Not only does this article have a brilliant title, it also explains very well the false dychotomy of feminist media criticism.
Notable quotes:
We’ve fallen into an all-or-nothing rut with feminist criticism lately. Battle lines are immediately drawn between movies that are “feminist” (i.e. “good”) and “sexist” (i.e. “bad”). And that simplistic breakdown is hurting our ability to actually talk about this stuff.
Feminist criticism isn’t about ripping something to shreds or making others feel guilty for liking it. It’s simply about pointing out a specific creative weakness and then taking that a step further to explain the real-world social ramifications of that weakness, all in the hopes of dissuading future filmmakers from making the same mistake.
I dedicate this article to every single person who ever implied that by criticizing female character designs, we’re apparently disapproving of the whole product those characters are featured in*.
Cause, again:
~Ozzie
*Sometimes we do, but it takes some special levels of terribad to make us write off the whole product, not only its treatment of female characters.
On a related note, it’s also crucial to remember that being critical of things like video games or comics does not mean someone’s not invested in “real world issues” and should discuss them instead.
Not only does this article have a brilliant title, it also explains very well the false dychotomy of feminist media criticism.
Notable quotes:
We’ve fallen into an all-or-nothing rut with feminist criticism lately. Battle lines are immediately drawn between movies that are “feminist” (i.e. “good”) and “sexist” (i.e. “bad”). And that simplistic breakdown is hurting our ability to actually talk about this stuff.
Feminist criticism isn’t about ripping something to shreds or making others feel guilty for liking it. It’s simply about pointing out a specific creative weakness and then taking that a step further to explain the real-world social ramifications of that weakness, all in the hopes of dissuading future filmmakers from making the same mistake.
I dedicate this article to every single person who ever implied that by criticizing female character designs, we’re apparently disapproving of the whole product those characters are featured in*.
Cause, again:
~Ozzie
*Sometimes we do, but it takes some special levels of terribad to make us write off the whole product, not only its treatment of female characters.
On a related note, it’s also crucial to remember that being critical of things like video games or comics does not mean someone’s not invested in “real world issues” and should discuss them instead.
However – unlike that other list, which attempted to claim Bayonetta as a proper example of sexual female character in fiction – this one uses Namor to remind us that, while flaunting his amazing body, he’s still an example of male power fantasy, so it isn’t exactly fair to compare him to female superheroines clearly designed solely as eyecandy.
However – unlike that other list, which attempted to claim Bayonetta as a proper example of sexual female character in fiction – this one uses Namor to remind us that, while flaunting his amazing body, he’s still an example of male power fantasy, so it isn’t exactly fair to compare him to female superheroines clearly designed solely as eyecandy.
Could people behind blockbuster adaptations please stop using the whole “it empowers her” talk to explain why they decided to put a female character in a weirdly skimpy outfit? Especially when it’s either unfaithful to the source material or really the part of source material that probably shouldn’t be reproduced.
~Ozzie
“Hawley said she got the idea for Harley’s costumes by looking at Instagram accounts of Mexican drug cartels and the attire that rock and roll icons like Debbie Harry, Courtney Love, and Patti Smith wore.
“
Of course, it’s not really surprising that the final result looks very little like any of those or that various incarnations of Harley Quinn (such as the Arkham games) are not cited as the top reference. After all.
Could people behind blockbuster adaptations please stop using the whole “it empowers her” talk to explain why they decided to put a female character in a weirdly skimpy outfit? Especially when it’s either unfaithful to the source material or really the part of source material that probably shouldn’t be reproduced.
~Ozzie
“Hawley said she got the idea for Harley’s costumes by looking at Instagram accounts of Mexican drug cartels and the attire that rock and roll icons like Debbie Harry, Courtney Love, and Patti Smith wore.
“
Of course, it’s not really surprising that the final result looks very little like any of those or that various incarnations of Harley Quinn (such as the Arkham games) are not cited as the top reference. After all.
An article relevant to the rhetoric we’re often met with in response to our posts – that we’re against anything remotely sexy, or that we’re conflating sexyness with sexualization (even if the author is weirdly fixated on alleged inherent problems with anime culture).
This article is not about how you perceive people; it’s about how they are presented to you. The human body is neutral, not inherently objectified just by virtue of being visible.
Sexiness without objectification is not some hypothetical or abstract concept […] “Sex sells!” commenters squawk every time this comes up, as if this voyeuristic collage of disembodied lady parts is the only way to make non-erotic programming commercially viable.
Back to clearing up the confusion, important thing to remember is that here at BABD we usually use word “sexy” (as well as “empowered”) in a tongue-in-cheek manner, unless stated otherwise. For example – in the Overwatch slot machine“sexy” is a shorthand for “objectified and attractive according to conventional Western beauty standards” and replacing it with “beefy” and “curvy” for Zarya and Mei does not mean the two aren’t sexy characters. It means that (slightly) different body type/beauty standard than generic hotness was a priority in their design.
We’ll always firmly stand by the assessment that sexyness is perfectly fine thing to portray in media – the key is to remember there’s time and place for anything, even fanservice – and (in our blog’s case) portrayal of female warriors ain’t that time.
An article relevant to the rhetoric we’re often met with in response to our posts – that we’re against anything remotely sexy, or that we’re conflating sexyness with sexualization (even if the author is weirdly fixated on alleged inherent problems with anime culture).
This article is not about how you perceive people; it’s about how they are presented to you. The human body is neutral, not inherently objectified just by virtue of being visible.
Sexiness without objectification is not some hypothetical or abstract concept […] “Sex sells!” commenters squawk every time this comes up, as if this voyeuristic collage of disembodied lady parts is the only way to make non-erotic programming commercially viable.
Back to clearing up the confusion, important thing to remember is that here at BABD we usually use word “sexy” (as well as “empowered”) in a tongue-in-cheek manner, unless stated otherwise. For example – in the Overwatch slot machine“sexy” is a shorthand for “objectified and attractive according to conventional Western beauty standards” and replacing it with “beefy” and “curvy” for Zarya and Mei does not mean the two aren’t sexy characters. It means that (slightly) different body type/beauty standard than generic hotness was a priority in their design.
We’ll always firmly stand by the assessment that sexyness is perfectly fine thing to portray in media – the key is to remember there’s time and place for anything, even fanservice – and (in our blog’s case) portrayal of female warriors ain’t that time.
