Sulphur on 8/1/2017 at 08:47
Quote Posted by SubJeff
I don't buy it.
It's not logical. If something is sexist it is objectively sexist and you can deduce that with logic and sense. Women will disagree with each other over what is sexist too so what then?
None of this is to say that women shouldn't be involved in this debate. I agree that a woman's perspective may alter my own opinion on whether something is sexist or not, and that it might be because of something I haven't realised/didn't see because I'm male. But that still only adds to the logic pot.
It's plenty logical. Adding to the logic pot is exactly what should be happening, but taking the views of the population being prejudiced against as a point of focus should be instantly obvious as common sense if people actually want to address the problem, instead of appearing to pay it the lippest of service.
Quote:
Yeah, on the lines of this.
It's like any -ism. The group being prejudiced against is more likely to pick it up but if they can't explain why something is prejudiced then it isn't.
More likely? Yeah, I'd imagine so. If it's a widely felt issue that one person from the population can't articulate, you can't write it off as 'nah, doesn't exist' unless you're fine with showing you have an incredible sort of tunnel vision. If it really is a problem that many people feel, you look at it with an open mind and look for people who
can articulate it.
SubJeff on 8/1/2017 at 10:39
And if you can't find anyone from that group that can articulate it?
This happens all the time.
Look a the latest hoo haa about the £5 note and the tiny amount of animal product in it. It's totally illogical. Animal products are in 1000s of things the "offended" use all the time. They don't check EVERY single thing so why are they focusing on this? Because it's high profile, not because it actually matters.
And can someone explain exactly how Richard Hammond was being homophobic by saying he doesn't eat ice cream because he's not gay? He also doesn't sleep with other men because he's not gay. So what? If he's got a stupid misconception that straight men don't eat ice cream that's just more ice cream for the rest of us. I've heard some of the arguments but I don't buy them either.
Vivian on 8/1/2017 at 10:43
The Hammond thing was fucking stupid. Yeah I dunno if it's really a negative thing to say only gay men eat ice cream (although it's got sort of negative overtones in that he's trying to distance himself from that grouping), but it's definitely misrepresentation. Ice cream isn't gay, ffs. Plus Hammond is an annoying little rubbery prick (which is blatant little-rubbery-prickism, I know. Culpa mea.)
The fiver thing was pretty retarded though. I'm a vegan-leaning vegetarian and I didn't really think that much of it (it's like a kilo of tallow in the whole production run or something massively trivial like that isn't it?). I'm curious as to what the tallow does, however.
Sulphur on 8/1/2017 at 10:52
The ice cream thing's retarded - Hammond may or may not be homophobic, but making a statement like that simply means he's a moron. It's offensive to any group to generalise them like that, but it'll blow over. At least, I hope no one dies over it.
As for the £5 note containing tallow? Eh, I don't know; it's not anyone trying to be actively offensive to anyone else (yet), so it's not as bad as it's being made out unless you're too vegan to compromise. I don't really care as long as stuff's not made from recycled infants, but there's a tolerance threshold for everything these days. Also, FYI, beef is banned in parts of India where religious sentiment is being stirred into a froth, so part of what you're seeing is natural spillover there.
Thirith on 8/1/2017 at 11:41
It is homophobic in that it presumes that homosexuals are defined by anything other than being sexually attracted to the same sex. It stereotypes. It's not a negative stereotype in itself (although in Hammond's case I expect it's tied to pretty stupid ideas of what makes a 'real' man and what makes a poofter), and it's definitely not the most damaging one, but homophobia, like racism and sexism, is also about saying that all homosexuals, black people, women etc. are X. All black people are good dancers. All Italians are loud and fiery. It makes them into less of an individual and more of a cliché.
Vae on 8/1/2017 at 11:43
1) SubJeff is correct...sexism is objective, and the ability to correctly perceive it is not dependent upon a person's gender.
2) Alien (not sexist)
Sigourney's attractive physicality is being used purposefully by the director to set up a sense of security, layered with vulnerability. This distraction, utilizing a slight tease of sexuality, induces a state change in the viewer's mind, in order to set up the surprise horror for greatest effect.
3) Return of the Jedi (not sexist)
Jabba the Hutt is an evil crime lord. When Han Solo was delivered to him encased in carbonite, he relished in the idea that he would be his trophy...and so he kept him frozen, as a prize to gaze upon. When Leia was captured, he naturally wanted her to be his prize as well. What better way to enjoy his beautiful slave than to chain her by his side so he can do what he wants with her. The Bronze Bikini is an outfit for a sex slave. This in no way reduces the power or intelligence of Leia Organa as a woman. With her fierce, fighting spirit, she brilliantly executes an attack of opportunity to strangle Jabba with the chain that binds her.
Princess Leia is an empowered individual, with or without the Bronze Bikini...Even when in a captured, vulnerable state, her power still shines through.
Thirith on 8/1/2017 at 11:51
You can have the most empowered character and still film her in an exploitative way. The two are not mutually exclusive.
And sexism isn't objective, because it's a sociocultural thing. It's defined by people, and it depends on interpretation. At best you could say that some aspect of sexism is agreed on by a large enough majority that it takes on a certain almost objective quality. Which doesn't devalue it, but it's something that is defined against norms and values, and there is *nothing* natural to these, pretty much by definition. Which makes the discussion especially tricky, because by saying that something is sexist you're basically making two arguments at the same time: sexism is X (to me as an individual, to us as a group, to society at large) and Y corresponds to this definition of sexism. Which doesn't help in and of itself, but to my mind saying that sexism is objective suggests a fundamental misconception of what it is we're talking about.
faetal on 8/1/2017 at 11:54
Quote Posted by Thirith
It is homophobic in that it presumes that homosexuals are defined by anything other than being sexually attracted to the same sex. It stereotypes. It's not a negative stereotype in itself (although in Hammond's case I expect it's tied to pretty stupid ideas of what makes a 'real' man and what makes a poofter), and it's definitely not the most damaging one, but homophobia, like racism and sexism, is also about saying that all homosexuals, black people, women etc. are X. All black people are good dancers. All Italians are loud and fiery. It makes them into less of an individual and more of a cliché.
The way I look at it is that if I was homosexual and had spent my life either hiding it due to fear of social exclusion or had been actively mocked for not hiding it, then someone with Hammond's level of public reach using sexuality as some kind of negative personality quirk to justify his own behaviour would probably make me feel uncomfortable. There has been plenty of research showing that e.g. sexist humour has the effect of making certain groups of people more comfortable with being sexist, as it is normalises it a little. (
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071106083038.htm) Reference
[EDIT] Wouldn't be surprised if the spike in racially motivated attacks in the UK post-Brexit were due to xenophobes feeling like a shift of sentiment in their direction meant it was OK to let the mask slip a bit.
Vae on 8/1/2017 at 12:21
Quote Posted by Thirith
You can have the most empowered character and still film her in an exploitative way. The two are not mutually exclusive.
And sexism isn't objective, because it's a sociocultural thing. It's defined by people, and it depends on interpretation. At best you could say that some aspect of sexism is agreed on by a large enough majority that it takes on a certain almost objective quality. Which doesn't devalue it, but it's something that is defined against norms and values, and there is *nothing* natural to these, pretty much by definition. Which makes the discussion especially tricky, because by saying that something is sexist you're basically making two arguments at the same time: sexism is X (to me as an individual, to us as a group, to society at large) and Y corresponds to this definition of sexism. Which doesn't help in and of itself, but to my mind saying that sexism is objective suggests a fundamental misconception of what it is we're talking about.
Incorrect.
Sexism = prejudice or discrimination based on sex
Although there can be differing degrees of prejudice, its presence is
absolute, and can be
objectively identified.
A women in a bikini is not inherently sexist. A nude woman is not inherently sexist. Often, what the untrained mind perceives as needless exploitation is actually artistic utilization...as I illustrated above.
