(nicer this time) Sexism

MoeDantes

All right, I'm gonna attempt to explain this without making a moderation-worthy post. Place bets now. As I've said before: Words have to mean something, and a word whose meaning is too vague is useless. Ergo, one should set about to strictly define what words mean and what qualifies as this or that. I know a lot of people have problems with this philosophy--God forbid they might have to actually adhere to some sort of standard which might contradict what they want to believe. Ultimately, people like to throw standards aside when they become inconvenient. Why don't you prove to me that you're better. Now, Sexism. A work of fiction is "Sexist" only if women are presented in an especially derogatory way, and its not balanced out by equal treatment of the male characters. Examples of things that are sexist: -Women getting abused, and we're not supposed to sympathize.
-The only major girl(s) only exist to be fanservice.
-All the women are portrayed as unrealistically helpless compared to the men (IE "rescue the girl" plots).
Things that are not sexist: -"Not enough female characters."
-"The female characters don't do anything important!"
-"None of the women are ugly!"
-"A woman dies BAWWW!" (Especially egregious if several men have died and only the woman is getting special attention from you)
Examples of media that are sexist: -The Fatal Fury OVAs. Mai Shiranui is introduced with an old man grabbing her boobs, which pretty much sets the tone for every scene she's in henceforth.
-The Guyver OVAs. This one is passable (the woman has little personality, but that could be said of practically everyone) until episode 12, when there's a gratuitous scene of her being stripped by a villain. Supposedly he's doing this to make Sho angry, but if that's the case, why not actually hurt her?
Examples of media that are not sexist: -I Love Lucy. Admittedly I thought this was when one episode ended with Lucy being spanked... but the very next episode I saw ended with Lucy and her friend beating up their husbands. In both cases, the people on the receiving end had done something to deserve it.
-Devil Hunter Yohko. Yes there's a bit of "fanservice" but its a series basically about a woman who can beat up demons that basically nobody else can touch, and pretty much the only characters who ever suffer/die are men.
-Watership Down. Yeah there aren't many women (which actually becomes a plot point) but the few there are, are treated with respect... even when the characters are flat-out saying they want women just to make babies with (so their warren won't die out, so its more of a survival thing). I doubt many people expect real-ish rabbits to have particularly enlightened values anyway. Okay, peoples: Can anyone come up with a rebuttal that doesn't hinge entirely on "it's wrong because its inconvenient for me"?

Magus

"The female characters don't do anything important" could be considered sexist if they are given the ability to do something but then don't. For example, a shonen series where the female character is as powerful or more than a male character but mostly stays on the sidelines during fights. Bleach? (I haven't seen it).

Nova

"The female characters don't do anything important!"

That one's a tricky one. It very well can be sexist, although it's not sexist in and of itself. It all relates to why the female characters don't do anything important. Is it because they simply never had a chance, or is it because the narrative goes out of its' way to prevent the women doing anything important?

The thing about sexism is, it's not women aren't being portrayed as badasses or anything. Something is sexist when the two genders aren't treated equally- or, in other words, a work is sexist if it discriminates based on gender.

Counterclock

From the Sexist-pile.

-Women getting abused, and we're not supposed to sympathize.

From the Not-sexist pile.

-"A woman dies BAWWW!" (Especially egregious if several men have died and only the woman is getting special attention from you)

---

????

Nova

There's a difference between abuse and a woman dying. The second, I assume, isn't because they're being abused or anything, but because they're in a dangerous situation where anybody could be killed, such as a horror movie or a warzone.

Counterclock

So, what if a woman is abused and then killed?

-Wartime movie that is.

Is it sexist or not-sexist according to the chart?

Or how about the woman is killed -Non-sexist

but then we get flashbacks to her being tortured?

MillerCross

I don't see how a woman being tortured per se is sexist. From a metafictional perspective, that is. 

Counterclock

>-"The female characters don't do anything important!"

Why have the females characters at all if they don't do anything important.

From a meta fictional perspective.

Nova

So, what if a woman is abused and then killed? 

-Wartime movie that is.

Is it sexist or not-sexist according to the chart?

Or how about the woman is killed -Non-sexist

but then we get flashbacks to her being tortured?

Even now, a lot of it depends on context. A lot of it depends on how the story treats it. If the character is abused just because, then that's sexist; but if the character is abused because it ties into her motivations and it makes sense for her character, then that is not necessarily sexist, because in that respect it's not discriminating against her as a woman, it's just treating her as a character and applying a background that makes sense in light of that.

Counterclock

Hmm, That's a bad list then.

korohoro147

but don't a lot of lists list things that depend on context? :O

MillerCross

@Cygan: Yeah, pretty much what I was getting at. There's nothing inherently wrong to having a woman being tortured, but when the torture carries both misogynistic connotations ("She deserved because she was female" or "She deserved because she acted like a woman") then it's sexist.

However, when said misogynism is represented in universe by the murdered and is condemmned, then it might be valid. There are still a lot of things that can go wrong in the presentation of said content that would make it sexist, but from a meta fictional perspective, there's nothing inherently wrong with torturing a female or a male. As long as said torture is not portrayed positively or with the intention of pandering to misogynists or misandrists, then it's a-ok to torture people. 

In fiction.

MoeDantes

Counterclock: Is there a reason you overlooked the "and we're not supposed to sympathize with them" part?

"The female characters don't do anything important" could be considered sexist if they are given the ability to do something but then don't. For example, a shonen series where the female character is as powerful or more than a male character but mostly stays on the sidelines during fights. Bleach? (I haven't seen it).

This is one of the reasons I listed the Fatal Fury anime. I've never played the games but I would imagine in the hands of a player, Mai Shiranui could kick serious ass. In the anime she's portrayed as basically a dead weight.

I haven't actually read Bleach, though considering Shonen manga is what it is, it wouldn't surprise me if it treated women badly.

MillerCross

Why have the females characters at all if they don't do anything important.
From a meta fictional perspective. 

With all honesty, answer me this. If I created a full cast of females who actually help the plot, but I created only one useless male, would you get riled up?

Counterclock

@Moe. So we're suppose to sympathize even when they're nazis or something? /just an example.

How many males are abused in fiction and no one bats an eye?

@Juan: So basically, MLP FIM?

MillerCross

How many males are abused in fiction and no one bats an eye?

how are we defining abuse?

@Juan: So basically, MLP FIM? 

Haven't watched, can't tell. (From what I know, Spike does affect a plot. It's just his own subplot, though)

I was mostly thinking of Kill Bill. Bill himself is a big McGuffin and his brother was deliberately made the weakest member of the VIPERs by QT.

Counterclock

@Juan. The definition that's apparently being handed out in the Op, where abuse is ok when it's men, but sexist when it's women.

as for Kill Bill, The chinese master and sword maker were useless? ~slaps Juan upside the head~

Malkavian

Juan:The problem is that useless females are a lot more common and systemic, so it's not one useless female alone that's a problem than it is that she's one among a million.

I loved both Xander and Joxer but they're not the norm by any means for male characters.

MillerCross

as for Kill Bill, The chinese master and sword maker were useless?

They're what we call plot devices. Only there so the plot moves. Not important in the big scheme things. Or at least, no more important than the sword in the plot.

The problem is that useless females are a lot more common and systemic, so it's not one useless female alone that's a problem than it is that she's one among a million.

So you don't see the inherent problem with judging a work's quality, attitude towards gender et al based on what other unrelated works do? not at all?

MoeDantes

So we're suppose to sympathize even when they're nazis or something? /just an example.

When who'se a nazi? The woman, or her abusers?

Counterclock

@Juan, they weren't useless though

Like... Say Misa from death note.

MillerCross

Well, then, without going to google, tell me the name of the sword master.

Counterclock

Hattori Hanzō

Hattori Hanzō is still the finest swordsmith in the world

Malkavian

I see the problem you have, but no work is made in a vacuum. You need to acknowledge the kind of characters you're making and how they effect literature at large.

And if you don't care about that, don't hide from it. Admit you're doing it and say you don't give a fuck.

MillerCross

that text looks copypasted.

But whatever, the point is, regardless of his possesing a name, he still is a plot device. He's just there to provide a sword so the Bride goes on her rampage. Even if he's billed as powerful, his place on the movie is nothing but being a pit stop at best.

Counterclock

All characters are plot devices. Your argument is invalid.

Malkavian

He has a genuine internal conflict over creating the sword. He's not just a plot device.

MoeDantes

I see the problem you have, but no work is made in a vacuum. You need to acknowledge the kind of characters you're making and how they effect literature at large.

Ummm, actually... no. "how they effect literature at large?" The only way you would even know that is if you could see into the future. There are lots of writers, filmmakers etc whose works never affect much of anything!

So unless you're suggesting we should all go in assuming that we're going to be as influential as Alfred Hitchcock, I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

MillerCross

All characters are plot devices. Your argument is invalid. 

Nope.avi.

Fiction 101:

What is a character, gentlemen?

A character is simply put a person/animal/anthrompormophized/whatevert who both has an impact in the plot and is impacted by the plot in a reciprocal fashion.

the plot made the Bride a pregnant woman who was shot on the day of her wedding. She was the one who set out to seek revenge. Thus, a character.

The VIPERs, caused the Bride to be a pregnant woman who was shot on the day of her wedding, but they were killed by the revenge-seeking Bride. Thus a character.

A plot device is just something that affects the plot in order for it to advance further.

Hattori Hanzo's role is to deliver a legendary sword to the Bride. 

Nothing more, nothing else

Now, I may be misremebering the movie, but I honestly don't think I am. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm high, typing is hard and I honestly don't think I'm benefitting anyone with my input, going over my PMs, anyway, 

so bye!

Malkavian

>This entire thread

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b359/SharinganKing/tumblr_lnfspn3qFS1qhgj0q.gif">

Schitzo

Oh hey another image macro