Topic: Bechdel test and other media analysis about discrimination

[Blondbraid]

So the argument for "women are treated unjustly by western society" boils down to "individual artists don't create art in the way we like it".

I've been clear from the start that women are still discriminated against even in the west, AND it's made worse by the fact sexist media stereotypes makes the discrimination seem more acceptable to audiences,
NOT that it is the only form of discrimination they face, and there is a massive difference with complaining about structural sexism in media and personal dislike of an artwork for artistic reasons.

"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will always give a feminist an excuse to be offended."

Also this, doing the ole "feminists are shrill and irrational in their complaints" bit.

Exactly, it's a bullying tactic as old as time. You insult and belittle someone, and ignore everything they say about why they are insulted about it,
all so you can pretend to be cool and "rational" when they finally lose their patience.

WHAM, people here have repeatedly explained why the things you say are inflammatory and dehumanizing, do everyone a favor and stop trolling this thread.

[Honza]

How are equal rights between parents incompatible with egalitarianism? As there is a continued and increasing push to turn the process of raising children into an equal effort in order to free women from that particular burden and give them a fully equal footing in life, it seems to me that this should extend to all parts of a child's life.

At the risk of kindling an inflammatory subject - I can't think of any real-life situation where a man's claim to an unborn child overruling a woman's wouldn't lead to inhumane consequences. It's true that some men can develop an emotional connection to an unborn child and suffer from the loss, and women should be aware of this when making a decision. But it must be their decision.

[WHAM]

WHAM, people here have repeatedly explained why the things you say are inflammatory and dehumanizing, do everyone a favor and stop trolling this thread.

If you're looking for a private bubble where everyone blindly agrees with all you say and never challenges your views or ideas, then an open forum with everyone free to speak is probably not the right place.
I find the thread interesting, educating and in some parts most entertaining, and will be around if I see anything worth commenting on.

At the risk of kindling an inflammatory subject - I can't think of any real-life situation where a man's claim to an unborn child overruling a woman's wouldn't lead to inhumane consequences. It's true that some men can develop an emotional connection to an unborn child and suffer from the loss, and women should be aware of this when making a decision. But it must be their decision.

I quite agree. For instance, outside rare forms of cases involving violent crime, I see no situation where a man could, for example, will their partner to terminate an unborn child against the mothers wishes. However, for the sake of equality in the eyes of the law, I think there are some cases where that right to terminate, if the father opposes it and there was no crime involved, should be restricted until there is a mutual agreement or there is a natural solution to the matter.

[Honza]

I quite agree. For instance, outside rare forms of cases involving violent crime, I see no situation where a man could, for example, will their partner to terminate an unborn child against the mothers wishes. However, for the sake of equality in the eyes of the law, I think there are some cases where that right to terminate, if the father opposes it and there was no crime involved, should be restricted until there is a mutual agreement or there is a natural solution to the matter.

Wait a minute, are we talking about effectively forcing a woman to carry a child to term against her will? Because that's pretty much what I meant by "inhumane consequences".

[WHAM]

This all comes back around to the whole legality-of-abortion question, to which there are varied different answers around the world, and thus no single right answer. The easy answer would be to just say "the mother has 100% control" and that's that, but it shuts out both the rights of the father to their mutually conceived child, as well as the rights of the child itself, if handled so simplistically. I used to be open to the idea of unrestricted abortion for women when I was younger, but have since read up more on the matter and now find it a far less simple a matter, and thus am no longer quite so open to the idea.

[Blondbraid]

WHAM, people here have repeatedly explained why the things you say are inflammatory and dehumanizing, do everyone a favor and stop trolling this thread.

If you're looking for a private bubble where everyone blindly agrees with all you say and never challenges your views or ideas, then an open forum with everyone free to speak is probably not the right place.
I find the thread interesting, educating and in some parts most entertaining, and will be around if I see anything worth commenting on.

You've basically spent all your time here trying to steer the conversation into inflammatory subjects and demanding proof that oppression exists whilst ignoring all links and explanations given to you.
And having a forum thread where people stay on topic IS NOT the same thing as an echo chamber.

I quite agree. For instance, outside rare forms of cases involving violent crime, I see no situation where a man could, for example, will their partner to terminate an unborn child against the mothers wishes. However, for the sake of equality in the eyes of the law, I think there are some cases where that right to terminate, if the father opposes it and there was no crime involved, should be restricted until there is a mutual agreement or there is a natural solution to the matter.

Wait a minute, are we talking about effectively forcing a woman to carry a child to term against her will? Because that's pretty much what I meant by "inhumane consequences".

Exactly. Plus note how WHAM was huge on using "biological" arguments when it suited his stereotypes, but now, when there is a clear biological difference that weighs against his ideas, he ignores it. A woman has to gestate a fetus for months within her own body in order to carry a pregnancy to term, all a man has to do in order to conceive a child is to have sex; therefore it's absurd to argue that the father and mother should have equal say in the issue when only one of them is risking their life and health in a painful and risky process.

And the words "if there was no crime involved" is classical Republican weasel words, conservatives use it to basically imply that it's OK for rape victims to have an abortion, but women who consent to sex should be punished for their loose ways by being forced to carry pregnancies to term and suffer for it.

This all comes back around to the whole legality-of-abortion question, to which there are varied different answers around the world, and thus no single right answer. The easy answer would be to just say "the mother has 100% control" and that's that, but it shuts out both the rights of the father to their mutually conceived child, as well as the rights of the child itself, if handled so simplistically. I used to be open to the idea of unrestricted abortion for women when I was younger, but have since read up more on the matter and now find it a far less simple a matter, and thus am no longer quite so open to the idea.

Again, my right to my body should not be up for debate. And in countries where women's rights are taken away, the rights of LGBT people and other minorities often follow alongside them.

Stop derailing this thread with your crypto-fascist garbage.

[WHAM]

If there is a stage in the life of a child where the mother has a right to shut out the father and make calls on their own, then wouldn't that be a prime example of inequality between the genders?

Finland is currently just processing a major legal case regarding a loosely related situation, that this conversation has just reminded me of. A married couple conceived a child up to the age of over a year old, and only after that point did the mother admit she'd cheated and the child was not the husbands. This was later proven via a DNA test as well. However, due to how the law is written here, the father is now hooked up to the child and has to pay for its upbringing up to the age of 18, because he did not think to dispute his fatherhood early enough in the child's life.

If, prior or during the pregnancy, the mother makes decisions that the father disagrees with, the law always comes down on the side of the mother. Want to terminate an unborn child even if the father wishes to raise it? Tough luck, mother has her rights. Want to carry a child to term despite the father not wanting it? While I'd agree the father would have no right to demand termination, the law still says the father has to pay up because the child is his. Want to cheat, bring some other mans child into the marriage and hook the husband up to pay for its upbringing? Go for it, as long as you don't get caught too early!

If the goal was equality between the two genders, then this all seems rather skewed one way. Small wonder western societies are having less and less children on their own...

EDIT: Also, a wonderful apples-to-oranges comparison there.
I previously made the point that the way people create entertainment is based on biological principals, and somehow that is then read to mean I think laws should be written as unequal because of those same principals as well, when I've specifically pointed out that law and culture are two very different things.

[Ali]

"I believe in equality, but men should be allowed to force women to bring pregnancies to term." If this is your actual belief, I find it terrifying and appalling. If it's not, then you're a disingenuous troll.

EDIT: I've edited the swearing out of this reply - out of respect for the forum rules, and not out of respect for WHAM.

[Dualnames]

First off, let me say trans rights are human rights.

Secondly, even though personally I disagree with abortion, I think disallowing that choice to a woman is pure discrimination and a denial of a right. I find myself against abortion, morally for personal reasons, but that doesn't mean I'll go out and disable any woman from having the final say to her body. Whether we like it or not, a woman is gonna go through 9 months of that. She needs to have the option to choose not to. Otherwise we'll end up being obligated to have unwanted childs and we'll be oppressing women. That's far worse.

Bringing up arguments such as "men are not always treated equal" is imho a silly argument. Cause I mean, why doesn't a man get a paternity leave, lol, be serious.

[WHAM]

Cause I mean, why doesn't a man get a paternity leave, lol, be serious.

Men do get paternity leave, although it was just renamed to parental leave. The number of leave days are split 50-50 between both parents, unless they themselves agree to redistribute them differently.

If this is your actual belief, I find it terrifying and appalling. If it's not, then you're a disingenuous troll.

I do not believe any human being has the right to kill another human being, and I find it terrifying and appalling that is a stance you seem to disagree with. I won't go so low as to accuse you of being a troll, however. I just consider you too prideful to accept that there might be any flaws in your worldview.

[LimpingFish]

MOD MODE INITIATED!

Let's all pause for a moment, and, I dunno, remember the board rules?

WHAM, I don't know how invested you are in your arguments, but you're doing a very good impression of someone deliberately taking the piss. If you intend to continue contributing to this thread, it might be a good idea to reconsider the manner in which you air your opinions.

Circular reasoning is not debate. If an argument is challenged, and your only riposte is deliberately fallacious, then it's not a strong argument. You are entitled to your views, just as Ali and Blondbraid are entitled to call you out on them, but if you are intentionally provoking people, perhaps in an attempt to deflect having to backup your views with cohesive arguments, I'd suggest refraining from further posting on the matter.

Ali, Blondbraid, your frustration is understandable and acknowledged, but perhaps momentarily taking a step back will prove mentally beneficial.

EDIT: Edited for clarity.

[Honza]

At the risk of kindling an inflammatory subject -

Sorry, everyone.

[Blondbraid]

To everyone stepping in and speaking up against this blatant sexism:

[Honza]

I didn't respond to this some time back, and maybe it could bring it back to the original topic:

I think many people have a blind spot on this because society treats men as the default in lots of situations, for example, an all-female cast with only one token guy in a film or book is exceptionally rare,
but stories with an all-male cast and just one woman are a dime a dozen and not treated as weird.

Well, yeah :/. These are some shows I liked as a kid:



And of course this :


The unfortunate consequence of this is that when you make a male character, he's just that: an individual character. But a female character is seen as a representation of women in general.

[Blondbraid]

Is there an image missing in your reply?

But you're spot on, and what's worse, while some of the token girls, like Gadget in the pic above, at least has some unique personality traits and bring their own skills to the group,
too many token girls literally just have "girl" as their only personality trait, and only talk about liking pink, romance, acting like a mommy to the boys, and nearly all episodes focusing
on her character will be about somebody falling in love with her, and/or kidnapping her or about her becoming a surrogate mom for some creature.

Plus I've noted a visual theme of when it's anthropomorphic animals, the girl will often look way more like a pretty human than her male compatriots, human hair, more of a white human skin tone, and a more human-shaped face in general.

[Honza]

Is there an image missing in your reply?

I see all of them... it's supposed to be Rescue Rangers, Spaceship Sagittarius, Ninja Turtles, Smurfs.

Plus I've noted a visual theme of when it's anthropomorphic animals, the girl will often look way more like a pretty human than her male compatriots, human hair, more of a white human skin tone, and a more human-shaped face in general.

I suppose that's because the man being the default, it's somewhat asexual. When you then want to build on that default to make it more feminine, there are no "masculine" features to remove... you just add "feminine" ones, making it look more like a human woman.

[Blondbraid]

Is there an image missing in your reply?

I see all of them... it's supposed to be Rescue Rangers, Spaceship Sagittarius, Ninja Turtles, Smurfs.

I don't see the Smurf picture. I don't know if anyone else sees it either.

Plus I've noted a visual theme of when it's anthropomorphic animals, the girl will often look way more like a pretty human than her male compatriots, human hair, more of a white human skin tone, and a more human-shaped face in general.

I suppose that's because the man being the default, it's somewhat asexual. When you then want to build on that default to make it more feminine, there are no "masculine" features to remove... you just add "feminine" ones, making it look more like a human woman.

That's a great point, though I also think the need of many animators to make all main female characters pretty plays a role too, similar to how an animated guy supposed to be an "everyman" will be drawn to look different than a typical Disney prince, but animated girls and women meant to be regular people still look like typical Disney princesses, to the point even female animals will share the same facial shape as the princesses.

[Ali]

What you're talking about is particularly noticeable in The Animator's Survival Kit. If anyone hasn't got it, it's a marvellous and incredibly useful guide to character animation by Richard Williams (the animation director of Who Framed Roger Rabbit). It's concerned with capturing and exaggerating the way different people move, but it also reproduces tropes and stereotypes - how a homosexual man walks, or the "flapping ancient breasts" of an old woman jogging. It's based, in part, on observation (I guess Italians do tend to talk with their hands...). And caricature is rarely kind to its subjects. But it's a reminder that the conventions of animation reflect the (mostly) men who established those conventions.

I guess Jessica Rabbit is a bit of a have-your-cake-and-eat it ironic take on sexual objectification - she's not bad, she's "just drawn that way."

[TheFrighter]

 (I guess Italians do tend to talk with their hands...)

Fun thing there are a lot of italian old jokes about jews that talking with their hands!

But I think we are more awesome when we do it! 

_

[Blondbraid]

I guess Jessica Rabbit is a bit of a have-your-cake-and-eat it ironic take on sexual objectification - she's not bad, she's "just drawn that way."

She's one of the few examples that I think work, because she still comes across as a fully realized character, and her relationship to Roger Rabbitt feels genuinely heartwarming.

As a contrast, too many animated comedies has female characters that are nothing but crude fanservice, but tries to pretend it's parody, pretty much Poe's Law in action.

And yeah, I don't remember the Animator's toolkit specifically, because I've seen so many "how to draw and stylize" tutorials with a great deal of tips on how to draw a variety of male characters in interesting ways that serve the story,
but when it comes to female characters I just felt uncomfortable at the creepy leering way the author described drawing them, and heavily sexualized picture examples too. I still remember when I was starting learning AGS several years ago
and one of the art tutorials linked on the main page back then used an animated image of a naked woman using a jumping rope as an example picture, I felt uncomfortable and nearly lost interest in trying to learn to use the engine when
that's was the first tutorial I saw linked on the main page. I'm glad that stuff doesn't seem to be up there anymore.