GasBandit
Staff member
Man, I saw it as a kid. They marketed it as a comedy. IT WAS NOT A COMEDY.
Everyday sexual harassment of women
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
To counter this, notice how Spider-Man is absolutely anatomically incorrect in that he appears to have no penis. Apparently when men become superheroes, they get their junk chopped off. On the other hand, how often do you see very pronounced nipples and even camel toes on women in comics? Way more often than you'll see an outline or even hint of a dong, I'll bet.
Codpiece =/= ken doll. Even a codpiece bulges a bit. But seeing as they're portraying male superheroes for power fantasy, not sexual attraction, you'll rarely see anything other than the ken doll crotch.
I never claimed that all female superheroes have cameltoes, I said that you're far more likely to see that than you would the outline of a dick, or even a codpiece. If we're going to desexualize the men, we should desexualize the women too. which many artists do. Many artists show women's breasts more like barbie dolls. But quite often, artists go out of their way to show nipple bulge. Also note that men rarely have nipple bulges either, despite men having nipples as well.
I remember that the spider delivered the envelopes at the Oscars*, though. They lowered it down on a web from the rafters to the presenter's podium.
--Patrick
*It might've been another awards show, but I'm guessing it was the Oscars.
(also, I'm waiting for someone to "get" my picture, above)
I'm not scared of spiders, but that movie was in no way a comedy. I cannot remember one funny thing aside from the exterminator, and the basement climax is pretty intense even by today's standards.
Yet even when played on TV, the TV spots would have silly music playing to advertise the movie being on that channel later in the evening. WTF?!
Yet even when played on TV, the TV spots would have silly music playing to advertise the movie being on that channel later in the evening. WTF?!
Perhaps the comedy was for the advertisers, laughing at people who went to the wrong kind of movie.
The bastards.
The bastards.
Bit late to the discussion on Spider-Man's sexy poses, but I offer you The Oatmeal's take on it:
One point that I think is lost a lot is how different sexualizations of men and women are, based on what is attractive to either gender.
http://joephillips.com/
This guy has drawings that sexualize both female and male comic book characters, but you'll notice that the men are sexualized in different ways than their female counterparts. Where emphasis on the female characters is on sticking out their butts and boobs, the male characters are sexualized in a more subtle way (them mostly being shirtless aside). They are sexualized through their pose being relaxed and open and their gaze being inviting. This is what sexually attracts women, for the most part. Men who appear sensitive, but still manly. You have to admit that most male characters in comics are not drawn this way. They aren't supposed to be sexually appealing, they're ripped not for looks, but because that's part of the male power fantasy, which caters to the same base that the booby, butty girls are.
There are some male characters who have been sexually objectified on comics. Nightwing comes to mind. They love to show some Dick Greyson ass shots for whatever reason. They are the minority, though, and not generally the rule. This is where the inequality comes in.
I can't even say if it's right or it's wrong, just that it is. I'm not a fan of objectifying either gender, but to simply ignore their existence or to cry any sort of matriarchy because you don't want to believe that women are more sexualized than men is disingenuous at best, willfully ignorant at worst.
http://joephillips.com/
This guy has drawings that sexualize both female and male comic book characters, but you'll notice that the men are sexualized in different ways than their female counterparts. Where emphasis on the female characters is on sticking out their butts and boobs, the male characters are sexualized in a more subtle way (them mostly being shirtless aside). They are sexualized through their pose being relaxed and open and their gaze being inviting. This is what sexually attracts women, for the most part. Men who appear sensitive, but still manly. You have to admit that most male characters in comics are not drawn this way. They aren't supposed to be sexually appealing, they're ripped not for looks, but because that's part of the male power fantasy, which caters to the same base that the booby, butty girls are.
There are some male characters who have been sexually objectified on comics. Nightwing comes to mind. They love to show some Dick Greyson ass shots for whatever reason. They are the minority, though, and not generally the rule. This is where the inequality comes in.
I can't even say if it's right or it's wrong, just that it is. I'm not a fan of objectifying either gender, but to simply ignore their existence or to cry any sort of matriarchy because you don't want to believe that women are more sexualized than men is disingenuous at best, willfully ignorant at worst.
I see nothing wrong with this
Can I be invited? I'll try not to tell anyone to fuck off...
I'll bring it up at the next meeting and put in a good word
But its the woman's job to make sandwiches and bake!
This is why you aren't invited to the tea party's @blotsfanBut its the woman's job to make sandwiches and bake!
figmentPez
Staff member
Could I bring mini-kolaches and "lemon brownies" instead?
The tea party has its own @blotsfan?
Great party @Celt Z I mean yeah I lost all my clothes playing strip blackjack with @Bowielee & I think I caught a STD off of 1 of the hookers, but apart from that it's been much better than @Bumble's. I'm feeling a bit parched though, where's the tea? There's no tea? THERE'S NO TEA?! Screw you guys I'm going home!
Worst! Party! Ever!
if you had a guy leave, wouldn't it be less cannoli?
It would be more can'toli.if you had a guy leave, wouldn't it be less cannoli?
--Patrick
You guys make it so fucking hard to find when you're talking about me by only tagging it as @bumble
Quit having the longest name ever
I worked hard for that achievement, damnit!Quit having the longest name ever
GasBandit
Staff member
And there's no excuse because it tries to autocomplete @Bumble the Boy Wonder
figmentPez
Staff member
Because men are expected to show their happiness in ways other than smiling.
As someone who has been chewed out for not having the proper amount of enthusiasm in his voice when responding to a friend announcing his engagement, I can say with certainty that men do get told to appear happy. Just because walking around with a smile isn't part of the standard for men, does not mean that we aren't expected to put on a front for the world, or that we don't get called out for failing to put on a socially acceptable mask. Asking women to smile is actually very similar to telling men to not cry. We expect both genders to fit certain expectations for appearance. Smiling is one for women, looking "strong" is one for men.
It is a problem that so many feel that they have the right to tell strangers, or even friends, what type of emotion that they should show at any given time, but that doesn't change the fact that it is often "normal" and done with good intentions. It's a social system that has been built up over time until it has reached the point of being a problem, but that doesn't change that people doing it are not necessarily aware that there's anything wrong with their request, because it is perfectly "normal" within their experience to expect people to fulfill the roles within society, even if those roles are ill-fitting.
For fucks sake. Pay attention in a Sociology class, people.
You can write off a host of behavioral problems with the excuse that the person isn't aware they're doing anything wrong.
figmentPez
Staff member
True, but I wasn't writing it off. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" as the old saying goes. I point out the difference not to excuse the behavior, but to try to inform efforts at changing the behavior.
Consider the urban myth of "shake it like a Polaroid picture". I know that I, like most people, saw others flapping Polaroid prints around as they "dried", and thought that sped up the development. In reality, it did no such thing, and potentially blurred or otherwise harmed the resulting photo. Can you imagine how stupid it would be for Polaroid to try and correct that behavior by telling people that they were trying to destroy their own, just taken, photos with that shaking? People would stop listening the moment the Polaroid company said something false, and fairly insulting, about their motivation. Instead, Polaroid acknowledged that people loved their product, and wanted to see the photos as fast as possible, but also tried to inform people that the best way to get beautiful, quick, photos, was leave a print alone until it was ready.
See the parallel? Flapping a Polaroid picture around while it's developing has a real chance at blurring the photo, or causing other artifacts to crop up in development process (in fact, there are some interesting effects you can get by intentionally pressing on parts of the image), but most people did it with the good intention of getting to see their photos faster. Telling women to smile also has real potential to cause distress and other negative effects, but it's hard to say what motivates any given person, and it may well be done with the best of intentions. Neither shaking a Polaroid, nor telling a woman to smile, is a good way to get what's desired, but vilifying the motivation behind the act does nothing to help change the behavior.