Does anyone remember the big to-do about Spider-Woman's butt?

By
Does anyone remember the big to-do about Spider-Woman's butt?
http://io9.gizmodo.com/there-s-going-to-be-a-statue-dedicated-to-nightwing-s-s-1784017797

Comments

David Blanar said…
Yes, quite rightly. It was disgusting. I don't understand the connection?
July 22, 2016 at 1:23 PM
Jason ON said…
The point is: objectifying a cartoon female is apparently bad, but no one seems to have a problem with objectifying a cartoon male.
July 22, 2016 at 11:20 PM
David Blanar said…
That is to misunderstand sexism and objectification. You've raised a false equivalence; context, history and symbols matter.
July 23, 2016 at 8:42 AM
Jason ON said…
No, it doesn't. History is filled with examples of women being outraged at being objectified but no one batting and eyelash at men being objectified in the same manner. Not that it matters. It's completely natural to objectify those you're sexually attracted to. The problem isn't the act if objectification, the problem is with people who can't move beyond objectification and make a more intimate connection.
July 23, 2016 at 10:13 AM
David Blanar said…
You apparently don't understand the difference between objectification and sexism. That's the relevant distinction in this case.
July 23, 2016 at 5:59 PM
Jason ON said…
Objectification

Objectification is a notion central to feminist theory. It can be roughlydefined as the seeing and/or treating a person, usually a woman, as an object. In this entry, the focus is primarily on sexual objectification, objectificationoccurring in the sexual realm.

Sexism

prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.

Not, I'm petty sure I now the difference.
July 23, 2016 at 6:46 PM
David Blanar said…
That's a workable definition but you've missed out the crucial bit: sexism is predicated on an imbalance in power relationships within social institutions and interactions. Gender parity is not gender equality; for this reason it wouldn't matter if there were 100 mens' butts being objectified to a single woman's, it doesn't alter the fundamental context of a society which marginalises, represses and denies power to women.

It's also why I can instantly dismiss anyone who uses the term 'reverse sexism' … that's not a thing.
July 25, 2016 at 1:02 AM
Jason ON said…
David Blanar,  

Gender parity is not gender equality?

*par·i·ty1
ˈperədē/
noun
1.
the state or condition of being equal, especially regarding status or pay.*

Seems like gender parity would, indeed, be gender equality.
August 1, 2016 at 7:20 PM
David Blanar said…
Jason ON Yes, gender parity is not gender equality. This is self-evident in precisely the same way separate-but-equal toilets, water fountains or lunch counters is not racial equality.

Children understand this moral clarity reflexively.

Adults, apparently, pretend not to know it.
August 1, 2016 at 8:41 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

So, Minnesota would rather people not be able to advance themselves without the officiating organization paying a...

By
So, Minnesota would rather people not be able to advance themselves without the officiating organization paying a fee, first? Do libraries have to pay a fee to lend books? Do documentaries put together by universities have to pay a fee first? If I move into the state and give away old college text books, do I have to pay a fee first? http://www.forbes.com/sites/evapereira/2012/10/19/minnesota-bans-free-online-education/
Read more