Actually, yes, I am fairly enlightened as far as feminism is concerned, snide comments notwithstanding. Not going to cite it because it was several months ago and I’m not going to search through thousands of posts to find it, but there was a thread I started about an article arguing that women should vote for Hillary that pretty clearly states my views on that particular topic (in the face of quite a bit of opposition, I might add). If you want to, feel free.
But expecting me to care about some completely BS rationale that somehow seeing a comic-book poster is going to turn men into women-abusers is beyond the pale.
You and I disagree on this, and we’re not going to convince each other otherwise. I think the image is problematic because of the negative connotations of violence against women, and you think the comic-book nature of the image precludes this. I understand your explanation, even if I don’t agree. And I appreciate that you are arguing about the billboard itself, as opposed to those who continue to think the issue is violence in a movie.
Your first comment about Rose McGowan was a tangent, and it’s a common tactic of MRA-types who attack the woman messenger instead of addressing the actual issue. I sincerely apologize, no snark intended, for initially lumping you in with that group.
But there’s no need for strawmen arguments like this. The strength of my feeling on the subject is limited to posting a few times on a message board. I save tangible actions for things that are actually important, and this billboard is not even on that list. I think the billboard is problematic and a better choice of image could have been found, but I have not argued here that it will turn men into woman abusers. If you have a decent argument, you shouldn’t have to resort to hyperbole and exaggeration.
I think treating women equally in a comic book world where women are as physically strong as men is the opposite of problematic. It looks jarring in the real world because of natural strength differences. But Wonder Woman in a purely physical fight would thrash Batman (assuming no prep time.) The Beyonder would crush Storm. Nothing misogynist about any of that. These are strong fantasy characters and the women are out and about fighting. Sometimes winning and sometimes losing. That’s better than being forgotten or relegated to the bat-kitchen.
Yeah, it’s exaggerated a bit, but I don’t see it as a straw man. The crux of the argument McGowan is making, as I see it, is that posters of this sort support some kind of subconscious societal approval of domestic abuse and message that it’s ‘OK’ to be an abuser. It’s no more true than the contention about video games I mentioned before, or that porn will create more rapists/sexual abusers, or that books or music will manufacture serial killers.
I do attack the messenger, not only because I think her argument is specious, but also because I have seen far too many celebrities who labor under the misconception that success in one field implies expert knowledge in any other, and I think she is one of them.
To use a counterexample which is actually tangentially related, I fully support Jennifer Lawrence’s crusade for equal pay. That’s not based on some discredited psychological theory, but on real experience within her chosen field (and is substantiated by data). Unfortunately, it may be hard to achieve, since when you get to that level it’s a lot about negotiation of individual contracts and very difficult to regulate.
I haven’t read this whole thread, but one of the things mentioned in the Hollywood Reporter is that there’s no context to the image to justify or explain it. But I do not agree. 1) It’s a movie billboard, 2) it’s a superhero movie, and 3) it shows a character we’re familiar with. There’s plenty of context.
Now, is it a good image to have on a billboard? No, I think I have to say it isn’t. Usually advertising shows either a hero looking heroic, a villain looking moody and villainous, or a scene of destruction. It almost never shows physical violence mid-fight. If there is a battle portrayed it will likely show the characters approaching each other, some distance apart.
Actually, I think I’m just mansplaining. I’m not even being sarcastic: I think I’m literally just mansplaining. I didn’t do it on purpose. It happens. It was an accident, I swear. But am I going to make it worse? Hell, no. Wonder Woman can wear anything she wants, none of my business.
But: The Amazon is a construct rooted in an ancient world conception of female and male sexuality, which is in turn based on an opposition of the Dionysiac and the Apollonian, respectively. Which is, frankly, sexist as fuck. The Amazon is a woman who fights men. She’s basically an Other. Amazons are adversaries, or monsters. The end game for an Amazon is for a male hero to come along, lop her head off, and take her belt (Ninth Labor of Hercules). That right there is rape imagery, by the way: Taking someone’s belt off is ancient slang for sex.
It can be turned into something positive, I guess. But as feminist icons go, I can’t help thinking: What, that’s the best we can do? Someone who started as an object of the male gaze, and a challenge for men to sort out, by sex, violence or a combination? Do we really need the baggage?
On the other hand: If you’re a girl in the ancient world and looking for role models, it’s pretty slim pickings. Seen in that light, the Amazons are pretty darned awesome. So maybe I just have it backwards.
So: Go for it, Wonder Woman! Just don’t marry Superman. Take it from me: He’s a jerk.
There was a scene in the movie, a little bit before that one shown in the poster, where a woman is throttling a man. But Psylocke is newly-introduced to this particular reboot, hadn’t even appeared in the previous one, and Beast has never been front-and-center like Mystique has. It’s not as marketable for the intended target, not because of the genders involved, but because of the specific characters.
I guess I’m not understanding the issue here. The poster isn’t advocating violence against women. It’s supposed to be conveying a message that this Apocalypse guy is one evil son of a bitch.
I think if it’s a black man in a turban waving a giant scimitar, the context is pretty clear. Indy’s not “whipping a black man”. He’s whipping a caricature of a “Middle Eastern savage”!
The Amazon seems to be the first incarnation of what I’m starting to hear referred to more and more as the “Weaponized Woman”. Some very obvious recent examples would be Scarlet Johansen as Black Window or Scarlet Johansen as Lucy or Milla Jovovich as anything. But obviously there are literally hundreds of examples.
The premise is that, for whatever reason, someone or some thing takes a girl (often against her will) and through some science-y or magical “enhancement” process turns her into what is essentially a woman-shaped ass-kicking machine. Rather than being a an example of female empowerment, it’s more often a fetishizing of violence and sexuality. These characters don’t have female or really even human emotions. At least not beyond revenge or frustration and anger at anything that gets in the way of whatever mission the plot sets them on.
This is not to say every female action protagonist is a “Weaponized Woman”. Ripley from Aliens isn’t. Neither is Sarah Conner from the first two Terminator films. Although it should be pointed out that James Cameron does an excellent job in T2 of portraying Sarah’s conflict between her humanity and potentially becoming just like the unfeeling Terminators she is defending the world against.
This is a trope that female super-heroes are particularly subject to. Particularly because it is easy to fall into a lazy writing trap of just creating some stupid pretense to put some big-breasted woman into a skin-tight suit made of strategically placed armor plates and have her go to town just beating and shooting the crap out of people without much insight into her character.
What a bizarro world we live in. We condescendingly pat girls on the head and say “you’re equal and big and strong” while we nerf the world so they can live in a Disney princess fantasy land where the world can’t hurt them because: womyn. Kill men and/or kick their ass because the world is nerfed and chipping the paint on your nails is “violence against womym.”
Bizarre. Women are equal only when we nerf the world to fit some unrealistic view that women are invincible and perfect and anything else is “violence against women.”
Is that any different than male characters, though? I’m far from a comics expert, but I can think of Wolverine and Deadpool for a start; characters that were enhanced and suffered unspeakable abuse in the process, and were emotionally crippled by the process.
If they’d had her hand shapeshifting into a giant claw ready to slice up Apocalypse’s face while he’s strangling her or something, I’d say the controversy was utter bullshit. That said, she’s clearly helpless there and Mystique is badass enough that she shouldn’t be.
Can Mystique (in the movies, anyway) make giant claws? I only remember her turning into various human forms but X-Men was never a favorite franchise of mine and I know I missed some movies.
In the first X-Men movie, she impersonates Wolverine, including big “metal” claws - not clear on how sharp they were, as I don’t think she actually cuts anything with them, and they get chopped off by the real Wolverine in pretty short order.
Found the scene on YouTube - she starts the scene disguised as a replica of the Statue of Liberty, so apparently she can also duplicate the torch, tablet, and spiky hat.
Depends on the geek boy in question. I know a couple of guys who share my joy in watching darling Hugh get his clothes ripped off, and Deadpool is a very nicely shaped man in that skintight costume.
It’s not a perfect comparison by any means, but the highest-grossing Batman movie had a poster declaring that THE LEGEND ENDS and showing what’s left of a smashed Bat-mask in the wake of Bane still soldiering on.