![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kyburgmuchymozzarella:
danieljlayton:
aglassroseneverfades:
pmastamonkmonk:
schnerp:
feminism-is-radical:
auntiewanda:
brithwyr:
auntiewanda:
brithwyr:
auntiewanda:
houroftheanarchistwolf:
aawb:
starsapphire:
is it time for frank cho and milo manara to die or what
That’s basically a naked woman I’m YELLING
What a pervert. What the FUCK does he not know how clothes work? What the hypothetical fuck is she wearing then if we can see all that?
It’s like how bath towels in comics miraculously wrap completely around breasts. Or how even when injured and dead on the ground women in comics have to be twisted into “sexy” poses. Or how women in comics walk like they’re in high heels even barefoot.
It’s the only way men know how to draw women, because to them female characters are only there to be sexy. They only think of “women” as exploitative costumes and camera angles, high heels and titillation. Sex objects to ogle, plot objects to further male heroes’ narratives and drama, not heroes to cheer for.
I’m sorry, I was labouring under the impression that this was the crowd that thought women should wear what they want..?
And that applies to fictional women who are depicted by men how? You can’t apply agency in the plot to something metatextual when it comes to fictional characters.
Come on, let’s not pretend this is a male exclusive thing.
We’re going to have this argument are we? Not to mention you’re deviating from the original point that attributing agency to fictional characters’ clothing is asinine.
What you have here are images of power, and do you really believe these characters are designed with titillating heterosexual women and bisexual and homosexual men in mind? Because I don’t think you do.
This is why the Hawkeye Initiative exists. Take common female poses in comics, put a man in the role, and see how “empowering” and “strong” it actually looks:
Also:
He got the painting for fighting against ‘censorship.’ Note that they handed him a gross design of a female being objectified, because at the end of the day, that is all they really want, to be allowed to objectify women. They don’t care about censorship in general it is about their ability to sexualise and degrade women without consequence.
You can see her butthole for chrissakes
I think the best imagery I’ve seen to explain the difference between what men think male objectification is vs what women actually want to see is the Hugh Jackman magazine covers.
Hugh Jackman on a men’s magazine. He’s shirtless and buff and angry. He’s imposing and aggressive. This is a male power fantasy, it’s what men want to be and aspire to - intense masculinity.
Hugh Jackman on a women’s magazine. He looks like a dad. He looks like he’s going to bake me a quiche and sit and watch Game of Thrones with me. He looks like he gives really good hugs.
Men think women want big hulking naked men in loin cloths which is why they always quote He-Man as male objectification - without realizing that He Man is naked and buff in a loin cloth because MEN WANT HIM TO BE. More women would be happy to see him in a pink apron cutting vegetables and singing off-key to 70s rock.
Men want objects. Women want PEOPLE.
This is the first time I have EVER seen this false equivalence articulated so well. Thank you.
That Hugh Jackman cover comparison is the stuff of Media Studies teachers’ dreams. Excellent work.
Actually if you want a REAL example of how male characters can get sexualized, refer to gay male art in which men objectify other men
[image : scantily clad male Avengers with impractical skimpy costumes that highlight their body in a sexual manner, similar to many female superhero costumes]
[image : scantily clad Batman with an impractical skimpy costume that highlights his body in a sexual manner, similar to many female superhero costumes, with BDSM undertones]
[image : art by Tom of Finland, famous gay porn artist of musclemen]
[image : shirtless Steve Rogers with emphasis placed on his crotch area and nipples]
They’re still brawny, still unrealistically buff, but also overtly sexualized. The shapes, the lines, the costumes are all leading the eye in a way that makes it clear the artist is hot for these guys and wants to fuck em.
There’s a vast difference between the male power fantasy, the gay male sex fantasy, and the female sex and/or romance fantasy. And while the female sex and romance fantasy can also look like this
[image : Gabriel Reyes in short shorts and cut up side boob hoodie]
there is almost always gonna be a bit of this
[image: Gabriel Reyes and Jack Morrison showing open affection, kissing]
ie emotional openness and affection
So if you want an actual female sex or romance fantasy, you can always look to this
[image: Dream Daddy promo photo]
and NOT this
[image: menacing burly Batman posing with heavy shadow]
but probably this
[image: handsome Bruce Wayne smiling gently and affectionately at phone camera]
The original anti censorship talk was probably important and Manara does porn and erotic stuff in general so nobody should be surprised, but the people who turned this into a false equivalence talk about male and female objectification should learn the difference between male objectification of women AND men and female objectification of men
http://ift.tt/2hj7vmy
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2xqhpHV
via IFTTT
danieljlayton:
aglassroseneverfades:
pmastamonkmonk:
schnerp:
feminism-is-radical:
auntiewanda:
brithwyr:
auntiewanda:
brithwyr:
auntiewanda:
houroftheanarchistwolf:
aawb:
starsapphire:
is it time for frank cho and milo manara to die or what
That’s basically a naked woman I’m YELLING
What a pervert. What the FUCK does he not know how clothes work? What the hypothetical fuck is she wearing then if we can see all that?
It’s like how bath towels in comics miraculously wrap completely around breasts. Or how even when injured and dead on the ground women in comics have to be twisted into “sexy” poses. Or how women in comics walk like they’re in high heels even barefoot.
It’s the only way men know how to draw women, because to them female characters are only there to be sexy. They only think of “women” as exploitative costumes and camera angles, high heels and titillation. Sex objects to ogle, plot objects to further male heroes’ narratives and drama, not heroes to cheer for.
I’m sorry, I was labouring under the impression that this was the crowd that thought women should wear what they want..?
And that applies to fictional women who are depicted by men how? You can’t apply agency in the plot to something metatextual when it comes to fictional characters.
Come on, let’s not pretend this is a male exclusive thing.
We’re going to have this argument are we? Not to mention you’re deviating from the original point that attributing agency to fictional characters’ clothing is asinine.
What you have here are images of power, and do you really believe these characters are designed with titillating heterosexual women and bisexual and homosexual men in mind? Because I don’t think you do.
This is why the Hawkeye Initiative exists. Take common female poses in comics, put a man in the role, and see how “empowering” and “strong” it actually looks:
Also:
He got the painting for fighting against ‘censorship.’ Note that they handed him a gross design of a female being objectified, because at the end of the day, that is all they really want, to be allowed to objectify women. They don’t care about censorship in general it is about their ability to sexualise and degrade women without consequence.
You can see her butthole for chrissakes
I think the best imagery I’ve seen to explain the difference between what men think male objectification is vs what women actually want to see is the Hugh Jackman magazine covers.
Hugh Jackman on a men’s magazine. He’s shirtless and buff and angry. He’s imposing and aggressive. This is a male power fantasy, it’s what men want to be and aspire to - intense masculinity.
Hugh Jackman on a women’s magazine. He looks like a dad. He looks like he’s going to bake me a quiche and sit and watch Game of Thrones with me. He looks like he gives really good hugs.
Men think women want big hulking naked men in loin cloths which is why they always quote He-Man as male objectification - without realizing that He Man is naked and buff in a loin cloth because MEN WANT HIM TO BE. More women would be happy to see him in a pink apron cutting vegetables and singing off-key to 70s rock.
Men want objects. Women want PEOPLE.
This is the first time I have EVER seen this false equivalence articulated so well. Thank you.
That Hugh Jackman cover comparison is the stuff of Media Studies teachers’ dreams. Excellent work.
Actually if you want a REAL example of how male characters can get sexualized, refer to gay male art in which men objectify other men
[image : scantily clad male Avengers with impractical skimpy costumes that highlight their body in a sexual manner, similar to many female superhero costumes]
[image : scantily clad Batman with an impractical skimpy costume that highlights his body in a sexual manner, similar to many female superhero costumes, with BDSM undertones]
[image : art by Tom of Finland, famous gay porn artist of musclemen]
[image : shirtless Steve Rogers with emphasis placed on his crotch area and nipples]
They’re still brawny, still unrealistically buff, but also overtly sexualized. The shapes, the lines, the costumes are all leading the eye in a way that makes it clear the artist is hot for these guys and wants to fuck em.
There’s a vast difference between the male power fantasy, the gay male sex fantasy, and the female sex and/or romance fantasy. And while the female sex and romance fantasy can also look like this
[image : Gabriel Reyes in short shorts and cut up side boob hoodie]
there is almost always gonna be a bit of this
[image: Gabriel Reyes and Jack Morrison showing open affection, kissing]
ie emotional openness and affection
So if you want an actual female sex or romance fantasy, you can always look to this
[image: Dream Daddy promo photo]
and NOT this
[image: menacing burly Batman posing with heavy shadow]
but probably this
[image: handsome Bruce Wayne smiling gently and affectionately at phone camera]
The original anti censorship talk was probably important and Manara does porn and erotic stuff in general so nobody should be surprised, but the people who turned this into a false equivalence talk about male and female objectification should learn the difference between male objectification of women AND men and female objectification of men
http://ift.tt/2hj7vmy
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2xqhpHV
via IFTTT
