A Crash Course in Feminism Mk. II (or, why everyone should be a feminist)

[eldargal]

The camera lingers on the womans body for more than is necessary than the scene, close ups, panning up the body, camera angles which emphasise the breasts etc. Basically the nudity is structured to be consumed by male viewers, not as a natural expression of nudity.

I'm not familiar with Kill la Kill, but it is possible to still have male nudity and objectify women. It;s a series of interconnected factors, they don't necessarily count. Of course there are feminists who don't want to see any nudity at all and have some very ridiculous and problematic ideas so whatever.

[Gotthammer]

Kill la Kill isn't as clear cut as that. I can see it from both sides, but it uses some very unsettling imagery. To quote [URL="http://tinycrown.tumblr.com/post/79040378192/why-kill-la-kill-is-bad-for-women-and-everyone-in"]here[/URL]:

“Once she stopped rejecting him [kamui] she was finally able to bring out his full potential and FUSE with him. The kamui became her and she became the kamui. At that point they were one and the same which is why she didn’t need to be completely covered her skin became the kamui itself.“

This particular quote almost perfectly describes one of the biggest problems with Kill la Kill as a whole. But, before I respond to it, I will include some background information. You will recall in the show’s summary that Ryuko, “comes across a sentient sailor uniform (kamui),” who “puts himself on Ryuko.” Some of you may have questioned the way the sentence was phrased—wouldn’t she be putting on the uniform, not the other way around? In this case, you would be incorrect.

Ryuko actually discovers the uniform in question when she falls through a trap door into a hidden room. She is exhausted and hurt when she is first accosted by the kamui, who introduces himself by demanding she strip down, wear him and give him her blood. When she says no, several times, he then physically pins Ryuko to the wall and says, “All right, I’ll make you wear me by force!” The uniform then removes her clothing despite her continued protests and forces himself on her, in a blatant and disgusting sexual assault scene.

Once Ryuko has been forced into the kamui it is revealed that, by drinking her blood, the uniform transforms into a revealing and hyper-sexualized outfit that greatly increases Ryuko’s physical strength. Ryuko herself is made extremely uncomfortable by the way her clothing exposes her body, but has little choice but to wear it. The show’s characters (along with the writers and much of the fan base) don’t seem to have any regard for Ryuko’s bodily autonomy or feelings—especially her discomfort regarding being literally forced to wear extremely revealing clothing. Worse still, many of those same people choose to actively ignore her discomfort for the sole purpose of oogling her body against her will.

Or to put it another way while the intended message of the episode was probably something along the lines of, "i will no longer let this unwanted attention make me feel dirty and ashamed of myself", the message that came across was,"i will accept this situation where i was sexually violated and will continue to be sexually violated, but it's okay, i just needed some time to get used to my creepy rape suit."

Also with what happened to Satsuki in episode 16, and Ryuko regularly being restrained and forced to strip or having people expose themselves to her despite her protests it has a lot of issues. It does some things very right, but in a very critical analysis [URL="http://atomicdomme.tumblr.com/post/81013286224/im-going-to-tell-you-a-story-this-is-a-story"]Atomicdomme[/URL] said:

Kill La Kill is, throughout, a show where the sexual violation of teenaged girls is inevitable and morally neutral. It comes from all sides, from hero and villain. Being made a sexual object in violent and gross ways is a part of life (or, perhaps, a part of growing up, if we are to read the kamui as puberty metaphors). However, these violations are not simply confined to the context of the story. The audience is also invited to participate, to ogle, to objectify.

[Psychosplodge]

Have you never seen Pratoea or however its spelled, where the heroine has to "take him inside her so his spirit completes her and she can access his power" or something like that...

[CoffeeGrunt]

I was far from advocating Kill la Kill as progressive, given that there's too many scenes with silly camera angels showing off the body of Ryuko et al in strange ways, (plus Nonon's last uniform, which was nowhere near as badass as her first one and way too revealing IMO. Also Nudist Beach Nonon, 'nuff said.)

It's an example of how polarising some subject matters can be. Some people might look at KlK and say, "look, it's showing how objectified women are in popular culture, that they can only be empowered when making themselves into sexual objects of lust! See how the characters overcome their shame in these outfits and use it to empower themselves, though!"

Yet others will, quite fairly, point out the fact that it uses straight-faced fanservice more than it does mocking fanservice. Not to mention how the core feature can simply be interpreted as, "wow, so the outfit is that revealing and she's forced to wear it in a pretty hard-to-watch scene, that's...that's horrible."

(There were several times I literally cringed, and that first episode was shown at MCM Comicon and probably the part that made me think, "dammit Japan," more than any other moment in Anime. The show itself became very good IMO, though it was my first Anime and I found better ones as I progressed.) On that note, can we take a moment to note how excellent Madoka Magica is without any fanservice or real objectification? Why isn't there more awesomeness like that?

[Gotthammer]

On that note, can we take a moment to note how excellent Madoka Magica is without any fanservice or real objectification? Why isn't there more awesomeness like that?

K-On, Nichijou, Azumanga Diaoh, Hanayamata, Girls und Panzer, Encouragement of Climb, Squid Girl, Attack on Titan are some that spring to mind immediately.

[CoffeeGrunt]

I opened the floodgates, didn't I? :P

*Sighs.* I'll add them to the list. At this rate I'll never get around to watching Breaking Bad. xD

[The_Gonk]

Apologies for the long post.

-

[URL="http://www.buffalo.edu/news/releases/2011/08/12769.html"]A comparison of Rolling Stone Covers[/URL] by the University of Buffalo.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here as you haven't actually stated anything but I'll try and talk around the stuff you've posted. My apologies if I misunderstand your response as the structure isn't clear to me.

Firstly, when put in a self-objectifying situation both men and women experience negative outcomes and both men and women can experience self-objectification - I would suggest the speaker's bias is showing but as I haven't got the context this may be unfair. However, I'd argue the issue is an individual one and not a societal one. This is people's response to stimuli - sex sells because, for the most part, people respond to it. They respond either because on some level they identify with or wish to be more like a representation or they find that representation attractive (the tag line being: They want to be that person or F that person). Society is better than it used to be at disseminating information and a lot of that content may be sexual on some level. We'll have a lot better shot at improving people's individual response to that and their psychological health than stopping people from finding things attractive/enticing which they are biologically predisposed to do.

With regards to the Rolling Stone article, I have a few issues with the methodology, the conclusions and the purpose but I agree 'stuff' has become more sexualised. I'd even argue that the ads I show below suggest that in the difference between the old and the newer.

I disagree on the use of 'passive' in the conclusions, though, given that Behaviours/Actions are used in the study as indicators of sexualisation of an image. Given that men and women respond differently to imagery, the definition of sexualisation portrayed seems to be a male-centric one. Men are pretty much insensitive to context and women are not - Long story short, the process may work well in determining what may be likely to be a sexually attractive image for a man but the same process has been applied to the male images - arguably apples and apples are not being compared here in terms of effect. I'm trying to say that a semi-naked woman for a straight man is more likely to be part of an effective advert. A semi-naked man for a straight woman may be but the context matters much more.

If sex sold there would be penises on all the things as well.

What do you mean "penises on all the things as well"? Do you see vaginas on everything? If so, see a Doctor.

Sex doesn't sell and isn't used to sell, objectified women sell and are used to sell things

Your statement here is divorced from reality, this can be shown by simple observation!

Sex clearly does sell and it isn't about objectified women, if sex didn't sell why would advertisers use it? Why would adverts such as the following have been made if what you say is true?









Why is the Levi ad one of the most successful TV adverts ever made? Because you're flat out wrong, that's why!

Also, the University of Buffalo study quoted immediately above your post argues that images of women AND men have become more sexualised in the case of Rolling Stone covers! You really should try and observe the world and not just the dogma you subscribe to.

[Kirsten]

Cats against feminism, aka meowsplaining...

[url]http://www.buzzfeed.com/rachelzarrell/meowsplaining[/url]

We Hunted the Mammoth

[url]http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/[/url]

[YorkNecromancer]

How do you define female nudity, "filmed with the male gaze in mind?"

[url]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/cate-blanchett-calls-out-red-carpet-sexism-at-the-golden-globes-do-you-do-this-to-the-guys-9074643.html[/url]

Some people might look at KlK and say, "look, it's showing how objectified women are in popular culture, that they can only be empowered when making themselves into sexual objects of lust! See how the characters overcome their shame in these outfits and use it to empower themselves, though!"

Yet others will, quite fairly, point out the fact that it uses straight-faced fanservice more than it does mocking fanservice. Not to mention how the core feature can simply be interpreted as, "wow, so the outfit is that revealing and she's forced to wear it in a pretty hard-to-watch scene, that's...that's horrible."

The problem isn't individual works of art.
The problem is when the industry makes nothing EXCEPT works of art of one kind.

The problem isn't shots of women taken to encourage sexual arousal in men.
The problem is that EVERY shot of a women is taken to encourage sexual arousal in men.

The problem isn't that a game has a white, straight, male protagonist, aged thirty, with short cropped brown hair, permastubble and a dead woman he's seeking revenge for.
The problem is that EVERY game has a white, straight, male protagonist, aged thirty, with short cropped brown hair, permastubble and a dead woman he's seeking revenge for. (And that I can literally be that specific about it.)

The problem isn't that the story about the nerdy male ends with the hero getting the girl as a prize for completing his quest.
The problem is that EVERY story ends with the nerdy male getting the girl as a prize for completing his quest.

And so on.

The problem is not any single work of art.
The problem is the INDUSTRY.
The problem is the SYSTEM.

I have no problem with individual works of art: ones I like, I enjoy; ones I dislike, I ignore.
I have no problem with extreme material in works of art. My favourite films are 'The Fly' (1986 version), 'Battle Royale', 'Martyrs', 'Videodrome', and 'Up'. I have watched and enjoyed the works of Lars Von Trier. I have watched and enjoyed films from the Cinema of Transgression. I have sat through more extreme violence on screen than almost anyone I know. I'm fine with nasty stuff in my art.
I have a problem when an industry feeds me only one thing and nothing else. When I am told that the diarrhoeic torrent of putrid fanservice and poor characterisation is okay. When I am told to just shut up and enjoy it. When I have people on one hand telling me that games/films/whatever are art, and then in the same breath telling me they're 'just a game/film/whatever' and so I shouldn't take them so seriously.

I have a problem because we should all be able to see ourselves as we are: gay, bi, straight, black, white, Asian, Hmong, Yazidi, whoever, and yet we can't. All we see is the same damn story about that White Guy who saves everyone by just being the best.

**** that guy. I've heard his story a hundred million times and it's never any different and I'm ***ing sick of it. It's someone else's damn turn.

I want stories about mothers who don't like their children. I want stories about male abuse survivors. I want stories about lesbian soldiers saving us from cybernetic war griffons. I want stories about fat little black boys overcoming their nerves and getting the girl. I want stories about fat little black girls overcoming their nerves and getting the boy. I want stories where there's no romance at all.

And I don't want them to be in isolated works of High Literature. I want them in my blockbuster films, I want them in my FPSs, I want them in my comics. It IS happening, but not quickly enough. We need to make it happen faster.

On a related side note, I finally read 'Rat Queens' this week. It's not bad. Little bit lightweight, and it's got the emotional depth of a puddle, but if the TV series can tease out the ideas it should have legs.

[CoffeeGrunt]

I dunno, I'm personally a big fan of the story of a half-black, half-Asian 11 year old who protects the adults she travels with from being devoured by zombies, while also overcoming her own flaws in her survivalist nature versus "doing the right thing."

The thing is that not the entire industry makes the things you describe, that's a big generalisation. There are tonnes of outliers that try something new and different, and are more rewarding for it. Still, people like Call of Duty et al for the same reason they like junk food. It's basic and fills a need, that's about it. Sure, Call of Duty 4 and 5 are probably two of my favourite FPS games due to having interesting and well-written stories, (especially Modern Warfare,) but are absolutely devoid of women, LGBT story threads, or other aspects.

Granted the women thing is potentially an argument of the setting, and also of the time it was released in. However, the homosexuality thing would be completely irrelevant in the context of the story, as it would be highly unprofessional. IMO, these things shouldn't be primary character traits. A gay character shouldn't be gay first and a police officer hunting a serial killer second. A black character shouldn't be black first and a baseball player scoring record homeruns for his team second, (as examples these.)

I mean, Morgan Freeman handles race very well, in that his characters could really be played by any race, but it's his personal acting skill, demeanour and attention to detail that makes them memorable. I'm just a bit sick of people writing characters to fit a niche and tick a politically correct box, rather than simply being a person and this is but one aspect of their being. Bill from The Last of Us is probably my favourite example of this. He's a paranoid survivalist, and you stumble across his partner who had left him and hung himself. It's a very powerful moment, (especially if you find and give him the suicide note,) that treats it as a messed up relationship in a post-apocalyptic world before it treats it as two dudes together.