Author Topic: Fuck Sexism  (Read 117282 times)

Lord J Esq

  • Moon Stone J
  • Hero of Time (+5000)
  • *
  • Posts: 5463
  • ^_^ "Ayla teach at college level!!"
    • View Profile
Re: Fuck Sexism
« Reply #1095 on: December 07, 2011, 11:43:35 pm »
@Thought: It looks like we are converging on a consensus. I will reply at a later date to clear up some inaccuracies and errors on your part, and address some of your concerns. You could have saved yourself a lot of trouble by asking me for my position rather than attempting to discern it! In the meantime...

The Obama Administration Is Overruling the FDA's Decision to Make the Emergency Contraceptive "Plan B" Available without a Prescription

The news article suggests that HHS Secretary Sebelius overruled the FDA over concerns about the safety of Plan B, a viewpoint that the FDA and others dispute. I am well and truly baffled by this development. I have had only positive things to say about Sebelius thus far. Is she doing this under somebody else's orders? This is inexplicable and despicable. To have come out of the Obama administration, it is also inexcusable.

ZeaLitY

  • Entity
  • End of Timer (+10000)
  • *
  • Posts: 10797
  • Spring Breeze Dancin'
    • View Profile
    • My Compendium Staff Profile
Re: Fuck Sexism
« Reply #1096 on: December 07, 2011, 11:55:37 pm »
Has to be election posturing. Fuck it, by the way.

Thought

  • Guru of Time Emeritus
  • God of War (+3000)
  • *
  • Posts: 3426
    • View Profile
Re: Fuck Sexism
« Reply #1097 on: December 08, 2011, 12:37:57 am »
You could have saved yourself a lot of trouble by asking me for my position rather than attempting to discern it!

When you speak plainly and directly, there can be no mistake. But when not...

Lord J Esq

  • Moon Stone J
  • Hero of Time (+5000)
  • *
  • Posts: 5463
  • ^_^ "Ayla teach at college level!!"
    • View Profile
Re: Fuck Sexism
« Reply #1098 on: December 08, 2011, 12:46:55 am »
I think I take more care with my words than you give me credit for, and certainly more than anyone else here. It is simply unavoidable--I explained this to you in PM--that I should not maintain absolute precision clarity in my word use in all my social interactions. I understand that you rightly hold me to a higher standard, but I think in this case your standard could benefit from improvement itself.

Thought

  • Guru of Time Emeritus
  • God of War (+3000)
  • *
  • Posts: 3426
    • View Profile
Re: Fuck Sexism
« Reply #1099 on: December 08, 2011, 12:59:10 am »
Just making sure you weren't misunderstanding the point again.

rushingwind

  • Guru of Life Emeritus
  • Squaretable Knight (+400)
  • *
  • Posts: 425
    • View Profile
Re: Fuck Sexism
« Reply #1100 on: December 10, 2011, 05:44:41 am »
Normally, I would post this in my own journal or in my SoY thread, but I thought it might be of some interest here. As for a little bit of context, I've been coming off of a long, long depression. I have things buried so deeply that I don't even remember how much they hurt me. While talking with someone the other day, I uncovered something that, like many other realizations, made me cry in the retelling of the story.

In my senior year of high school, we took a ski trip. I had signed up for a snowboarding lesson, and everyone was kind of joking around with me about being the only girl that dared to go snowboarding. I thought they were just joking. When we finally went on the trip, we all had to line up to meet the snowbaording instructor. There were six of us, and the instructor proclaimed he could only take five people, and it didn't matter that six had paid. The five boys instantly counted themselves off, and the instructor didn't even look at me. He pointed at the boys and said, "All right, guys! Let's go!"

I tried to argue with him. I said that I'd paid to be there, and the ski resort had a contract with the school and he had to take me. He rolled his eyes, looked me up and down (which was extremely embarrassing as an overweight 17 year old), and exhaled sharply. And then he said, "Look, lady, it's not my problem. Go get a lesson from someone who wants to teach you." And then he just walked off.

I stood there in shock for a moment, then cried. I felt so awful. I went back into the lodge and turned in all my snowboard equipment, as I was quite done with skiing around for the day. I sat in the lobby and cried, and one of my classmates asked me what was wrong. I told her, and she went and got the teacher. When I told the teacher what happened, she walked off and said she'd take care of it. Eventually she came back and said the manager had talked to the instructor and he would be giving me a lesson at 4pm, and he wouldn't be able to get out of it. I didn't go. I couldn't even stomach the though of it. I didn't want a lesson with that instructor. No one seemed to care that this guy overlooked me and treated me badly just because I was a woman.

That's pretty much the whole story, but it amazed me that when I started telling it to my roommate, I started to cry. I never realized how much it had actually hurt. I was in a very sensitive position at that time in my life (I mean, who isn't? But I was entering into a phase of depression and that did NOT help). I just shrugged it off and said, "Eh, no big deal." But it was a big deal, and I should have spoken up and said so, but I was just a scared teenager, not sure of herself or of what to do.

Long story short: People need to be more careful of how they treat young women and girls. I know that's pretty much the whole point of this thread, but it's important to note that even small things, small comments, and seemingly meaningless events (such as the little story above) can still hurt the recipient of those words a decade later. (I'm okay now. I cried it out. I feel better. I can now let it go. But I won't stand idly by if there's a next time.)

We need to change society. Somehow, we need to fix this. Stuff like this is not okay.

Lord J Esq

  • Moon Stone J
  • Hero of Time (+5000)
  • *
  • Posts: 5463
  • ^_^ "Ayla teach at college level!!"
    • View Profile
Re: Fuck Sexism
« Reply #1101 on: December 10, 2011, 07:29:24 am »
It is difficult to focus upon evil and retain the power to see anything else, so starkly does it bend our gaze. Never more than in the stories of injustice is it more grueling to imagine a world free of injustice.

I wouldn't have gone for a lesson with that instructor either. My sense of self-worth and my abject humiliation would have combined to make that much a certainty. I've had a few experiences along those lines in my lifetime, but nothing quite so dazzlingly egregious as yours.

You hit it on the head. Stuff like that is not okay. It devastates people.

Lord J Esq

  • Moon Stone J
  • Hero of Time (+5000)
  • *
  • Posts: 5463
  • ^_^ "Ayla teach at college level!!"
    • View Profile
Re: Fuck Sexism
« Reply #1102 on: December 10, 2011, 02:21:59 pm »
To continue my ongoing discussion with Thought:

The main reason I’m responding is to make sure that it was clear, for others as well as for you. I stated it both explicitly and implicitly several times, so I’m surprised you missed it.

That is my error, so I thank you for taking the pains to clarify your point. Importantly, however, as I told you in PM, I think you would benefit from being more clear and direct, because although I must take the blame for failing to understand you...for me to completely miss a point that has been stated several times usually suggests ambiguity on the part of the speaker, which is what I think happened here.

It appears that you think that I imagine you sitting in a dark, abandoned warehouse, curling your dark and luxurious handlebar mustache with your left hand, chuckling and scheming and plotting on how to force women to have abortions. Perhaps there is a hunchbacked mook in the background, dragging bags full of unspeakable supplies along the ground, now in the light cast by broken windows, now in the darkness that the light only makes deeper.

That is certainly not the case.

Indeed not! Though I would enjoy having a luxurious handlebar moustache to twirl in contemplating my many schemes. No, dear Thought, although I have been honestly bemused as to why you have pressed your point so hard even after being proved in error, I do not suspect that you do so out of malice.

Much as you criticized the original article for its effective meanings, rather than what it plainly said, I was criticizing you for the underlying implications and effective meanings of your words and stance, not your direct statements.

Yes, this is one of our more substantive disagreements. I must confess that some of my word usages were not absolutely strict, which apparently created the ambiguity in which you made your faulty interpretation of my position. Even though I am one of the most meticulously thoughtful people on the Compendium with regard to word choice—perhaps the very most thoughtful—it’s true that in the casual environment of this board I write at a level less formal than I would use in an academic setting. The fact that everyone else, yourself included, does the same even worse than I do, is no defense for my lapse.

Our disagreement is not that I could have been more strict with my usage of language, for I concede the charge, but that someone of your intellectual caliber was confused into such a pointless and self-evidently wrong interpretation—concluding ultimately that I would be so dim and dull as to have taken years to construct a position on behalf of sexual equality which is ill-considered and oppressive to females. You have yet to properly acknowledge your mistake here, which I think it would behoove your good character to do.

It is not that I am incapable of making such a mistake, but that in this case it was not so, and yet you persisted in the criticism even when I pointed your mistake out to you in no uncertain terms. Were I genuinely guilty of holding a counterproductive position, I would be very grateful to have it pointed out to me, and immediate in my concession.

Direct statements from you assuring the world of your good intentions do not address the criticisms. You cannot “assure” these charges away, but rather must show through your actions that these were invalid in the present and, hopefully, in the past as well.

You are mistaken also on this point. Direct statements are entirely appropriate, because we were talking about the substance of a position. Any disagreement stemming from a conflicting understanding of a single concept  is properly resolved by each party articulating their positions so that the conflicting conceptual framework is resolved.

At any rate, I have done more than my share to show over the years on this Compendium and elsewhere that I am very sincere in my views and efforts and have acted in accordance with my principles. The fact that the Compendium has such a vibrant discussion on issues of sexual equality, including abortion, is due mainly to the fact that I continually foment such discussion. I simply will not  be accused or implied to be anything less than what I am in this most crucial endeavor to promote access to abortion care for all those who wish it.

Also, to besmirch the people who are most significant to the furtherance of a just cause is unwise even if you have a legitimate academic curiosity to explore. You may always pursue those kinds of curiosity, but in private with me. You are new to the support of abortion rights, and you have a good deal yet to learn and appreciate about the nuances of the issue. Your curiosity and skepticism are healthy, and it is always preferable to be skeptical than to be faithful when in the absence of definitive knowledge. I won’t ask to be taken on faith as to the integrity of my credentials. Rather, they are already here in abundance on this Compendium and elsewhere for you to scrutinize at your convenience. In the meantime, when it comes to making public criticisms you must also take responsibility for the social fallout of your doubts which turn out to be unfounded.

Defense of abortion is only our primary concern if abortion itself is our primary concern. If our primary concern is freedom of choice, then we must discard even easily defended positions if they are false.

You present a false dichotomy here. Abortion is relevant because it concerns a female’s right to self-determination. Choice is the means by which self-determination is executed. Abortion is, in this particular case, is the object.

The context makes it clear that the second and third sentences are in contrast to my own statement (which effectively was that if freedom of choice was our primary concern, then defense of abortion cannot be our primary concern). You are then saying that defense of abortion is our primary concern.

You are mistaken again. By insisting upon the recognition of a “primary concern,” you persist in the false dichotomy which you originally presented. In the case of self-determination at issue, both means and object are paramount in their respective class. You are structurally oversimplifying the problem.

My amusement of the day is that I am very deeply immersed in a huge project with hydra-like tentacles. To perform one task, I must move aside and complete another one first, and to complete that task, move aside and complete another...and on, and on.

Our primary task is to ensure reproductive rights. To do that, we must complete a different task first: the establishment and protection of abortion. We might direct the entirety of our efforts to that task, but it isn’t the primary task. It is the one that we are working on to accomplish that primary task. The defense of abortion certainly our current concern, as the opposition to it poses a clear and present danger to reproductive rights, that doesn’t make it primary.

I think you should give further contemplation to my previous remarks until you understand them. You continue to labor under this false dichotomy you have created. The only “primary” goal here is self-determination. Abortion itself and the choice to have an abortion are not in competition with each other.

You are quite right that the term “pro-abortion” has a hint of unsavoriness to it (if it is only a hint, then perhaps I didn’t properly vilify it). Appearing pro-abortion over pro-choice, even if you didn’t actually mean it that way, hurts the perception of you and the pro-choice movement. It gives the opposition caricature to point to as justification for their continued opposition.

Given my history on this subject and my stated views in response to your criticism, these are exactly the kinds of remarks which do you a considerable disservice. I invite you to immerse yourself in the reproductive rights movement and accuse the people in it as you have accused me. You will discover soon enough that not only do you have no ground to stand upon when you presume to speak for the movement here, but, also, that you will find yourself written off as an insincere figure in that movement when you make unfounded criticisms of the people in it.

Now, I take you at your word that your commitment is genuine, and I suspect that your original impulse for criticizing me was a noble and academic one. However, at this point you need to acknowledge that your persistent criticism of my position is simply not valid, and that by refusing to own your mistake gracefully and even going so far as to suggest that my pro-choice views harm the pro-choice movement because I used the word “abortion” instead of “choice,” you are not contributing productively to the movement. If you pursue such a tack elsewhere, you will earn easy alienation. You are fortunate that I am more forgiving than most, and the more so because I know you (a little bit) and think you are an honorable person.

I have learned that, in the pursuit of grassroots social change, it is necessary for allies to put aside as many of their differences as they can in pursuit of the common goal. I have also learned to generally take people at their word when they say they are genuinely committed, unless their words or actions speak clearly to the contrary. If pressed you would probably concede that my commitment is genuine too, in which case, even though you have maintained that my execution of that commitment is counterproductive. Since I have made my disagreement with your assertion quite clear, I think now is the point for you to make a genuine acknowledgment of your error, if you have it in you to do so.

If not, then now is the time for us to agree to disagree. It isn’t necessary that allies in a movement attain full agreement with one another, so long as there is enough cohesion for the movement to agree upon some meaningful core principles and plans of action. I have learned to accept being misunderstood by others. I don’t hold it against you, because I know your intentions are not malicious.

Just so that I am clear, which we have agreed is important, don’t mistake any of this for a suggestion on my part that people in a common movement should not criticize each other. I do not agree with that statement. A healthy movement not only needs to tolerate sincere criticism, but indeed can only be healthy by tolerating such. You have made your criticism, and there was nothing wrong with giving a voice to your suspicions—up until the point when I informed you that you were in error in your interpretation of my position. After that point, you had the opportunity to press your argument decisively, which you did, and although you did spot some minor errors on my part, for which I am grateful, your core criticism was proved to be unfounded. It is not even that you lacked the means to develop your argument. It is that you mistook me, plain and simple, and since being corrected you have stubbornly persisted in your criticism despite losing the legitimacy for your suspicion. Where pride becomes the motivating factor in your campaign is where your license ends to criticize your ally in a manner that is healthy for the movement whose goals we both share.

This is important because pro-lifers aren’t evil at their core.

I see you are not using my definition of evil, “ignorance or willful ignorance.” Rather, you are using a more convention definition, and I gather you are trying to point out that many anti-choicers (or “pro-lifers,” if you must) possess a certain measure of decency and “good” intentions. Very well, then. I agree.

Indeed, the only way that social reforms are even possible is because people are basically good. Their decency can be appealed to.

But with this I do not agree. Not necessarily, anyhow. I learned a long time ago that some people can be reasoned with, but most cannot. “Decency” be damned, which is why I would really prefer you use my definition of “evil” as it does not contain the kinds of flaws and gaps that your more conventional definition does. The people who cannot be reasoned with can only be forced, neutralized, bribed, or tricked. The vast majority of the activist core of the anti-choice movement are not capable of being reasoned with. (For that matter, a significant proportion—though not necessarily the vast majority—of the pro-choice movement’s core activist base is similarly dogmatic in its commitment.) In lieu of this juiciest recourse, wherein wisdom wins the day and humanity prevails, the alternative is to crush the enemy by marginalizing their cultural influence and setting the law against their will.

Were the underlying issue not so important, and were reason sufficient to prevail, such a ruthless policy would be necessary. As it is, however, nothing less than such a ruthless policy is just.

That is still misleading as it implies that our understanding supports, in some way, the supposition than an unborn human does not possess personhood. To the best of our understanding, our physical nature does not comment at all on the status of the personhood of an unborn child.

Unless you are using a very exotic definition of “personhood,” you are wrong. Perhaps we should dedicate another thread to a discussion of what personhood is and what empirical evidence there is to demonstrate the presence of the physical traits which establish it.

I return to the article to make sure of this, but the author at no point advocates that woman should pursue this option before resorting to an abortion. That is entirely you.

You are incorrect. From the article:

Quote from: The Article
I’d also love to pour some money into research to find ways to make embryos and first-trimester fetuses harvestable so they can be implanted in the wombs of people who can’t have their own babies...

It is implicit on the author’s part that this is being presented as an alternative to abortion.

I fully agree: it is being presented as an alternative to abortion. As I originally noted, though, nothing is said that this fanciful treatment is to be offered in place of, rather than in addition to, abortion. It is presented as another tool, the virtues and vices of which are left unsaid.

The author very strongly implies—although I cannot go so far as to conclude a definite assertion—that fetal harvesting should be considered in lieu of abortion, not simply as a third possibility but as a distinct substitute.

Now, this brings me to the enjoyable part, although I wish it weren't so brief.

My only contention is that what you speak of as a “moral” obligation...

You are quite correct: “ethical obligation” would have been the better statement. Given that I was focusing on your effective meanings, I should have been more careful! My sincerely apologies.

You see, Thought!, you are quite capable of reasonable concessions when you have decided you are willing to make them. We share this personal conceit, I think, of having difficulty accepting defeat on terms other than our own...an inevitable outcome from time to time in the pursuit of (logically) hostile argument. I still catch myself having to guard against my own conceit, occasionally, but I dare say I have made good progress over the years in attaining the appropriate measure of humility. I think you are a few paces behind me. I suggest this as an area for your active efforts at self-improvement.

And more generally, allow me to apologize for having apparently implied that you were in some way devilish. I do not quest that you have good intentions. When you speak directly, yes, you fully support reproductive rights, fully support informed decision making, etc. My criticisms were on the “effective meanings,” not your intent. So again, my apologies for any implications to the otherwise.

Indeed. I appreciate it.

As I had noted, I was trying to affect a more Joshonian style in hopes that it would facilitate communications between us. It didn’t seem to accomplish much, perhaps simply because it is contrary enough to my own style that I performed quite poorly. Anywho, I’ll discard it now and once again apologize for any offense offered.

Joshalonian Style, as you put it, has the distinct quality of being provocative to those whom it rebukes, corrects, amends, and otherwise disagrees with. I don’t recommend for you or anyone. We have seen how poorly tushantin handles it. You are not as bad, but such a style is nevertheless not in your idiom and to wield it at length you probably would end up being a fair bit more offensive than me, especially given what you have told me of your conservative and confrontational past.

But what you name as “Joshalonian Style” is just one facet of a much larger jewel. It is an unfortunate consequence of this Compendium’s breadth and scope that people here see me operating in this particular style much of the time, out of proportion to my overall character. When I join in argument against the unworthy, the misguided, the ill-intentioned, and the foolish, “Joshalonian Style” can be brutal. Even at its gleaming best it gives scant indication of my kindness, my cautious nature, my humbleness in the face of not knowing, my soft spots, and more. It’s a pity my persona here is that of a firebrand. I am a firebrand only in the pursuit of justice, a pursuit in which I never engage haphazardly. Nowhere else in my life am I so hard-edged. To see only this side of me makes me look like a hardass. I know that. Yet in the pursuit of justice there is no other way I could be, given the reality of our grossly unjust world and the failings and ignorance of those with whom I interact on these most important subjects.

If you do not hew to your principles on matters of importance, you are nothing—a philosophical zero, a human who has surrendered their most crucial judgment to the caprice of external forces. Much like the U.S.S. Enterprise, Captain Picard’s great flagship of the Federation, I have aboard me the instruments of total war, and there is no doubt that I am better-armed than most people. Yet to call me a warship would be like calling that great vessel of the stars a warship. It is a fundamentally narrow and inaccurate view.

It’s a shame that more people on the Compendium don’t have the opportunity to get to know me better (and vice versa with regards to fascinating individuals like yourself and Faust). Perhaps I should spend more time here highlighting that side of myself. The way things have worked out thus far, I have usually ended up taking the more interesting people here aside for various projects and groups, outside the view of the Compendium at large. The general audience here, as I went to the trouble to ask in the Kinks to Work Out thread, views me as needlessly offensive, confrontational, abrasive, etc., etc. That view is doubly incorrect, not only because it undervalues the importance of hewing to one’s principles in spite of all ignorance and complacency, but because that’s not the kind of person I am when I’m not fighting, and I’m usually not fighting.

Anyhow! You are in a position to appreciate this, so take it to heart again now, and be dissuaded from pursuing the Joshalonian Style for yourself. Only I could possibly wield it to good effect, and even I have yet actually master it.

Thought

  • Guru of Time Emeritus
  • God of War (+3000)
  • *
  • Posts: 3426
    • View Profile
Re: Fuck Sexism
« Reply #1103 on: December 11, 2011, 05:14:37 am »
@RW, thank you very much for sharing your experiences -- I always find them enlightening. The behavior of the boys seems worthy of highlighting. I suspect that their self interests (that is, they paid for the lessons, too, and had no desire to miss out) made them into willing yet inadvertent participants. Often that seems the way of things: injustices seem to originate with a few and get accepted by the many.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2011, 10:36:45 am by Thought »

Katie Skyye

  • Poet of El Nido
  • Acacia Deva (+500)
  • *
  • Posts: 575
  • And you'll never catch her...
    • View Profile
    • Katie Skyye's Deviantart
Re: Fuck Sexism
« Reply #1104 on: December 12, 2011, 11:17:53 pm »
This was merely something I've been wondering about, after reading a lot of things on here, and seeing the response to Tushantin's post.

I understand that it's sexist to have female characters scantily-clad while their male counterparts have full armor. I get it, okay? That makes all of the sense.
But what if the female character just doesn't wear armor? I'm going to go from my own stories to try to make sense of this to myself.

I have a group of people traveling. One is a knight and he wears full armor, not only for protection, but to conceal his identity. One is a guardsman and he wears light armor. One is a witch and she wears plainclothes, and one is a fairy and she also wears plainclothes. They're perfectly capable people, and there's really no reason for them to use armor, and the witch isn't physically strong anyway (though the fairy is), so she wouldn't be using armor.
I guess what I'm saying, is, just because women CAN be strong characters and kick ass and need to wear more clothing, do the ALWAYS have to?
I mean, I can't imagine any of my characters in bikini armor--in my head at least they are dressed appropriately for their various situations.

I've got a tall, longsword-weilding chick in SENSIBLE leather armor who has a giant as a partner who sticks to a leather vest and cloth pants because he's big enough that he doesn't have to worry about tons of protection.
And, in fact, he gets captured and she has to rescue him. Damsel in distress indeed!
I've got a gal who wears an army uniform just like everyone else's army uniform (think WWII) whose brother gets captured and killed. She's also the bodyguard for another male character in the story.

I've got a gal who rides a dragon and wears light armor under a DRESS just in case her giant meat shield/best friend doesn't manage to protect her.

Who else? A demoness who sticks to denim shorts and short-sleeved tops because anything else gets torn up too easily by her movement and the monsters she fights. It helps that she's practically impervious to blunt trauma, and there's no armor in the world that could block the kind of attacks she's dealing with anyway.

In fact, lots of my protagonists are female.

But seriously, am I not allowed to have a female "damsel in distress" happen once in a while without being called sexist? (I'm speaking more in general, since I rescue my male characters more than my female ones...)

Aren't I allowed to have a weak female character once in a while, along with the weak male ones? And just as many strong male characters as female ones?

And...well, I really like drawing girls! It's hella fun! And the less clothes, the better! I can't wait till figure drawing class, when I can draw nudes without anyone looking at me funny! Just because I'm realistic when I plan my characters, story-wise (giving them proper clothing) doesn't mean I don't want to draw fanservice once in a while...
...but apparently the only thing that isn't sexist is NO FANSERVICE EVER NOPE. ;A;

/sigh

Well, have some fanservice anyway!


...but she's so awesome!

I SEE NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS :F

yes it is crossdressing yup 8D for the sillies

FaustWolf

  • Guru of Time Emeritus
  • Arbiter (+8000)
  • *
  • Posts: 8972
  • Fan Power Advocate
    • View Profile
Re: Fuck Sexism
« Reply #1105 on: December 12, 2011, 11:56:03 pm »
With regard to tushantin's post and the following remarks, I actually went back and re-did my response because I think my own initial interpretation of RD's response to tushantin's post was erroneous. Therefore it may have been a mistake on my part that elicited your post here, Katie. All the same, this is a really worthwhile topic to bring up! I've thought about this quite a bit and will be sure to reply in a few days. In the meantime, I'm really curious what everyone else has to say about it.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2011, 12:26:57 am by FaustWolf »

Acacia Sgt

  • Guru of Reason
  • Zurvan Surfer (+2500)
  • *
  • Posts: 2655
  • Forever loyal to the Acacia Dragoons
    • View Profile
Re: Fuck Sexism
« Reply #1106 on: December 13, 2011, 02:03:36 am »
I agree with you Katie. That's also more or less my stand on the matter as well. Now if only I were more active in getting into discussions... :lol:

On the other hand, these kind of topics I tend to avoid participating in anyway. It's just... well, I don't think I could keep up. :roll:

Thought

  • Guru of Time Emeritus
  • God of War (+3000)
  • *
  • Posts: 3426
    • View Profile
Re: Fuck Sexism
« Reply #1107 on: December 13, 2011, 02:39:12 am »
But what if the female character just doesn't wear armor?

Might I suggest a google image search to answer your question? Look at Wizard Art vs Sorceress Art.

For male wizards, the worst I saw was one with a mostly exposed chest (with rippling muscles, which has more to do with male power than male sexuality). For females... well, the best I saw was one wearing a sexy-toga. You'll also notice that almost all the wizards are old, while almost all the sorceresses are young.

You are quite right, Katie, in that wearing armor or not doesn't make something sexist. It is just that often women are given impractical garments that emphasize their sexual aspects: armor often results in hilarity (the chainmail bikini a perfect example). Male garments are usually practical and, when they aren't, emphasize power over sex.

Now as to your question, "am I not allowed to have a female 'damsel in distress'," since I think that is more of a writing question than a sexism question, I'll let others better than myself give their answers.

tushantin

  • CC:DBT Dream Team
  • Hero of Time (+5000)
  • *
  • Posts: 5645
  • Under Your Moonlight, Stealing Your Stars
    • View Profile
    • My Website
Re: Fuck Sexism
« Reply #1108 on: December 13, 2011, 02:57:24 am »
But seriously, am I not allowed to have a female "damsel in distress" happen once in a while without being called sexist? (I'm speaking more in general, since I rescue my male characters more than my female ones...)

Aren't I allowed to have a weak female character once in a while, along with the weak male ones? And just as many strong male characters as female ones?
Thank you Katie for pointing that out. I share the very same sentiment, and hence my statement "Feminism goes crazy sometimes".

Where there's a cultural traction (sexism) that's oppressive the counter traction (feminism) stand with newer, better values that can keep the orthodox at bay. However, with further aggression, even the counter traction grow stagnant at their approach and end up being rock-solid dogma. This, in return, restrains creative minds from liberal thoughts. Feminism is also a victim to this kind of situation.

Which is why I never bother with feminism approach where it's not required in the first place, especially in literature where each characters are valued based on their physical and psychological status. While majority of my characters are male (because I'm a male), I also have sufficiently strong characters and protagonists as females. By strong, I don't necessarily mean physically, though that's a given; it can also be mentally, financially, politically, artistically, psychologically, philosophically, magically, etc. My approach is that where a character is weaker at one state it can be stronger at another, and will redeem that balance. That said, to answer your question, I don't really mind having female characters that are physically weaker; that said, I also don't mind male characters as physically weaker -- if anything, weaker characters add quality to story and offer creative situations to tackle with. I think FW knows what I'm talking about, and he knows my approach towards both male and female characters, especially with weaker ones.


And...well, I really like drawing girls! It's hella fun! And the less clothes, the better!

Syna

  • Squaretable Knight (+400)
  • *
  • Posts: 448
    • View Profile
Re: Fuck Sexism
« Reply #1109 on: December 13, 2011, 03:57:01 am »
I understand that it's sexist to have female characters scantily-clad while their male counterparts have full armor. I get it, okay? That makes all of the sense.
But what if the female character just doesn't wear armor? I'm going to go from my own stories to try to make sense of this to myself.

This reminds me of a popular response to the Bechdel Test: "But there are good, non-sexist movies that fail! Feminist movies, even!"

And they have a point -- there are excellent depictions of women to be found in some movies that fail the Bechdel test, and lamentable ones to be found in some of those that pass. But that doesn't mean that the trend is not indicative of a larger problem. And as writers, I think our writing can only be better for generally avoiding such generally harmful trends, except where the story absolutely demands that you utilize them (and hopefully, in such cases, you will use them in a clever and self-aware fashion).

Personally, I find that when a writer actively attempts to invert tropes, it can have the pleasant effect of stronger, deeper characterization. Of course this technique frequently results in tokenism, but certain writers have quite the knack for it -- Joss Whedon (for all his faults), for instance.  

Honestly, ethical issues aside (and they are not to be dismissed or their importance underestimated), I just find most female character tropes dead boring. That's motivation enough for me to steer clear of the damsels in distress. (Who in their right mind would consider Ophelia more interesting than Hamlet?) That isn't to say interesting things could be done with the archetype, but in this day and age I've seen so many characters of that ilk (most of them terrible) that I can't think of very many. That would be my main reservation-- that the tropes are just tired out, uninteresting, and obsolete-- though I agree with most of your post in theory, Katie.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2011, 04:38:35 am by Syna »