TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile
Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 180

Thread: Sexist? Definitely, Maybe

  1. #76
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2002
    Location: In the flesh.
    Quote Originally Posted by nickie View Post
    For the record, I had different feelings about the Ripley clip and the Leia image. The first made me uncomfortable in a couple of places (though I don't remember feeling that when I first saw the film), the 2nd made me cross (though I also don't remember feeling that when I first saw the film). My 'enlightenment' came after both films had been released. It's likely that seeing adverts for 'Princess Leia sexy slave costume' is what pisses me off. For Ripley there is only discussion relating to the film.

    Things hit me on an intellectual level or a visceral level. I couldn't define what does what. IMO, it's all a whole heap better than I grew up with.
    It may be possible that the reason you were not offended originally is because seeing the whole thing together puts it in context. That is the way it is for me. That and knowing the allegory of a woman breaking free of chains. Adverts for a sexy Leia costume I understand feeling pissed about. That takes it out of context and exploits.

    There were many sexually exploitive films from the fifties on through to the worst era being late sixties and early seventies. Many wince worthy there. Star Wars was one where there was a strong female lead and one which led us out of that era. Part of why I defend it so strongly.

  2. #77
    Still Subjective
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Europops
    Quote Originally Posted by Sulphur View Post
    You're welcome to your opinion on how women are portrayed, Subj, but if you feel that inviting women to talk about a topic that relates to them is fundamentally about men not being able to 'recognise' sexism, maybe take a moment to think before posting.
    I don't think it's "fundamentally" about men not being able to recognise sexism.

    I do think when someone says:
    Quote Originally Posted by Vivian View Post
    in general if you want to know if something is sexist ask a girl.
    they are definitely suggesting that the female opinion has some gravitas to it that the male opinion hasn't.

    I agree with Vivian on most other things itt. However, I think Ripley's underwear scene was just par for the course in getting ready for sleep and, importantly, let her get into the spacesuit with greater ease, which may have simply been a practical thing for filming. Imagine her still in her being in the overalls - it'd be awkward. Anyway, my wife says it's not sexist so...
    Last edited by SubJeff; 7th Jan 2017 at 17:41.

  3. #78
    Member
    Registered: Oct 2002
    Location: London / London / London
    Maybe your wife is the real sexist here.

    Anyways yeah, fair point, the ability to recognise sexism isn't a gendered thing. I was more thinking along the lines of, if a man says some depiction of a woman isn't dodgy, and a woman says it is, I'd be more inclined to go with the womans opinion of it. Which is, yeah, giving their opinion special status I guess. But I still think it makes sense.
    Last edited by Vivian; 8th Jan 2017 at 06:08. Reason: Grammar

  4. #79
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    I think some nuances are being missed. Men can recognise sexism, but on the whole, men in general are probably less likely to understand the extent of sexism compared with women in general.
    Two overlapping bell curves etc...

    Notably, the point at which men might reach the consensus where sexism isn't an issue could be expected to fall short of the female equivalent.
    Last edited by faetal; 7th Jan 2017 at 18:30.

  5. #80
    Still Subjective
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Europops
    Quote Originally Posted by Vivian View Post
    Which is, yeah, giving their opinion special status I guess. But I still think it makes sense.
    I don't buy it.

    It's not logical. If something is sexist it is objectively sexist and you can deduce that with logic and sense. Women will disagree with each other over what is sexist too so what then?

    None of this is to say that women shouldn't be involved in this debate. I agree that a woman's perspective may alter my own opinion on whether something is sexist or not, and that it might be because of something I haven't realised/didn't see because I'm male. But that still only adds to the logic pot.

    Quote Originally Posted by faetal View Post
    I think some nuances are being missed. Men can recognise sexism, but on the whole, men in general are probably less likely to understand the extent of sexism compared with women in general.
    Two overlapping bell curves etc...

    Notably, the point at which men might reach the consensus where sexism isn't an issue could be expected to fall short of the female equivalent.
    Yeah, on the lines of this.

    It's like any -ism. The group being prejudiced against is more likely to pick it up but if they can't explain why something is prejudiced then it isn't.

  6. #81
    Chakat sex pillow
    Registered: Sep 2006
    Location: Sulphur, whatever
    Quote Originally Posted by SubJeff View Post
    I don't buy it.

    It's not logical. If something is sexist it is objectively sexist and you can deduce that with logic and sense. Women will disagree with each other over what is sexist too so what then?

    None of this is to say that women shouldn't be involved in this debate. I agree that a woman's perspective may alter my own opinion on whether something is sexist or not, and that it might be because of something I haven't realised/didn't see because I'm male. But that still only adds to the logic pot.
    It's plenty logical. Adding to the logic pot is exactly what should be happening, but taking the views of the population being prejudiced against as a point of focus should be instantly obvious as common sense if people actually want to address the problem, instead of appearing to pay it the lippest of service.

    Yeah, on the lines of this.

    It's like any -ism. The group being prejudiced against is more likely to pick it up but if they can't explain why something is prejudiced then it isn't.
    More likely? Yeah, I'd imagine so. If it's a widely felt issue that one person from the population can't articulate, you can't write it off as 'nah, doesn't exist' unless you're fine with showing you have an incredible sort of tunnel vision. If it really is a problem that many people feel, you look at it with an open mind and look for people who can articulate it.

  7. #82
    Still Subjective
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Europops
    And if you can't find anyone from that group that can articulate it?

    This happens all the time.

    Look a the latest hoo haa about the £5 note and the tiny amount of animal product in it. It's totally illogical. Animal products are in 1000s of things the "offended" use all the time. They don't check EVERY single thing so why are they focusing on this? Because it's high profile, not because it actually matters.

    And can someone explain exactly how Richard Hammond was being homophobic by saying he doesn't eat ice cream because he's not gay? He also doesn't sleep with other men because he's not gay. So what? If he's got a stupid misconception that straight men don't eat ice cream that's just more ice cream for the rest of us. I've heard some of the arguments but I don't buy them either.

  8. #83
    Member
    Registered: Oct 2002
    Location: London / London / London
    The Hammond thing was fucking stupid. Yeah I dunno if it's really a negative thing to say only gay men eat ice cream (although it's got sort of negative overtones in that he's trying to distance himself from that grouping), but it's definitely misrepresentation. Ice cream isn't gay, ffs. Plus Hammond is an annoying little rubbery prick (which is blatant little-rubbery-prickism, I know. Culpa mea.)

    The fiver thing was pretty retarded though. I'm a vegan-leaning vegetarian and I didn't really think that much of it (it's like a kilo of tallow in the whole production run or something massively trivial like that isn't it?). I'm curious as to what the tallow does, however.

  9. #84
    Chakat sex pillow
    Registered: Sep 2006
    Location: Sulphur, whatever
    The ice cream thing's retarded - Hammond may or may not be homophobic, but making a statement like that simply means he's a moron. It's offensive to any group to generalise them like that, but it'll blow over. At least, I hope no one dies over it.

    As for the £5 note containing tallow? Eh, I don't know; it's not anyone trying to be actively offensive to anyone else (yet), so it's not as bad as it's being made out unless you're too vegan to compromise. I don't really care as long as stuff's not made from recycled infants, but there's a tolerance threshold for everything these days. Also, FYI, beef is banned in parts of India where religious sentiment is being stirred into a froth, so part of what you're seeing is natural spillover there.

  10. #85
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    Location: Switzerland
    It is homophobic in that it presumes that homosexuals are defined by anything other than being sexually attracted to the same sex. It stereotypes. It's not a negative stereotype in itself (although in Hammond's case I expect it's tied to pretty stupid ideas of what makes a 'real' man and what makes a poofter), and it's definitely not the most damaging one, but homophobia, like racism and sexism, is also about saying that all homosexuals, black people, women etc. are X. All black people are good dancers. All Italians are loud and fiery. It makes them into less of an individual and more of a cliché.

  11. #86
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2009
    Location: The Spiraling Sea
    1) SubJeff is correct...sexism is objective, and the ability to correctly perceive it is not dependent upon a person's gender.

    2) Alien (not sexist)

    Sigourney's attractive physicality is being used purposefully by the director to set up a sense of security, layered with vulnerability. This distraction, utilizing a slight tease of sexuality, induces a state change in the viewer's mind, in order to set up the surprise horror for greatest effect.

    3) Return of the Jedi (not sexist)

    Jabba the Hutt is an evil crime lord. When Han Solo was delivered to him encased in carbonite, he relished in the idea that he would be his trophy...and so he kept him frozen, as a prize to gaze upon. When Leia was captured, he naturally wanted her to be his prize as well. What better way to enjoy his beautiful slave than to chain her by his side so he can do what he wants with her. The Bronze Bikini is an outfit for a sex slave. This in no way reduces the power or intelligence of Leia Organa as a woman. With her fierce, fighting spirit, she brilliantly executes an attack of opportunity to strangle Jabba with the chain that binds her.

    Princess Leia is an empowered individual, with or without the Bronze Bikini...Even when in a captured, vulnerable state, her power still shines through.

  12. #87
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    Location: Switzerland
    You can have the most empowered character and still film her in an exploitative way. The two are not mutually exclusive.

    And sexism isn't objective, because it's a sociocultural thing. It's defined by people, and it depends on interpretation. At best you could say that some aspect of sexism is agreed on by a large enough majority that it takes on a certain almost objective quality. Which doesn't devalue it, but it's something that is defined against norms and values, and there is *nothing* natural to these, pretty much by definition. Which makes the discussion especially tricky, because by saying that something is sexist you're basically making two arguments at the same time: sexism is X (to me as an individual, to us as a group, to society at large) and Y corresponds to this definition of sexism. Which doesn't help in and of itself, but to my mind saying that sexism is objective suggests a fundamental misconception of what it is we're talking about.

  13. #88
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    Quote Originally Posted by Thirith View Post
    It is homophobic in that it presumes that homosexuals are defined by anything other than being sexually attracted to the same sex. It stereotypes. It's not a negative stereotype in itself (although in Hammond's case I expect it's tied to pretty stupid ideas of what makes a 'real' man and what makes a poofter), and it's definitely not the most damaging one, but homophobia, like racism and sexism, is also about saying that all homosexuals, black people, women etc. are X. All black people are good dancers. All Italians are loud and fiery. It makes them into less of an individual and more of a cliché.
    The way I look at it is that if I was homosexual and had spent my life either hiding it due to fear of social exclusion or had been actively mocked for not hiding it, then someone with Hammond's level of public reach using sexuality as some kind of negative personality quirk to justify his own behaviour would probably make me feel uncomfortable. There has been plenty of research showing that e.g. sexist humour has the effect of making certain groups of people more comfortable with being sexist, as it is normalises it a little. Reference

    [EDIT] Wouldn't be surprised if the spike in racially motivated attacks in the UK post-Brexit were due to xenophobes feeling like a shift of sentiment in their direction meant it was OK to let the mask slip a bit.
    Last edited by faetal; 8th Jan 2017 at 08:02.

  14. #89
    Cuddly little misanthropic hate machine
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Location: someplace better than this

  15. #90
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2009
    Location: The Spiraling Sea
    Quote Originally Posted by Thirith View Post
    You can have the most empowered character and still film her in an exploitative way. The two are not mutually exclusive.

    And sexism isn't objective, because it's a sociocultural thing. It's defined by people, and it depends on interpretation. At best you could say that some aspect of sexism is agreed on by a large enough majority that it takes on a certain almost objective quality. Which doesn't devalue it, but it's something that is defined against norms and values, and there is *nothing* natural to these, pretty much by definition. Which makes the discussion especially tricky, because by saying that something is sexist you're basically making two arguments at the same time: sexism is X (to me as an individual, to us as a group, to society at large) and Y corresponds to this definition of sexism. Which doesn't help in and of itself, but to my mind saying that sexism is objective suggests a fundamental misconception of what it is we're talking about.
    Incorrect.

    Sexism = prejudice or discrimination based on sex

    Although there can be differing degrees of prejudice, its presence is absolute, and can be objectively identified.

    A women in a bikini is not inherently sexist. A nude woman is not inherently sexist. Often, what the untrained mind perceives as needless exploitation is actually artistic utilization...as I illustrated above.

  16. #91
    Member
    Registered: Oct 2002
    Location: London / London / London
    Vae, you're hilariously absolutist sometimes. The idea that it's how things are portrayed as much as what they are is what we've been talking about for the last three pages or so, yes.

  17. #92
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2000
    Location: Near Brisbane, Australia
    FWIW, when I first read this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivian
    As a very smart, funny, eloquent and accomplished woman who will be mostly remembered for that time she looked hot in a novelty bikini, Fisher will always be sort of emblematic of everything that was wrong in the 70's and continues to be wrong today.
    ... I thought the point was about the way the scene entered into the public's conscious apparently above and beyond any other of her moments in the film, not so much the scene itself.

    But I was born in '83 and was kept away from pop culture as long as reasonably possible, so this is all before my time.

    EDIT: firm -> film
    Last edited by Chade; 8th Jan 2017 at 09:06.

  18. #93
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2009
    Location: The Spiraling Sea
    Quote Originally Posted by Vivian View Post
    Vae, you're hilariously absolutist sometimes. The idea that it's how things are portrayed as much as what they are is what we've been talking about for the last three pages or so, yes.
    When it comes to film-making, artistic techniques having to do with nudity/sexuality are often misunderstood as simply "gratuitous exploitation".

    ...and relativistic interpretations of portrayals of sexuality are based on social conditioning (distortion) and personal insecurities (distortion).

    Anyway, I have to hit the sack...Talk to you later...

  19. #94
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2002
    Location: In the flesh.
    Quote Originally Posted by Thirith View Post
    You can have the most empowered character and still film her in an exploitative way. The two are not mutually exclusive.

    And sexism isn't objective, because it's a sociocultural thing. It's defined by people, and it depends on interpretation. At best you could say that some aspect of sexism is agreed on by a large enough majority that it takes on a certain almost objective quality. Which doesn't devalue it, but it's something that is defined against norms and values, and there is *nothing* natural to these, pretty much by definition. Which makes the discussion especially tricky, because by saying that something is sexist you're basically making two arguments at the same time: sexism is X (to me as an individual, to us as a group, to society at large) and Y corresponds to this definition of sexism. Which doesn't help in and of itself, but to my mind saying that sexism is objective suggests a fundamental misconception of what it is we're talking about.
    But here is the thing (and I'll try to articulate without my usual flippancy (hard for me) so you don't concentrate on that), when that interpretation is at the far end of the sociocultural bell curve and is articulated in the media as the desired definition it inspires a backlash from the other end of the curve which does move the needle too far in the other direction. That is what Kolya said with his Trump comment. We need to be alert for the individual interpretation going beyond the norm for that reason.

    Interpreting too far beyond the norm on sexuality will never fly because we are sexual beings. That is not a thing, male or female, that we can deny. Currently our norm is fair (I think) with minor exceptions. Those exceptions stand out. Those we can call sexist. BUT when we start calling the norm or middle bell curve sexist it not only will not be accepted but may make things worse.

    I understand those on the end of the curve think it advances their cause to push for the middle to move, and previously it needed to move, but when we begin to quibble over minor issues accepted and even used on a beach knowingly by the majority of females such as a bikini then those trying to push the middle should take note. IS the use SOLELY for titillation? If not then one needs to examine carefully whether one wishes a backlash. Moreover one should examine whether there is any benefit should the middle move. Does a woman in a bikini or a man in a speedo diminish any other aspect of that individual? Must every aspect of one sex side be reciprocated by the other sex side to be non sexist? What is lost in creativity or function of a story when the grains of these things are weighed rather than the over all message being conveyed?

    That all may sound really simple but it's what the thread started over. Whether the view is subjective or objective it is the middle of the bell curve and the fairness of that place on the graph which is important. That makes the subjective only important to the individual and as long as the individual is free to exercise that on a personal level then subjective is unimportant.

    Oops I realized I didn't qualify the middle of the bell curve as being that most approaching objective. I think you understand that though as you mentioned the "almost objective" quality.
    Last edited by Tocky; 8th Jan 2017 at 17:22.

  20. #95
    Still Subjective
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Europops
    Quote Originally Posted by faetal View Post
    The way I look at it is that if I was homosexual and had spent my life either hiding it due to fear of social exclusion or had been actively mocked for not hiding it, then someone with Hammond's level of public reach using sexuality as some kind of negative personality quirk... ...There has been plenty of research showing that e.g. sexist humour has the effect of making certain groups of people more comfortable with being sexist, as it is normalises it a little. Reference
    There's two things here.

    I definitely agree that allowing "-ist" humour of any type emboldens the real a-holes who want to take it to the next level. However, you've still got to define what is that -ism or not. What if Hammond had just said he wasn't gay, in a really normal context? Let's say they stopped by a gay bar and someone recognised them and asked him if he'd like a drink with them and Hammond said "No thanks, I'm not gay." Is that reasonable to say? And then what if some homosexuals who were hiding it found that statement negative. Perhaps a such a public figure denying being gay meant they had more fear of social exclusion. Does that make the statement homophobic?

    My point is - it's not entirely up to a group to decide if something is prejudiced against them or not, as nice as that may be. SJWs seem to forget this. There are loads of things that are labelled sexist, racist, antisemitic, homophobic, etc, that just aren't, but someone takes offence or makes a fuss and the cycle restarts.

    It's vitally important to stop prejudice when it happens. It's almost as important to shut up SJWs who have got it wrong though.

    Wouldn't be surprised if the spike in racially motivated attacks in the UK post-Brexit were due to xenophobes feeling like a shift of sentiment in their direction meant it was OK to let the mask slip a bit.
    This is almost definitely the case.
    Last edited by SubJeff; 8th Jan 2017 at 19:45.

  21. #96
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    Quote Originally Posted by SubJeff View Post
    What if Hammond had just said he wasn't gay, in a really normal context?
    I mean, just watch the clip: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...-a7496961.html
    Ignoring how cringe-inducingly scripted it obviously is (along with all of the "spontaneous" Top Gear conversational bits), it's basically only there as a laugh so cheap, it's embarrassingly bad.
    Mostly, it's just awful and not funny and stupid, but it is using "straight" as basically "not a person with compromised masculinity".

    Doesn't offend me viscerally, because as I mentioned before, I have never had to sit through teasing about my sexuality, never had a large % of Top Gear's target audience drunkenly being aggressive towards me for holding hands with another guy etc... But I can imagine to someone who spent their life taking shit for their sexuality, it might have smarted some.

    All told, was it worth it for such an unfunny and pointless skit?

  22. #97
    Still Subjective
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Europops
    I've seen it. It was stupid and a poor joke. But the part of my post you quote has to do with perceived offense and whether it's realistic or not, and not what was actually said. I used a passive similar, but less obviously ridiculous, statement to make a point.

  23. #98
    Member
    Registered: Oct 2002
    Location: London / London / London
    Ok, but ignoring the use of social justice as a perjorative for a second (which is ridiculous), Hammond didn't just say 'im not gay'. He said eating ice cream was gay. That not being good reason to grab the pitchforks doesn't make it cool, it's still a fucking stupid thing to say. 'Offense' is too much of an emotive umbrella term for 'taking issue with'. I don't think what he did was offensive particularly (certainly less so than his continued existence in general), but I do take issue with it.

    I am, however, offended by the term sjw, because it implies that trying to make the world better for everyone is somehow a bad thing we should all take the piss out of. It's also got that annoying, polarising bullshit vibe that 'bremoaner' does.
    Last edited by Vivian; 9th Jan 2017 at 04:11.

  24. #99
    Still Subjective
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Europops
    It was stupid thing of him to say, no doubt. Is he a homophobe? I think he probably is. But I think that's the weakest homophobic thing anyone has ever said, if it can indeed be classed as homophobic.

    SJW is most certainly a pejorative term and I mean it to be. Trying to make the world a better place is great. We should all do it. But that's not what SJWs do - they are the uber bleeding heart liberals that take issue with and find offense in almost anything. You know what I mean. They're everywhere. They're the people that find it offensive when I say I'd like to go back to Africa for a holiday because, err, helloooo, Africa is many different countries you know and it's demeaning to refer to ah f off. This is a real thing.
    Last edited by SubJeff; 9th Jan 2017 at 04:43.

  25. #100
    Member
    Registered: Oct 2002
    Location: London / London / London
    I think that applying that sort of label just makes it easier to dismiss your opponent without engaging with what they actually said (aka strawmanning, as we've covered here already). It's not really part of a proper debate.

    Anyways, that's a side issue. Like Faetal said, 'homophobic' is also a pretty bad word for what it's trying to represent. Gayism sounds wrong though. Hammond maybe is a homophobe, although that's an assumption in itself, but the ice cream thing was homophobic. Not in that it promotes hatred and anger towards gay people (which is the more typical meaning of homophobic, isn't it?), but in that it's a very inaccurate statement about gay dudes that just seems to be based on some vague idea of effeminacy. It's a bit of a 'women can't drive' statement.

    Well ok it's way weaker sauce than that, but you get my point. It's the sort of casual background gayism that would get me down if I was a gay dude who liked ice cream.

    Yeah the Africa thing, if bono sings some shit like 'ooh down in Africa the kids the kids' you'd think he was a cunt though, right?
    Last edited by Vivian; 9th Jan 2017 at 05:35. Reason: autocorrect

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •