On moral purity
May. 16th, 2007 09:02 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumIn another forum there is a discusion of this collectible.
I made the mistake of addressing the design of the thing (responding to the poster's question about where the tits came from; as the Mary Jane of the movies is less endowed than that).
I also said this didn't change the sexist nature of it.
For this I was castigated. It irked me. The person, making a left-handed accusation of sexist mysogyny (and not so left handed as that), was insulting. Which led me to snark, saying she apparently couldn't be bothered to read all of what I said.
Which was when she made it plain the left-handed insult wasn't me reading into things at all.
Because you see, answering the Original Poster's question of where the model makers got the idea to make Mary Jane Watson into Little Annie Fannie, when the Mary Jane of the film isn't that busty, was wrong.
I was, by not talking about the blatant sexism of the statue, of being more than one-dimensional defender of feminism I was imputed to be supporting it.
Except, by devoting most of your post to defending the picture as "from the comic book, not the movie," with only that small, and yes, easily-overlooked, toss-off line about not changing its sexist nature, you imply that the degree of sexism, like the statue itself, is somehow mitigated by being inspired by the comic and not the movie. It's a matter of focus, proportion, and degree. A tossed-off "yes, but" tucked into the middle of a paragraph defending a misogynist piece of crap (and again, there's a significant degree difference between sexism and full-blown misogyny) does not change the focus of the paragraph.
So I'll rephrase. That it's based on comic-verse MJ and not movie-verse MJ makes this defensible how, exactly? And if you're not defending it on those grounds (which you sure as hell sounded to me like you were, bone-toss to feminism or no), then why point it out at all?
Next time, try paying attention to the focus of your work, your main body, and what you're putting your emphasis on, before you get all snotty because your CYA one-liner, buried under your main point and overshadowed by it, didn't cover your ass the way you assumed it would.
Unless that's too hard for you, and you'd rather just remain an overbearing snot.
That's me, overbearing snot.
While this response annoys me, it's not so much the attack on me, that's annoying, but it's a sort of annoyance I'm used to. People tend to think all sorts of things about me from single comments. I probably do somewhat the same to them, though I like to think I try to read all of what someone said before slagging them. I don't think I'm, quite, slagging the person who said this. No, they didn't have more context on what I think, but I do have some specific accusations to work with. Those, and the things I'm using it to illustrate are all I'm addressing.
What really bothers me is that this sort of demand for purity is what gives so many activists (and it's not just feminists, though the models for the attacks on feminism, "shrill, whiny, ball-busting, etc., seem to be well tailored to this sort of feminist. It becomes a straw-man feature, which can be attacked without going to the substance of the arguments being made, or the points at issue) a bad odor.
I am not a two-dimensional person. It happens I read Spider-man. From the first issue, all the way to the late eighties (my step-father collected comics, I was fortunate enough to get to read them in chunks, so the storylines were much more clear). So the question was one I could answer.
I see the same thing with PETA. People who have gone to "extremism in the defense of virtue," to paraphraise Goldwater. In some ways I think that level of narrowed world-view is worse than the overboard things of ALF, or ELF. Those are less bothersome (and don't tell me about the extremism of PETA, I know. But the cases people bring up [the killing of dogs, for their own good, etc. aren't, quite, the ideals of the whole, though it shades that way. The vast majoritan of PETAns are well-meaning, but driven).
Why? Because they are fighting for a cause. Not metaphoricaly, but in fact. They may be misguided, foolish and stupid, but all we see are the actions.
Those who filter every thing someone says through its applicability to "the movement" lose something of what makes being alive fun. It's what puts people off when they see the super-pious, the die-hard political figure ("What will The Party think if they know I did "x") and every other form of zealotry.
Some things (even bad things) will have aspects which are just the stuff of everyday chatter. Aspects which have no deeper meaning. To attack someone who engages in that, as being unable to see the truth (or worse, to be defending the thing) is to miss the forest for the trees.
And it's bad politics.
I made the mistake of addressing the design of the thing (responding to the poster's question about where the tits came from; as the Mary Jane of the movies is less endowed than that).
I also said this didn't change the sexist nature of it.
For this I was castigated. It irked me. The person, making a left-handed accusation of sexist mysogyny (and not so left handed as that), was insulting. Which led me to snark, saying she apparently couldn't be bothered to read all of what I said.
Which was when she made it plain the left-handed insult wasn't me reading into things at all.
Because you see, answering the Original Poster's question of where the model makers got the idea to make Mary Jane Watson into Little Annie Fannie, when the Mary Jane of the film isn't that busty, was wrong.
I was, by not talking about the blatant sexism of the statue, of being more than one-dimensional defender of feminism I was imputed to be supporting it.
Except, by devoting most of your post to defending the picture as "from the comic book, not the movie," with only that small, and yes, easily-overlooked, toss-off line about not changing its sexist nature, you imply that the degree of sexism, like the statue itself, is somehow mitigated by being inspired by the comic and not the movie. It's a matter of focus, proportion, and degree. A tossed-off "yes, but" tucked into the middle of a paragraph defending a misogynist piece of crap (and again, there's a significant degree difference between sexism and full-blown misogyny) does not change the focus of the paragraph.
So I'll rephrase. That it's based on comic-verse MJ and not movie-verse MJ makes this defensible how, exactly? And if you're not defending it on those grounds (which you sure as hell sounded to me like you were, bone-toss to feminism or no), then why point it out at all?
Next time, try paying attention to the focus of your work, your main body, and what you're putting your emphasis on, before you get all snotty because your CYA one-liner, buried under your main point and overshadowed by it, didn't cover your ass the way you assumed it would.
Unless that's too hard for you, and you'd rather just remain an overbearing snot.
That's me, overbearing snot.
While this response annoys me, it's not so much the attack on me, that's annoying, but it's a sort of annoyance I'm used to. People tend to think all sorts of things about me from single comments. I probably do somewhat the same to them, though I like to think I try to read all of what someone said before slagging them. I don't think I'm, quite, slagging the person who said this. No, they didn't have more context on what I think, but I do have some specific accusations to work with. Those, and the things I'm using it to illustrate are all I'm addressing.
What really bothers me is that this sort of demand for purity is what gives so many activists (and it's not just feminists, though the models for the attacks on feminism, "shrill, whiny, ball-busting, etc., seem to be well tailored to this sort of feminist. It becomes a straw-man feature, which can be attacked without going to the substance of the arguments being made, or the points at issue) a bad odor.
I am not a two-dimensional person. It happens I read Spider-man. From the first issue, all the way to the late eighties (my step-father collected comics, I was fortunate enough to get to read them in chunks, so the storylines were much more clear). So the question was one I could answer.
I see the same thing with PETA. People who have gone to "extremism in the defense of virtue," to paraphraise Goldwater. In some ways I think that level of narrowed world-view is worse than the overboard things of ALF, or ELF. Those are less bothersome (and don't tell me about the extremism of PETA, I know. But the cases people bring up [the killing of dogs, for their own good, etc. aren't, quite, the ideals of the whole, though it shades that way. The vast majoritan of PETAns are well-meaning, but driven).
Why? Because they are fighting for a cause. Not metaphoricaly, but in fact. They may be misguided, foolish and stupid, but all we see are the actions.
Those who filter every thing someone says through its applicability to "the movement" lose something of what makes being alive fun. It's what puts people off when they see the super-pious, the die-hard political figure ("What will The Party think if they know I did "x") and every other form of zealotry.
Some things (even bad things) will have aspects which are just the stuff of everyday chatter. Aspects which have no deeper meaning. To attack someone who engages in that, as being unable to see the truth (or worse, to be defending the thing) is to miss the forest for the trees.
And it's bad politics.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-05-16 04:50 pm (UTC)It's the binary us vs. them mentality, which may be hardwired in, but is less than useful now that we are living in groups of over thirty and fighting about things more complicated than who has access to the only droughtproof water supply in fifty miles.
And it leads directly to extremist actions.
Or to some asshole on the radio saying we aren't sending nearly enough people to Gitmo.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-16 05:33 pm (UTC)"in spidey's dreams"
i am amused at the uproar it has caused.
i do believe it sexist
i also believe it to be as much comic geek porn as the cover of ANY romance novel
big whoop
and i am amused that she latched on only to your first part of your comment.
i would have blown her off.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-16 05:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-16 05:46 pm (UTC)Not. So. Much.
That being said, Dear Sweet Zombie Jeebus, it is sexist. Thong panties? WTF???
For the record, I parsed your comment as merely providing information as the the source material that was used to create the statue, and not 'defending' said source as being less sexist.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-16 05:59 pm (UTC)The place in which it happened isn't really material. It can, and does happen, in lots of places.
The thong isn't the problem. It's the entire thing making an object of Mary Jane. That it happens to be one of the more rounded women in comics, relating to one of the more balanced men (they treat each other as people, and Mary Jane's role isn't that of heroine in danger, as is Lois Lane) is a more subtle piece of the sexism of the thing, but I'm not trying to talk about that either.
It's the last bit, where we read what someone says, and try to take it as read; giving them the benefit of doubt.
One can't always. There's a comment at the pandagon thread on this, where someone asked questions which had been answered (and which ignored the objectification). I assumed they were there for other reasons than pure discussion.
Even at that (to toot my own horn) I didn't say they were against feminsism, just that they'd missed a point, while addressing the meat of the comment they made, not what I thought they were trying to do.
TK
no subject
Date: 2007-05-16 07:45 pm (UTC)"Thong panties? WTF???" was my shorthand for "Why are you taking a strong female character who is more than a pneumatic sex toy and reducing her to little more than said toy?"
I have never percieved MJ (in either movie or comic form) as the kinda gal to run around barefoot, showing thong panties, and chosing to be subservient to Spidey by washing his costume for him.
Granted, almost any comic heroine tends to be drawn with Big Gazongas, but it's the entire package - as you say - that makes it both sexist and ignorant of the character being portrayed.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-16 05:54 pm (UTC)Years ago I had a screen print on the wall of cigarette card models (this was before the real Sam Fox was invented) and was harangued by a 'feminist' who had come to my flatmate's party (said feminist had dropped out of college, was living in a Brixton squat and had an allowance from daddy that was more than I earned from full time work) The print was outrageous. I was an incorrigible sexist. On and on she ranted. What would I say if she wore a necklace of male genitalia? Nothing, actually, seeing as what she wore was none of my business. Only when I pointed to the signature at the bottom and told her that 'Toni' wasn't an Italian beastman but short for 'Antonia', a colleague of my first wife who had adopted a unisex name to make a living in a male dominated industry did she leave the room, my room, my bedroom in which I was trying to become better acquainted with the love of my life and which she had mistaken for the bathroom.
Still, what do manners matter when you know you're right?
no subject
Date: 2007-05-16 06:14 pm (UTC)I got blasted a while back for something I "said" - I was, according to my attacker, an attention-seeking, melodramatic drama queen. When the vitriol was backed off a bit (by my husband, the only person I've ever met other than my parents who knows that despite the fact that 99% of the time I can take care of myself in an argument, it is a glorious relief to have someone else help defend me), it turns out my attacker hadn't really heard what I had said - he had been in the other room, heard part of what I had said, filled in the rest with what fit his view of me (attention-seeking, melodramatic drama queen) and went on the attack.
Isn't it nice to be given the benefit of the doubt?
no subject
Date: 2007-05-16 06:12 pm (UTC)Thing is, I don't think creating these 'them' and 'us' positions (even if 'us' is the *right* side) does much to forward social improvement, diversity, or tolerance (sometimes not even if you've the power to stomp 'them' into oblivion).
no subject
Date: 2007-05-16 07:33 pm (UTC)What irks me (to bring all the people who are talking about similar situations of mis-interpretation) is that my failing was that I didn't jump on the bandwagon; my comment didn't go far enough in supporting the attack on the sexism of it.
That's the issue of moral purity I'm discussing.
TK
no subject
Date: 2007-05-16 07:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-16 08:07 pm (UTC)I am the Authority, on whom all much attend, and with whom all must agree.
Haven't I made that plain?
:)
TK
no subject
Date: 2007-05-16 08:15 pm (UTC);-P
no subject
Date: 2007-05-17 04:34 am (UTC)A year or two back there was a lot of airtime given to posts about how agents of the *other side* could disrupt conversations about feminism and race etc and at the time I was somewhat unhappy that the tactics being mooted as deliberate could just as easily be honest questions, or attempts at clarification -- now I'm regularly seeing people told off for derailing discussions on the assumption that anything but a statement of total agreement with the original post is an attempt to undermine it.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-17 04:49 am (UTC)When being more than one-dimensional is wrong; when answering a question, in the parent post, is seen as derailing, when saying the source material in no way changes the question isn't enough, well that's where I get off the bus.
An echo chamber isn't useful. It is, in fact, counter-productive, because it means false beliefs become established truths.
Where nothing gets questioned, nothing gets answered.
I've got my differences with the owner of that blog; we get along. In part because, despite those who decry her as a one note symphony, she's not. Further, for all that she's prickly, she can be argued with.
So being told off, in an overbearing way, for answering a question; and being taken as an apologist, absent any actual apology, well that's something I count as wrong.
I don't think the wrongness of the statue would change were the drawings from which they worked as overdone as Little Annie Fannie, because the body is the least of the things wrong with that thing.
But I suspect I'm preaching to the choir.
TK
no subject
Date: 2007-05-16 08:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-16 08:22 pm (UTC)TK
no subject
Date: 2007-05-16 08:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-16 09:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-16 10:05 pm (UTC)They are both stock tropes. The one is all artifice, and plays on images of sex-kitten (high-heels and negligée in the out of doors).
The other is more contrived, and the pose is impossible, the features are Barbified; with a subtext of subservience, where the other might be seen as merely coquetry.
In the statue of your father's, one can decide the woman is doing it with a knowing mind.
In the Mary Jane thing, it's stooping to woman's work. She's not playing on the man's weaknesses to get him, she's living up to a fantasy, and one which bemeans her.
At least that's my take on the differences.
Other's mileage will vary.
TK
no subject
Date: 2007-05-16 10:34 pm (UTC)Beautifully said.
(I am reminded of "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." Both are a kind of hyperfocus, I think.)