Sexism in book covers

[mormont]

The notion that such depictions of women is 'sexist' against women relies on establishing that this depiction has some negative consequence for women, or says something about women's role in society that is negative.

Sexual attractiveness is a woman's greatest power in society. Not a weakness.

Think you've answered your own point there.

[ShowOverBooks]

Think you've answered your own point there.

You have missed it.

[Seli]

The conversation has been going on for a while, and luckily keeps getting attention. People are not only looking at (genre) book covers, but also comic books,* and promotional pictures for movies, or of course the traditional pin-up.

And for those really interested in the difference between typical male and female cover poses there are posts by again Jim Hines, and someone going my the monicker Ocelott.

* and escher girls, and the hawkeye initiative, and probably many more.

As a bonus there is always this shortpacked comic.

edit: trying to locate the cover MinDonner mentioned I noticed _ocelott_ also did romance covers.

[mormont]

You have missed it.

That someone disagrees with you on the substance of an issue is not evidence that they've missed your point.

You say that the main way in which a woman can have power in our society is by being seen as sexually attractive. I understand this point completely, and I understand that you think this is a positive thing for women. Conversely, I'm pointing out that in reality this is an example of something that is a negative for women in our society.

Do you imagine that women decided things would be this way? Of course not. Do you imagine that being defined by this very narrow and limited role is a good thing for women? It's not. Do you even imagine that women define what is, and is not, sexually attractive? Hardly, or it wouldn't be so often linked to passivity and powerlessness (as in these covers), nor would it be so tightly tied to a restricted range of characteristics that are either impossible or very difficult for most women to achieve or maintain.

The evidence is that this is something that men decide, not women, and that it's disadvantageous to women as a whole. That individual women sometimes derive a benefit from being sexually attractive doesn't counter the fact that a woman's worth in society is too often defined by their appearance, even where this should be irrelevant: and that this is limiting for women.

Of course, some men feel personally disempowered by attractive women, perhaps because they feel unattractive themselves, or think their social status is lessened because they can't or don't 'have' one, or believe that attractive women have some other unfair advantage over them. This can lead them to feel bitter or angry, and to blame women for that: and to conclude that women in general are empowered by the role of sexual attractiveness in our society. It goes without saying that this is a blinkered view, missing the wider context.

[MinDonner]

Found it!

[ShowOverBooks]

That someone disagrees with you on the substance of an issue is not evidence that they've missed your point.

You started it.

You say that the main way in which a woman can have power in our society is by being seen as sexually attractive. I understand this point completely, and I understand that you think this is a positive thing for women. Conversely, I'm pointing out that in reality this is an example of something that is a negative for women in our society.

It is a negative for SOME women. Not for most.

Do you imagine that women decided things would be this way? Of course not.

Do you imagine that men did?

Do you imagine that being defined by this very narrow and limited role is a good thing for women? It's not.

For some it is not. For some it is. Very good.

Do you even imagine that women define what is, and is not, sexually attractive?

As much as men do.

Hardly, or it wouldn't be so often linked to passivity and powerlessness (as in these covers),

There are different forms of power.

nor would it be so tightly tied to a restricted range of characteristics that are either impossible or very difficult for most women to achieve or maintain.

Sour grapes, and men aren't nearly as choosey as you imply.

The evidence is that this is something that men decide, not women,

What evidence?

and that it's disadvantageous to women as a whole.

It is a benefit to women in general.

It is a limited subset of women who do not wish to exercise that power (for various reasons). Most women know they can control men with sex, and most are content to do so - when they have the option to do so.

That individual women sometimes derive a benefit from being sexually attractive doesn't counter the fact that a woman's worth in society is too often defined by their appearance, even where this should be irrelevant: and that this is limiting for women.

It is only limiting (and the modern limits are minimal) to women who do not have the tools to play the game or choose not to.

Of course, some men feel personally disempowered by attractive women,

Like some women feel disempowered by influential men?

perhaps because they feel unattractive themselves, or think their social status is lessened because they can't or don't 'have' one, or believe that attractive women have some other unfair advantage over them. This can lead them to feel bitter or angry, and to blame women for that: and to conclude that women in general are empowered by the role of sexual attractiveness in our society. It goes without saying that this is a blinkered view, missing the wider context.

I wouldn't suggest you mention blinkers.

[MinDonner]

Is there some wormhole from 1950 that suddenly appeared and no-one told me about it?

[Myshkin]

It is a limited subset of women who do not wish to exercise that power (for various reasons). Most women know they can control men with sex, and most are content to do so - when they have the option to do so.

Holy crap! I mean the whole thing, but this part in particular.

[mormont]

You started it.

I started what? Do you mean I suggested you'd missed my point? Really, this is a daft thing to say.

It is a negative for SOME women. Not for most.

So you think 'most' women derive benefit from being considered sexually attractive? Unlikely. First, we have to consider the cost/benefit balance for actually being sexually attractive, and I'm going to suggest that's actually quite high, because the costs are quite high. Then, we have to consider what percentage of the female population is considered sexually attractive to a degree outweighing those costs, and also would not benefit from a wider range of empowerment. Tiny, I'd suggest.

Do you imagine that men did?

Yes.

For some it is not. For some it is. Very good.

Do you believe more women than men benefit from this?

As much as men do.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I'm going to side with reality, feel free to adopt a different stance. ;)

There are different forms of power.

Indeed, but by your own assertion, the main one open to women is sexual attractiveness, whereas for men, they are not so limited. It's a simple question - would you rather have a variety of ways in which you can succeed, or one?

Sour grapes, and men aren't nearly as choosey as you imply.

Who's showing sour grapes here? Me? Women? I'm confused. (You do know I'm male, right? You're surely not mistakenly resorting to the suggestion that my opinon comes from being an unattractive woman? Surely to God you've got a better argument than that barrel-scraper.)

What evidence?

The evidence that shows that our society has traditionally been patriarchal and that men have dictated standards of beuty. Do I really have to cite this stuff? There are libraries full of it.

It is a benefit to women in general.

Again, I'm going to side with reality here. If you were right, after all, the notion that it's not beneficial to women in general would never have gained any traction, because the majority of women would simply laugh at it.

It is a limited subset of women who do not wish to exercise that power (for various reasons). Most women know they can control men with sex, and most are content to do so - when they have the option to do so.

Do you actually know any women?

I wouldn't suggest you mention blinkers.

Why on earth not?

[ShowOverBooks]

Holy crap! I mean the whole thing, but this part in particular.

Hey, if you have a point - make it.

It is not wrong because you dislike it.

[ShowOverBooks]

So you think 'most' women derive benefit from being considered sexually attractive? Unlikely. First, we have to consider the cost/benefit balance for actually being sexually attractive, and I'm going to suggest that's actually quite high, because the costs are quite high.

What ARE the costs? I agree that there are some, but I want to know what you consider them to be.

Then, we have to consider what percentage of the female population is considered sexually attractive to a degree outweighing those costs, and also would not benefit from a wider range of empowerment. Tiny, I'd suggest.

I disagree with that suggestion.

Yes.

Fashion is not run by straight men.

Do you believe more women than men benefit from this?

Of course. Far more. Very few men make a living off of their looks.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I'm going to side with reality, feel free to adopt a different stance. ;)

Reality isn't siding with you.

Indeed, but by your own assertion, the main one open to women is sexual attractiveness, whereas for men, they are not so limited.

Right. Men can perform all sorts of dangerous jobs to make a liviing, while 'looking good' is not a job available to any but a very tiny minority. If you asked most men if they would rather dig in a mine or model in swimsuits for a living (or 'marry professionally') - there would be very few miners in the world. Men work because they either starve or freeze if they don't. An attractive woman can get a man to provide for her.

It's a simple question - would you rather have a variety of ways in which you can succeed, or one?

Straw man. Even attractive women can choose to work.

Who's showing sour grapes here? Me? Women? I'm confused. (You do know I'm male, right?

No.

You're surely not mistakenly resorting to the suggestion that my opinon comes from being an unattractive woman? Surely to God you've got a better argument than that barrel-scraper.)

You might not like it. That does not make it untrue. It is quite understandable that unattractive women would dislike a system that favours the good-looking.

The evidence that shows that our society has traditionally been patriarchal and that men have dictated standards of beuty. Do I really have to cite this stuff? There are libraries full of it.

I don't ask for citations (as aa rule) in casual conversation. You're wrong about what patriarchy is.

Again, I'm going to side with reality here.

Wrong again.

If you were right, after all, the notion that it's not beneficial to women in general would never have gained any traction, because the majority of women would simply laugh at it.

It gained traction among the disenfranchised and unwilling. The majority of women DO laugh at the notion that their attractiveness is a burden. If they believed that, they would not spend billions to look good.

Do you actually know any women?

I know what a rhetorical question is.

Why on earth not?

Because you are wearing them.

[dietl]

"I know what a rhetorical question is."

Can I count that as a "No."?

I suggest ignoring the troll, that is not a troll, but a human being.

[mormont]

What ARE the costs? I agree that there are some, but I want to know what you consider them to be.

If we agree there are costs, there's not much point playing games over it.

I disagree with that suggestion.

Fair enough. I'm happy to let people judge which of us is more credible on this topic... (hint: it's not you).

Fashion is not run by straight men.

Fashion is not the sole determinant of what is considered sexually attractive. In fact, it's more about aesthetics than sexual attraction: frequently, fashion is in opposition to the socially-determined definition of sexual attraction. Ain't none of those women on those covers linked above wearing Prada.

(And in any case, almost all fashion houses are in fact owned by men.)

Of course. Far more. Very few men make a living off of their looks.

You're joking, right? No way you really think this is what we were talking about. We were talking about whether men benefit from a situation where women are almost wholly defined by their sexual attractiveness to men. For you genuinely not to have followed this, you'd need to be pretty easily confused.

Right. Men can perform all sorts of dangerous jobs to make a liviing, while 'looking good' is not a job available to any but a very tiny minority.

We really are scraping the barrel, aren't we?

You're correct. 'Looking good' is a job option open only to a tiny minority of men or women. The difference is that men are not expected to look good regardless of what they actually do for a living. Nor are men expected to subject themselves to danger every day, regardless of what they actually do for a living. So, the analogy is total rubbish and contributes nothing.

Straw man. Even attractive women can choose to work.

Whut?

No, sorry, this is not actually a response to what we're talking about. Go away and try again. The point is that women are judged on their attractiveness no matter what work they actually do.

You might not like it. That does not make it untrue.

You might like the idea. That does not make it true.

It is quite understandable that unattractive women would dislike a system that favours the good-looking

The problem here is that whether you dislike the system has very little to do with whether you are an unattractive woman.

You're wrong about what patriarchy is.

I should just make clear: any time you're actually arguing with the facts, not with me, I'm just not gonna bother. The facts can speak for themselves.

[Daario's*before*Snows]

So if i see a woman in a sexually suggestive pose on the cover of a book. I am supposed to conclude that men are superior to women? I dont get that logic at all.

Half naked women in fantasy, stereotypical sure, but sexist? I dont think so.

[dietl]

So if i see a woman in a sexually suggestive pose on the cover of a book. I am supposed to conclude that men are superior to women? I dont get that logic at all.

Half naked women in fantasy, stereotypical sure, but sexist? I dont think so.

It's a slippery slope argument.

It seem you (the trolls) are avoiding cognitive dissonance by creating your own realities.

[sologdin]

if not sexist stereotype, which kind of stereotype, then?

It is a limited subset of women who do not wish to exercise that power (for various reasons). Most women know they can control men with sex, and most are content to do so - when they have the option to do so.

which men are controlled by sex? wht a friggin' joke.

[Daario's*before*Snows]

It's a slippery slope argument.

It seem you (the trolls) are avoiding cognitive dissonance by creating your own realities.

So i would in your opinion cease to be a troll if I say that anytime a woman is dressed in a sexually suggestive manner that means she is inferior to men?

Please im not trolling, if you have anything to offer besides an insult and an accusation it would be great.

[ShowOverBooks]

if not sexist stereotype, which kind of stereotype, then?

It is a limited subset of women who do not wish to exercise that power (for various reasons). Most women know they can control men with sex, and most are content to do so - when they have the option to do so.

which men are controlled by sex? wht a friggin' joke.

WHICH men are controlled by sex? The great majority of us.

[Chaldanya]

It is a limited subset of women who do not wish to exercise that power (for various reasons). Most women know they can control men with sex, and most are content to do so - when they have the option to do so.

Like:

in a committed relationship

a lesbian and not interested in men

asexual and not interested in sex

How appropriate do you think it would be for me as a married woman to try to control the men where I work with sex?

What ill-thought-out, MRA-lite shit you are spouting...

N

[dietl]

So i would in your opinion cease to be a troll if I say that anytime a woman is dressed in a sexually suggestive manner that means she is inferior to men?

No. But It seem you feel unconfortable to get labeled with this stereotype.

Please im not trolling, if you have anything to offer besides an insult and an accusation it would be great.

It told you about the logical structure of the argument. I think that counts as constructive. Furthermore my post wasn't meant as an insult or accusation, sorry it looked that way.