fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3067 ]

[ SECRET POST #3067 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3067 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

[Silicon Valley]

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 012 secrets from Secret Submission Post #438.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - posted twice ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

07. http://i.imgur.com/JHYLTC8.png

Well, I mean, yeah. If it's a fully fleshed out character, well written as a human being before "woman", then the character acting sensually is not really a problem, because it's believable. Whereas if the character isn't well-written, and just seems there for the purpose of being sexual for the enjoyment of the audience, then that is obnoxious. What's the problem here?

And I will say it can be very dependent on how the character is portrayed sensually. Are there gratuitous scenes of her being naked that aren't really necessary? Does the camera lovingly slide up her every curve? Does it seem like the character is being sexual for the audience, rather than the character being sexual to someone she is flirting with?

I'm not saying there aren't Tumblrinas who are inconsistent with their opinions, but that doesn't mean criticizing unnecessary sexualization of female characters (especially when male characters aren't treated that way) is invalid.

I don't like when people say that because it's intrinsically insulting to real women to dress or act that way. "That's different because real women choose to do it themselves" is a weak excuse after you've already said they shouldn't exist in fiction when written by men. If you really thought there was nothing wrong with doing it in real life, you wouldn't be against it happening in fiction.

It's not about ascribing morality to clothes, it's about ascertaining the motives of the person who made the choice to put someone in them. Generally, the choices people make for others (including fictional others) should be subject to more scrutiny than the choices people make for themselves.

Real life doesn't have slow panning up shots of a woman in a short dress, the only equivalent would be someone looking up a woman up and down, which would make many women uncomfortable.

The truth is there are choices made by male writers that don't have much to do with making a completely realistic woman and have everything to do with making a character a sex object. When we're dealing with real women who make choices, you don't have to worry about them being realistic because they ARE real.

There is a difference.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-05-29 20:04 (UTC) - Expand

Yeah sure, some real women do dress that way, at bars or clubs or when they're having fun. It in no way "intrinsically insults" these women to say that this is unrealistic or pandering when the women in question are doing something where women IRL wear more practical clothing, like doing what female characters are doing 99% of the time like working or fighting.

I'm sorry that things like context exist to confuse your tiny brain

I think it depends. If it fits with the character and the character is fleshed-out and interesting, sure. But if it makes no sense and was clearly just written as wank material then that's on the author.

But that is still the result of the writer.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-05-28 23:01 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

philstar22 - 2015-05-28 23:04 (UTC) - Expand

Agreed that hypocrisy is always dumb, but I also think that a lot of this depends on the level of objectification going on.

There's a distinct difference between a woman being portrayed as behaving in any way, good or bad, from a point of her own agency within a narrative, and her behavior only existing as some kind of fantasy for the male gaze.

In regards to Natasha, the catsuit never bothered me because Steve's outfit is just as tight.

Plus, Steve gets that NICE pan up his body in The Avengers.

Not to mention all the shirtless scenes we get in the MCU.

I'm fine with skimpy clothes as long as it's equal opportunity is what I'm saying.

If ONLY the ladies are in skimpy clothes (or it's HEAVILY skewed towards them) then...yeah...it starts to become an issue.

How many pan up shots of Steve, Thor, and Clint, and even Tony we got in AoU was amazing. Clearly whoever was doing the filming understood that female (and gay male) gaze is important too.

I have more of an issue with the comics, though, where it really is only about the straight male gaze.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-05-28 23:07 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

philstar22 - 2015-05-28 23:09 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-05-28 23:12 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

kaijinscendre - 2015-05-29 01:28 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

philstar22 - 2015-05-29 01:43 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

kaijinscendre - 2015-05-29 01:48 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

philstar22 - 2015-05-29 01:54 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-05-28 23:27 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-05-28 23:23 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

philstar22 - 2015-05-28 23:28 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-05-29 14:04 (UTC) - Expand

SA

An example of movies that I think have issues with depictions of women is NuTrek.

The creators point to Kirk being shirtless, but in both his shirtless scenes, the camera actually lingers FAR longer on the women (green woman and cat twins) -- I actually counted once to check.

And then there's the fact that EVERY female character basically gets shown in undies and some are gratuitously unnecessary.

That's something where I think it's very legitimate to complain.

It might be inspired by a 60s show, but even in those shows, Kirk lost his shirt more often as fanservice for the ladies. They need to balance it more in NuTrek.

The male/female gaze we get in the MCU movies are a thing of glory.

Specifically, the Thor female gaze shots we get, because there's at least one in each movie, I believe.

In my circles, people generally give props to the writer when they like what they do with the character.

Anyway, the point of differentiating isn't anything to do with the relationship between the character and her writer; it's to do with the relationship between real women with agency and fictional women without.

I bet you think Natasha's "I adore you" line rolled right off the tongue.

Not OP but yes, I thought it was great. She really stood out to me as a character in this movie, and that scene in particular made me like her even more.

That's because good writing is generally invisible. You don't see the author in good writing; you see the character and the story.

Bad writing OTOH draws attention to itself and to the inconsistencies in both.

exactly

Pro-tip: Characters aren't real, writers are.

mte

why not just say you don't like to acknowledge that the media you're consuming might have some problems? why get angry at people pointing out those problems? it's so transparent.

Why don't you acknowledge that not everyone has to accept that a certain thing is a problem just because someone else said so? That not finding that one thing to be a problem doesn't mean you think the media has no problems, it just means you don't think that's one of them?

This is pretty much how I feel about how a lot of people talk about god. If he's responsible for everything, that means everything. You can't praise him for one thing and forget about the problematic things he did as well.

Looks like the same old argument played out again.

But, people will say "So and so writes amazing characters" or "The characters in X are fantastic" all the time. At least in my circles they do. they're very clearly giving props specifically to the writers and actors where applicable. That's why people use the term "character" - they're intrinsically pointing out that it's a fabrication, which in turn means that the positive qualities in it can be ascribed to the creator.

And in comics, you'll routinely have people rec a specific writer's run on a character as getting it "Right."

So unless your ability to understand context is so limited that people must say "Wow, I think Natasha is a great character, which means I think that the scriptwriter did a good job in writing her" for you to get it, I'm not sure what the complaint is.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only