An observation on tropes against the Female gender

[C. Cain]

You're right, I should clarify myself a bit. It's in particular spaces that this comes up. When people bring up female representation, or heaven forbid, the Bechdel test, there are very particular responses. Or when someone criticises the politics of films which glorify militaristic attitudes, or that say, blockbusters like Transformers can be stupid, racist, sexist, and jingoistic all at the same time. It's just a movie. It's just a dumb action movie. Turn your brain off. It's not meant to be taken seriously. Stop trying to make controversy. You're just looking for attention. There are lots of good critics, but all too often, when I see them online, they're slammed as SJWs, or pretentious, or biased, or whatever the latest way is of putting one's fingers in one's ears and singing loudly. Film has less of a problem with this than gaming, to my eye at least, but try mentioning the Bechdel test, or anything of the sort, and see what happens.

At the same time, it's apparently suprising that Twilight is problematic, or this is apparently a novel observation that hasn't been around since Kirsten Stewart first held her mouth slightly open whilst Robert Pattinson refused to emote. Apparently this is where all those people who leaned towards feminism or anything of the sort went wrong, apparently this is what they overlooked.

Oh, now I get it. I misread your post and thought you were complaining about critics (as in people who are paid for their critiques). I didn't pick up on the fact that you were actually talking about the reception (and dismissal) of said criticism. Chalk this up to me being unduly hasty. Mea culpa. I agree with you, by the way.

That said, mentioning the Bechdel test as a genuine test (as opposed to the scathing indictment it really is) should net you some peculiar responses.

 

[Loonyyy]

You're right, I should clarify myself a bit. It's in particular spaces that this comes up. When people bring up female representation, or heaven forbid, the Bechdel test, there are very particular responses. Or when someone criticises the politics of films which glorify militaristic attitudes, or that say, blockbusters like Transformers can be stupid, racist, sexist, and jingoistic all at the same time. It's just a movie. It's just a dumb action movie. Turn your brain off. It's not meant to be taken seriously. Stop trying to make controversy. You're just looking for attention. There are lots of good critics, but all too often, when I see them online, they're slammed as SJWs, or pretentious, or biased, or whatever the latest way is of putting one's fingers in one's ears and singing loudly. Film has less of a problem with this than gaming, to my eye at least, but try mentioning the Bechdel test, or anything of the sort, and see what happens.

At the same time, it's apparently suprising that Twilight is problematic, or this is apparently a novel observation that hasn't been around since Kirsten Stewart first held her mouth slightly open whilst Robert Pattinson refused to emote. Apparently this is where all those people who leaned towards feminism or anything of the sort went wrong, apparently this is what they overlooked.

Oh, now I get it. I misread your post and thought you were complaining about critics (as in people who are paid for their critiques). I didn't pick up on the fact that you were actually talking about the reception (and dismissal) of said criticism. Chalk this up to me being unduly hasty. Mea culpa. I agree with you, by the way.

That said, mentioning the Bechdel test as a genuine test (as opposed to the scathing indictment it really is) should net you some peculiar responses.

Oh definitely. But most of the time the response to the Bechdel test isn't one that hasn't already been considered, particularly by those applying it. When critics, or feminists, refer to the Bechdel test, it's a back of the napkin thing, a thought exercise, a quick way of thinking about how often women are in movies, or are important in them. It doesn't say if the representations are good, or that films which pass are not sexist, or that the films which fail are. It doesn't even say if the film is good. It's just saying "Holy shit, there really haven't been that many films that have females who do anything for themselves." It's astonishing how many fail to have more than 1 character important enough to have conversations who are women, or how often when they do, that it's often about men, particularly in a romantic dynamic. And then it's really shocking, when thought of the other way "The Reverse Bechdel" when people consider that the reverse is far from true for males. As is often pointed out, Twilight passes the Bechdel test, and that's problematic as hell, yet Gravity, or a variety of others, fails, despite having a female lead. It's a quick way at getting an idea of female representation, as a trend, across the medium, and the individual films rarely matter.

And inevitably when someone considers Bechdel's point, they're mobbed with these points as if they'd never considered them, or that it wasn't what they were after, often by people who were anti-feminists to begin with, often with little or no understanding of or prior discussion of these issues, or why someone might consider the implications of the Bechdel test conditionally significant. They instantly come in thinking they're the smartest, most insightful, most informed person in the room, and procede to tell people what they already know as if it's some sort of damning piece of common sense, or god forbid, logic.

 

[C. Cain]

Guys, guys, guys - it's simple. It's really simple.

Women usually like assertive behaviour and fantasize about a strong dominating male "raping" them. In which the "raping" part must be put between commas since it's most definitely not a real rape. There's 1000000000000000000000000000000 girls-oriented manga and romance novels to demonstrate that, and Twilight and 50 Shades Of Grey are merely the tip of the iceberg.

I'm a feminist, but it would be a huge lie to deny that girls like to have fantasies about a strong man, that near on abuse. Why do you think you see teen girls writing entire fanfic subgenres in which one character is abused by another character who loves him/her? Why do you think fangirls fantasize even about Ramsay and Reek and such?

This does not mean said women would ever like rape and abuse for real. It's a game. It's a S/M play, just like you might get tied up to a fake hospital bed and your partner will be an evil doctor... it does not mean that you'd want a real mad doctor or that your partner is one.
Also, danger activates some part of the brain that can release sexual stimulus. It's why girls like the "bad boys".

Heh. I see you graduated from the prestigious Armchair School of Psychology. Did they hand you that broad brush during orientation or did you have to bring your own?

 

[Netrigan]

I don't know what rock you've been living under, but feminists have been VERY critical of both Twilight and Fifty Shades of Grey, both of which glorify abusive relationships and the absolutely horrifying amount of dependency both female protagonists have on their male counterparts.

Also the way any of the isms work is that they are ingrained into a culture, including the gender/race/whatever that it hurts the most. If sexism and misogyny weren't carried within women as well, it wouldn't be so hard to point out and fix. Most feminists I've talked with have discussed about how they've had to think long and hard about themselves and the beliefs they used to hold, and still find themselves stumbling into societal pitfalls.

For example, "I'm not like those OTHER girls!" I.e. "I don't like fashion or talk all the time about boys so obviously I'm superior to those vapid girls!" It's pretty terrifying how much my gender is raised to hate itself.

Feminists have always had a bit of trouble going up against bits which many women embrace. Stay at home mothers found it insulting in the 70s. Today you have the problem of Topless Feminists trying to shove their idea of gender equality on the Islamic world.

But then that's pretty much the reason there's so many factions. Second wave Feminists went after porn which didn't sit well with Feminist sex workers and thus was born Sex Positive Feminism.

Lately there's been a fair amount of talk about how feminists push male sex roles over female ones, making girly girls seem less empowered than tomboys.

 

[C. Cain]

It came as a graduation prize.

No, honestly tho, if we're talking generally and not just taking specific cases into account, my reasoning sounds fine to me!

I think it's a wee bit too broad. But this entire SJW topic has become so dour and tiresome that I can appreciate the broader tongue-in-cheek strokes. So paint away!

 

[European Uppercut]

It came as a graduation prize.

No, honestly tho, if we're talking generally and not just taking specific cases into account, my reasoning sounds fine to me!

I think it's a wee bit too broad. But this entire SJW topic has become so dour and tiresome that I can appreciate the broader tongue-in-cheek strokes. So paint away!

It's far too broad and straight up insulting - especially to bring stuff like that up in discussions such as this where the problem essentially boils down to people painting broad strokes over almost every issue.

 

[C. Cain]

It's far too broad and straight up insulting - especially to bring stuff like that up in discussions such as this where the problem essentially boils down to people painting broad strokes over almost every issue.

I'm oh so terribly sorry for being too irreverent for your taste. I should have known that one has to be sufficiently somber to talk about this topic. Especially since this is evidently the only thread where you can do so. Except for the fact that you'll find a plethora of threads, on this site, with hundreds of posts about this topic. Even this very thread has been serious for 82 posts. So why not read the first two pages if you didn't get enough of the serious stuff?

Just for the record: I don't agree with 8bitOwl. Right now I'm not interested in debunking his sophistry in detail. So feel free to come up with a point by point rebuttal yourself if you care that much.

 

[cthulhuspawn82]

Feminists and SJW only see sexism because they go looking for it, and in doing so they create it in their mind. Anita Sarkeesian looks at a game saying, "I want to prove this game is sexist, so I will specifically look for evidence that it is." When you "go looking" for evidence like that, you mind will create it.

How this relates to Twilight has to do with the fact that it was written by a female author. Being written by a woman; feminists don't scrutinize it for "signs of misogyny" and therefore, don't find any. They have no agenda to see it as sexist.

We can very easily categorize all movies/games/books into sexists and non-sexist categories. Every movie/game/book in which you look for sexism, is sexist, and every instance where you aren't looking for it, it's not

 

[C. Cain]

Feminists and SJW only see sexism because they go looking for it, and in doing so they create it in their mind. Anita Sarkeesian looks at a game saying, "I want to prove this game is sexist, so I will specifically look for evidence that it is." When you "go looking" for evidence like that, you mind will create it.

I hope you're being facetious.

How this relates to Twilight has to do with the fact that it was written by a female author. Being written by a woman; feminists don't scrutinize it for "signs of misogyny" and therefore, don't find any. They have no agenda to see it as sexist.

Aw, come on. This is just false. It's like you didn't even try at all.

We can very easily categorize all movies/games/books into sexists and non-sexist categories. Every movie/game/book in which you look for sexism, is sexist, and every instance where you aren't looking for it, it's not

Now you're just being deliberately obtuse.

 

[wulf3n]

Where does "choice" even come into that?

Uhhh, everywhere. At any point she could have said the magic word "no". "But" I hear you say, then the record label would drop her, to which I say So? It's still a choice.

O'Connor's point was very obviously not "Oh noes! You shook your ass in a way I dislike, now you are shunned from the woman-clique!" She was pointing out that there is a whole industry out there which takes women with extraordinary (or mediocre) talents and markets them primarily based on their bodies.

I know, shes saying "You chose to sell you're sexuality which makes you a prostitute and you should feel bad because prostitutes are bad" which is ironically sexist and borderline misogynistic.

She didn't "choose" that, at absolute best she "accepted" it.

Uhhh, how do you know that? Are you in her mind? Or is it just because you're of the belief that no woman would "choose" to sell their sexuality?

Again it all falls back to "You are free to choose what you want, provided you choose the same thing as me, otherwise you're not choosing you're being forced into it"

 

[Lieju]

surely the most extremist defenders of social justice will bark some stupid garbage like "they have internalized oppression" or something like that

its called internalised misogyny

I've always found that to be such a bizarre concept,

Why?

Why would it be odd if women accepted the same 'truths' about themselves as the men do?
Internalized hatred is a thing.
I have talked to many homosexuals for example who hate what they are because the society treats what they are as a sin or otherwise horrible.

Besides, it's very often a case of 'but it's different if it's me'.


"I'm not like those OTHER girls!"
"Yeah, I'm good at math, I guess I have a guy's brain."
"Yeah, it's okay for ME to have an abortion, my circumstances are special, most women would have them when they don't NEED them."
"Look at that woman being attractive, such a slut."

 

[Jaegerbombastic]

Oh definitely. But most of the time the response to the Bechdel test isn't one that hasn't already been considered, particularly by those applying it. When critics, or feminists, refer to the Bechdel test, it's a back of the napkin thing, a thought exercise, a quick way of thinking about how often women are in movies, or are important in them. It doesn't say if the representations are good, or that films which pass are not sexist, or that the films which fail are. It doesn't even say if the film is good. It's just saying "Holy shit, there really haven't been that many films that have females who do anything for themselves." It's astonishing how many fail to have more than 1 character important enough to have conversations who are women, or how often when they do, that it's often about men, particularly in a romantic dynamic. And then it's really shocking, when thought of the other way "The Reverse Bechdel" when people consider that the reverse is far from true for males. As is often pointed out, Twilight passes the Bechdel test, and that's problematic as hell, yet Gravity, or a variety of others, fails, despite having a female lead. It's a quick way at getting an idea of female representation, as a trend, across the medium, and the individual films rarely matter.

And inevitably when someone considers Bechdel's point, they're mobbed with these points as if they'd never considered them, or that it wasn't what they were after, often by people who were anti-feminists to begin with, often with little or no understanding of or prior discussion of these issues, or why someone might consider the implications of the Bechdel test conditionally significant. They instantly come in thinking they're the smartest, most insightful, most informed person in the room, and procede to tell people what they already know as if it's some sort of damning piece of common sense, or god forbid, logic.

To be fair to Gravity, it doesn't pass the Bechdel Test because there are only two characters in the movie that we see on screen; a male and a female.

I agree that the Bechdel Test is a good thought exercise to help determine whether a movie (and a videogame) is giving a fair portrayal of women or not. But the problem is that I feel a lot of people bring up the Bechdel Test like its an authoritative, academic way to determine this rather than being a fun, brainy exercise like Red Letter Media's one about describing characters without mentioning what they do and what they look like. The test's biggest flaw is that its usually done without context of whats in the movie and what the female characters do in it. Its an effective tool to point to potential issues, but its not the be-all-end-all in determining how positive a representation of women a movie has.

 

[jamail77]

You know, the "strong woman" that doesn't need to be rescued, is in command. You know the typical stuff Hollywood occasionally put out as "tokens" to appease these feminist critics.

snip

snip

snip

When did I mention anything about "core gamer" or whatever?

snip

All I'm saying is, if you want more females buying games, all the huffing and puffing about BS like not enough "strong female characters" and the presence of fanservice big boob females, is barking up the wrong tree.

snip

My main point is, if you want more women in gaming, you got to cater to them.

HOWEVER, what feminists are tell us that women want, may not actually be what they want.

Feminist go on and on about strong women characters. Bella is a counter-example that disproves the notion that games (and their stories) must have strong female characters to pull in a female crowd.

You are correct, women aren't a collective. But neither do feminists speak for all women. In fact, I would argue feminists speak for a relatively small minority. The majority who make million dollar budget productions viable probably don't have the same "concerns" as these outspoken feminists.

Again, I'm not sure why you keep bring up the "core gamer" thing. It has nothing to do with this. My thread was about bringing women into gaming and how we might be barking up the wrong tree.

He's explained why he keeps bringing up core gaming multiple times. I don't think you're deliberately ignoring his point though, so if it helps, I'll try and explain what I believe Zachary Amaranth is trying to say just because these sort of misunderstandings happen to fall under my nitpicks when discussing in the forums.

So, you talk about approaching this from an economical perspective, that to attract more women to gaming we need to cater to interests that have proven to draw a big crowd. As others have already stated in this thread though, it's widely believed that so many girls like Twilight for how it lets you simulate a romantic fantasy you have more control over with a character you can easily substitute for. It's about Edward and Jacob, not Bella. That's why there are so many Edward vs Jacob debates among fans supposedly. There might be some who legitimately like the series for Bella, but notice how little she is featured in the advertising and even when her ad screen time is comparable the emphasis isn't on her likability by a long shot.[footnote]I would also like to point out that this has been PROVEN a flawed perspective from a business standpoint multiple times due to outdated methods and lack of in depth research to show causal relationships among other reasons such as convenience and simplicity in a proven formula.For example, others have also pointed out how superhero movies were once considered something you couldn't count on to draw a crowd unless you did them with a hero who has became a huge pop culture icon and do it in a certain fashion. I'm talking about doing it similar to the live action 60s Adam West Batman, the 70s? Superman movies, or most recently the late 80s/90s live action Batmans (obviously updated for modern times, but similar fashion nonetheless) though that last one is stretching it since you could argue it actually kickstarted the true profitability of superheroes to the general public audience. Obviously, they are profitable regardless whether you follow the formulas of those three standards and no, it isn't just because of maturity among the general public or demographic changes. That wouldn't explain it all.[/footnote]

Let's assume you were right about what draws crowds to Twilight though. The issue here is what happens when YOUR interests are ignored? Zachary is trying to address whether you will still support "going where the money is" when whatever demographic of gaming you fall under, Zachary is assuming core gamer, based on other threads and old responses I guess, is neglected for the larger market that gaming has steadily been attracting. You, after all, did try to relate tropes against the female gender back to to the topic of gaming. I think it's valid to bring up how you feel about not getting catered to when you say feminists should stop complaining about not getting catered to because they aren't the majority of women.

Should they focus on bringing more women to gaming, their priority issue you seem to believe, by I don't know, asking for more games like Nintendogs and a console version of Bejewled or whatever games currently closest match the interest of the Twilight/Hunger Games/whatever crowd? Would you commit to equivalent actions to bring more non gaming males into gaming for the sake of a larger market, more diversity, whatever it is you'd like to get out of it even though that means less games you'd enjoy? Your demographic may contribute less to the market share, yet you're still profitable and the only reason your demographic would not be contributing more money in that case is because there is nothing interesting you guys. It's a self fulfilling cycle: Core gamers would not be profitable because they have nothing BIG targeting them and encouraging them because the industry has something easier they can work with. It's not like that would be an unhealthy risk either judging from the current time we're in when core gamers clearly exist and are still being catered to AND, most importantly, are clearly profitable and will continue to be even if they become a significantly less piece of the market share in the future.

Though, I would like to add that I personally believe the claims that core gamers will make up less market share are a little over-exaggerated, this makes a good analogy for you to relate to.

snip

snip

i didnt mean you cant critize things that dont offend you, but to accuse something of sexist when nobody is actually offended is disingenuous

also yes i am often offended by feminism, like when literally who #2 says im more likely to be a rape apologist because i play games with girls in bikinis

you know how fucked up is that? these people dont know about rape, I KNOW someone who was raped, is not even close to me, but when i heard about it i was devastated, the entire day i couldnt take thought out of my head, and i was simmering with rage at the disgusting piece of shit who deserves nothing less than the darkest corner of hell itself for all eternity

and im a rape apologist? no, fuck you literally who #2 and your retarded "tropes vs women in gaming" videos, one thing was barfing your logical fallacies about sexism in games, another very different is accusing gamers of being rape apologists

also im not giving literally who #2 more hits on google, thats why im not using her real name

Yes, that is really messed up. But, were you being attacked directly, with intent that you specifically were called out? I've never even seen her say something exactly like that. Even though I've only seen one video of hers (the first in her series) and read one article about her she doesn't come off to me as someone who would state that so bluntly. Keep in mind, I don't agree with or necessarily like her series; I personally find what little I've seen and heard to be bland and very intro level stuff lacking depth and appropriate rhetoric to sound non-threatening to people already on the fence of such issues. This is especially concerning because these people often lack education on the related issues let alone they myriad philosophies, movements, and intricacies to address them or claim they don't really exist. Hope that doesn't make me sound like an academic snob; experiencing these problems firsthand is just as useful, not just what you've heard in lectures and textbooks.

It is especially damaging to people of your circumstances as you've made clear due to the APPEARANCE of arrogance and the hurt it inflicts on you personally. Even if she doesn't say anything wrong intentionally it can come off that way in the way she presents it especially if that's all the experience you have of people on that side of the spectrum in your own bubble. And, really, we're all in our own little bubbles and trying to step out of our shoes aren't we? I'm not sure if this is allowed, but I'm going to quote something a couple people said on another thread. I'll leave their account names anonymous I guess until I get clarification. So, here's some things to understand:

You know how I know people talking about misogyny in gaming culture aren't talking about me and I have nothing to be worried about? Because I know I've never harassed women online. So frankly, I don't give two shits about any "the term gamer is dead" articles. Because that has in no way impeded my ability to play games or insulted me in any way.

I am also a COD fan, so I pretty much already know which people are talking about me specifically being bad for enjoying COD (Usually none) and who is just using a generalization that I don't fit in with.

You're not a misogynist? You're not hateful? These articles probably weren't talking about you then.

Before this 2nd quote helps me get into my point, I'd like to preface it by saying I don't necessarily agree SJWs don't exist. I'm actually not sure whether they do or not frankly.

SJW's don't exist. They were a label given by other people to describe whoever spoke of social issues, a label that very few people have taken up without a fairly substantial degree of irony. She may very well have been preyed upon by assholes, but what is it they say about every side?

Oh yeah: that it is filled with assholes.

Now, a quote from me from the same thread! =D Because convenience

This requires a nuanced perspective to see through the awful stuff people sometimes say to justify their belief system, way of life, and code of conduct. Otherwise, you don't get past your own biases that makes you feel victimized rather than seeing a critique for what it is, something looking at a group that happens to include you but isn't targeting good individuals, like you, of said group.

I don't want to dismiss [your personal experience] by trivializing serious issues because causes and groups CAN do this to people when they approach passerbys the wrong way especially passerbys with [backgrounds] like yours. Of course, you have to exclude all the people new to the philosophies and the realizations these things espouse and make clear respectively . These are people too easy to rush in, often sounding awful if not actually awful, because they lack the experience or knowledge to put it all together to make sense [even to themselves since their perspective on these issues is obviously incomplete to themselves as well] AND sound non-threatening. Though, there are plenty of awful people too either way. But, this isn't the way to advocate about [snip] [abuse] individuals [like you have faced] nor is it a good way to discredit movements.

I don't even say that to defend the movement. I'm not actively involved nor care about the issues on that high of a level. It's my problem with points like yours being made in these discussions. Believe me when I say I sympathize with Gamergaters. I know this isn't about that, but I see your avatar and I thought saying that might take the edge off. I also sympathized with people being attacked with the "SJW label" though. I'm not "above it all" and I certainly lean towards a side. Still, I feel respectful non-stereotyping discussion can happen and understanding at a nuanced level is always beneficial in these discussions even if it turns out one side is on the wrong side of history though I doubt that either side is.

I like what James Catling said too:

NuclearKangaroo, when feminists talk about something being sexist, they don't just mean "offensive to one gender". "Harmful to one gender" is a bit closer. If something reinforces negative stereotypes or harmful attitudes, it can be sexist without being offensive. Some feminists may well be offended by it, but they're offended because it's sexist, not the other way around.

For example: The character Kanji, in Persona 4, has a character arc which revolves around the fact that he's afraid people will reject him for being interested in 'unmanly' hobbies like sewing. The fact that society pressures men against engaging in such activities doesn't actually offend me, but I still think it's wrong and should change. In other words, I find such attitudes sexist. Does this distinction make sense?

Regarding the rape-apologist thing: I haven't watched any of Anita Sarkeesian's videos, so I've just had to track down the bit I think you're talking about. 'Women as Background Decoration Part 1', around the 29:50 mark? She says that studies have found long-term exposure to hyper-sexualised images leads people to be more accepting of certain rape myths and sexual harassment. That doesn't boil down to "liking games with bikini girls makes you a rape apologist"; maybe more "spending all of your time playing games where women are largely sex objects will eventually make you more susceptible to some dubious beliefs". You might disagree with that - it did start with 'researchers have found', so you might want to ask who exactly found it - but why be offended by it? It's a psychological and cultural claim. It shouldn't be taken personally.

People can choose to be offended by whatever they want, yet they often are in a much better scenario to not be offended in discussions like this for exactly these reasons. People who would ordinarily be more level headed and learn something fly off the lid and learn nothing locking themselves off from true understanding. You got it exactly right.

 

[wulf3n]

Why?

Why would it be odd if women accepted the same 'truths' about themselves as the men do? Internalized hatred is a thing.

It's not that it's impossible, but rather how can you be certain it's internalised misogyny, and not say said person just liking said thing?

It seems a bit presumptuous to assume you know more about someones reasoning/decision making more than the person themselves.

I have talked to many homosexuals for example who hate what they are because the society treats what they are as a sin or otherwise horrible.

A similar concept but different in that they're hating themselves for something they have no control over.

I'm talking more about people being happy with and choosing to follow societal conventions. Taking the twilight theme, sure women liking a movie about "traditional" relationship roles "could" be the result of society telling them they should, but it could just as easily be that that's what they want.

 

[Entitled]

It's not that it's impossible, but rather how can you be certain it's internalised misogyny, and not say said person just liking said thing?

These two are not necessarily contradicting each other.

It's just like with Lieju's above quotes about sexist shit that women can often mention in conversation:

Sure, there are certain women who just enjoy addressing other attractive women as sluts, or enjoy saying that they are "like a guy" for not being a shallow stereotype, but this enjoyment doesn't really change the fact that they are reinforcing blatantly anti-female attitudes.

Misogyny is not just about violent disgust from women, but also about dismissive, belittling assumptions about women, and so is internalized misogyny.

The problem with Twilight is not with it's fetish pandering, butr with it's overall narrative where Bella describes most other women in negative terms, and herself is entirely lacking agency or independent choices. 50 Shades is just porn, but when a romantic fantasy saga that millions of readers are emotionally identifying with, portrays a throughly anti-female pattern, that's a problem even if said readers are primarily girls.

Buffy the vampire slayer also had a submissive affair with a vampire who once attempted to rape her. The overall show still managed to be extremely respectful of women. And female viewers loved it. Male viewers loved it too.

 

[wulf3n]

These two are not necessarily contradicting each other.

It's just like with Lieju's above quotes about sexist shit that women can often mention in conversation:

Sure, there are certain women who just enjoy addressing other attractive women as sluts, or enjoy saying that they are "like a guy" for not being a shallow stereotype, but this enjoyment doesn't really change the fact that they are reinforcing blatantly anti-female attitudes.

Misogyny is not just about violent disgust from women, but also about dismissive, belittling assumptions about women, and so is internalized misogyny.

The problem with Twilight is not with it's fetish pandering, butr with it's overall narrative where Bella describes most other women in negative terms, and herself is entirely lacking agency or independent choices. 50 Shades is just porn, but when a romantic fantasy saga that millions of readers are emotionally identifying with, portrays a throughly anti-female pattern, that's a problem even if said readers are primarily girls.

Buffy the vampire slayer also had a submissive affair with a vampire who once attempted to rape her. The overall show still managed to be extremely respectful of women. And female viewers loved it. Male viewers loved it too.

And we are falling back on the "People are free to choose, provided they choose the same thing as me" aspect.

Captcha: I'm yours... Haha

 

[Entitled]

And we are falling back on the "People are free to choose, provided they choose the same thing as me" aspect.

People are free to choose, and if they choose misogyny, they get called mysogynistic.

We are not talking about what people are attracted to here, but about what conscious belief systems they support, and and yeah, some of those are inferior to others.


If anything, this "aspect" of the issue is basically just other words for the old "Dem libruls are really just intolerant against my intolerance!" problem.