Bechdel test and other media analysis about discrimination

Started by TheFrighter, Sat 16/01/2021 17:44:12

Previous topic - Next topic

Honza

Quote from: Reiter on Wed 10/02/2021 07:36:40
I still think it is jolly poor form, I must say. Falling out takes a certain grace. Like a cat.

It's an expression of strong emotion. Those tend to be "poor form". It's what artsy people do.

TheFrighter

Quote from: Honza on Tue 09/02/2021 18:10:11
Going back to sex/nudity in games, there's a dilemma I've been having with my own game, so maybe this is the right thread to bite the bullet and ask what people think. Relatively minor (but not negligible) spoilers for Truth be Trolled follow, if you want to play that when it comes out 10 years from now, read at your own risk :).

Spoiler

So I've got this scene in the game. The lady in the tub is a tabloid journalist who likes interviewing people naked in her spa, supposedly because transparency, honesty, no secrets, yada yada. Of course she actually does it do embarrass and dominate them (she's interviewing a naked guy when you first visit the area). There's a visual gag here where thanks to the magic of parallaxing, objects scrolling at different speeds always conveniently align to cover strategic areas, Austin Powers style, so nothing explicit is seen.

So far so good I hope, some mildly naughty fun. Now the dilemma:

At one point, the princess visits the journalist in the spa to confront her about something. I'm considering three options:

1. The princess follows the prescribed "dress code", goes in naked, and she's not happy about it. Again, there are strategically placed objects in the foreground, so nothing explicit. This works for the power dynamic I want between the princess and the journalist and it supports a minor twist in the scene, but I'm worried some people might find it sleazy (as me just looking for excuses to get the girl naked).

2. The princess defies the journalist and marches in dressed. This changes the dynamic of the scene and undermines another idea I've had, but is at least interesting and works thematically in some ways. I also don't have to make a new walkcycle for the princess :).

3. A compromise: the princess wears a towel. Kind of "meh" if you ask me, but it is an option.

Would anyone here take issue with any of this?
[close]

I feel sorry for the troll used as a table...  :-\

_

Honza


Blondbraid

Quote from: KyriakosCH on Wed 10/02/2021 05:21:00
Hm, I think you should try to be civil. The painting I posted is famous and elegant, not some material of pornography. Maybe you are the one who is filled with such views, and can't help attributing them to others? :/
Let me get this straight, you're asking for ME to be civil, yet you simultaneously go "Maybe you're the pervert for calling out my inappropriate post"?

I never said the painting was pornographic, what I am trying to say it that it's really inappropriate for this discussion.
If you'd have posted it in a thread on art history, that had been one thing, but this is a thread where people have specifically complained about gratuitous inclusions of naked women in media,
and your answer is to post a giant picture of a naked woman in it? What answer did you expect?
Quote from: Honza on Wed 10/02/2021 07:51:24
Quote from: Reiter on Wed 10/02/2021 07:36:40
I still think it is jolly poor form, I must say. Falling out takes a certain grace. Like a cat.

It's an expression of strong emotion. Those tend to be "poor form". It's what artsy people do.
I still think there's a difference between say, Fransisco Goya painting terrifying paintings to deal with the horrors of the wars and Spanish inquisition he'd witnessed in his homeland, and Munch painting his fiance as a murderer because he couldn't handle a bad breakup.


Blondbraid

Quote from: Honza on Wed 10/02/2021 00:51:12
Quote from: Blondbraid on Tue 09/02/2021 18:53:08
Glad to be of help, and I've already edited my comment.

Thanks! On second thought, maybe some more context (medium-to-big spoilers this time):
Spoiler

Here's what makes the naked/dressed options (not) work in my opinion:

Without revealing too much, the scene is about the princess angrily confronting the journalist and the journalist completely turning the tables on her and verbally defeating her. The "twist" I mentioned is that at the moment of her triumph, the journalist stands up in the bathtub and it turns out that after all the bullshit about transparency, she's been wearing a strapless swimsuit the whole time, making her the only dressed person in the room. It's not the subtlest of metaphors, but I think I can make it less on-the-nose in execution than it might sound in writing :). It obviously doesn't work with the princess dressed though, the journalist would still be underdressed compared to her.

What works in favor of the dressed version is that the princess' character arch is her being dishonest (one of those people who go out of their way not to tell a direct lie, but their skirting around the truth ends up being worse than lying) and eventually learning what real honesty is. So her wanting to stay "covered" works for the character and the journalist could use it against her, managing to embarrass her for not wanting to get naked. It could be a cool villain moment if I manage to get the dialogue right, it would showcase the journalist being clever, manipulative and good at bullying people, managing to turn a disadvantage in her favor through sheer shamelessness. This is probably too abstract without the actual dialogue, but it works in my head :). I'd have to sacrifice the swimsuit twist though.
[close]

(sorry for making this about me and my game btw, I think it's somewhat relevant to the topic, but feel free to ignore me :))
Well, seeing that context, I personally think
Spoiler
the version where the princess stays dressed sounds more thematically interesting. As for the swimsuit twist, you're right that the dynamics change with the princess dressed, though you could probably still make a comment on how the princess is honest about covering up, while the journalist pretends to be bare and transparent but hides it. Like, after successfully making the princess feel embarrassed for wanting to stay covered, she rises up to show she too is covered while just berating the princess for it.
[close]
As for the bubble bath in the screenshot, did you watch this Robin Hood: Men in tights scene for inspiration?


heltenjon

Quote from: Blondbraid on Wed 10/02/2021 09:19:28
I never said the painting was pornographic, what I am trying to say it that it's really inappropriate for this discussion.
Agreed.
QuoteI still think there's a difference between say, Fransisco Goya painting terrifying paintings to deal with the horrors of the wars and Spanish inquisition he'd witnessed in his homeland, and Munch painting his fiance as a murderer because he couldn't handle a bad breakup.
[offtopic]This kind of behaviour is often seen in modern popular music, where the exes of musicians generally is written about in a less than flattering manner. That said, if we go back in history, personal attacks seem almost the order of the day. There is little or no division between person and the topic.

I think these paintings would fit in a thread about whether or not this kind of revenge against people who have wronged the artist is also applicable to games.
[/offtopic]

KyriakosCH

Quote from: Blondbraid on Wed 10/02/2021 09:19:28
Quote from: KyriakosCH on Wed 10/02/2021 05:21:00
Hm, I think you should try to be civil. The painting I posted is famous and elegant, not some material of pornography. Maybe you are the one who is filled with such views, and can't help attributing them to others? :/
Let me get this straight, you're asking for ME to be civil, yet you simultaneously go "Maybe you're the pervert for calling out my inappropriate post"?

I never said the painting was pornographic, what I am trying to say it that it's really inappropriate for this discussion.
If you'd have posted it in a thread on art history, that had been one thing, but this is a thread where people have specifically complained about gratuitous inclusions of naked women in media,
and your answer is to post a giant picture of a naked woman in it? What answer did you expect?


You probably didn't notice, but the man in that painting is also naked.
He is, moreover, dead.
Hardly a case of treating women differently in media :P

I am reminded of those cool and feminist arabian princes, who always cover up ancient statues so that the genitals aren't visible. A serious ability to appreciate high art..
This is the Way - A dark allegory. My Twitter!  My Youtube!

heltenjon

Quote from: KyriakosCH on Wed 10/02/2021 09:41:04
You probably didn't notice, but the man in that painting is also naked.
He is, moreover, dead.
Hardly a case of treating women differently in media :P

I am reminded of those cool and feminist arabian princes, who always cover up ancient statues so that the genitals aren't visible. A serious ability to appreciate high art..

I think my whole answer is off-topic. [offtopic]The naked dead guy is Munch. By naming the painting thus, he gives his ex the role of traitor and (psychological) murderess. He literally paints himself as the victim and the woman as the villain. Now, we don't know the specifics about the gun shooting incident that lead to their breakup, but I'm inclined to call this a personal attack more than an attack on all women.[/offtopic]

KyriakosCH

#248
Quote from: heltenjon on Wed 10/02/2021 09:51:40
Quote from: KyriakosCH on Wed 10/02/2021 09:41:04
You probably didn't notice, but the man in that painting is also naked.
He is, moreover, dead.
Hardly a case of treating women differently in media :P

I am reminded of those cool and feminist arabian princes, who always cover up ancient statues so that the genitals aren't visible. A serious ability to appreciate high art..

I think my whole answer is off-topic. [offtopic]The naked dead guy is Munch. By naming the painting thus, he gives his ex the role of traitor and (psychological) murderess. He literally paints himself as the victim and the woman as the villain. Now, we don't know the specifics about the gun shooting incident that lead to their breakup, but I'm inclined to call this a personal attack more than an attack on all women.[/offtopic]

The actual Marat wasn't killed by a "traitor", but a member of an opposing group in the chaos of the french post-revolution. She also claimed that she killed Marat to save thousands who would have been executed if he had this way :)
Now, obviously the painting isn't very tied to Marat (other than with the title), yet they are both naked, so this isn't a case of sexualizing any particular gender. Of course Munch could have painted something less emotional - in fact he could have done this with every other work of his, the price would just be that we wouldn't know of him today.
In this way, this is very much on-topic. Art isn't tv celebrity politics, and important artists have their subject matter, always from personal issues.
This is the Way - A dark allegory. My Twitter!  My Youtube!

Blondbraid

#249
Quote from: KyriakosCH on Wed 10/02/2021 09:41:04
Quote from: Blondbraid on Wed 10/02/2021 09:19:28
Quote from: KyriakosCH on Wed 10/02/2021 05:21:00
Hm, I think you should try to be civil. The painting I posted is famous and elegant, not some material of pornography. Maybe you are the one who is filled with such views, and can't help attributing them to others? :/
Let me get this straight, you're asking for ME to be civil, yet you simultaneously go "Maybe you're the pervert for calling out my inappropriate post"?

I never said the painting was pornographic, what I am trying to say it that it's really inappropriate for this discussion.
If you'd have posted it in a thread on art history, that had been one thing, but this is a thread where people have specifically complained about gratuitous inclusions of naked women in media,
and your answer is to post a giant picture of a naked woman in it? What answer did you expect?


You probably didn't notice, but the man in that painting is also naked.
He is, moreover, dead.
Hardly a case of treating women differently in media :P

I am reminded of those cool and feminist arabian princes, who always cover up ancient statues so that the genitals aren't visible. A serious ability to appreciate high art..
Well, not only is the man's sensitive area mostly covered up by the naked woman (her sensitive areas painted rather detailed in comparison), but the painting casts the man as a sympathetic victim and the woman as a murderer,
and in the context of the scene, painting them both as naked and the man lying on a bed also draws upon sexist stereotypes of women as evil seductresses using their sexuality to entrap men in order to harm them.
Just because they're both naked doesn't mean that the nudity is automatically equal.

Furthermore, don't you realize how sexist it is to equate me criticizing your post of a man's painting with Saudi fundamentalists?
I'm not imposing a ban on all nudity, or banning people from watching the original painting,
I'm critiquing the fact that you posted a nude painting a male artist did to get back at his ex when people were discussing how gratuitous depictions of female nudity was problematic.
Don't you realize just how many misogynists have used that exact same comparison whenever a woman has complained of objectifying images of women?
If you want a decent discussion, I ask you to lay off with the childish and insulting comparisons and accusations.
Quote from: KyriakosCH on Wed 10/02/2021 09:56:51
Of course Munch could have painted something less emotional - in fact he could have done this with every other work of his, the price would just be that we wouldn't know of him today.
In this way, this is very much on-topic. Art isn't tv celebrity politics, and important artists have their subject matter, always from personal issues.
I only see it as on-topic in the sense that it looks like it could become an example of Lewis's Law if you're going to keep using strawman arguments.


KyriakosCH

I wasn't aware of the girl in the painting being tied to Munch's fiancee. I suppose this ties to myself not caring about Munch's love life, but caring about nice paintings :)
Also I don't think you have a point regarding the stance of the models. I am sure one could project weakness to the person lying down on the bed, and power to the one standing up and looking at the audience in a defiant manner. Furthermore, usually if you are dead you are the weak party by default ^_^
This is the Way - A dark allegory. My Twitter!  My Youtube!

Ali

Quote from: KyriakosCH on Wed 10/02/2021 09:41:04
I am reminded of those cool and feminist arabian princes, who always cover up ancient statues so that the genitals aren't visible. A serious ability to appreciate high art..

This kind of conservatism can be universal, of course. Pope Pius IX actually had statues' genitals removed. But I think you're missing the point Blondbraid has been making. No one is taking offense at nudity per se - I like Munch and I like that painting. But the thread is about sexist representation of women. No one is saying all depictions of women are sexist, so just posting 'good art' of a naked woman doesn't say anything particularly meaningful. I can see why Blondbraid would read it as a cheap joke at her expense, though it sounds like that wasn't your intention.

That said, it's impossible to argue that the man and woman in Munch's painting are represented in the same way just because they're both naked - the woman is standing upright and facing the camera, blocking our view of his genitals. This follows the same pattern as the argument that male and female superheroes are both 'idealised'.

KyriakosCH

#252
Quote from: Ali on Wed 10/02/2021 12:37:28
Quote from: KyriakosCH on Wed 10/02/2021 09:41:04
I am reminded of those cool and feminist arabian princes, who always cover up ancient statues so that the genitals aren't visible. A serious ability to appreciate high art..

This kind of conservatism can be universal, of course. Pope Pius IX actually had statues' genitals removed. But I think you're missing the point Blondbraid has been making. No one is taking offense at nudity per se - I like Munch and I like that painting. But the thread is about sexist representation of women. No one is saying all depictions of women are sexist, so just posting 'good art' of a naked woman doesn't say anything particularly meaningful. I can see why Blondbraid would read it as a cheap joke at her expense, though it sounds like that wasn't your intention.

That said, it's impossible to argue that the man and woman in Munch's painting are represented in the same way just because they're both naked - the woman is standing upright and facing the camera, blocking our view of his genitals. This follows the same pattern as the argument that male and female superheroes are both 'idealised'.

Munch has paintings with male genitals visible, if anyone cares... And I am pretty sure the female in that painting has the dominant position, that much is rather clear-cut. I am sure some here would be even more up in arms (although in my view equally with no reason to be) if the female was passive/killed, and the male was displaying his nude body in defiance  :=

It's quite easy to see why this is focused upon as serious art; if you tried to take a photograph of such a scene, chances are very few people would talk about it and it wouldn't be regarded as high art. Politics is for such small things, in my view, along with the bulk of political interpretations.
And, for the record, of course I wasn't "making at joke" at Blondbraid's expense; I was posting a nice painting.
This is the Way - A dark allegory. My Twitter!  My Youtube!

Blondbraid

Quote from: Ali on Wed 10/02/2021 12:37:28
Quote from: KyriakosCH on Wed 10/02/2021 09:41:04
I am reminded of those cool and feminist arabian princes, who always cover up ancient statues so that the genitals aren't visible. A serious ability to appreciate high art..

This kind of conservatism can be universal, of course. Pope Pius IX actually had statues' genitals removed. But I think you're missing the point Blondbraid has been making. No one is taking offense at nudity per se - I like Munch and I like that painting. But the thread is about sexist representation of women. No one is saying all depictions of women are sexist, so just posting 'good art' of a naked woman doesn't say anything particularly meaningful. I can see why Blondbraid would read it as a cheap joke at her expense, though it sounds like that wasn't your intention.

That said, it's impossible to argue that the man and woman in Munch's painting are represented in the same way just because they're both naked - the woman is standing upright and facing the camera, blocking our view of his genitals. This follows the same pattern as the argument that male and female superheroes are both 'idealised'.
Well put!
Quote from: KyriakosCH on Wed 10/02/2021 12:25:51
I wasn't aware of the girl in the painting being tied to Munch's fiancee. I suppose this ties to myself not caring about Munch's love life, but caring about nice paintings :)
Also I don't think you have a point regarding the stance of the models. I am sure one could project weakness to the person lying down on the bed, and power to the one standing up and looking at the audience in a defiant manner. Furthermore, usually if you are dead you are the weak party by default ^_^
And what about my point about the man being drawn without much detail and having his private parts obscured by the naked woman, while the woman's naked body being in full view and the most detailed thing in the painting?
And again, I found it inappropriate to post this in this discussion, and if you truly cared about discussing that painting and weren't trying to troll, you would have read up more on the context beforehand and shared your thoughts on how it
presented the characters in it in your first post with it rather than jump straight to post a huge nude painting and say "how about this? *smiley face*".

You also haven't acknowledged any of my complaints about the fact that you used several rude strawman arguments against me and my words, and paired with the smileys, it feels like you're just going to try to joke away any criticism.
I tried saying in my first reply to your post that I didn't want to attribute it to any intentional sexism, but every reply you give makes it harder to do so.


KyriakosCH

Sorry, Blondbraid, but in my view you are the one who jumped at me, when the painting I posted had nothing to do with you and wasn't against you. Of course you are free to react to it as you wish, but you shouldn't be quick to attack others.
Furthermore, I am not sure if you are seriously asking me to defend Munch to you. Don't you think this is a little bit surreal? (instead of the apt, which would be expressionistic)
This is the Way - A dark allegory. My Twitter!  My Youtube!

Blondbraid

Quote from: KyriakosCH on Wed 10/02/2021 12:44:03
And, for the record, of course I wasn't "making at joke" at Blondbraid's expense; I was posting a nice painting.
Quote from: KyriakosCH on Wed 10/02/2021 12:52:27
Sorry, Blondbraid, but in my view you are the one who jumped at me, when the painting I posted had nothing to do with you and wasn't against you. Of course you are free to react to it as you wish, but you shouldn't be quick to attack others.
Furthermore, I am not sure if you are seriously asking me to defend Munch to you. Don't you think this is a little bit surreal? (instead of the apt, which would be expressionistic)
If that was the case, why didn't you explain that from the start?

I thought I gave a pretty thorough explanation of why I thought that the picture was inappropriate in this context, and it's not about the picture in and on itself, but the fact that you chose to include it in this discussion knowing the subject matter.
If it was just about wanting to post a nice picture, why here in this discussion and not make your own forum thread for posting classic paintings?

Also, do you think it's fair to say that I'm attacking you when you have more or less accused me of being obsessed with porn;
Quote from: KyriakosCH on Wed 10/02/2021 05:21:00
Hm, I think you should try to be civil. The painting I posted is famous and elegant, not some material of pornography. Maybe you are the one who is filled with such views, and can't help attributing them to others? :/
And compared me to an Islamist fundamentalist ruler;
Quote from: KyriakosCH on Wed 10/02/2021 09:41:04
I am reminded of those cool and feminist arabian princes, who always cover up ancient statues so that the genitals aren't visible. A serious ability to appreciate high art..
I have tried to give you the benefit of a doubt, but you've kept putting words in my mouth.

And why do you only try to back down after you saw another forum member agreeing with my points?


Ali

Yeah, I think the issue is not that there's anything wrong with that painting in its own terms - you don't need to defend Munch. Even if you'd found the perfect example of a naked woman portrayed without the tiniest hint of sexism - it still wouldn't have made sense to present it as a 'gotcha' or counterpoint, if that's how you intended it. It's like saying, 'but these great films don't pass the Bechdel test!' No one thinks that passing the test is the mark of a good film, or that all portrayals of women are sexist.

Blondbraid

Quote from: Ali on Wed 10/02/2021 13:26:01
Yeah, I think the issue is not that there's anything wrong with that painting in its own terms - you don't need to defend Munch. Even if you'd found the perfect example of a naked woman portrayed without the tiniest hint of sexism - it still wouldn't have made sense to present it as a 'gotcha' or counterpoint, if that's how you intended it.
Exactly.
I've studied art history at University, something I wouldn't if I couldn't stomach any form of female nudity. On the contrary, one of my favourite paintings is Liberty leading the people by Delacroix,
and I think it's one of the rare examples of a male artist pulling off heroic nudity in a female character without it coming across as crass or vulgar.

But even so, even if you had selected another painting of a nude woman which I did like, it still comes off as either trying to be provocative or come with a cheap "gotcha" moment, as if a few examples of female nudity accepted as high art by the masses
would magically offset all the droves of objectifying and sexist images of underdressed women that were complained about here.


KyriakosCH

Quote from: BlondbraidIf that was the case, why didn't you explain that from the start?


In doesn't work that way; you don't "explain" when you are jumped at; it's not like I magically owe other posters here better treatment than they give :P

That said, time to move on  ;)
This is the Way - A dark allegory. My Twitter!  My Youtube!

Blondbraid

Quote from: KyriakosCH on Wed 10/02/2021 14:07:11
Quote from: BlondbraidIf that was the case, why didn't you explain that from the start?


In doesn't work that way; you don't "explain" when you are jumped at; it's not like I magically owe other posters here better treatment than they give :P

That said, time to move on  ;)
You keep using words like "attack" and "jumped at" as if I was physically lunging at you and you only had a split-second to defend yourself from injury,
but in reality, the text is still there for everyone to go back to look at, I wrote a comment criticizing what I saw as an inappropriate comment  that came across as a bad joke,
no one forced you to reply, and more importantly, it's not like there is an immense and pressing time limit to reply and think through your answer before posting,
but instead, you've basically done little more than hopping between insulting me by painting me as a strawman prude and complain that I'm not nice enough
when I tell you why your replies come across as insulting and patronizing, and it only feels like you're saying you want to move on because you've seen someone else
agreeing with my points and you are afraid other people will call you out on your behavior.


SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk