Feminism

[jenben]

IDK about the real semantics of it, but sexualization to me has always meant sexualizing something for (media) consumption. If we're talking broad strokes media/cultural criticism, the landscape that sexualizes women, or incentivizes women sexualizing themselves, was created and propagated largely by men with money, power, etc. who were interested in using sexualized images to make more money and gain more power.

 

I wouldn't put on nice clothes with the goal of going out to flirt and say "man, I'm feeling super sexualized tonight." 

[Apple Cider]

I don't find it helpful, myself, as a person who critiques media, to talk about sexualization as it relates to a person choosing to be sexual as that falls into a way different category and that largely, sexualization as it stands to me, relates to the practice of portraying women in a sexualized manner for the purposes of the male gaze and objectification.

 

It's almost like feminists don't all fucking agree on everything. 

 

A person choosing to look sexual FOR THEMSELVES in a picture, is vastly different than talking about how a woman in an advertisement is specifically portrayed in a sexualized manner. I find sexualization's general meaning to be a little too broad if we're looking to specifically talk about what instances of it are problematic. 

 

A good place where this thoroughly comes out is fucking breastfeeding: because a woman having her boobs out at all should be a neutral act but guess what we've hyper-sexualized over time, that's right, breasts!

[Apple Cider]

if a woman sexualizes herself, then of course, the entire culture that promotes it and requires it and centralizes it as the predominant narrative for women and their bodies would fall apart, of course, it would cease to have no problems whatsoever

[Brett E]

This sucks, a gamergate affiliate group have hijacked the Hugo awards.

[Griddlelol]

Ok, so...someone making the choice to be sexually attractive isn't a bad thing, but forcing it on them is - that's pretty simple and linked to objectification. What I don't really get is how as an onlooker, do I know if I'm looking at someone and sexualising them, who isn't intended to be looked at in a sexual way?

 

Gah, that's a really obtuse thought. Easier version: How can I avoid sexualising women when they don't want to be? 

[Ben X]

Ok, so...someone making the choice to be sexually attractive isn't a bad thing, but forcing it on them is - that's pretty simple and linked to objectification. What I don't really get is how as an onlooker, do I know if I'm looking at someone and sexualising them, who isn't intended to be looked at in a sexual way?

 

Gah, that's a really obtuse thought. Easier version: How can I avoid sexualising women when they don't want to be? 

 

Don't sexualise them physically (eg walking over and pushing their mouth into a seductive pout) or mentally (eg imagining them pouting seductively at you). Frankly, I don't think the latter is much to worry about as long as you're not standing there gawping or leering at them.

[Apple Cider]

I am trying very hard not to sound mocking but you guys are really overthinking this - basically, don't treat a woman, fictional or not, like she's there for your sexual desires only. That means whatever - thinking that means you're obligated to her personal space, or time, or that your sexual desires are tantamount. However, this is a lot more related to things like consent and rape culture whereas I would say that sexualization still relates a lot more to images or media and that you're intended to see it that way, but being able to look at that and SEE it for what it is. 

 

http://www.themarysue.com/marvel-spider-woman-variant-butt/  

Here's a good example. 

 

Basically in general, maybe don't treat women like that they are for sex or ogling in general, and that they are human beings with agency and feelings and privacy?

[Ben X]

you guys are really overthinking this

 

Hey, I just answered the question! I agree, I think Griddlelol is either over-thinking it or extrapolating the term out to breaking point.

[twmac]

I think part of the problem with this overthinking is that as soon as you speak to someone who even comes from a slightly MRA sympathetic slant then they interpret it much along the same lines as Griddle, in that when sexualisation is mentioend they are referring to the fact that you shouldn't look at a person you find attractive and be sexually attracted to them.

 

I had one guy tell me that the male gaze term was coined to make men ashamed of their own sexuality. I guess there is no way to win those types of people over but, like griddle I find it really difficult not to over think it because I have these kinds of conversations with people on a fairly regular basis.

[JonCole]

I think it's important to recognize that there is a certain context for what women do that is shaped by patriarchy that we don't even realize in daily speech. The reason I say this is that describing "making the choice to be sexually attractive" in terms of how a woman dresses or acts is a complete construct of our society. When any person gets dressed, they're largely doing it for utility. Ideally, you'd want to also look good or be comfortable in addition to just being covered. The problem is that when we talk about women wearing a really nice dress that shows off their body, it's "dressing to look sexually attractive" or more bluntly "dressing like a slut" whereas when a guy puts on a well-fitted suit he just "looks good" or alternatively "looks very manly". Society has made it such that appearance for women is about sex and appearance for men is about identity and pride, which is just not fair.

 

This is just one example, but there are a ton of things where we can have some discussion of how a woman acts or how we should approach a woman, but there is no world in which we'd have a discussion about a similar situation when it comes to a man. So when I think about how not to sexualize a woman, I try to think about things like that. It's the kind of thinking that when taken to the slippery slope results in "look at how she was dressed, she was asking for it."

[JonCole]

On a separate note, Planet Money put out an episode about a 12-year old girl who wrote an op-ed that got published by Washington Post about how games often charge extra money for female characters. It hadn't shown up on my radar last month as a gamer, which is kinda unfortunate. Anyways, it's a pretty good episode of the podcast -

 

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2015/04/03/397321383/episode-615-a-12-year-old-girl-takes-on-the-video-game-industry

[Griddlelol]

I am trying very hard not to sound mocking but you guys are really overthinking this 

You're right. I am over-thinking it to the point of getting caught up in semantics.

 

The problem is that when we talk about women wearing a really nice dress that shows off their body, it's "dressing to look sexually attractive" or more bluntly "dressing like a slut" whereas when a guy puts on a well-fitted suit he just "looks good" or alternatively "looks very manly". Society has made it such that appearance for women is about sex and appearance for men is about identity and pride, which is just not fair.

 

I was trying to avoid that, but yeah, if I continue my thought down one way, it comes to that, which means I've made a mistake somewhere along the line. 

[Bjorn]

This sucks, a gamergate affiliate group have hijacked the Hugo awards.

 

The anti-progressive/women/minority faction in sci-fi predates the organized abuse in gaming by a long, long time.  It shows what a lot of people have pointed out, that gamergate never existed in a vacuum, that there's a cross-pollination of shitheadedness that includes most of the traditional "nerd" communities. 

[TychoCelchuuu]

If anyone would like to continue overthinking the issue, Martha Nussbaum's essay on objectification (a PDF of it shows up if you Google "Nussbaum Objectification") is very good (fun fact: Anita Sarkeesian cited it in one of her videos). She doesn't quite address the very basic issue of "why can't I just make all the women in my video game dress up in bikinis" because like any normal human being that's not even on her radar as something that someone would even potentially think is okay, but the essay does do a very good job of explaining what objectification/sexualization/etc. is and why it is sometimes wrong.

[Apple Cider]

If you really want to cover your bases with Real Human Women, the best way is just to be respectful of their agency and humanity. If you really want to interrogate "being ashamed of your sexual desires" then that's where the hetero-patriarchy comes into play - that women exist at all times for men's sexual advances or desires and not for themselves. It's okay to think someone is sexually attractive. It is not okay to think that that entitles you to anything including commentary, invading personal space, cat-calling, leering, etc. 

 

Trust me, I also find women sexually attractive but they are also human beings who deserve my respect and their privacy. 

 

However, when I talk about sexualization, it's usually how Women as a Group are portrayed in media and advertising, since that's a constructed set of messages. 

[Ben X]

Don't walk around pushing women's mouths into seductive pouts, is basically what we're saying.

[slime]

This sucks, a gamergate affiliate group have hijacked the Hugo awards.

 

This is only tangentially related to the thread topic, but George R. R. Martin (of A Song of Ice and Fire / Game of Thrones fame) is writing some very excellent blog posts on the subject. He's been part of the scene surrounding the Hugos for many decades, so he can speak from a great deal of experience:

 

Intro: http://grrm.livejournal.com/417125.html

Part 1: http://grrm.livejournal.com/417521.html

Interlude about tone: http://grrm.livejournal.com/417600.html

Part 2: http://grrm.livejournal.com/417812.html

Part 3: http://grrm.livejournal.com/418285.html

[Brett E]

The anti-progressive/women/minority faction in sci-fi predates the organized abuse in gaming by a long, long time.  It shows what a lot of people have pointed out, that gamergate never existed in a vacuum, that there's a cross-pollination of shitheadedness that includes most of the traditional "nerd" communities. 

 

I guess so, I have to say that I've never had much to do with nerd communities outside of games wasn't as aware of it. I have to wonder if this is partly because some of these people feel emboldened by gamergate.

[Apple Cider]

Don't walk around pushing women's mouths into seductive pouts, is basically what we're saying.

Okay, my brain is fucking wracked right now, but WHY are you specifically mentioning this, IS THIS A REFERENCE TO SOMETHING 

[Ben X]

Ha ha, no, it was just what I came up with off the top of my head as a silly example of sexualising a passing woman.

[Mangela Lansbury]

Is it really a reference to how you liked to walk up to women and squeeze their cheeks to give them fish face in your youth? It's okay if that's a seductive pout to you, you can be honest.

[Ben X]

You got me. This is the sexiest Disney moment ever, imo.

[Bjorn]

On a separate note, Planet Money put out an episode about a 12-year old girl who wrote an op-ed that got published by Washington Post about how games often charge extra money for female characters. It hadn't shown up on my radar last month as a gamer, which is kinda unfortunate. Anyways, it's a pretty good episode of the podcast -

 

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2015/04/03/397321383/episode-615-a-12-year-old-girl-takes-on-the-video-game-industry

 

That Planet Money piece is great, and the interview with the female co-creator of Temple Run is really interesting.

[Merus]

This is only tangentially related to the thread topic, but George R. R. Martin (of A Song of Ice and Fire / Game of Thrones fame) is writing some very excellent blog posts on the subject. He's been part of the scene surrounding the Hugos for many decades, so he can speak from a great deal of experience.

 

The one where he breaks down the Hugo slate and reveals that some of the leading Sad Puppies were two-time losers is incredible.

 

Also, pissing off GRRM was a terrible idea - starting a beef with the world's most prominent science fiction and fantasy author, one with the smarts and the memory to actually address arguments, one who has a deep love and respect for the Hugos, who rarely expresses a negative or even novel opinion, whose wildly popular TV show is returning for a new season this week, and about whom the papers are desperately trying to find anything to write about to address that rabid demand for more Game of Thrones news, was tremendously ill-advised. You could not start a more one-sided beef with an author if you were trying.

[twmac]

If you really want to cover your bases with Real Human Women, the best way is just to be respectful of their agency and humanity. If you really want to interrogate "being ashamed of your sexual desires" then that's where the hetero-patriarchy comes into play - that women exist at all times for men's sexual advances or desires and not for themselves. It's okay to think someone is sexually attractive. It is not okay to think that that entitles you to anything including commentary, invading personal space, cat-calling, leering, etc. 

 

Trust me, I also find women sexually attractive but they are also human beings who deserve my respect and their privacy. 

 

However, when I talk about sexualization, it's usually how Women as a Group are portrayed in media and advertising, since that's a constructed set of messages. 

 

I feel part of that was aimed at me, and that definitely helps. Am going to sit down and go through the Nussbaum piece linked earlier in the thread too.

 

Sorry if this feels like I am using this thread a little like a 'please explain and google stuff for me, so that I don't have to' but I read these posts avidly as a means of expanding my understanding of the topics.