman, is presented as attractive and sensual.

Leverage? Haven't heard of it, but I'll look into checking it out! Hopefully Hulu has it. >.>

I've heard some pretty good things about Rizzoli and Isles, so I was thinking about checking them out, too, just haven't had the time, lol.

 

The comments on this are amazing. The video was very calm and talked about a trend, and the comments are reacting as if it was fire and brimstone psychotic frothing rage that personally called them out.

 

I should have just read this and kept it at that. Thought maybe I could stomach some, but I didn't make it past the first comment before realizing how stupid that plan was for me. D:

[elderberrysyrup]

I don't really understand how someone could leap to such an opinion when the movie clearly didn't state as such. Do they just not listen? Do they just not pay attention? Do they just happen to be fairly forgetful?

[Rosedamai]

I don't really understand how someone could leap to such an opinion when the movie clearly didn't state as such. Do they just not listen? Do they just not pay attention? Do they just happen to be fairly forgetful?

They just probably looked at the title and then jumped to conclusions. :/ Happens a lot.

[Princess Artemis]

I don't really understand how someone could leap to such an opinion when the movie clearly didn't state as such. Do they just not listen? Do they just not pay attention? Do they just happen to be fairly forgetful?

My guess is a lot of the commentators felt defensive of the slightest criticism. That's pretty common, and since it's apparently perfectly acceptable to say "Nobody cares, you're just a crazy, raging woman" and have it be accepted as a valid defense, people chose it rather than think. Thinking hurts when it means having to consider if criticism is valid. It hurts for virtually everyone, there's nigh onto no one alive who doesn't feel a twinge of hurt when faced with the need to think about criticism.

 

I should have just read this and kept it at that. Thought maybe I could stomach some, but I didn't make it past the first comment before realizing how stupid that plan was for me. D:

 

Do you know of any good antidote sites? Share maybe if you do?

Edited February 21, 2012 by Princess Artemis

[elderberrysyrup]

My guess is a lot of the commentators felt defensive of the slightest criticism.  That's pretty common, and since it's apparently perfectly acceptable to say "Nobody cares, you're just a crazy, raging woman" and have it be accepted as a valid defense, people chose it rather than think.  Thinking hurts when it means having to consider if criticism is valid.  It hurts for virtually everyone, there's nigh onto no one alive who doesn't feel a twinge of hurt when faced with the need to think about criticism.

Was it a criticism or merely a passing observation? I believe it's been presented as the latter, so believing it as a criticism is confusing for me. To see it as a criticism, then the reaction would make sense as people tend to do as such. However, the jump from observation to criticism confuses me.

Edited February 21, 2012 by soullesshuman

[Princess Artemis]

It was a criticism, but in the sense of it being a thoughtful observation and evaluation. A great many people take that sort of criticism as adverse and get defensive about it, and even people who know what it is can feel a sting if they didn't see it coming. Even something like "That movie had a lot of dimly lit scenes," could invoke a "Nuh uh, I could see it just fine!" when given a little thought, the defensive person would realize that the movie did have a lot of dimly lit scenes that were still quite visible and that observation, that criticism, wasn't meant as an insult nor even meant as something necessarily to change. Criticism sometimes is observation in the world of art--it's observation with critical thinking skills in place.

 

It might have been better if I had said it was a mild textual criticism.

Edited February 21, 2012 by Princess Artemis

[Fuzzbucket]

They'll just say "Is it your time of the month, dear ?"

 

We are invisible. Except when they want the housework done, or the other thing. I believe in Lysistrata myself.

 

Oops - but as I said - I am NOT a feminist - I am a peopleist. I do think rabid feminism has done some damage too.

Edited February 21, 2012 by fuzzbucket

[Kelkelen]

They'll just say "Is it your time of the month, dear ?"

 

We are invisible. Except when they want the housework done, or the other thing. I believe in Lysistrata myself.

 

Oops - but as I said - I am NOT a feminist - I am a peopleist. I do think rabid feminism has done some damage too.

I'd like to offer up this video --

-- in slight rebuttal. It's also by FeministFrequency, the source of the second Bechdel Test video I linked to above. She has a lot of great vids that discuss various female-related tropes in detail (with loads of fun movie clip examples!).

 

In this video, she discusses the "straw feminist" -- the feminist character that's thrown into a show solely for the purpose of portraying feminism as extremist, silly, threatening, and unnecessary. I think that influences like these, today, are making people feel embarrassed or reluctant to label themselves as feminists, lest they end up "lumped in" with some kind of insane radical fringe. But being an equal-opportunist woman and yet rejecting the idea of calling yourself a feminist serves to discredit all legitimate feminists as well, who form the bulk of the movement/mindset/presence. "Rabid" anyone does damage -- rabid Christians, rabid Civil Rights groups, rabid Democrats, etc. -- but that doesn't mean it should be a stigma to identify yourself as Christian, pro-Civil-Rights, or Democrat, just because some small fringe of said group has behaved horribly. *You* are just as much an ambassador of that group as any other! And more so, if you're a reasonable, level-headed, fair person who can communicate to others outside the group, clarifying what it's about and setting a positive example!

 

I get worried and upset any time an independent woman in support of equal rights states that she is *not* a feminist (and really, saying you don't want to call yourself one pretty much comes off as saying you're not one). I mean, what *is* a feminist? It's someone who acknowledges that women and men do not have equal political, economic, or social rights or treatment, in a way which is largely to women's deficit. While feminism strives for equal rights, removing the concept of "female" from the movement's (or point-of-view's) name would be drawing attention away from the face that women are a minority (they're a minority in the societal sense; I do realize that humans are about 50% female!) which is still being marginalized in many ways today. Even a term such as "equalist," used with the best of intentions, implicitly suggests that men and women are being discriminated against in more or less comparable ways. The reality is that even in modern, first-world countries, women are paid less, given less benefits, socially pressured to adhere to certain appearances, performance levels, and behaviors, and the laws are constantly trying to enforce some kind of power over all women's reproductive choices, while courts are still blaming rape victims for 'inviting' their rapes.

 

Yes, men are sometimes harmed by sexism and gender roles. But compared to the worldwide epidemic of women being treated as property, sold into slavery, relegated to domestic life and reproduction, not earning as much (if any income at all), not being respected as leaders, not defended adequately in court, denied education, denied careers (often ANY careers) and thus denied independence (without one's own income or marketable skills, how does one have any agency apart from a husband?), being pressured to conform to very narrow and often physically-damaging ideals of beauty, sexuality, being "female castrated" (which is not comparable to male castration; it's the cutting off and scarring of the exterior genitals, kind of the equivalent of cutting off half a man's...yeah), denied the right to attend schools while menstruating, etc... in light of all that, I believe the focus still needs to be on bringing women up to a level of equality.

 

In closing, I feel as if modern women distancing themselves from the term "feminism" tends to imply that the problem is mostly solved, when in reality, it has a long way to go.

 

(Whew! That was so much longer than I thought it would be. If you actually read all of it, I commend you!)

[Obscure_Trash]

Oops - but as I said - I am NOT a feminist - I am a peopleist. I do think rabid feminism has done some damage too.

I love you fuzz, so I hope you don't mind if I quote something to you. It's from Shakesville, which I'm not going to link for all the language around the site, but google "Shakesville humanism" and it's like the first two results, which actually don't contain much language themselves. :3

 

Why feminism (where "feminism" means sex equality) cannot be subsumed by humanism (where "humanism" means equality for all humans) [...]

 

That's a visceral and violent reaction to something that is specifically feminine.* And as long as there are men, who would ostensibly be part of the "humanist" movement, yet retain a visceral and violent reaction to the feminine, there is no foundation for a sexless, "humanist" movement.

 

Generally, those arguing in favor of a "humanist" movement won't say they're arguing for men's inclusion, instead citing what they perceive as the limitations of feminism/womanism—"But what about gay people or people of color or the disabled or the poor or…?" they ask, as if there is something intrinsic to feminism that precludes also fighting other biases. The truth is, if one is genuinely concerned with the betterment of women, one is necessarily concerned with fighting biases against any marginalized group, because, half (give or take) of all such groups are women.

 

When I advocate for women, I advocate for all women: Black women, brown women, white women, tall women, short women, fat women, thin women, disabled women, abled women, old women, young women, women with children, childless women, healthy women, ill women, dwarf women, poor women, rich women, middle class women, employed women, unemployed women, immigrant women, women in other countries, English-speaking women, non-English-speaking women, progressive women, conservative women, women in unions, women in comas, straight women, lesbian women, bisexual women, trans women, powerful women, weak women, vegan woman, vegetarian women, meat-eating women, religious women, atheist women, agnostic women, educated women, uneducated women, women who have survived rape, women who want my advocacy, women who don't, and every other conceivable expression, intersectionality, and experience of womanhood that exists on the planet.

 

Arguing for a "humanist" movement, because feminism/womanism is too limited, is necessarily predicated on viewing "women" as a group separate from "people of color" as a group separate from "LGBTQ" as a group separate from "disabled" as a group separate from "poor" as a group separate from "fat" as a group separate from… It's a failure to respect both intersectionality and the breadth of experience among women, no less among all humans.

 

And what kind of success can a "humanist" movement have, when it doesn't even recognize something so fundamental about humankind?

 

If men were smart, they wouldn’t fight against feminism. They would embrace it for what it really is: Humanism. (And stop fretting over whether the term “feminism” is exclusory; its principles aren’t.) They would incorporate the principles of all civil rights movements and collaborate with their proponents on the genesis of a vast humanist movement. Instead of feeling threatened by or put upon by these movements, instead of feeling they somehow denigrate straight, white men’s lives or their ability to be who they are, men would apply these ideas in an effort to improve their own lives, along with everyone else’s. What we need to do is confer all the rights and privileges that these men have traditionally enjoyed upon everyone else, and then, once we’ve done that, we can start thinking about what new rights, obligations, responsibilities we can confer on everyone, in order to make our society a more egalitarian and fair place to live.

 

Men need to get it through their heads that they, too, are under the heel of power structures that have no interest in promoting their welfare. They must understand that the rights and privileges that they have hitherto been enjoying fall far short of the privileges they could enjoy were they to try and achieve them. The internecine warfare that occurs between women and men, people of color and white people, straights and gays, as they all squabble like schoolchildren in an attempt to gain or deny rights, is exactly what those in power want. They promote it, they foment it, they do everything they can to aggravate it, because they know that if we were all ever to get our [language] together, and demand that the society we all live in and contribute to should be fair and decent to everyone, then the egregious wealth and power that they enjoy would finally meet its end.

 

What men need to understand is that their wives, the black guy across the street, the gay guy next door, are not the only ones toiling under the weight of a patriarchal system that doesn’t benefit all men, but instead a select few who hold all the power and all the wealth in their hands, the weight of a society that rewards capital and a slavish work mentality over human dignity and the freedom of individuals to express their own interests and realize their full potential as human beings.

[NobleOwl]

All of my critique really comes from my movie nerdiness, not so much from my feminism.

 

My current minor media obsession is Leverage, which is a popcorny action-drama-comedy thing TNT does that I really like for its two main female characters. Sophie and Parker are strong individuals on equal footing with the rest of the team, known (and occasionally feared) for their expertise in their respective fields. Though there are romantic subplots, they don't choke out the rest of the plot. It's an added bonus that Sophie as an older woman, is presented as attractive and sensual.

Leverage (and Parker) is awesome.

 

That girl is "twenty pounds of crazy in a five pound bag."

 

I love that show, though Shiny, has this thing with Sophie where she always wants to insert lines from Coupling in, because....I don't Know. She likes Coupling?

 

(Didn't even realize Sophie was in Coupling until after she told me.)

 

Sucker Punch, eh, too much of an acid trip movie for me, and shiny wouldn't see it for the rape implications, so I saw it by myself. Now if they do an American McGee Alice movie...

 

 

[Alpha1]

I mean, what *is* a feminist? It's someone who acknowledges that women and men do not have equal political, economic, or social rights or treatment, in a way which is largely to women's deficit.

 

I'm assuming they dislike being associated with that term because many feminists are hypocritical and use hyperbole. For example, on CBS's "The Talk", all those women laughed heartily at a woman who drugged her husband and sliced his [beep] off because of an impending divorce. Sharon Osbourne called it "quite fabulous" and "hysterical". It's only sexist if a man does it.

 

 

[Kelkelen]

I'm assuming they dislike being associated with that term because many feminists are hypocritical and use hyperbole. For example, on CBS's "The Talk", all those women laughed heartily at a woman who drugged her husband and sliced his [beep] off because of an impending divorce. Sharon Osbourne called it "quite fabulous" and "hysterical". It's only sexist if a man does it.

That's absolutely not feminist -- you clearly recognize it's sexist and degrading behavior, and any real feminist would as well. Also, I would hardly think of "The Talk" as feminist programming. I don't think any of those women are self-professed as active in the feminist community.

 

But I wish people wouldn't avoid the word; the point is, if you a) recognize that women's social, political, and economic status is generally lower than men's and has been in pretty much all of human memory, and think that status quo is unfair, and want to bring women up to the same level as men, then c) you are a feminist. If you don't believe the first point, or don't agree with the second, then you're not. There's no two ways about it.

 

Just because Rush Limbaugh coined the term "Feminazis," there's no reason we have to believe in them!