Sci-Fi - Fantasy Women (Split from John Carter of Mars thread) by Bytemite

It begins... For some reason this picture is labeled Tarzan, so I'm almost wondering if I've been taken in by a prank by our male user base, in which case, pretty good, guys, but I still think there's some points to be made here.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Metal pasties?

Metal pasties.

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Yeah. I prefer straight nudity.
But, PG13- what can ya do?

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Nudity might be better because at least then it might be slightly artistic. Metal pasties just makes the women more objectified fantasy/sci-fi erotica, it's like the next step up from a chainmail bikini in tackiness and complete nonfunctionality of wardrobe. Leopard metal pastie princess doesn't strike me as "Amazonian" but rather "ornamental, decorative, and useless" which only furthers anti-female stereotypes in the genre.

The damn slave chain hanging from her collar doesn't help matters.

I mean, whoever drew that, do you think they were intending to draw attention to the sadness and despair in her face, or the overly-sexualized look of her body? And then, even more troubling, is her crying and slave collar supposed to APPEAL on some level to some abuse fetish?

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
The guys in the comic I read based on it wore as little, measured in inches of fabric. I would like to see sexual objectification equally distributed between the beautiful males AND females.
EQUALITY NOW!!!!

(cont)

Select to view spoiler:
She starts out as a slave & potential execution before John Carter frees her by killing the due that hit her in the courtroom;
and no one wears much clothes on Mars- it too warm.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Okay then. It's still kinda troublesome, you understand. That picture doesn't scream "feel my pain and abuse" like an emaciated imprisoned slave on death row would suggest. It instead says "lust over me and my unbelievable body that's perfect and desirable despite all I've been through."

(cont)

--EQUALITY NOW!!!!

Sure. Functional clothing for everyone.

I'm just offended by how sexualized the woman here seems to be by it, to the detriment of her backstory and emotions.

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Well, I didn't post it, and I wouldn't have because Deejah is TOO voluptuous & John is TOOOOO muscular IMO. There's a bit of a food shortage on Mars at that point.

In the book she was totally naked. in fact, most but the warriors were.

There will be coverage in the movie though, PG13, remember?

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:

Yeah, looks like plenty of sexual objectification for both sexes - maybe we should just enjoy it?

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
It's not just the clothing, but how it's used. Even in the picture Chris just posted, the guy is armed and striking a heroic pose, and the girl is behind him and seeming to recoil, like a damsel in distress, and you tell me now, as I suspected, that she becomes one of the warriors and that she is supposed to be amazonian.

A loincloth may expose a lot of flesh on the guys, but it doesn't have the overt meaning that pasties and a slave collar do.

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
--Like a damsel in distress

She IS!!! On Mars, a woman is no match for Green Men; John retains all his Earthly strength being raised on a planet with a higher gravity, therefore he IS a heroic figure on that planet!!!
Byte- please read the first novel at least before passing judgement. Sure, lusty pulp fiction, but does it bother you when Tarzan's Jane wears a skin toga or bikini in the movies?

It's all in fun, M'lady!

(cont)

You must absolutely *HATE* Avatar for it's naked *pussycat* vibe...

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Actually... Yeah.

And I'm not overly fond of Tarzan and Jane, either. The mentality towards women in some of these older fictional franchises is an unfortunate remnant of other times. If they want women to like these things, then they ought to try to update them. But they don't, so they're turning away 50% of their potential consumer base. Sure, it's their choice, and you guys are free to consume whatever media you want to, but don't expect women to like demeaning portrayals of their gender unless it's parody.

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
WHAT???

Strong, beautiful & smart???

I guess I should be happy that Kirk was weak, ugly & dumb then.
And that he didn't get his shirt torn off him in lots of episodes.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Yes, because relying on a male to fight all their battles is such a sign of strength.

Smarts I'll give you, maybe, but that's demeaning to men too, to have it depicted that all these smart women are manipulating the dumb men.

But then, if they're NOT manipulating the men, then the women are too stupid to stay out of trouble and again need the men to save them. There's no winning. No equality for EITHER side, no matter which way you slice it. It's very unfair for both.

And there are unfortunate implications if the woman is expected to fall in love with the guy and reward him with sex in return for his help.

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Okay. You win. Fantasy movies are worthless.
Stardust, Somewhere In Time, Star Wars, Lord Of The Rings-
any movie that show differences between the sexes strengths & weaknesses is garbage.

No, make that ALL movies.

Sorry Byte, I'm a relic. A brutish fossil, symbolic of a decayed era gratefully forgotten.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
And strawmanning the opposition is a perfectly reasonable way to dismiss valid complaints.

No, fantasy and sci-fi are NOT worthless, but there ARE some stereotypes that could stand subversion. Scantily clad damsels in distress are one of them. It hurts and demeans the medium, because it makes its detractors have a harder time taking it seriously. It comes across as fetish fuel and using sex to sell, and distracts from the deeper themes that the medium is capable of.

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Sex DOES sell!! Are there less than sexy peeps in most big movies? Princess Leia was covered & modest until Jedi, Megan Fox is WHY those idiot Transformer movies are blockbusters...
I'm sorry here, but men & women are just wired differently, it seems.
Hotgirls are WOW, whereas Hotguys are merely "cool, look at Hotboy. Yum."

Deeper themes are in the undercurrent of well made movies. The reality is that it gots to look good first & foremost to make back the millions, whatever else we get is extra.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Oh yes, and "damsels in distress" - well, there's an amusing dynamic between me and my ex, what with me playing to type (evil overlord) and HER playing to type (damsel in distress) which she *knows* I see right through, and the fact that she's willing to try to play me appeals to my inner trickster and winds up baiting me anyways - she knows all this, which is why she does it, but it is an amusing appeal-to-the-villain kinda trick.

-F

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Do I even dare?

Guess so.

The male obsession with physical "attractiveness" is really the severe male aversion to the male inner life. It's our subconscious that gets us involved with the opposite sex, not what she looks like. The more distracted we are by her looks, the less we care about our mommy issues and our low self esteem and a whole lot of other factors that are working, behind the scenes, to get us mixed up with this particular woman. The more obsessed we are with her outside, the less we ever learn about our own inside. It's not "the way we're wired," it's how we've learned to cope with the pain and isolation which our mothers routinely subject us to as male children in this culture. Boys aren't born with an aversion to crying, it is learned behavior, pure and simple. And guess who we blame?

Of course the suffering slave woman is hyper-sexualized, because if she weren't, the man would be called upon to feel something in response to the image of her suffering, and for the typically repressed man, that feeling is going to be some species of acute pain and then nobody buys anything.

Sex sells not because "it's what guys want," it sells because it's man's favorite method of covering up "what guys DON'T want," i.e.: to feel their loneliness, abandonment and powerlessness. Sex as anesthesia. Sex in the media doesn't take away our feelings of loneliness, abandonment and powerlessness, it merely obscures these feelings while keeping them in play and THAT is why we buy whatever the sex is selling: to fill the void. But guess what? The void doesn't get filled, so we buy more. And so it goes. Hyper-sexualized imagery is a cover, a means to an end. Wake up. You're being mind controlled and the reason it works is 'cause you want to be mind controlled, because the alternative is too frightening to contemplate.

Sure, a lovely physical body is lovely, but you are being played, my friend. And the species is suffering for it.

Ha ha! Sleep on it! You'll feel better in the morning! Deprogramming is fun!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2010 6:50 AM

To HK: That's interesting. Not being a man, it sounds all a little bit too Freudian to me. I have a little bit of trouble believing all men are emotionally stunted and have mommy issues that they project on woman in the form of misogyny. Surely if there is any validity to this then doesn't society at large have a bigger role in influencing gender roles, as it itself influences the parents (and the mother)? I admit that for males, to cement gender role the child must be "detached" from the initial strong mother imprint and identify her as the other, but this is REINFORCED by all the other women AND all the other MEN. It's very similar to the annoying garbage I had to resist all through my childhood where all the adults around me would insist that I "act like a lady." Likewise, I assume all boys are told to "be/act like a man." Neither of those MEAN anything! They're arbitrary and unqualifiable!

Partially this is why gender roles bother me, but seeing as how they are considered normative and I'm aberrant, I must have some degree of tolerance for gender roles. I'd just like to see positive qualities and actions more evenly distributed among gender in a representation of more modern, real life roles. Except historical fiction, for obvious reasons, and possibly some forms of historical fantasy if there's good reason for it.

This is why I like Firefly. The females run a wide spectrum of traits, but even the most demure and meek female characters in Firefly (Kaylee, Inara, River-kinda) are able to contribute in a fight or in solving a problem.

However, I do agree that definitely sex and appearance is used as a distraction for unfulfilled deeper emotional needs. And in stories marketed to men, it's used as a cheap plot trick to avoid having deep characters with meaningful relationships.

To an extent, our society's idea of "love" and "romance" is the female side of this pool. No really, the way women are pushed into finding-true-love/get-married/have-babies puts a lot of unnecessary pressure on them, almost to the point of obsession. This can be as much of a distraction to be in tune with who they are deep down and their emotions, as the cultural sex fixation might be a distraction for men.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2010 7:14 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Broads are people too.

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2010 7:18 AM

Indeed.

Also, "broad" is a fun-word, especially when I'm feeling less politically correct than when I started this conversation.

It was the metal pasties, they took over my MIND. @_@

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2010 7:59 AM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Maybe it would help if you imagine Kevin James and Roseanne Barr in those outfits.

"It was the metal pasties, they took over my MIND. @_@"

Now I'm thinking of ampersand pasties... I'm just as God made me!

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2010 8:14 AM

The amount of visible flesh proposed is unnecessary no matter who is wearing the clothing. Increasing the amount of visible flesh is less than helpful.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2010 8:42 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Actually, my first reaction to HKCav's posting was more of an "Oh, so THAT is why I don't react like most men..."

Cause... well, I don't, not to that.

And while what he said there made a lot of sense, they're also aiming for the two for one special cause it does hook the natural protective instinct of less messed up males, something that is as far as I understand partially hardwired by nature as a propagation of the species element.

There's a scene in braveheart that cost me a television, cause of that - when the main characters wife meets her end, and in the fashion it happens, caused me to reflexively chuck a nearby heavy object at the sumbitches head, which unfortunately happened to be an outdated power supply, and ka-wham, and I needed a new TV, bleh.

So my reactions are prolly very different than most, and despite how one feels about gender roles, it *is* true that both inherently and genetically women have a stronger bent toward nuturing - but like all stereotypes, one's mileage may vary depending on the individual, and men are every bit as capable should they overcome stupid, outdated, chauvanistic bullshit in order to do so - or in my case, never have it applied in the first place.

My mother never bothered with religious or social instruction, it was wasted on me to begin with cause I would do what I would do, and she was more focused on teaching survival skills in the very short periods of time we did have, and due to my sisters utter indifference to such instruction (which has bit her on the ass over and over for twenty some years now) I got taught all the "girl" skills as well, which *have* served me well, so my opinion on gender roles is a sneer and a snicker, cause some helpless "macho" jerk who cannot cook, clean, or care for himself needs a mommy, not a wife - he's not a whole person and never will be, and this is not acceptable, no more than a woman who cannot do minor household repairs or simple automotive maintainence.

That is, of course, an ideal - the fundamental basis of a relationship is sharing of skills, and each backstopping the others weaknesses, which mighta worked in the fifties with traditional general roles, but not in the modern era, one should AT LEAST be minimally competent enough to survive on ones own, cause most relationships unbalanced that way are doomed from the start.

Anyhow, thing is, gender roles are bullshit, and imma point this out as empirical evidence.

For whatever reasons, underneath that cold misanthopric rage and violent bent, behind all the walls held up against a hostile society gone rabid, y'all *DO* by now realize the true nature behind it is a nurturing one, compassion, tolerance, healing and teaching - generally a "female" aspect, the yin to the yang, the shadow to the light, and yet, it doesn't come from weakness, but from strength, something Ghandi tried to explain to a planet full of idiots.

Of course, if that don't convince ya, all those MMOs ?
The various clans and guilds I've dealt with call me the one-hit-wonder, cause there's really only one job/skillset I am good at, but I am DAMNED good at that one.
White Mage/Cleric/Healer.

Hell, even in Eve Online, a game no one could mistake for anything but Dystopian, I've got the Mama Bear, a *heavily* shield-armor tanked battleship that's kitted out with repair units and drones to keep "my kids" in the fight no matter how ugly it gets, and she has a few rude surprises for the unwary as well.
(Oh, were you GOING somewhere ? not anymore!)

Which is also reflected in my choice of heros, many of whom are female or display a nuturing aspect, desite being quite capable of stomping some ass, but rather than a thinly veiled gender swap, they are as supremely female as many heros are supremely male, and quite capable of solving matters without violence if possible - Captain Tylor is a good example of the latter, with his instinctive zen/judo philosophy, but if you wanna see a real deconstruction of gender roles in a brutally realistic way, watch Black Lagoon and the interplay between Revy and Rock, cause that's about the best I've ever seen it done.

And notice too - Rock wins, most of the time, episode seven showcases this.

So it's not what chromosone set you were born with, it's a combination of nature, nuture, and your own personal choices and experiences which make you who and what you are.

Anything else is but excuses.

-Frem

FYI - Do not ever piss off the healer - in most games they can completely own your ass, just so you know.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2010 9:03 AM

DMI

Expired, forgotten, spoiled rotten.

I'm a little late to this discussion and I want to admit that I didn't read everything that was quoted from the previous thread, but I read most of it and skimmed the rest. Please don't hate me for this.

Point I'd like to make is this, I have to agree that the picture above is incredibly degrading to woman and I don't think arguing that sex sells is a valid reason for denigrating half the people on the planet. I'm sure if you had a nuclear bomb you could find someone to sell it to for a lot of money, doesn't mean it's right.

However, as a dude, I find the veiny, 'roided out man in the leopard print banana hammock offensive and degrading as well.

But sexuality isn't the problem, it's all about how it is done and there is nothing wrong with a woman showing or even using her sexuality in a story or TV show. It's realistic and to a degree empowering (I wouldn't hop on board with the feminists that argue strippers are empowered, but I do see where they're coming from). Just look at what Whedon did with Firefly. A huge feminist, Joss did more than just make a bunch of strong, intelligent kick ass female characters, that'd just be Charlie's Angels. What he did was make real female characters. Zoey the smart fighter and River the troubled fighter but you also have Inara who uses her sexuality and wits to her advantage (and shows a fair amount of skin in the series) and then there's Kaylee who isn't afraid of her sexuality and is in a profession typically relegated to men.

Also, look at the Sixes from BSG. More often than not they are scantily clad and using their sexuality as a means of getting their way but they are almost always well-rounded and sympathetic characters.

I personally feel the most recent affront in the sci-fi world to strong female characters was the re-dub of Uhura. In the original series, despite the short skirt, she was a respected member of the crew, a strong witty woman who, especially in the movies, was not afraid to fight or use her sexuality to her advantage. In the new movie, though, Uhura was relegated to the relationship interests of Kirk and Spock and had no other usefulness as a character. She was the only female character in the film and she was a love interest whose camera time was subject to the crudest forms of the male gaze. Talk about Roddenberry rolling over in his grave.

------------------------
I pray for one last landing,
on the globe that gave me birth.
Let me rest my eyes on the fleecy skies
and the cool, green hills of Earth.

http://www.blogiversity.org/blogs/dmi/default.aspx

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2010 9:18 AM

Oh, which reminds me, since this was brought up in another thread. On MMOs: I never got to play more than a little while into Mabinogi when it was first released, so I can't say what it's like later on, or if some of the special classes or pets unbalanced it any, or if the player base has become jerks. What I do remember was a fun battle system where you carefully chose your actions and reactions, and a world that was well populated with quests and backstories, and the way people would gather in town to listen to other people's musical compositions.

The first character after you make an account with Nexus is free, you can buy special starting characters and other characters and certain pets from the store. I tried to delete my first character because I'd made her too old to get a lot of the benefits of the growing up level ups, and it took so long for her to delete that I never did find out if I had to buy a new character after that, so watch out for that.

I had to remove Mabinogi, it's 9 gb without any of the expansions... Though I might be able to put it on that one computer that isn't being used, and I am going to have to look for another MMO since my friend's world of warcraft gamecard runs out soon.

Anyway, it sounds to me like your kind of MMO, it's fairly lighthearted feeling and it's an export from a Korean programming company, so it's got that cute anime look. Atmospherically, I might call it similar to Maple Story or RO, but it doesn't have a class system.

Okay, so back on to the meat of your post.

I think you get exactly what I'm saying, but from a male-rejecting the gender role direction instead of the female-rejecting the gender role direction.

There are differences between the genders, like white brain matter versus grey brain matter (though we don't know exactly what they do, percentages are definitely different, at least in most men and women). Size-wise, women also tend to be smaller, though that does mean we can be quicker. Whether that can make up for the size and weight difference is probably all in how you apply it. And here you say nurture versus protectiveness as hardwired traits; maybe, though I'm not convinced the two are mutually exclusive. I'm also dubious about the oft-cited muscle-to-fat difference: sometimes I think it's social, and boys are just more encouraged to be active, and sometimes I think it might be genetic.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2010 9:34 AM

Well, this DOES go back to the question about whether some of Joss' stories and characters are exploitive as well as feminist. No one argues that Joss, bless his withered black heart, tries to be a feminist, and does one heck of a better job highlighting feminist issues and writing well-rounded female characters than many other writers out there.

But at times there's also a little bit of dissonance with that, like how Dollhouse was marketed really couldn't be called anything BUT selling sex and exploitive. Dollhouse really kind of goes back and forth on that, which is part of the scholar appeal, it's very clever about it and how it ties into the themes of exploitation of women and prostitution. But at times, Joss does stuff because he thinks "this is cool!" (Or even just "undressed lady folk!") from his geek upbringing, but when you look more carefully, Joss is saying something about women and his views that he's not even aware of deep down.

Firefly is a little better about this than Dollhouse, I can't comment on Buffy or Angel, having never seen them.

And IN Firefly... Do they really use sex that much? I don't really see that. Zoe's threats about "remember that sex you were wanting to have, ever?" don't really seem to work, nor do I think she was serious. And I only ever see Inara her status (The Train Job, though she's dressed up to the 9s) and people reading skills (using the hero worship in Jaynestown), it's never actual favours or flirty manipulativeness, at least that we see on screen.

As for the recent Star Trek reboot, I wouldn't know, but I'd agree with you that given the choice I'd prefer the well-rounded character version to the "just there to be a love interest" version.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2010 9:55 AM

ZEEK

Meh I don't mind it at all. It's entertainment. It's not meant to be reality. It's not like there are a ton of fat ugly male leads in movies either.

We tend to like to see something pretty on the screen. Some stories have a blundering man in them. Some have a helpless woman. They're just stories though.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2010 9:59 AM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
The amount of visible flesh proposed is unnecessary no matter who is wearing the clothing. Increasing the amount of visible flesh is less than helpful.

So cold and clinical Byte, "visible flesh." You have reduced one of nature's glories to a dictionary entry. I think you need new muses.

HK? My God where do you get this stuff?

Is everything a mask for something else, (and typically, our flaws)? Is there nothing that is just for it's own sake? I'm not 100% sure you aren't just having a laff!

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2010 10:19 AM

DMI

Expired, forgotten, spoiled rotten.

Quote:
Originally posted by Zeek:
Meh I don't mind it at all. It's entertainment. It's not meant to be reality. It's not like there are a ton of fat ugly male leads in movies either.

Sure you could look at Colin Firth and Eric Bana and Brad Pitt and argue that there is as much man meat out there too but there are a lot of fat ugly male leads. In hollywood comedies it's a common trope lately to have a fat ugly man and a hot woman playing his wife or love interest.

------------------------
I pray for one last landing,
on the globe that gave me birth.
Let me rest my eyes on the fleecy skies
and the cool, green hills of Earth.

http://www.blogiversity.org/blogs/dmi/default.aspx

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2010 1:33 PM

Pizmo: Flesh has two definitions for me.

The first is the miraculous interface by which we experience the world, allowing us to feel the gentle breeze that brushes over the human soul on a calm day, and for a few moments, everything seems calm and good, and affirms that life is truly worthwhile.

The second is other people's junk I dun wanna see and they need to cover the hell up.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2010 1:37 PM

Quote:
In hollywood comedies it's a common trope lately to have a fat ugly man and a hot woman playing his wife or love interest.

Sadly, part of the comedy there comes from the defiance of social expectations that in the modern shallowness of culture, the woman should have no interest in the guy whatsoever because he is not the sexy.

If life was fair, the guy would be equally uninterested in the pretentious beauty snob, but, that isn't how our society hardwires people.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2010 2:55 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I had to remove Mabinogi, it's 9 gb without any of the expansions... Though I might be able to put it on that one computer that isn't being used, and I am going to have to look for another MMO since my friend's world of warcraft gamecard runs out soon.

Well, there's always Flyff or Luna Online - 9GB seems excessive though, yikes.

I'd recommend City of Heros/City of Villains, given recent topics I think you would derive much ironic amusement from it - although I have ever been disappointed with CoV cause it's a classic example of why heroic types shouldn't design the villainous end of the game, I was SO looking forward to doin stuff like pickin up random civvies by an ankle and shaking all the stuff out of their pockets for a lark (it's a villain thing) or tossing them off a building to distract a hero and provide me a diversion to get outta dodge, stuff like that, bleh.

Quote:
I think you get exactly what I'm saying, but from a male-rejecting the gender role direction instead of the female-rejecting the gender role direction.

Yep, interesting how we come to the same conclusions from different ends, neh ?

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2010 2:56 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Pizmo: Flesh has two definitions for me.

The first is the miraculous interface by which we experience the world, allowing us to feel the gentle breeze that brushes over the human soul on a calm day, and for a few moments, everything seems calm and good, and affirms that life is truly worthwhile.

The second is other people's junk I dun wanna see and they need to cover the hell up.

Yanno, imma hafta not drink coffee while reading your posts... it tends to wind up on my screen often enough I should know better.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2010 8:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
To HK: That's interesting. Not being a man, it sounds all a little bit too Freudian to me. I have a little bit of trouble believing all men are emotionally stunted and have mommy issues that they project on woman in the form of misogyny. Surely if there is any validity to this then doesn't society at large have a bigger role in influencing gender roles, as it itself influences the parents (and the mother)? I admit that for males, to cement gender role the child must be "detached" from the initial strong mother imprint and identify her as the other, but this is REINFORCED by all the other women AND all the other MEN. It's very similar to the annoying garbage I had to resist all through my childhood where all the adults around me would insist that I "act like a lady." Likewise, I assume all boys are told to "be/act like a man." Neither of those MEAN anything! They're arbitrary and unqualifiable!

Byte, it is all too depressingly Freudian in its effect, but as you very correctly observe, mothers are not actually to blame here. Unfortunately, like the ground troops in any conflict, they shoulder much of the blame for policies they merely carry out on behalf of the culture as a whole.

And please, "all" men are not emotionally stunted. When I say "the male obsession with physical attractiveness" I don't mean to imply that every male is so obsessed. It's like saying "the American love affair with the automobile." That doesn't imply that ALL Americans are in love with cars, but it is a common, even characteristic phenomenon.

People get very black & white in their thinking about sex and identity. for someone like me, whose ideas about sex are not blank & white, it can be frustrating as hell trying to get heard.

I say, "The more obsessed we (men) are with her outside, the less we ever learn about our own inside." It's simply an inverse relationship. There's a continuum implied here. A man who is not obsessed with female appearance--a man with merely a healthy appreciation, shall we say, of feminine charms--surely has plenty of room left in his psyche for self-reflection and appreciation for the origin and nature of his own feelings. I find it very interesting that the boys out at the extreme don't tend to acknowledge the existence of an inner life. They don't even know what I'm talking about. They don't EVEN NOTICE that I am talking about it.

Cavalier supplied me with a good example of this extreme point of view over in the other thread when he quipped revealingly, "This, presumably, is why rich, powerful, successful men have throughout history had so little interest in sex." You caught that one, too. He thinks that being rich, powerful and successful (aspects of a person's outer life) somehow indicates that someone does not feel lonely, abandoned or powerless (aspects of a person's inner life). Is that not nuts? There really isn't any inner life in this concept of male identity. What's more, he makes no distinction between an "interest in sex" and being obsessed with female attractiveness. He thinks they're one and the same.

I don't think all men are stunted (hello, I'm a man, why would I say such a thing?), but the various problems I'm tracking here are epidemic in this culture.

Male depression is pervasive. F'rinstance, it is accepted that young men living on their own will live in squalor, wear dirty underwear, never make the bed, etc. That kind of living would be a clear indicator for depression in any woman, but somehow men are believed to be constituted differently. Men not taking basic care of themselves is part of "being a guy," being a man. Does that seem right to you?

The most damaging thing about the "be a man" rule is that it tends to be defined by negatives--a man is mainly NOT something else: not a woman, not a child. Anything resembling a woman is not "manly." The more "manly" a man attempts to be, the fewer options he has to express himself. Eventually, emotions (other than anger, derision, aggression, sexual aggression) become a dangerously unisex phenomenon. So a male is encouraged from the cradle to avoid things, avoid showing things, avoid BEING things, and that's crazy making, and leads to depression. Men don't cry, men don't complain, men don't smile at the wrong things, they don't move their hands the wrong way, they don't wear the wrong things, etc.

More later. Thanks for starting the thread.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2010 11:54 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Indeed.

Also, "broad" is a fun-word, especially when I'm feeling less politically correct than when I started this conversation.

It was the metal pasties, they took over my MIND. @_@

So, less visible flesh, no metal pasties....

Better now ?

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 4:43 AM

Quote:
I say, "The more obsessed we (men) are with her outside, the less we ever learn about our own inside." It's simply an inverse relationship. There's a continuum implied here. A man who is not obsessed with female appearance--a man with merely a healthy appreciation, shall we say, of feminine charms--surely has plenty of room left in his psyche for self-reflection and appreciation for the origin and nature of his own feelings. I find it very interesting that the boys out at the extreme don't tend to acknowledge the existence of an inner life. They don't even know what I'm talking about. They don't EVEN NOTICE that I am talking about it.

In the past, men were often more expressive on paper than in person. I wonder if this still applies. I also wonder if the simplicity of the past, the assumption that any woman was just a pretty face and nothing underneath, freed men somewhat for more philosophical reflections. Perhaps this was why the Greeks had more appreciation for male beauty, which can cause the same problem without the female beauty side of it.

I would like a gay man to weigh in. The gay men I've known seem to generally have very different things they look for in their romantic interests than do straight men or even straight women.

My initial observation is to suspect that lesbians still behave as straight women do in regards to what they're looking for in a relationship, but it seems I don't know enough about homosexuality to really comment.

Perhaps what you're looking at is not JUST gender role and sex obsession, perhaps it's also dumbing down of culture. Also we might be looking at class differences, classes in a society that have to cling the most to their existence tend to have cruder pursuits, and maybe for a reason, maybe because they MUST be more focused on sex and procreation to survive.

Is it also possible that focusing on the people AROUND the person is actually a form of status enhancement, which may itself be shallow and distracting from the self in any form (say, obsession about reputation or popularity, not just appearance)? Also, is narcissism a distraction from the inner self?

Quote:
Male depression is pervasive. F'rinstance, it is accepted that young men living on their own will live in squalor, wear dirty underwear, never make the bed, etc. That kind of living would be a clear indicator for depression in any woman, but somehow men are believed to be constituted differently. Men not taking basic care of themselves is part of "being a guy," being a man. Does that seem right to you?

Well, it's certainly unfortunate, if true, but is that necessarily a sign of DEPRESSION in all of the people who exhibit such behaviour? What if it's just because they don't have the patience or time to care about such things? By assuming this is a sign of depression in females, are you making a statement about things you expect females to do "naturally?"

Quote:
So a male is encouraged from the cradle to avoid things, avoid showing things, avoid BEING things, and that's crazy making, and leads to depression. Men don't cry, men don't complain, men don't smile at the wrong things, they don't move their hands the wrong way, they don't wear the wrong things, etc.

There are many such expectations on women too. It's not necessarily a unisex phenomenon.

I somewhat suspect that people being cut off from their inner lives is a ploy to increase consumerism. Replacement fulfillment.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 4:54 AM

AU: she is more covered, yet still very sexualized. You'll notice where the gaze of the camera is focused. Much like with the crying woman in the chain collar, it's NOT on her face.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 5:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:
Male depression is pervasive. F'rinstance, it is accepted that young men living on their own will live in squalor, wear dirty underwear, never make the bed, etc. That kind of living would be a clear indicator for depression in any woman, but somehow men are believed to be constituted differently. Men not taking basic care of themselves is part of "being a guy," being a man. Does that seem right to you?

Well, it's certainly unfortunate, if true, but is that necessarily a sign of DEPRESSION in all of the people who exhibit such behaviour?

Of course not, it's just an indicator, okay? In and of itself, not an absolute determining factor, but it does point in that direction.

Quote:
What if it's just because they don't have the patience or time to care about such things? By assuming this is a sign of depression in females, are you making a statement about things you expect females to do "naturally?"

What? Sorry, Bytemite, but if you show me a person who is not struggling just to survive, who has a reasonable standard of living and they live in filth and do not take basic care of themselves, I'm gonna suspect them of being, oh, just a little depressed. Is that so bizarre or unreasonable? You seem to be very uncomfortable with the idea that behavior might indicate tangible things about one's state of mind or emotional/mental health. Of course, things are not always as they appear, but a lot of times if you pay close attention, they absolutely are!

Quote:
Quote:
So a male is encouraged from the cradle to avoid things, avoid showing things, avoid BEING things, and that's crazy making, and leads to depression. Men don't cry, men don't complain, men don't smile at the wrong things, they don't move their hands the wrong way, they don't wear the wrong things, etc.

There are many such expectations on women too. It's not necessarily a unisex phenomenon.

Byte, I'm not in any way trying to imply that men have it worse than women, that women don't have unfair expectations placed on them, or any such fool thing. Can you at least presume, for the sake of argument, that I don't have my head up my ass??? I am, however, talking about particular problems that ARE specific to men. If you want to talk about the troubles of growing up female in this culture, please do. Whether or not one sex has it tough, does not in itself imply that the other sex has it easy. Right?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 5:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:

Sex sells not because "it's what guys want," it sells because it's man's favorite method of covering up "what guys DON'T want," i.e.: to feel their loneliness, abandonment and powerlessness. Sex as anesthesia.
While there is much truth in this, a beautiful smile on Jane Seymour's lips just melted me at age 11, before I truly keyed into the idea of what sex was all about.

For me it was Diana Rigg in The Hospital. You ever see the film?

But, in terms of the discussion at hand, you're kinda movin' the goal posts there, Chachi. If Ms. Seymour were nearly naked, with metal pastied breasts thrust toward the camera, her finger nails sharp as claws, tears streaming down her face, one fist clenched in suppressed rage, you may not have such fond memories of the experience, am I right?

It may be disturbing to find that what at first glance is a sexy picture of a pretty girl is really a pretty blatant fantasy of rape and degradation, but it is what it is, right? And sure, it may be disturbing to a solid citizen such as yourself, that you didn't notice the ugly in that picture, but do you deny that it's there now that it's been pointed out? Why are some folk so resistant to even just thinking critically about the uses and meaning of such a picture? Can't we agree that our culture has some pretty deep seated problems with sexuality? That we all, to one degree or another, contribute to the problem? Homophobia, misogyny, sexual abuse, these are real problems and wide spread, yes? Is no one (besides me & Bytemite--oh, and Frem, o' course--the Usual Suspect himself) interested in examining these issues? What gives?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 5:51 AM

Quote:
What? Sorry, Bytemite, but if you show me a person who is not struggling just to survive, who has a reasonable standard of living and they live in filth and do not take basic care of themselves, I'm gonna suspect them of being, oh, just a little depressed. Is that so bizarre or unreasonable? You seem to be very uncomfortable with the idea that behavior might indicate tangible things about one's state of mind or emotional/mental health. Of course, things are not always as they appear, but a lot of times if you pay close attention, they absolutely are!

It just seems like an assumption to me. There could be MANY reasons why their living area is not neat, or why they don't do things you consider "basic taking care of themselves." Could be a money issue, could be just plain slovenly housekeeping because it bores them and they have interests with a higher priority. Maybe they're one of those packrats you see on TV, where the mess is OCD. I live in Utah and my friends in high school all had very large families in rather small homes and had lots of pets. If I were to see a filthy house, and I've seen MANY of them, my immediate conclusion is not that "whoever cleans this dump must be depressed."

It could be a sign of depression, but you seemed to be suggesting that ALL men and ALL women who keep an untidy house are depressed.

Quote:
Byte, I'm not in any way trying to imply that men have it worse than women, that women don't have unfair expectations placed on them, or any such fool thing. Can you at least presume, for the sake of argument, that I don't have my head up my ass??? I am, however, talking about particular problems that ARE specific to men. If you want to talk about the troubles of growing up female in this culture, please do. Whether or not one sex has it tough, does not in itself imply that the other sex has it easy. Right?

I wasn't presuming anything about the location of your anatomy. The male gender role is an interesting discussion, and does have something to do with the subject at hand, which is women as depicted in sci-fi - fantasy. I was only posting a reminder that real world women find gender roles bothersome as well, and sometimes these gender roles in sci-fi - fantasy are so extreme or stereotyped, especially because they portray women so negatively, that it necessitated the current discussion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 5:55 AM

Quote:
It may be disturbing to find that what at first glance is a sexy picture of a pretty girl is really a pretty blatant fantasy of rape and degradation, but it is what it is, right? And sure, it may be disturbing to a solid citizen such as yourself, that you didn't notice the ugly in that picture, but do you deny that it's there now that it's been pointed out? Why are some folk so resistant to even just thinking critically about the uses and meaning of such a picture? Can't we agree that our culture has some pretty deep seated problems with sexuality? That we all, to one degree or another, contribute to the problem? Homophobia, misogyny, sexual abuse, these are real problems and wide spread, yes? Is no one (besides me & Bytemite--oh, and Frem, o' course--the Usual Suspect himself) interested in examining these issues? What gives?

Yay! Well said.

Of course, there's other issues in the picture too, such as the objectification of the woman, which plays INTO the degradation fantasy and the camera focus on the breast not her face or emotions. But otherwise, yes, that's why that picture bothered me so much.

You can argue that the male is just as undressed, but you will rarely EVER see the perspective of the panel/image focused on the crotch of an underdressed male hero. Sometimes on his pecs or abs, or even gluts, but I don't see just being muscular as a primarily male characteristic. If there were an extremely muscular FEMALE in a story, no one would argue that they expect girls (or men!) to drool over her musculature. Actually, female body builders are often considered unattractive by both sexes. What's the difference? The muscles generally are the same. And you could certainly argue that the roided out male is not very attractive because that's actually not very healthy. I must conclude that a man showing off muscles is not sexualization, especially IF he has more substance than his muscles (often the case in these stories, because generally the roided out male is The HERO). And the female in THIS story does not seem to have any substance other than her sexuality.

Similarly, a super-muscular near naked man means something DIFFERENT symbolically. I mentioned it before, but it calls upon the old Greek heroes, and the state of the man's undress is rarely ever shown to be embarrassing or degrading within the frame of the story. Rather, in all the pictures I've seen, he's striking power poses, dominance poses. Even striking a dominance pose OVER the submissive degraded female.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 6:08 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I was rather troubled by some of the images posted of the female leading lady in this series. She starts out as a slave woman who wears ridiculously scandalous outfits unsuitable for a slave, then I'm told her character becomes an Amazonian warrioress who wears ridiculously scandalous outfits unsuitable for a warrior and who can't fight.

You got some info wrong.

I'm pretty sure the large picture is based on "Tarzan and the Jewels of Opar". The woman is not a slave, she is La, high priestess of the Flaming God of Opar. The collar is not a slave collar, but a badge of office. I expect that this is the point where Tarzan recovers from amnesia and rejects La's advances. She then tries to kill him but cannot bring herself to do so.

Dejah Thoris, Princess of Helium, has been trained with weapons and can fight, but as Chris noted, she - or almost any red Martian warrior - would have little chance against even a single green Martian. She has been captured by an entire tribe and is to be tortured to death for their amusement when John Carter, using his combat prowess and Earthly muscles, rescues her.

Burroughs had several female warrior characters. Tavia, in "A Fighting Man of Mars" immediately comes to mind.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 6:22 AM

Quote:
I'm pretty sure the large picture is based on "Tarzan and the Jewels of Opar". The woman is not a slave, she is La, high priestess of the Flaming God of Opar. The collar is not a slave collar, but a badge of office. I expect that this is the point where Tarzan recovers from amnesia and rejects La's advances. She then tries to kill him but cannot bring herself to do so.

Yes, I actually suspected that I was being pranked since I saw the title of that picture when I posted it, but Tarzan is somewhat fantasy, right? At least it appears these comic book serials based on the original non-fantasy fictional story seem to be.

As such, La is still a worthwhile topic for sci-fi - fantasy women. The fact that she is NOT from John Carter of Mars does not negate the complaints I have against the depiction, and her depiction is even MORE offensive since you have explained the context.

So there's absolutely no reason for her to be wearing what obviously and no doubt INTENTIONALLY looks like a slave collar other than handwaving it's her badge of office? Or the very strong implications of abuse and debasement fetish inherent in the picture?

I mean, maybe La is bad. I wouldn't know. Making a play on a guy with amnesia doesn't strike me as the most noble thing a girl can do. But whatever she did, her depiction here is still offensive. I also have to wonder if the picture implies PUNISHMENT for her being forward, and forcing her back into a submissive gender role.

Quote:
She has been captured by an entire tribe and is to be tortured to death for their amusement when John Carter, using his combat prowess and Earthly muscles, rescues her.

How convenient. Why do they even have warriors then? How did they even survive as a tribe for as long as they have? If she's been trained to use weapons, that doesn't necessarily give her more substance, or more power in her relationship, if it doesn't MATTER that she can use weapons.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 10:11 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
As such, La is still a worthwhile topic for sci-fi - fantasy women. The fact that she is NOT from John Carter of Mars does not negate the complaints I have against the depiction, and her depiction is even MORE offensive since you have explained the context.

So there's absolutely no reason for her to be wearing what obviously and no doubt INTENTIONALLY looks like a slave collar other than handwaving it's her badge of office? Or the very strong implications of abuse and debasement fetish inherent in the picture?

I don't have the book handy, but I do recall the collar pretty specifically being mentioned as a badge of rank. Sort of like Nefertiti wore.

If you'll google images of slave collars (Talk about fetishs. Sheesh) you'll see that they look nothing like La's collar, mostly being higher on the neck, and not made of gold and studded with jewels.

I's suggest that if you see slave collars, abuse, and debasement fetishism in the image, perhaps it's your bias and not the image.

Quote:
I mean, maybe La is bad. I wouldn't know. Making a play on a guy with amnesia doesn't strike me as the most noble thing a girl can do. But whatever she did, her depiction here is still offensive. I also have to wonder if the picture implies PUNISHMENT for her being forward, and forcing her back into a submissive gender role.

Not according to the story. She throws herself on the floor because she is emotionally torn between her duty as high priestess to sacrifice Tarzan, and her inability to do so because she loves/lusts for him. Note the dagger in her right hand which she could not use. Tarzan, as far as I can recall, never mistreated a woman.

Quote:
How convenient. Why do they even have warriors then?

Because "Dejah Thoris sits in the palace protected by warriors. Nothing happens to her." doesn't make a very interesting story?

John Carter was also captured by the same green Martian tribe, and was only kept alive as a curiosity because he could jump so high due to his muscles. When he escaped he took Dejah Thoris with him, since he ("A Gentleman of Virginia", as Burroughs described him) considered it the right thing to do. Should he have left her behind?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 10:47 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Because "Dejah Thoris sits in the palace protected by warriors. Nothing happens to her." doesn't make a very interesting story?

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 10:48 AM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
I suggest that if you see slave collars, abuse, and debasement fetishism in the image, perhaps it's your bias and not the image.

Thx Geezer. I have been thinking the same, (and for HK too). The image works like an ink blot.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 11:23 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:

But, in terms of the discussion at hand, you're kinda movin' the goal posts there, Chachi. If Ms. Seymour were nearly naked, with metal pastied breasts thrust toward the camera, her finger nails sharp as claws, tears streaming down her face, one fist clenched in suppressed rage, you may not have such fond memories of the experience, am I right?

At 11?? Gorram straight I'd not.
After a certain age however, it'd be the nearly nude actress that'd have got my attention, TOTALLY apart from the story. In point of fact, it'd have been a SEVERE distraction FROM it.

So annnnny way:

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 11:25 AM

No one else besides me, HK and Frem sees something that looks like a chain attached to the necklace? Or that the camera is very specifically focused on her breasts?

When Chris-is-all and I were discussing this in the other thread, he made the same mistake I did and identified La as this Dejah Thoris. And he thought that the picture might have been taken from when she was a slave, which was when he told me she starts out as a slave.

She throws herself on the floor? I really don't find self-abasement of females drawn by male artists that much better. The picture speaks for itself, IMO. Even if Tarzan never touched her, the ARTIST did debase a female character, a respectable one and a leader of her people/religious order, and drew her at the feet of a man, crying, with what looks like a collar with a chain on it (like a slave collar) and all emphasis on how sexy she's supposed to be.

Now an artist can draw what they want, but I think it's important people understand the symbolism of what it is they're buying. Does anyone here think that picture is for anything BUT titillation? Despite the miserable and very upset female?

Quote:
Because "Dejah Thoris sits in the palace protected by warriors. Nothing happens to her." doesn't make a very interesting story?

That's not what I meant. Why have warriors if none of them stand a chance against the other baddies out in the environment? The only way that would work is if your people vastly outnumber the green men, so you can get away with a loss here or there, or if you have crazy reproduction rates. Are they more warrior or scout, because I could understand having scouts.

Quote:
When he escaped he took Dejah Thoris with him, since he ("A Gentleman of Virginia", as Burroughs described him) considered it the right thing to do. Should he have left her behind?

I see that as a different issue. This isn't about what we would do in the same situation, it's about what the author wrote and why.

But to humour you, if it were me, I'd determine first that she's not a shapeshifter. The I'd determine that she's not going eat me or lay her eggs in my dead eyeballs or something, being that she's an unknown alien species.

If she herself isn't a threat to my survival, then yeah, I have no real problem with helping her escape. Just like I'd have no problem helping a human-looking male escape, or a very nice kitty-cat/dog/octopus thing if I felt bad for it. I think you're asking if he shouldn't help her because she's female looking and attractive by his standards, I'm saying that shouldn't even enter the equation.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 4:05 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
No one else besides me, HK and Frem sees something that looks like a chain attached to the necklace? Or that the camera is very specifically focused on her breasts?

Looks like a long pendant to me. Fantasy illustration goes for over-the-top jewelry quite a bit. Once again, if you see heavy jewelry as bondage fetish gear, maybe that's you, not the picture.

Quote:
She throws herself on the floor? I really don't find self-abasement of females drawn by male artists that much better.

Sorry, Byte, but I'm beginning to think that you'd find any picture of a woman dressed in less than a burka offensive.

Quote:
Why have warriors if none of them stand a chance against the other baddies out in the environment? The only way that would work is if your people vastly outnumber the green men, so you can get away with a loss here or there, or if you have crazy reproduction rates.

You should actually read the book instead of making assumptions. Red Martians live in widely seperated cities, their surrounding areas, and along the canals. There are more of them than Green Martians and they're more technologically advanced. Mars, since it has no oceans, actually has more land than Earth, and Green Martians roam the dead sea bottoms between cities and canals where no Red Maritans live. Dejah Thoris was traveling over the sea bottoms in a small flier, crewed by ten or so warriors of Helium, to visit another city when the flier lost buoyancy and had to land on the sea bottom. They were found by the Thark tribe of Green Martians, several thousand, the Heliumite warriors were overwhelmed and killed, and Dejah Thoris captured.

Quote:
I see that as a different issue. This isn't about what we would do in the same situation, it's about what the author wrote and why.

The author wrote that the protagonist, who had unusual advantages due to his military experience and previous life in a 3 times higher gravity field, rescued a woman from people who were going to torture and kill her for their enjoyment. I'm not really sure why you have a problem with that.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 4:52 PM

It's kind of the same problem I had with Avatar, there just is a tendency to give the male hero all the cool abilities. Or to make him unusually fit for the environment, even more so than the people who live and have adapted to that environment. The main reason why is that for the longest time these stories were primarily marketed to men, and because of the times they were written in. I realize I'm criticizing through the veil of history, but there's still a problem I perceive in that male figures are usually given much more focus than the female characters. And for the female characters the focus is often negative, oh, got to save princess metal thong AGAIN.

Quote:
Sorry, Byte, but I'm beginning to think that you'd find any picture of a woman dressed in less than a burka offensive.

Yes, but only if the camera focus is on her breasts. There's a head and a brain attached to the girls.

Quote:
You should actually read the book instead of making assumptions. Red Martians live in widely seperated cities, their surrounding areas, and along the canals. There are more of them than Green Martians and they're more technologically advanced. Mars, since it has no oceans, actually has more land than Earth, and Green Martians roam the dead sea bottoms between cities and canals where no Red Maritans live. Dejah Thoris was traveling over the sea bottoms in a small flier, crewed by ten or so warriors of Helium, to visit another city when the flier lost buoyancy and had to land on the sea bottom. They were found by the Thark tribe of Green Martians, several thousand, the Heliumite warriors were overwhelmed and killed, and Dejah Thoris captured

Okay, now we're talking! When Chris mentioned something about warriors, for some reason I got the impression of a pathetic scattered remnant making some kind of stand against the vastly superior green men. In that case, there are no plot holes in how the factions operate and how the Mars people survive despite the green men.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 5:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
I suggest that if you see slave collars, abuse, and debasement fetishism in the image, perhaps it's your bias and not the image.

Thx Geezer. I have been thinking the same, (and for HK too). The image works like an ink blot.

Et tu, pizmo? Seriously? Seriously?

Art Appreciation 101

Any work of art is a series of choices made by the artist. If "choice" is too philosophically loaded, let's say "selections." The artist selects a subject, a color, a scene, a gesture. These choices create the meaning of the work. Some meaning is chosen consciously, but much of the meaning is chosen subconsciously, the apparent result of aesthetic choices--"This is better, this is more beautiful, this feels right." At that point, human psychology comes into play. It isn't arbitrary or wholly subjective. The "ink blot" you mention is part of a psychological test. The psychologist administering the test gains real insights into the subject's psyche.

So in the case of this painting apparently illustrating "Tarzan and the Jewels of Opar" the painter chose the precise moment of the narrative to depict. He chose what to emphasize and what to dismiss. He chose the camera angle, the composition. He chose what emotions to describe. So what did he choose?

A man stands over a woman. She's neither relaxed nor composed, as if she's fallen. Her right fist closes around the pommel of a dagger--not a solid grasp on the dagger, but an improvised and imperfect attempt to close her hand around the hilt. Such a gesture is consistent with a person who feels threatened, a person who suddenly finds herself in proximity to a weapon and grabs for it. Geezer suggests that she's homicidal, but the artist doesn't depict homicidal intent in her face. The lower half of her face is relatively relaxed (a person about to attack would show tension in her jaw), her mouth vaguely protruding as in dejection. Let's be clear: if the artist wished to show that she had homicidal intent he could have, but didn't. If he wanted to show that she was planning to leap up and stab him he would have shown her with a firm grip on the dagger, but he didn't. Her brow is creased, but not creased with the tension of aggressive intent, but that of pain or sorrow. And of course, tears stream down her face. Her hand shows that she has not entirely given up, but her face shows that she knows she is beaten.

The man stands over her, relaxed, not facing her, but turning his head to look down. He's barely even concerned with her. His expression is neutral, his slightly creased brow reflecting some vague interest perhaps, perhaps mistrust, but not much else.

So, we can see that the man is not there to aid the woman. Her fall, her pain, do not move him.

The artist did not choose a moment of action, of clear conflict between the two. He chose a moment after the conflict. The moment the woman knows she has lost. The moment, really, of her humiliation. Tarzan stands, impassive and disconnected while she suffers.

What else? Of course the figures are nearly naked and extraordinary physical specimens. There is certainly sexuality in the air. What kind of sexual encounter is the artist inviting us to imagine? Nothing good, I'd say. The man dominates the woman. The woman cries. She fears for her life, but knows she has lost.

To not see a rape implied is to be willfully obtuse, or simply numb to the human situation depicted in the painting.

If you look with empathy at these figures, the first thing you see is the woman's striking tear streaked face and the man's indifference. If you look at the picture without empathy, if you objectify the figures, then, sure, it's just a sexy picture of two glistening, nearly naked, provocative bodies.

If any part of your awareness is uncomfortable with the scene, Geezer comforts you with the information that she's bad. Surely she deserves her suffering. And Tarzan is the hero. Surely, his indifference to her suffering tells us that she is not worthy of our compassion.

For the record, I never saw a slave collar. But I certainly don't need to see a slave collar to read the blatant meaning in the picture.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 7:03 PM

The slave collar, if you do see it, makes it worse.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 5, 2010 3:11 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
The "ink blot" you mention is part of a psychological test. The psychologist administering the test gains real insights into the subject's psyche.

Interesting how you see the picture then.

I have read the story it relates to, and know the situation (which you apparently don't, as you mis-stated pretty completely what I've previously said about it). Your suppositions don't relate to the actual story at all.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 5, 2010 4:04 AM

You don't seem to be understanding Geezer. I suppose it's because you're a fan of the works and don't want to see the dark side. And that's all fine, it's okay to be a fan of comic books and other medium where this kind of thing is prevalent. I mean, I actually LIKE comic books and the old timey adventure serials myself, though I prefer the episodes when the leading lady or evil villainess isn't around, because that usually annoys me. I much prefer reading about the hero than reading about often poorly written women or looking at pictures drawn to flatter the male gaze, so I try to avoid the depictions of the women in the medium.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MaleGaze

The thing is, with this picture in particular, it's not even what it's about in the context of the rest of the story. It's what the artist drew for that panel and WHY. HK is right, art is about symbolism, and that picture is laden with some troublesome and disturbing symbolism. Maybe it was subconscious on the part of the artist, maybe he wanted to draw that way because that's what he felt was the most interesting composition, or was told to sex up the picture so that issue would sell more copies, but the symbolism is there.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 5, 2010 5:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
The "ink blot" you mention is part of a psychological test. The psychologist administering the test gains real insights into the subject's psyche.

Interesting how you see the picture then.

I have read the story it relates to, and know the situation (which you apparently don't, as you mis-stated pretty completely what I've previously said about it). Your suppositions don't relate to the actual story at all.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

I'm not familiar with the story at all, never claimed to be. I was talking about what's in the painting. Sorry you missed that point.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 6, 2010 3:15 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
HK is right, art is about symbolism, and that picture is laden with some troublesome and disturbing symbolism.

And I tend to think that if you're going in looking for disturbing symbolism, you can find it even where not intended.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 6, 2010 3:44 AM

I really wasn't, Geezer, that picture hit me right away. The symbolism was in my face, otherwise I wouldn't have made a big deal about it right from the moment I saw it.

There were a few pictures of scantily clad women posted before that in the thread I believe, I didn't comment on them because I was fine letting you boys be boys. Then the picture of La was posted, and the focus was on the woman's breasts which is what I first saw, and wasn't quite disturbed, though I was annoyed and amused by the metal pasties. The next thing I saw was that she was CRYING, and then I WAS disturbed. There is a BIG difference. If she hadn't been crying, I would've just given my lighthearted rant about how non-functional and uncomfortable chainmail bikinis are (even claiming that NUDITY would have been better in a bit of hypocritical humor), then made a couple jokes, and then wandered off somewhere else.

You'll notice I only picked out the two pictures that I was offended by. The second I found offensive because of the whole scantily clad damsel in distress thing, which is a story trope that ANNOYS me, much like the metal bikini thing, but really I probably wouldn't have even noticed the damsel in distress thing (or cared that much) if I didn't see the crying woman thing first.

Please don't just dismiss me just because you think I'm some femnazi now. If you remember in the past, I have not behaved consistently with a femnazi. I'm not yelling for the pictures to be removed from the posts, or saying that the works with the pictures in them should be boycotted, or even that the artist and the fans of these works are evil. I am having an open, civil discussion about the symbolism in the pictures, which I think are offensive, and I have been explaining why in an effort to show how subconscious and subversive certain views and portrayals of women are in our culture. I think that I have a valid complaint about the troublesome nature of some of these pictures, that you and chris-is-all and a few others for some reason aren't aware of, and aren't even able to see. Which suggests to me that accepting this symbolism and it's underlying meanings is something that has been ingrained into you by our culture. It's possible you may not see it because you've become inured to it.

Three people are telling you that the symbolism is there (two of them are male!). So I'm not the only one who sees it here, I'm not imagining that the symbolism is present, even if I do seem to be the only one who sees chains and slavery symbolism. Two other people see what I'm talking about with depictions of debasement and female humiliation/submission.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 6, 2010 5:56 AM

... fully loaded, safety off...

HK, Byte -

"The woman is not a slave, she is La, high priestess of the Flaming God of Opar. The collar is not a slave collar, but a badge of office. I expect that this is the point where Tarzan recovers from amnesia and rejects La's advances. She then tries to kill him but cannot bring herself to do so."

You seem so focused - ironically - on her breasts and finding the negative messages. No one finds the fact that Tarzan can't see La's tears interesting?

Myself, I didn't see rape or a slave collar - she has a knife for one which makes the other two less likely, but honestly, I don't know enough to make presumptions about the context from the image.

I honestly saw her tears and her breasts at about the same time. Seriously, breasts in various forms of cover have become so ubiquitous that the only thing noteworthy about these are that they are drawn and they are really out there. Minimal clothing is pretty standard for science fiction, but that is really minimal.

I find Whedon's use of rape to be much more disturbing.

HK:

"So in the case of this painting apparently illustrating "Tarzan and the Jewels of Opar" the painter chose the precise moment of the narrative to depict. He chose what to emphasize and what to dismiss. He chose the camera angle, the composition. He chose what emotions to describe. So what did he choose?"

Agreed with everything except what you interpret from what was chosen, to me it is not one of violence and rape. I see Tarzan's look to be one of anger and disappointment, that he has been betrayed by someone he once trusted. Defiant but defensive, not aggressive at all (fists are not clenched). By her body La has turned away from him, she is hiding her emotions, she has failed at whatever he initial task was and is saddened by the turn of events. By being on the ground she is shown as the defeated and with Tarzan standing he is triumphant. But at an emotional price. Her look is one of finality, what could have been is gone, "no turning back." Clearly, this was chosen because it is a pivotal scene, the two main characters' resolution. Maybe you guys dismissed the potential in this scene because it's "just a Tarzan comic?" and saw instead the things that validate your negative perceptions of this world.

So what do you see here?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 6, 2010 6:20 AM

Quote:
By being on the ground she is shown as the defeated and with Tarzan standing he is triumphant. But at an emotional price.

So we agree here. But you don't agree that she has been overly sexualized by the image, that the image doesn't focus on her emotions? The perspective of the image puts "eye level" so to speak right at her breasts, which draws the eye to them. Nothing compositionally really draws the eye to her crying, which is why I didn't notice it until later.

And if the image is NOT focusing on her emotions, but on her appearance, specifically her breasts and lack of clothing, what reaction is the image designed to invoke in the viewer, who, because of the medium and the times that this was drawn, was most likely to be male?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 6, 2010 10:19 AM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:
By being on the ground she is shown as the defeated and with Tarzan standing he is triumphant. But at an emotional price.

So we agree here. But you don't agree that she has been overly sexualized by the image, that the image doesn't focus on her emotions? The perspective of the image puts "eye level" so to speak right at her breasts, which draws the eye to them. Nothing compositionally really draws the eye to her crying, which is why I didn't notice it until later.

And if the image is NOT focusing on her emotions, but on her appearance, specifically her breasts and lack of clothing, what reaction is the image designed to invoke in the viewer, who, because of the medium and the times that this was drawn, was most likely to be male?

Heh, we really don't agree Byte!

Maybe you'd feel better if she were wearing a burka?
Given our culture's modesty you could put that mostly uncovered breast in the upper left corner and it would still command our attention - so I can see why you think it's the focus.
You seem to suggest that a scantily clad women cannot be strong or dominant, that she has to be a victim, that these 2 could not have been equals. I would think that goes against the feminist ideal.

You also seem to suggest that a man cannot be sexualized by his state of dress. Captain Tight Pants any one? Or:

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 6, 2010 10:27 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:

So what do you see here?

A man demeaned by his pseudo-masturbatory positioning, and his reliance on his "weapon" to define his worth.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 6, 2010 11:16 AM

Pizmo. The concept of perspective. What is "eye level" in that picture?

Wait, perhaps I'm making a mistake in assuming people have taken the humanities and study of art courses I have. Okay. Does anyone here know what a "worms eye view" is? Does anyone agree with me that the perspective in that picture is based on worm's eye view?

The burqa joke was funny when Geezer made it, but less funny in repetition. Didn't I just say that I didn't even comment on the other nearly nude women pictures in the other thread? Please stop mischaracterizing my arguments.

Quote:
You seem to suggest that a scantily clad women cannot be strong or dominant, that she has to be a victim, that these 2 could not have been equals. I would think that goes against the feminist ideal.

I would think I said nothing of the sort and I would THINK I'm more offended by the damn damsel in distress trope which DOES make the male more dominant!

Tarzan isn't the focus of that picture, and men can be sexualized, but the issue here is whether that woman is being not just sexualized, but OBJECTIFIED. If her sexualization is intended to make people ignore her emotional state or even ENJOY it.

If you saw a woman crying in real life, undressed and seeming emotionally broken and defeated lying on the floor, I GUARANTEE you would be troubled. So why is this picture okay? Why are you not troubled by this picture?

You know what? Fuck it. I give up. If you're just going to ignore everything I say, mock me, say I'm making things up, and refuse to even consider an alternative point of view, then I'm done with this conversation.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 6, 2010 11:56 AM

ZEEK

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
If you saw a woman crying in real life, undressed and seeming emotionally broken and defeated lying on the floor, I GUARANTEE you would be troubled. So why is this picture okay? Why are you not troubled by this picture?

Because it's not real life?

If I saw a man cut another man in half with a sword in real life I'd probably be troubled. I'd also be scared. When Obi Wan cuts Darth Maul in half in the phantom menace I just smile.

To be fair I didn't examine the picture a lot. I didn't notice she was crying or even glance at her necklace. I also didn't notice tarzan's expression. Without understanding the context the picture doesn't mean a whole lot to me. Really I just thought it was poorly drawn.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 6, 2010 12:31 PM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:

So what do you see here?

A man demeaned by his pseudo-masturbatory positioning, and his reliance on his "weapon" to define his worth.

Exactly - you're good at this! How about here?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 6, 2010 1:02 PM