Superheroes & representation (split from questions thread)

[brennan]

I don't find inherent derogatory meaning in objectification. You do.

Oh yes, we can all tell that when you describe it as:

procedurally making something a masturbation prothesis

Edit: Really all you are doing is spouting rhetoric. The main problem with the current strand of feminism online is that that is all it ever does, spout slogans ad nauseum and reject alternative hypotheses simply because it isn't interested in debate.

The issue is that it caters to traditional gender roles of the active, tough and rational male and the passive, soft and emotional female, which is a whole can of worms of bad things and structural suppression. For while these are apparent attributes on the surface, thing is that activeness is valued over passiveness, ration over emotion.

The entire point of these games is to rescue the 'emotional female'. The claim that the emotional female is devalued is just straight out absurd, she represents the central aim and is therefore definitive in terms of what is valued.

 

[Tahuti]

Postmodernism!

 

[Kyriakos]

^Let alone that it should have been 'a prothesis for masturbation', not a 'masturbation prothesis' cause there you have two nouns...

Then again, in this context, the phrase still is wrong, cause objectifying something kind of pressuposes you have a prothesis (which means will or predisposition) of that nature; the object itself is not affected by a mere predisposition on your part unless you act upon it.

 

[brennan]

I took it to be a typo for prosthesis actually.

 

[Angst]

Oh yes, we can all tell that when you describe it as:

Masturbation protheses are not necessarily bad things. Eg objectifying your partner during intercourse is fine if it causes mutual pleasure... The problem is when there are massively mediated structually reinforced, stereotyping masturbation protheses. When they are everywhere, constantly reproduced.

Edit: Really all you are doing is spouting rhetoric. The main problem with the current strand of feminism online is that that is all it ever does, spout slogans ad nauseum and reject alternative hypotheses simply because it isn't interested in debate.

I'm not really sure that is the case. It's you that assume that I follow a certain structure of thought, given that you say I denounce objectification per se (I don't) or that I think that giving a subjective opinion is inherently a bad thing (I don't).

Also I agree that online feminism is often dumb. Why don't you read some proper feminist literature instead? I'm not sure you're acquainted with it; I don't think my thoughts are that far from what I've read and what I've read isn't really that obscure. And you answer it as though you have no understanding of what my points are.

The entire point of these games is to rescue the 'emotional female'. The claim that the emotional female is devalued is just straight out absurd, she represents the central aim and is therefore definitive in terms of what is valued.

There are some iffy things going on with the word 'value' here. I'll try to reiterate. The traditionalist construct has values for both men and women; as such I'm not sure there is devaluation of the woman in the traditionalist narrative. There is however a problem in the implicit characteristics of the damsel: the problem exists in the very value she is given. For even if the narrative centers around her rescue, she is merely further enforced as an incapable prisoner ripe for the active male protagonist to rescue.

Or to put it yet another way; regardless of what the narrative is about, there are enforced gender stereotypes present, with the active rational male and the passive emotional female. These stereotypes have old modernist and rationalist implications of male superiority, seeing that the active, rational individual is superior to the passive, emotional individual. It's not that the female isn't given characteristics. For she certainly has a lot of characteristics. The problem is that the characteristics are considered inferior by our thought structure.

And I know this is a weird problem; if you inspect it closely, a woman will be somehow treated as both valued (in that she is given several properties) and devalued (in that her properties are inferior to the 'proper' properties) - at least somehow. This is a very ambigious nature of things, and I think that's the reason it's so succesful as a structural tool of power.

Of course, a general disclaimer for all of this: I don't have an issue with the incapable damsel as a character per se; the problem is that she is so massively enforced by the media.

EDIT: It's probably prosthetis btw. English is not my first language.

 

[brennan]

Every time you declare the female role to be 'passive' or otherwise negative in some way you are making a subjective judgement that is open to question. You have given no reason for rejecting the alternative judgement. Which means I have no reason to agree with you.

On the other hand we live in a society that clearly evidences the valuation of women above men: Violence against men is both more common and far, far more tolerated; women are prioritised in lifeboats and obtaining council houses; in computer games the 'damsel in distress' theme epitomises the fact that women are inherently valued whilst males are disposable; little girls are made of 'sugar and spice and all things nice' (we all know what little boys are made of and it's not nice); empathy, caring and nurturing are 'female' characteristics - men get allocated aggression and lechery; your wife is your 'better half'. I have abundant reasons to reject your thesis. All you have appears to be jargon about stereotypes.

Also I agree that online feminism is often dumb. Why don't you read some proper feminist literature instead? I'm not sure you're acquainted with it

If you haven't managed to communicate effectively that's your problem. Please don't tell me to go read a book. I can only respond to what I see.

 

[Angst]

Every time you declare the female role to be 'passive' or otherwise negative in some way you are making a subjective judgement that is open to question. You have given no reason for rejecting the alternative judgement. Which means I have no reason to agree with you.

Why does it matter to you whether my judgment is subjective? All judgments are subjective. I'd cite material from whence I take the gender characteristics, but it's pretty fundamental, which is why I asked whether you had actually read a non-tumblr feminist analysis of anything.

On the other hand we live in a society that clearly evidences the valuation of women above men: Violence against men is both more common and far, far more tolerated; women are prioritised in lifeboats and obtaining council houses; in computer games the 'damsel in distress' theme epitomises the fact that women are inherently valued whilst males are disposable; little girls are made of 'sugar and spice and all things nice' (we all know what little boys are made of and it's not nice); empathy, caring and nurturing are 'female' characteristics - men get allocated aggression and lechery; your wife is your 'better half'. I have abundant reasons to reject your thesis. All you have appears to be jargon about stereotypes.

All of this has to do with projected stereotypes that I too seek to work against as well. Why do you feel so agitated at what I write? I mean, I could go through the individual points of yours and outline the reasons why this goes hand in hand with a patriarchal worldview, which hurts both genders, but I think it's counterproductive as I'd much rather work with you and you appear to be easily provoked.

If you haven't managed to communicate effectively that's your problem. Please don't tell me to go read a book. I can only respond to what I see.

Well first communication goes two ways, and you casually ignore a lot of what I say or dismiss it as jargon; all of it is very fundamental to feminist writing and even if I'm a little unclear it should be pretty recognizable. Therefore I assumed you were not acquainted with the material.

 

[_random_]

Steve Rogers is still white. Sam Wilson, a different individual, is black. They are different individuals, each with their own separate epidermis, hence the possibility of variation in pigmentation without narrative confusion.

Am I the only one who's actually bothered to find out what's going on here?

If they want something more along those lines to complain about, they could note that Nick Fury has been replaced by his previously unknown black son, whose name is also Nick Fury. That's closer to the sort of thing they're talking about, but it was more about making comics more accessible to new fans who watched the movies where Nick Fury is black (because in the Ultimate Universe, he was specifically made in the likeness of Samuel L. Jackson under the condition that Jackson get the role in a future movie) than about increasing diversity. Although interestingly, in the Ultimate Universe, they did just straight-up change Nick Fury's race once they got permission from Jackson, but again, it wasn't as high-profile, for lots of reasons.

As for Cap and Thor, I really don't expect these changes to last. Chris Evans and Chris Hemsworth are both still under contract for some more movies with Marvel studios, as I recall, and again, Marvel wants the comics to be accessible to new readers brought in from the movies. I'm fine with the changes while they last, and if the reviews are good, I might give the issues a read, but I don't see any reason to expect them to be permanent. So if replacing their established heroes for more diversity isn't economically feasible in the long term, I'd wish they'd promote the female and non-white characters that they do have more and work on creating some new ones. Because I get the desire for diversity, but I also find the gimmickiness a bit irksome.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I was one of the "shrieking" BSG fans upset about Starbuck at first, but Katee Sackoff won me over big time fairly quickly by her outstanding performance.

I kind of get why they did it, in hindsight. In the 70s BSG, females were not even allowed to be Viper pilots initially. Yes, this did later change simply because they were running out of pilots and needed replacements, but I don't think that would have flown for a 2000s audience. They had to make some of the pilots female, so I guess why not the #2.

Initially, sure. But they realized that their planet-bound, pre-search for Earth social rules had to be scrapped in order to survive, and by the time Sheba came along, there were no issues with women being Viper pilots.

I thought the scene where the women were bragging about their piloting skills and the men were talking about curtains for Apollo's new quarters he'd soon be sharing with Serena was rather cute.

 

[bhsup]

Oh, I remember that scene! Yeah, that was pretty funny. I am trying to remember who he got into the heated argument with over it. Was it his sister, Athena?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I don't think he argued with anyone except Serena, when she told him she was going to take Viper pilot training. She pointed out that Athena is a pilot, and Apollo said that was different - Athena was a shuttle pilot, which was very different from flying a Viper.

 

[bhsup]

Okay, I guess that's where I was getting Athena from. Thanks

 

[Traitorfish]

Well that's clear since you haven't actually responded to the points I made on the reasons people have for objecting. You have labelled a group of people 'racist' and can't be bothered to discuss the matter. I think that's poor form.

I write six civil, considered paragraphs, and the only reply you deign to give me is "I fart in your general direction"?

 

[ParkCungHee]

The people who wrote the things knew who they were and knew who they wanted to write about and they did so. You may not like the result, but that doesn't mean that there is any obligation upon Marvel or DC or whoever to suddenly turn half their stable into ethnic minorities or introduce a new, Jewish version of the Avengers.

If you want to get into the sausage making of it, most of them knew what they wanted to create (the term 'write' puts way to much emphasis on the act of one member of the team) and for the overwhelming majority they either:

1) Didn't get to.

2) Did, and those characters and stories got stolen from them.

or sometimes also

3) Had their creations altered anyway.

If you want to return to some field of pure creative intent, start whipping up some scripts for Objectivist Spider-Man.

 

[Traitorfish]

Didn't they try that with The Question?

 

[ParkCungHee]

As for Cap and Thor, I really don't expect these changes to last. Chris Evans and Chris Hemsworth are both still under contract for some more movies with Marvel studios, as I recall, and again, Marvel wants the comics to be accessible to new readers brought in from the movies.

Of course they won't last. Because shuffling around costumes is the new Apes. It's just nobody notices when it's white guys changing costumes. Nobody here noticed or complained about:

Bullseye becoming Hawkeye
Karla Soften becoming Ms. Marvel
Buckey Barnes becoming Captain America
Dick Grayson becoming Batman
Otto Octavius becoming Spider-Man
Mac Gargan becoming Spider-Man
Hercules becoming Thor
Thor becoming Hercules
Hercules becoming Heracles
Heracles becoming Hercules

 

[ParkCungHee]

Didn't they try that with The Question?

Question hasn't been Objectivist in ages. First, they made him a Buddhist. Then a conspiracy crank. Now she's just kind of bland.

But the common link there is Steve Ditko.

 

[Traitorfish]

Speaking of a slightly different set of Hercules comics, I've been thinking about the casting of Dwayne Johnson in the Hercules film. This has to be the first time in really, ever where a Hollywood studio have cast a historical-slash-mythological figure who most people would reflexively assume to be "white" with an actor who is definitely not. I've been wondering if it's worth starting a thread.

 

[_random_]

Of course they won't last. Because shuffling around costumes is the new Apes. It's just nobody notices when it's white guys changing costumes. Nobody here noticed or complained about:

Bullseye becoming Hawkeye
Karla Soften becoming Ms. Marvel
Buckey Barnes becoming Captain America
Dick Grayson becoming Batman
Otto Octavius becoming Spider-Man
Mac Gargan becoming Spider-Man
Hercules becoming Thor
Thor becoming Hercules
Hercules becoming Heracles
Heracles becoming Hercules

Well yeah, this sort of thing in general is unlikely to stick, because people tend to dislike change. But the fact that the white guys are in those lucrative movies is definitely gonna be an impetus to revert these changes by the time Age of Ultron comes out, if it doesn't happen sooner

That being said, I seem to remember Rogers' previous death getting a decent bit of media coverage, although I don't think much was said about Bucky replacing him in particular. And I think Dick Grayson becoming Batman was mentioned once when I was unfortunate enough to have caught a bit of The Big Bang Theory, so I guess that was its entrance into the public consciousness. But yeah, in general, these are getting a lot of publicity from people who don't seem entirely aware of how often this kind of thing happens. And since that will probably drive up sales for the replacement issues, I'm sure we'll see more of this kind of thing in the future.

Now I'm actually kind of curious what the initial reaction to John Stewart becoming the Green Lantern was, since that's the earliest example I know of in comics in which a white character was replaced with a nonwhite one. I like to think it was worse back then, but having been around the internet enough, I can't assert that confidently.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Now I'm actually kind of curious what the initial reaction to John Stewart becoming the Green Lantern was, since that's the earliest example I know of in comics in which a white character was replaced with a nonwhite one. I like to think it was worse back then, but having been around the internet enough, I can't assert that confidently.

Actual death threats getting mailed to people's houses.

At least once he started dating Hawk-Girl. Because bird aliens are white?