comics and sexism (a rambling and hopefully coherent response to a good question)
Ben—sorry it took so long to respond to your questions. I really appreciate that you asked those questions—the last post was very vague and didn’t specify what I was really talking about. I’ll try to give a quick overview of what I meant when I said many comics are sexist. I think there are lots of people who can say these things more coherently than I can and I encourage anyone and everyone to seek out information about sexism, feminism, media literacy, and other related topics.
I think there are many ways that comics can, and many do, embody sexist and misogynistic traits.
One of the ways that is very visible is the sexual objectification of women as they are often illustrated in comics. This is the same as what happens so frequently in advertising. Essentially, it is the process of reducing women to nothing more than a sexual entity, usually to be consumed in some way by a male audience.
This is really easy to see in advertising. For example, sexually objectified women are often used to sell a product, usually a product that has nothing to do with breasts, legs, or other sexualized parts of female anatomy. It is so bad that often the female figure used in an advertisement doesn't even include the woman's head. Seriously.
What this does as it is visually repeated over and over and over (in advertising, in comics) is to say that women are meaningful only to the degree in which they are sexual objects; this is the only valid part of a woman's total make-up.
There are lots of articles, books, and even blogs that do a lot better job of explaining this than I can. But just start doing some media analysis on your own....it is pretty crazy. For example, you might notice that in many ads with both a male and female person, the female is often positioned below the man in a position of subservience. And I already mentioned the headless female figure in advertising. And we all know that sexually objectified women somehow equal all sorts of products (beer, clothes, perfumes and colognes, almost everything related to fashion, etc.). This is not true in every single ad but it is extremely prevalent.
The same is true for comics.
There are less obvious ways in which comics can, and often are, sexist. This includes the nature of the characters' relationships to one another. For example, I can think of so many comics in which a female character is used only to further the characterization of the male character. Usually this takes the form of a woman, who is close to the male character, dying or being tortured and/or killed so that the readers empathize with the loss the male character experiences. It is supposed to make him a deeper character, one with much suffering and pain (although, ironically, it is the woman who has been kidnapped or tortured or killed, although the reader is not supposed to feel this pain and suffering). This is such a common tactic in writing. Think about movies.....just sitting here I can think of several that follow that pattern (Little Big Man, Gladiator, Braveheart, etc.). It is the same with comics, as well (Wolverine’s origin story, Wolverine’s later relationships, Dreadstar, the original Spider-man story line with the death of Gwen Stacy, etc.). If this was just an occasional story line, and not used over and over and over again, it could be understood as a valid story. But it happens repeatedly--the man is the important and meaningful character and the woman character is there solely to make the man more 'interesting.'
This makes me think of how often in comics and movies there is a child character whose mother has died or been killed in the past and the ongoing suffering of the child over the loss of her/his (it seems to me it's almost always a 'he' but I'm not sure) mother is part of the plot. I am not saying that this is in and of itself sexism; there are numerous stories that share this that I really enjoy (The Neverending Story; Mother, Come Home; Night Fisher; Atari Force; and others). But I do think it is interesting and worth thinking about and trying to figure out what it means culturally and socially.
Violence against women happens a lot in comics and not just as a way to talk about the problem of violence against women. That would be something else entirely (and some comics do this--not all comics are sexist and misogynistic). Again, this is usually a plot device with which to explain the actions of a male character. Sometimes violence against a female character, when it is not used to kill her, is used to show deeper characterization in the female's character. But this is usually done in such a way that 'breaks' the woman character--mentally or emotionally. Again, then we as a reader are supposed to understand her character and inner fears better. This is not what happens when a male character is faced with violence or psychological attacks based on inner fears.
This violence issue reminds me of the first of the new Spider-man movies. There is a scene in it that is a sexualized rape scene. Mary Jane is assaulted by some 'thug' looking men in an alley. It is clear they intend to rape her. This scene is intentionally orchestrated to show the actress’ breasts and nipples--after being almost raped, the audience can clearly see her sexualized image and, again, right after almost being raped, she begins passionately kissing her rescuer--Spider-man.
There is lots more to sexism in media....a good thing to do would be to read some of the different sources that talk about sexism in general and about sexism in comics. Check out some of the feminist perspectives on comics. It is really interesting and I like learning about it. So much of sexism and its expression (for example—sexual objectification of women, violence against women) is so every-day, so institutionalized, that without purposefully learning about it, it is very easy to not even notice it.
You asked a couple of specific questions--sexism in comics isn't specific to any one genre or any one publisher. But all of this definitely pertains to the big mainstream publishers, as well as many of the smaller ones.
As a final note, I was just trying to look up some information about the “woman is killed to develop and create empathy for the male character” tactic in plot writing—I’ve never read anything about this particular thing and was hoping to find an article about it. I am sure there are many good analyzes of this but I just haven’t come across them. Anyway, I did find the following website (Women in Refrigerators):
http://www.unheardtaunts.com/wir/women.html
It is specifically about female comic book characters and includes a list of female characters who have been killed, raped, tortured, and “depowered” (as in super-powers taken away). It’s interesting and also a bit horrific (not the site but the repetitive and often sadistic treatment of female characters).
I also found the following site that includes a lesson plan for a classroom activity on understanding sexual objectification. It is really interesting and has some great hands-on activities—check it out!
http://web.cortland.edu/russellk/courses/prjdis/html/usmsxobj.htm
It reminds me of a class I took in North Dakota called Language Bias. This class included the idea of ‘media literacy’ as an important tool in navigating our cultural world. It was an amazing class that really challenged me. Sometimes it gave me moments of epiphany-like feelings, sometimes angered me, sometimes made me feel ignorant, and usually really excited me and made me feel like I was really learning and seeing things for the first time that were right in front of me.
I remember one video we watched in that class; it was called “Tough Guise.” It’s a very punny title! If there is anyway you can find this video (check school libraries—I know some universities carry it), watch it. It is super interesting. It covers a lot of different things but mostly focuses on what it means to be a “man” in our culture. It uses a wide variety of ways in which to examine this—from action figures to movies to interviews with teenagers. It was put together and narrated by a person named Jackson Katz. He has also written books dealing with the same and similar things (our culture’s definition of a “man” and violence against women) and these you can definitely find at libraries or through inter-library loan programs. He maintains a website:
http://www.jacksonkatz.com/
Also, I like the author bell hooks. She has written a lot of books on many topics, including autobiographical works, books on feminism, class issues, art, education, and movies. I’ve read some of her books but not the one I want to mention here! It is called “Feminism is For Everybody.” I have read some of her other writings on feminism and I think this book is an overview, introduction, and synthesis of many of her ideas and writings about feminism.
Sorry about the length of this response (that’s way I didn’t just post it as a comment!) but I think your questions are really valid and sure make me think. I wanted to try to provide some ways of thinking more about the issues involved, instead of just saying “(many) comics are sexist and this is why (or at least, why I think so).” Anyway, those are some ways in which some comics are sexist. While this applies to lots and lots of comics, there are many that I've read that I don't feel fall into this category. And thinking and talking about comics in this way helps me to think about our culture on a larger scale (I suppose this can be true with just about any aspect of our culture, especially things that are overtly about expression--like comics and other media).
I think there are many ways that comics can, and many do, embody sexist and misogynistic traits.
One of the ways that is very visible is the sexual objectification of women as they are often illustrated in comics. This is the same as what happens so frequently in advertising. Essentially, it is the process of reducing women to nothing more than a sexual entity, usually to be consumed in some way by a male audience.
This is really easy to see in advertising. For example, sexually objectified women are often used to sell a product, usually a product that has nothing to do with breasts, legs, or other sexualized parts of female anatomy. It is so bad that often the female figure used in an advertisement doesn't even include the woman's head. Seriously.
What this does as it is visually repeated over and over and over (in advertising, in comics) is to say that women are meaningful only to the degree in which they are sexual objects; this is the only valid part of a woman's total make-up.
There are lots of articles, books, and even blogs that do a lot better job of explaining this than I can. But just start doing some media analysis on your own....it is pretty crazy. For example, you might notice that in many ads with both a male and female person, the female is often positioned below the man in a position of subservience. And I already mentioned the headless female figure in advertising. And we all know that sexually objectified women somehow equal all sorts of products (beer, clothes, perfumes and colognes, almost everything related to fashion, etc.). This is not true in every single ad but it is extremely prevalent.
The same is true for comics.
There are less obvious ways in which comics can, and often are, sexist. This includes the nature of the characters' relationships to one another. For example, I can think of so many comics in which a female character is used only to further the characterization of the male character. Usually this takes the form of a woman, who is close to the male character, dying or being tortured and/or killed so that the readers empathize with the loss the male character experiences. It is supposed to make him a deeper character, one with much suffering and pain (although, ironically, it is the woman who has been kidnapped or tortured or killed, although the reader is not supposed to feel this pain and suffering). This is such a common tactic in writing. Think about movies.....just sitting here I can think of several that follow that pattern (Little Big Man, Gladiator, Braveheart, etc.). It is the same with comics, as well (Wolverine’s origin story, Wolverine’s later relationships, Dreadstar, the original Spider-man story line with the death of Gwen Stacy, etc.). If this was just an occasional story line, and not used over and over and over again, it could be understood as a valid story. But it happens repeatedly--the man is the important and meaningful character and the woman character is there solely to make the man more 'interesting.'
This makes me think of how often in comics and movies there is a child character whose mother has died or been killed in the past and the ongoing suffering of the child over the loss of her/his (it seems to me it's almost always a 'he' but I'm not sure) mother is part of the plot. I am not saying that this is in and of itself sexism; there are numerous stories that share this that I really enjoy (The Neverending Story; Mother, Come Home; Night Fisher; Atari Force; and others). But I do think it is interesting and worth thinking about and trying to figure out what it means culturally and socially.
Violence against women happens a lot in comics and not just as a way to talk about the problem of violence against women. That would be something else entirely (and some comics do this--not all comics are sexist and misogynistic). Again, this is usually a plot device with which to explain the actions of a male character. Sometimes violence against a female character, when it is not used to kill her, is used to show deeper characterization in the female's character. But this is usually done in such a way that 'breaks' the woman character--mentally or emotionally. Again, then we as a reader are supposed to understand her character and inner fears better. This is not what happens when a male character is faced with violence or psychological attacks based on inner fears.
This violence issue reminds me of the first of the new Spider-man movies. There is a scene in it that is a sexualized rape scene. Mary Jane is assaulted by some 'thug' looking men in an alley. It is clear they intend to rape her. This scene is intentionally orchestrated to show the actress’ breasts and nipples--after being almost raped, the audience can clearly see her sexualized image and, again, right after almost being raped, she begins passionately kissing her rescuer--Spider-man.
There is lots more to sexism in media....a good thing to do would be to read some of the different sources that talk about sexism in general and about sexism in comics. Check out some of the feminist perspectives on comics. It is really interesting and I like learning about it. So much of sexism and its expression (for example—sexual objectification of women, violence against women) is so every-day, so institutionalized, that without purposefully learning about it, it is very easy to not even notice it.
You asked a couple of specific questions--sexism in comics isn't specific to any one genre or any one publisher. But all of this definitely pertains to the big mainstream publishers, as well as many of the smaller ones.
As a final note, I was just trying to look up some information about the “woman is killed to develop and create empathy for the male character” tactic in plot writing—I’ve never read anything about this particular thing and was hoping to find an article about it. I am sure there are many good analyzes of this but I just haven’t come across them. Anyway, I did find the following website (Women in Refrigerators):
http://www.unheardtaunts.com/wir/women.html
It is specifically about female comic book characters and includes a list of female characters who have been killed, raped, tortured, and “depowered” (as in super-powers taken away). It’s interesting and also a bit horrific (not the site but the repetitive and often sadistic treatment of female characters).
I also found the following site that includes a lesson plan for a classroom activity on understanding sexual objectification. It is really interesting and has some great hands-on activities—check it out!
http://web.cortland.edu/russellk/courses/prjdis/html/usmsxobj.htm
It reminds me of a class I took in North Dakota called Language Bias. This class included the idea of ‘media literacy’ as an important tool in navigating our cultural world. It was an amazing class that really challenged me. Sometimes it gave me moments of epiphany-like feelings, sometimes angered me, sometimes made me feel ignorant, and usually really excited me and made me feel like I was really learning and seeing things for the first time that were right in front of me.
I remember one video we watched in that class; it was called “Tough Guise.” It’s a very punny title! If there is anyway you can find this video (check school libraries—I know some universities carry it), watch it. It is super interesting. It covers a lot of different things but mostly focuses on what it means to be a “man” in our culture. It uses a wide variety of ways in which to examine this—from action figures to movies to interviews with teenagers. It was put together and narrated by a person named Jackson Katz. He has also written books dealing with the same and similar things (our culture’s definition of a “man” and violence against women) and these you can definitely find at libraries or through inter-library loan programs. He maintains a website:
http://www.jacksonkatz.com/
Also, I like the author bell hooks. She has written a lot of books on many topics, including autobiographical works, books on feminism, class issues, art, education, and movies. I’ve read some of her books but not the one I want to mention here! It is called “Feminism is For Everybody.” I have read some of her other writings on feminism and I think this book is an overview, introduction, and synthesis of many of her ideas and writings about feminism.
Sorry about the length of this response (that’s way I didn’t just post it as a comment!) but I think your questions are really valid and sure make me think. I wanted to try to provide some ways of thinking more about the issues involved, instead of just saying “(many) comics are sexist and this is why (or at least, why I think so).” Anyway, those are some ways in which some comics are sexist. While this applies to lots and lots of comics, there are many that I've read that I don't feel fall into this category. And thinking and talking about comics in this way helps me to think about our culture on a larger scale (I suppose this can be true with just about any aspect of our culture, especially things that are overtly about expression--like comics and other media).
posted by matt iv at 9:53 AM
11 Comments:
Hey Matt. Interesting stuff! I've had similar discussions with some who identify themselves as feminists out here in western WA (very liberal area). The message I seemed to get was that these feminists were not interested in equality. They are more interested in elevating women to a status above men or are anti-man. This is a reason that some women I know have grown to resent feminism. Do you receive a similar impression from the reading/research you have done? BTW I'm all for equality thus I would consider myself a humanist if I had to give myself a label. I rarely come across the word "humanist". Do you?
I haven’t had similar experiences with feminism. I’m a feminist. Most of the people I associate with regularly are feminists and/or hold feminist values. And I don’t know anyone who is anti-male or interested in elevating women above men in society.
I am anti-patriarchy. Without a doubt. But that is not in any way anti-male.
This makes me think of a book written by Susan Faludi, entitled “Backlash.” It investigates the ways in which society has backlashed against feminism whenever it has made some sort of progress. This happened in the fifties and again, she says, in the eighties. It is a really well supported observation and definitely worth reading. I think the same has been happening again. As one quick example, think of the music industry. A few years back there was a surge in the popularity of independent and strong female artists. The Lilith Fair concerts and the musicians who played them are a good illustration of this. But now the situation has changed noticeably. I think in the last few years popular female musicians in mainstream music have become less and less independent and able to define their own presence, their own artistic voice, and their own sexuality. What we see are performers whose appeal, musically and sexually, are increasingly defined by the male corporate power which produces and controls them and the male audience which consumes them. These female artists, compared to many of the artists involved in Lilith Fair, are also much younger and physically conform more and more to the sexist ideal of waifish, easily controlled women. This, I think, is a reaction to the success of feminist ideas in the world of mainstream music.
I’d like to add that being a feminist doesn’t exclude identifying with other perspectives. I say that I am a feminist but this is not the totality of my world view or the only way in which I identify myself. One of the reasons that I actively say that I am a feminist is exactly because for some reason people so often do not want to claim that word. It has been tainted in an attempt to destroy what it strives for. And it’s pretty funny because the core values of feminism, when the label of feminism is removed, are difficult to deny as being valid and a good thing (although some people really are against the basic tenets of feminism). If you were to ask someone “do you believe that violence against women is inappropriate, harmful, and a problem that we all need to address,” chances are most people would respond with something like “well, yes, of course.” The question “do you think a system that gives power, control, and dominance to a particular group of people, resulting in other people suffering a wide range of consequences (including physical, emotional, and sexual violence; body image and self worth issues; depression; exclusion from many aspects of our culture; public and private denigration and humiliation; inadequate access to meaningful intimate relationships; fear as an everyday emotion; social barriers; educational barriers; creativity and self-expression barriers; and a whole host of other consequences) is a desirable system” would likewise elicit a similar response—“of course not.”
But include the word “feminism” and suddenly people want to put distance between themselves and these same ideas.
I think what much of the anti-feminist rhetoric and feelings has to do with is the challenge to patriarchy that feminism presents. This is a deeply ingrained system that does benefit some people in some ways. Even if someone does not actually have access to these benefits, there is often still the belief that this access may come in time. It is part of how we are socialized; it is the supposed “beauty” and “efficiency” of our system, about which I so often hear. The fact that patriarchy, like most parts of our culture, is essentially invisible to someone fully entrenched in our culture makes it that much more difficult to recognize. When someone challenges patriarchy, it then becomes easy for someone else to take this challenge on a personal level, because they are not able to identify patriarchy as an institution and system of oppression.
By the way, for me feminism is about getting at the core of hierarchy. To paraphrase Peggy Kornegger--feminism doesn’t mean having a woman president; it means not having a president.
As far as humanism--that is a term I do come across sometimes. For example, a few postings ago on this blog, I mentioned an article about fascism written by Laurence Britt and published in “Secular Humanism.” I don’t understand humanism as functioning in the same way or with the same goals necessarily as feminism. How do you understand the term?
So I have a few thoughts and questions.
1)Would it be acceptable to say that you feel that comics, cartoons, and many movies are corrupting us before we have the ability to understand that these things are wrong.
2)Do you feel like the people producing these media are ignorant to the effect it will have on society,or doing it just to make more money? Do you think these people really have a sincere hate for women?
3) Do you think that it is possible some of the people who have made the things you speak of, did it to bring an awareness of the problems you speak, without blatantly saying they believe what you do, and this is the problem? Few things are more powerful than self realization I'm not implying that you did objectify, etc. What I mean by self realization is letting people feel like they had this realization about the way women are portrayed in these mediums.
4)I know you listed some books that have helped shape your thoughts, but was there a pinnacle that really made you say this is wrong and I'm sick of this - or was it gradual exposure over time?
5)I have to say I definitely felt more pain for the woman in Braveheart than I did for Wallace, but now that you mention it, I see your point.
Do you still like the movie Braveheart?
6)Do you feel that men are objectified?
7)Finally, do you feel there is a reasonable solution to this problem?
Matt,
I think you hit the nail on the head with your response. The language is being used as a weapon so to speak. The term feminism has been tainted and is devisive to some. This is one reason I'd rather be known as a humanist. Like you said, not too many people would be openly support a "system that gives power, control, and dominance to a particular group of people, resulting in other people suffering a wide range of consequences". But it is what it is (at least to most people). I think the dialog can be much more constructive once we are beyond the devisiveness that the word "feminism" seems to generate. I guess its also a subject that I don't have a very good perspective (since I am not female). Some "feminists" only want rights for themselves but are not opposed to racism, sexism (see those who want to remove "man" from everyday words, ie. "man"hole, post"man", "man"ikin, wo"man"), or homophobism. But I am human. Humanism, to me, is all-encompassing. It's a one-size-fits-all term. Everyone is the same regardless of race, sex, sexuality, religeon, or any other basis descriminition exists.
I do think it is unfair to allow an advertisement to define women as only a sexual object. At least I don't think I do this. It happens all the time anywhere you look if that is what you want to see. For example, an employer reduces his/her employees to nothing more than an object to boost his/her productivity. A fireman is reduced to an object that only puts out fires. I guess what I am trying to say is that it's a role. It doesn't have to define the whole person all of the time. Sexuality can be an asset just like intelligence, athleticism, and charisma. But usually no one of these are the definig factor of a person. Most people are much more than 1 or even 2 of these.
Just my 2 cents. Have a happy and safe holiday!
1. I think that media, as well as other parts of our culture (like rape, for example), are indicators of the values, messages, and intentions of our culture. Of course, I think any media influences those that are the recipients of it and/or participants in it. Media is a creation, though, of human beings who are a part of this culture and not separate of it. So, I think media is an expression of the values and the world-view of the culture that produces it. And while it does help to shape a person’s perception of the world and their place in it, so does a whole host of other things. What I am trying to say is that I do not blame media for the culture out of which it is created. Although I do recognize how different aspects of culture reinforce and support certain values and world-views.
What does it mean if a media created by our culture (let’s say comics) appears to be increasingly sexist?
2. I don’t think a majority of people would admit or perhaps even be consciously aware of a hatred for women. This makes me wonder…do most people who hold racist beliefs and perceptions think that they hate certain groups of people? I think that sexism and patriarchy run very deep and are often essentially invisible (as are most cultural messages that are unquestioned and so much a part of the culture).
Whether or not an individual understands or recognizes sexism, misogyny, and the values these represent, our culture is clear in its position with women.
3. No.
4. That’s an interesting question. I think it was probably gradual but with certain moments and experiences that really helped me to think about these things. I am thinking of things like listening to rape survivors tell their personal stories and talk about what this violence has meant in their lives. Also, certain discussions have had moments that really shed light on a certain part of this topic, as have recognizing something for the first time that has been right in front of my eyes. Personal relationships, and other people’s observations, experiences, and perceptions they have shared, have also been very important to me in this regard.
5. No.
6. Yes, but significantly less and with dramatically different manifestations and consequences. And the nature of the objectification and what it signifies is different. Also, when talking about gender and media representation, men have a much larger repertoire of representations, experiences, characters, and expression.
I think your question has a lot to do with gender roles and the ways in which we and our culture defines what is normal and desirable. I just watched Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer last night and I was thinking about this (and capitalism).
8. Yes. I think, if we wish to address sexism, we need to challenge patriarchy and all forms of hierarchy and transform our culture. Is this possible? Our actions will decide.
P-man,
That’s funny—right after posting my response, I tried to go back and change a part of it—the sentence you reference (about feminism being tainted) because, after rereading what I had written, I realized that sentence did not adequately communicate what I meant and I knew that it could be used to say certain things about feminism. I wasn't able to edit my comment. But that doesn’t matter and I do want to respond to what you took the time to think and write and maybe I will be able to say better what I had wanted to communicate
I don’t think one needs necessarily to be a woman to have an understanding of feminism, patriarchy, or sexism. In fact, I think males in our culture have a pretty huge responsibility to understand these things and take constructive action on a personal and social level. It is after all males who are the ones committing violence; it is males who profit from patriarchy (although I would say that males also suffer from the maintenance of such a system because human relationships suffer); it is males who, by and large, create the images that we have been talking about (objectification of women).
Saying that by getting rid of feminism, we could arrive at “much more constructive dialog” about sexism, gender, violence against women, and women’s rights reminds me of when I hear people (and these are comments I have heard multiple times both in our society at large and also from specific people in my own life) say that we would have much less racism if we quit talking about; if “the blacks quit making such a big deal out of it.” Of course, I only hear this from white people. I have been told that, “things were so much better years ago, before it was such an issue. If it wasn’t for black people always bringing it up, we probably wouldn’t even have any problems with racism.” What do you think people within black communities think about this? How about Native communities? How about women?
Does “constructive dialog” mean dialog that does not address patriarchy and sexism? How does dialog that does not address something actually get at the realities experienced by people? We can say that all people are the same regardless of race, sex, sexuality, religion (how about class—are all people still the same in our capitalist framework?) but what happens when this is not the reality experienced by people? I suppose once there is no more patriarchy, no more hierarchy, no more violence against women, no more oppression experienced by women, then maybe feminism has reached its goals and we can continue from there.
Feminism is a threat to patriarchy. Patriarchy is one of the core systems of our culture. It’s not surprising that there are many who want to protect a system they feel benefits them. This is why the term “feminazi” was coined. This is why feminists and feminism are demonized. The same happens with environmentalism or what is really a concern with our toxic culture and its assault on anything and everything wild and not completely controlled. For me, this does not mean I should consent to those in power who wish to demonize a word, and more importantly, the ideas and goals that the word represents, and find something that does not challenge or resist.
Again, our experiences are very different in that I don’t know anyone who is a feminist and wants only rights for themselves. In fact, I have to honestly say that every feminist I know is also anti-racist, anti-homophobic, and anti-sexist. All of these problems stem from very similar world-views. bell hooks has identified this as white supremacist capitalist patriarchy. Derrick Jensen looks at it through an analysis of industrial civilization and our culture in general. And hierarchy about sums it up for me.
I am more concerned about thought and action than an actual word or label. However, the assault on feminism is an assault on the goals and ideas of feminism (and the thoughts and actions that come out of it), not just a word. That’s the important thing. I think we all understand that. Sexism is one of the most accepted, if not the most accepted, forms of bigotry and violence in our culture. I choose to realize this, to listen to the voices of those most negatively affected, and to challenge the ideas and structures that promote sexism (as well as challenge my own assumptions and habits) in ways that make sense to me.
p.s.
Thanks for the well wishes--the same to you!
William b,
I wanted to write more of a response to number 5 but I posted the comment before remembering to go back to it and, like in the previous case, I wasn’t able to figure out how to edit my comment. Then I had to take off for an appointment this morning; so, I’ll take a moment now to respond to number 5.
I don’t think that every time a female character is written in such a way that she is actually just a development of the characterization of a male character, the plot or movie or story is necessarily or deliberately sexist (although, there are times when it is definitely sexist). It is the repetitiveness of this plot tactic and the overall picture this forms that I am thinking about. And I think that much of sexism is not overtly conscious or deliberate—that’s the very nature of culture and enculturated beliefs and perspectives. I didn’t mean to single out any movie in any particular way, just provide some examples of what I was thinking about.
As far as that particular movie—I don’t like it the way I once did, for more than any one reason. There are pieces of art and expression produced in a sexist culture that I still read and can, once I have identified the sexism and what I don’t like about it, get something out of. This does not mean to excuse any prejudices or unexamined support of power structures or to okay them, but just that sometimes the only way I can read something (or watch, etc.) is to recognize to my ability where this occurs and think about.
And p-man,
I didn't address your comments about objectification.
I agree--every person is much, much more than any one isolated part of their being. There is a very significant difference between recognizing a part of your own identity and having that part be used by another as an objectifying tool to define a person or group of people (and to sell something). Sexuality is a wonderful and important part of an individual and it is healthy and natural for people to identify with their sexuality and express it in ways that are their own. This, however, is exactly not what happens in the sexual objectification of women. Some capitalistic entity uses this objectified representation to make profit, while also saying something about an entire group of people, in this case women. In the issue that we have been talking about, the sexual objectification of women, this also creates a situation in which women and girls are enculturated to desire physical characteristics (used to define worth and beauty and significance) that are simply not reality for most people (essentially to hate their own bodies), thereby creating all sorts of body image, self-esteem, and self-worth issues. This is very serious and not something, I think, to be dismissed as just the way one wants to see things.
Thinking about objectification, that is turning something into an object that one can control and manipulate, makes me wonder about these things (among others):
How is it that millions of women are raped, beaten, and assaulted every year (studies indicate that up to one in four women are sexually assaulted in their lifetime; approximately 1.5 million women in the U.S. are raped and/or physically assaulted every year by an intimate partner—this number leaves out all of the women beaten, assaulted, and raped by men who are not their partners)?
How is it that scientists cut off the tops of the heads of live animals to look at their brains, sew their eyes shut, inject them with deadly viruses to see what happens, cut out portions of the brains of living animals?*
How is it that humans round up other humans, put them in cages, and then into gas chambers?
(This one is a bit specific but has been much on my mind) How is it that humans kill other groups of women, men, and children and then parade around a city with their “trophies” of the mutilated body parts of their victims, including women’s genitals (as happened here in Colorado after the Sand Creek Massacre)?
How do people force other people from the very land on which they live, so that they can exploit this land and resources?
One last thing about sexual objectification of women (this is true in general, not just with the sexual objectification of women)—when something is sold (whether it’s a product over the counter, a movie, or anything else) more than just the product is bought.
*It's estimated that 50 to 100 million or more vertebrate animals are used and killed in animal testing every year--this doesn't include those that are kept for testing but end up being killed before "using" or sold as breeders.
Thanks for your detailed responses, I will definitely see many things differently from here on out.
p.s. I knew you weren't singling out any one specific movie, etc.
The only reason I bring that up is to tell you I understand the point you make.
Thanks p-man and William b for the thoughtful responses, comments, and questions. The observations you have made have made me think and I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your comments. If you have any more things to add, please do! And thanks again!
Post a Comment
<< Home