The Big Picture: Pink Is Not The Problem

[Darmani]

I get what bob is getting at...but...well...what is a "real pink female role model" like then? What stories can you tell with that? Most good stories take conflict. Of some kind. It doesnt have to end in a sky high body count, but to me at least, it has to be a bit more interesting than a fight over what color lipstick is the best to catch guys with.

Sailor Moon, Barbie in her career a day phase, The Ashley Twins, the Bratz and derivatives which are about self expression WITHOUT descending into irrelevance (the tv show had them run a really kickass paper, community involvement, and each of the girls is distinct in interest and personality and ethnicity but bonded by shared interests while sharing their own stuff too, Ever After High is juggling an interesting mix of traditional confirmation with rebellious self-definition and awareness)

This is a great question. hell the ORIGINAL My Little Pony showed hose heroism, communication, caretaking, cooperation and etc could be fun things that win quests. And their were other mattel "girl" toy propeties with cross appeal, like one where they controlled the stars in the universe
there are also a couple thousand shoujo manga (Swan, Fruits Baskets) that did and do this.
Even Sabrina the Teenage Witch, and Clarissa. Often "make up, dolls, and clothing" are means of self and artist and creative expression! Ignoring the Babysitter's Club and the large industry of novels with female rolemodels there is still Zoey 101, iCarly, Wizards of Waverly place, Matilda, and Hanna Montanna, and other stuff. We just discount it as it doesn't have the women stacking up bodies to be badasses which is a bit of a problem as THAT doesn't teach about actual conflict resolution, social contexts, and other stuff. Not all women like drama, hell no, but often female heroes take action as a side thing to being investigative, clever, resourceful and other things. And women like fucking dudes THAT'S often why they are super succesful and powerful while being courted by hot dudes they have all the power in the relationship over who are well into maturity as to the game playing losers that tend to be in their peer group in romantic plots/fiction

 

[Darmani]

Best deconstruction ever.

I see lot's of this at my (retail) job - even more now that I'm helping in apparel. Kids getting told a shoe is "too girly" or "looks like a boys shoe," girls turning down a camo shirt since it has a pink stripe or a boys onesie that has feminine drawings. I've even been asked to find another coworker, because the customer didn't want to talk to a man!

I understand that if you want to be "girlie" or "macho" that's your choice and okay. What bothers me is when they treat their opinion as law.

This is how it starts but its not invalid. Not wanting a man to dress your girl is.. well its just plain NORMAL not wanting strange men that intimate when you're just there to buy stuff! As is some female and male grouping and emulation.

 

[OldNewNewOld]

But isn't your whole argument about the hunger games and characterization flawed on it's own?
The thing that you said about stuff being neutral, neither bad nor good applies to behavior.
Behavior is neutral. They are neither masculine nor feminine. That means that the argument about the good female characters being masculine and bad male guys being feminine makes no sense. The girl making traps, killing animals and other shit isn't masculine. The guys in the capital drinking wine and having fancy suits isn't feminine.

Implying otherwise means you a sexist.
Why is it that feminists want "equality" yet they make such descriptions between of neutral stuff as masculine and feminine?

 

[tzimize]

-snip-

I'm not quite sure what you're saying.

My point is (I guess) that when I think of "female values" or "female characteristics" I think of lame stuff. Make-up. Picking up guys. Caring about fashion magazines. This is the "pink stuff" to me. And I really dont see how its possible to make that into a good thing.

There are a couple of characteristics that are usually appropriated by male heroes. But I dont really care about their gender, I care about their values and their deeds. I dont love Thor because he's a guy, or because he smacks up Loki (although that helps ) I love Thor because he's fighting for his people, and other people.

I dont look at this as a male value. Thor might as well have been a female. I dont look at getting in epic fights as being a male thing, I just think its fun to watch. And a lot of dames to too. I guess I just dont see what the big deal is. My biggest gripe with gender in todays entertainment is that females are usually there to look pretty, and thats it. I wish a lot of female actors got more to do than that.

Not too long ago I watched Friends with benefits. Relatively typically a "chick flick", but I enjoyed the hell out of it. Even when I hate Justin Timberlakes guts. Reason: Problably because Mila Kunis was brilliant. She was sexy, sure, but she was FUNNY as well. And she got to be the funny/alpha one on several occasions. Is this....er....non-sexist content? I'm just lot in this debate it seems. It might have been the first Big Picture I simply didnt quite get.

 

[Darmani]

I'd just like to point out that this whole issue makes my ancestors laugh, like, really REALLY hard. I'm of native descent and my tribe(amongst others) believed in completely free and open constructs. Men could be hunters just as much as they could be the cooks or the cleaners. Gay men(or women) were not considered "odd" they were considered "Womanly Spirited" or "Manly Spirited" and were able to become part of relationships without bias. Children were allowed(After a certain age) to participate in hunting, cleaning, creation of clothing, preparation of foods, whatever they were interested in regardless of gender. The age thing was mostly a "Just in case they get hurt" kind of thing. But, I digress, this is then and that was now. I just honestly don't understand the debate as a whole, let people become who they feel they should be, don't try to reinforce or abolish "constructs" and let the individual grow into who they choose to become. The whole "hard wiring" thing has been proven as mostly mythological, we've proven that the human mind is remarkably plastic.

Quoted for I'm sick of us not getting gender roles are a product not a resource. "ess advanced" (sorry I got nothing less offensive) cultures tend to be more gender neutral overall because you can't keep people restricted based on arbitrary things as to need. we just associate feminism with progression so in the past all women were kept and always in the same way when it was hellalot more complex than that.

 

[Doclector]

Very good video, completely spot on. I do believe we're making progress, but we're sprinting at it, leaping at it, not really thinking that we might fall right the fuck on our faces at some point. Other issues tied in with gender are trampled in the rush, dismissed as less important or distracting from the main charge.

In short, I believe we need to stop looking at women's rights as the big issue, or men's rights, or trans rights, and starting looking at, funnily enough for this video, THE big picture; Gender as a whole, and how we can dismantle gender roles and especially prejudice.

Now watch the good points made in this video get burned alive in unholy flame war as the most stupid voices in the discussion become the loudest.

 

[Darmani]

You have to respect people for who they are you don't have to respect people for their lousy opinions.

But you do have to respect, that even though these opinions are lousy, people are entitled to have them and live their life by them. We're not talking about showing them some sort of gratitude for being diverse in a negative way, it's about accepting the fact that you don't exclude anyone from society based on their opinion.
While that sounds painfully obvious, the fact is that their mere existence merits consideration as part of our world. It's far too easy to dismiss anyone who's opposite on a subject, without considering that they're part of the community in some way.

This is my major beef with the gender discussion in gaming as well as in everyday life, there's no consideration for anyone but themselves.
As an example, it's been thrown around that men feel their man cave is threatened by Tropes Vs. Women and they therefore do not have a legitimate claim of any sorts. The fact that some people do feel this way has no weight, gives no consideration and doesn't give cause to put things in perspective or to approach the subject in any other way. It's smallmindedness all around and everyone expects the other side to put everything that isn't cold fact aside for no other purpose than to try and find some logical conclusion that is "correct" and applies to every situation.

Stooping to cheap shots and belittling others is not the route to reach better results; Understanding and accepting eachother as different people with different wants and needs is. If that's too hard for some, then the discussion is beyond their understanding.

I want a like function there are too many posts I feel deserve praise, like this one.

 

[Lightknight]

Anytime someone claims that boys and girls are interested in what their interested in because of society, I will post this.
Dont ignore this just because of the title, just watch the damn thing.

Nobody should ignore it because of the title. Everyone should ignore it because its use of Selective Editing and Reporter Bias.

Or perhaps that it has exposed breasts in it on a site where such links are generally not permitted. But seeing as the video is over 30 minutes I can hardly blame them for forgetting a two second screen of a nude woman towards the beginning.


Anyways, the point of the article is valid even if the bias and editing are considered laughable. There are actual differences between the sexes that have real impacts in societal norms. Pretending like we're all the same trivializes our unique strengths and abilities as well as our weaknesses. As I said earlier, the very notion of transgenderism indicates that there actually are binary genders even if they aren't necessarily always assigned to their regular sex. Why else would a physically male individual say that their gender is female if there's no such binary concept of gender? They genuinely feel like they've got a gender identity that does not match their physical body and if nothing else that should only affirm the binary dichotomy that is male and female gender.

The pink Aisle is not there to tell girls what to want. The pink aisle is there to sell pink products to whoever wants it. A girl that prefers Batman can find him a few aisles over. But by and large, boys and girls do have real differences and only get larger as they get older. Ignoring real biological differences and even dismissing cultural ones as needing to end even if they aren't harmful isn't being forward thinking. It's backwards in the same way that holding to negative gender roles is.

 

[CymbaIine]

I probably should've pointed out, that "some" in my post, doesn't apply to "Farther than stars". I didn't mean to undermine his point, I thought, that was obvious.

Yeah I can see that now. Sorry.

 

[persephone]

I just wanted to mention something.

If you like Anime, you should really watch Revolutionary Girl Utena. It is an anime that is ABOUT what you just described: a young woman who decides that she wants to be a "prince" and rescue "princesses".

There is literally a scene that mirrors what you described (ie, a girl telling the title character that she can't rescue her because the title character is a girl), except less playgrounds and more sword fighting with non-blunted blades.

I do like anime, and I have seen a solid part of the first season of Revolutionary Girl Utena. Oddly enough, though, I didn't like it. It had nothing to do with the themes of an aggressive, woman-rescuing woman, though; I just didn't care for the writing and some of the particular conceits the anime used. I am told that if you stick with it the writing really pays off later on, but I didn't feel like sticking with it; I only even stuck with it for as long as I did because a friend of mine really wanted me to watch it.

Puella Magi Madoka Magica did a very good job of painting a picture of the kind of hero my grade school self would've loved to be -- at least in fantasy (probably not at all in reality, I am and was an extreme loner). Beautiful dresses and clothing, a pretty transformation sequence, assertive rescues, ass-kicking power.

 

[Disthron]

Ok, over all this was a pretty good episode. But when it go to the Hunger Games section I had to call BS on it. Didn't you ***** and moan throughout the Catching Fire review about how Catness was suffering from PTSD and the general presence of emotion as opposed to her turning into a stoic, all out action girl? It seems pretty hypocritical to then come over to this video and say that she was too much of an action hero and not enough of a woman.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

I do like anime, and I have seen a solid part of the first season of Revolutionary Girl Utena. Oddly enough, though, I didn't like it. It had nothing to do with the themes of an aggressive, woman-rescuing woman, though; I just didn't care for the writing and some of the particular conceits the anime used. I am told that if you stick with it the writing really pays off later on, but I didn't feel like sticking with it; I only even stuck with it for as long as I did because a friend of mine really wanted me to watch it.

That is too bad. Utena is a slow boil, and it does mess with it's viewer a bit - and I'm guessing some of the things that were annoying you were being done to set something else up later.

You might want to check out the manga then. The story in the manga is far tighter and gets to the point a lot quicker, and isn't nearly as subversive, but it doesn't make you sit through 39 episodes for a payoff.

Alternatively, you could watch the Utena movie, which is the entire series on super-fast-forward. It tells the whole story in less than two hours... and goes trippy as hell in the third act to do it.

Puella Magi Madoka Magica did a very good job of painting a picture of the kind of hero my grade school self would've loved to be -- at least in fantasy (probably not at all in reality, I am and was an extreme loner). Beautiful dresses and clothing, a pretty transformation sequence, assertive rescues, ass-kicking power.

Madoka is often considered a spiritual successor to Utena - not the least of which because the series creators were Utena fans and made several references to it in Madoka. There's a certain scene between Sayaka and Kyoko that was modeled off the spinning rose from the Utena opening credits.

Anyway, Madoka is awesome. If you were wondering where Utena goes, the end of Madoka will give you some idea... on the scale of awesome, anyway, if not on plot.

 

[Orekoya]

But isn't your whole argument about the hunger games and characterization flawed on it's own?
The thing that you said about stuff being neutral, neither bad nor good applies to behavior.
Behavior is neutral. They are neither masculine nor feminine. That means that the argument about the good female characters being masculine and bad male guys being feminine makes no sense. The girl making traps, killing animals and other shit isn't masculine. The guys in the capital drinking wine and having fancy suits isn't feminine.

Implying otherwise means you a sexist.
Why is it that feminists want "equality" yet they make such descriptions between of neutral stuff as masculine and feminine?

Many western societies, including the US, consider the following to be masculine traits: outwardly focused(as in focused on community, government, etc), analytical, hunter, strong, hardened, stoic, aloof, muscular, rational, outspoken, active, assertive, courageous, bold, initiative, ambitious, revolutionary, leading, competitive, decisive, adventurous, self-reliant, dominant, experienced, lusting, slovenly, oafish, domineering, authoritative, distant, self-serving, forceful, aggressive, destructive, rebellious.

It also considers these to be feminine traits: inwardly focused(as in focused on family, friends, etc), intuitive, gatherer, gentle, sensitive, compassionate, sympathetic, soft, emotional, warm, nurturing, graceful, communicative, relational, reserved, demure, passive, receptive, cooperative, accepting, dependent, submissive, inexperienced, chaste, kempt, manipulative, power-hungry, weak, fickled, begrudging, obsessive, scornful, vain, greedy.

Stuff being neutral is simple to grasp because stuff inherently does not have a gender to skew itself towards. It's why the societal gender identity attached to stuff can be so easily scrapped off. But behavior is a by-product of the animal in question, humans, who have genders. It mucks up people's ability to differentiate the source of why one might exhibit said behavior. When societies and cultures spend hundreds if not thousands of years saying behavior x belongs with gender x and behavior y belongs with gender y as part of a basic gender identity, they are saying that those are inherently masculine or feminine traits as part of that society's view of gender roles are however wrong that society is - since yes, either gender can exhibit trait x or y. That doesn't stop members of said society/culture from painting its art with broad strokes, even if it's unintentional or counterproductive to their intended message.

Being aware of these stereotypes doesn't mean someone is sexist.

What he's pointing out is that throughout history alot of the western culture works have painted the heroes with mostly positive stereotypically masculine traits and the villains with mostly negative stereotypically feminine traits. Let's take that example floating around, the Hunger Games. The villains are mincing to be slightly demure and preening with perfectly coiffed hair, cosmetics and frilly outfits to show vanity and an obsession with being kempt. They're clearly greedy in their indulgent practices while others nearby are barely scrapping by. Their controlling is based more on seizing power than authority. They're begrudging of Katniss for how she won, her way. They're extremely manipulative in how they go about getting their revenge. Their negative traits easily split in favor of being almost exclusively on the feminine list. Whereas Katniss is a symbol of rebellion and revolution. She's independent, stoic, strong, courageous and a hunter to boot. While her negative traits split fairly even between masculine and feminine, her positive traits are almost exclusively masculine beyond her sympathy to the downtrodden which means it's an outwardly focused sympathy. The reason why he mentions 'the cat' is because the latest additions to this insipid list of stereotypical masculine/feminine traits is that liking/owning dogs is now considered a masculine trait while liking/owning cats is considered a feminine trait.

 

[Farther than stars]

...the gender stereotyping our society...

Why is it feminine to wear skirts? Why is it feminine to have long hair? Why is it masculine to be a car mechanic?

Oh, my...somehow I can't shake the feeling, that Bob and some others here, think that America in it's current form is the only country that ever existed.

http://thechinachronicle.com/why-chinese-men-grow-long-fingernails/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_skirts

http://cosmeticsinfo.org/Ancient-history-cosmetics

Cosmetically accentuating different bodily features was allways done in order to impress and label people (stunning, right?). Yes, it was also about sex, as in: impressing the opposing gender. But first and foremost, it was about impression. Having smooth skin and soft hair is an indication that you have the time and money to bother with having those. Having dresses in which it is impossible to run indicates that you dont need to run. Having long finger nails indicates that you dont have to work with your hands.
Even in early America, people of both genders wore differently sized hats and long, expensive wiggs to show their social status. The industrial revolution and a few (or better: many, many) wars favored exceptionally more men than women in the workforce and that is why cosmetics became a female dominated field in the west.

I'm British, but that's besides the point. If certain practices, such as men wearing lipstick, are accepted in other parts of the world, then that's great for those other parts of the world, but that still leaves us with the problem that they're not universally accept in the West.
As to the point on women dominating cosmetics, I'm missing a link. How exactly does 'men being a larger part of the workforce' lead to 'women becoming more involved with cosmetics'? Also, the restrictions that limited women from joining the workforce are now largely gone in the Western world. So why is it specifically here that the cosmetics industry has developed so exponentially?

 

[Farther than stars]

That's actually quite an offensive way to it. I appreciate that you firmly stand on the side of 'vanity is bad', but plenty of accredited feminists do not. MovieBob's intelligence should not be pulled into question on this point. The main reason why the 'vanity is bad' argument is problematic, is that 'it is OK to have fun'. If wearing make-up makes you happy, you should be allowed to do that, the same way that it's OK for me to play a round of FTL if I get enjoyment out of it. In that same instance, it is progressive to make short shrift of the attitude that 'video games are something for kids'. Even utilitarianism does away with functionality at the moment that it impedes on human happiness.

I didn't question his intelligence, he seems like an intelligent guy. He just doesn't seem to have a very good grasp on this particular issue.

I don't think "vanity is bad" and "video games are for kids" are at all equivocal. Who are the accredited feminists that disagree with me? I would be genuinely interested to read what they have to say.

Well, I would advise reading up on Lipstick Feminism in general, but if you're looking for specific writers, most prominent feminists actually take a stance along the lines of: society shouldn't expect women to conform to beauty standards, but women should be allowed to choose how they act and dress. Naomi Wolf springs to mind as a fairly prominent contemporary writer who holds this position.
The way in which 'vanity' and 'playing video games' are similar is that they're both personal choices that, in principle, shouldn't be prohibited by society. If you would want to limit that choice, you would need to prove that vanity is more damaging to society than taking away the personal happiness that someone derives from being vane.

 

[HalfTangible]

I would argue that the problem is that we associate evil things with women, not that we associate traditionally feminine things with evil. Take Xerxes, an example you used: snide, skeeving, leering, obsessed with appearances? Those are all bad things for their own reasons (though admittedly that last one's only really bad because he's in the middle of a warzone) - overtly sexual behavior to a married person you're at war with that isn't attracted to you, arrogance, vanity, etc. but when you bring up these things are traditionally feminine, my thoughts turned to a different direction. Why is femininity associated with pride, overtly sexual behavior, condescension and obsession with one's appearance in the first place?

While I haven't seen the Hunger Games, from what you said in this video (and my small snippets of knowledge on it) I would also argue that the reason their villains appeared 'effeminate' was because they were decadent (in an era where the poor apparently have to play gladiatorial blood sports to get food) and we associate decadence and care for one's appearance with femininity. The problem is less that we associate evil with decadence, and more that we associate decadence with women.

TL;DR: I feel you're skipping the middleman.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

Overall, that was surprisingly good stuff.

Much more reasonable and thought provoking than I thought it would be.

One the other hand..... I think you are missing the point on the 300 and Hunger Games bad guys.

Yes, women are often portrayed as evil, but I really don't think that was the case in those two movies. In both cases, the frilly preening and whatnot were less feminine and more wealthy. Everybody hates an arrogant rich guy and it's much more sensible to make the distinction of Catfish and Lionides being the tough, honorable, somewhat average people (even though Leo is a king, he's still shown that way) and the evil people being so arrogant and rich that they look down on the good guys.

Just my take.

Looking at the brief clips of the Hunger Games, I've come to the conclusion that the establishment are probably based on how we viewed the old Aristocracies, particularly the popular image of the French up to the Revolution. If the phrase "Death to the Aristos" doesn't come up in that series somewhere, I'd be very surprised.

Well, your analysis seems to be a fair bit more informed and intelligent than mine or Bob's for that matter so I'll trust what you said.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

I dont think they used the whole men in frilly clothes to make the evil feminine works. I think they just used styles from English history where the posh men wore wigs and makeup during the Regency period. Not saying this is always the case, but in the hunger games, thats what i took from their dress sense. Same with the bad guy in 300, he is head of a massive empire, he lived in a decadant time so covering himself in jewels and gold isnt really an issue.

I think your looking way to much into this Bob, way to much, some of your connection seemed to be really minor at best. The pink thing is for young girls, dont think you can use that thing for adults and movies. Though i of added rubbish like how they have branded things pink for adult woman like hammers with pink handles etc Now that stuff is insulting and normally costs more than a standard generic hammer.