This guy needs hitting with the clue stick. Repeatedly.
I have absolutely no problem with any kind of pornography (naturally preferring mine with less boobage) where people choose to display their bodies in an erotic fashion (I can even see the empowerment of it). Because though the women there are sex objects, so is everyone else. The whole thing is a sex object. The men, the women, the director, the producer, the cover artist, the (*laugh*) writer, the set. It’s one great big unashamed sex object.
I do think more clue stick whacking needs to go round when you produce things like the uber-breasted super hero wearing tight spandex and are in utter denial of the sex object element. This bothers me more than porn because in the former there is no denial - the women are in the picture for sex. the men are in the picture for sex. It’s all sex. In the comic there’s a denial element - no, this overly sexualised image isn’t about sex. Honest. Which means that this portrayal is seen as typical, normalised if you will. How to say it? The objectification is not in a context where objectification is accepted and admitted and unusal and atypical - the objectification is in a context which implies the objectification of women is typical or normal. It is not in an objectification genre, it is in a completely different genre - and the objectification is assumed.
And this is exacerbated by this idea of “feminazi” or “overly sensitive woman” which means people tell misogynist jokes and just dismiss (and delete) any criticism. A woman has an issue with something like this model and you can already see the eye-rolling. That feeds into it - women complaining about misogyny are considered unreasonable - which in turn implies that misogyny is REASONABLE.
Still, I suppose it’s getting better. No more comics of Super woman refusing to remove her blind fold because her “feminine vanity” could not stand the idea of it tearing out her eyelashes.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-16 12:27 am (UTC)I have absolutely no problem with any kind of pornography (naturally preferring mine with less boobage) where people choose to display their bodies in an erotic fashion (I can even see the empowerment of it). Because though the women there are sex objects, so is everyone else. The whole thing is a sex object. The men, the women, the director, the producer, the cover artist, the (*laugh*) writer, the set. It’s one great big unashamed sex object.
I do think more clue stick whacking needs to go round when you produce things like the uber-breasted super hero wearing tight spandex and are in utter denial of the sex object element. This bothers me more than porn because in the former there is no denial - the women are in the picture for sex. the men are in the picture for sex. It’s all sex. In the comic there’s a denial element - no, this overly sexualised image isn’t about sex. Honest. Which means that this portrayal is seen as typical, normalised if you will. How to say it? The objectification is not in a context where objectification is accepted and admitted and unusal and atypical - the objectification is in a context which implies the objectification of women is typical or normal. It is not in an objectification genre, it is in a completely different genre - and the objectification is assumed.
And this is exacerbated by this idea of “feminazi” or “overly sensitive woman” which means people tell misogynist jokes and just dismiss (and delete) any criticism. A woman has an issue with something like this model and you can already see the eye-rolling. That feeds into it - women complaining about misogyny are considered unreasonable - which in turn implies that misogyny is REASONABLE.
Still, I suppose it’s getting better. No more comics of Super woman refusing to remove her blind fold because her “feminine vanity” could not stand the idea of it tearing out her eyelashes.
oops,. that was loooong