Feminism (or women and mustachianism)

[Jamesqf]

Your assumption is incorrect. From this source on the Avengers: "Audience: 50% over 25, 50% under 25; 60% male, 40% female; 55% couples, 24% family, 21% teens." This is actually not as equal a demographic spread as for some comparable movies, like Iron Man or Thor.

Still 3:2 male, though.  And how many couples see it because this week it's the guy's turn to pick, and next week they see a "chick flick".

Besides, it's the underlying comic book genre that's really looking at a market centered around adolescent males.  The movie has to capture the artistic values of the genre, doesn't it?  So I thing using it as an argument for universal "male gaze" is pretty much assuming your conclusions,

[Ian]

Besides, it's the underlying comic book genre that's really looking at a market centered around adolescent males.  The movie has to capture the artistic values of the genre, doesn't it?  So I thing using it as an argument for universal "male gaze" is pretty much assuming your conclusions,

As I pointed out in a previous post, the market is not targeting adolescent males. Most comic book readers are much older and a substantial minority are women. And if you really think a 60% majority means that the 40% minority can be considered irrelevant, I'm not sure what to say to you.

And how many couples see it because this week it's the guy's turn to pick, and next week they see a "chick flick".

I don't know how many couples do that. Neither do you. How about providing a response of substance instead of repeatedly making unproven assertions that confirm your beliefs?

[Jamesqf]

As I pointed out in a previous post, the market is not targeting adolescent males. Most comic book readers are much older and a substantial minority are women.

I think you aren't seeing that there's a difference between target market and total audience, which includes the target plus more or less of a fringe.  For instance, the target market for "Harry Potter" was young teens, but it acquired a considerable fringe of adults.  That didn't mean that the nature of the books & films was changed to appeal to that market, does it?

And if you really think a 60% majority means that the 40% minority can be considered irrelevant, I'm not sure what to say to you.

Why?  If an author/comic book artist/movie director/whatever creates a work that is aimed at a particular target market, but finds that it has also acquired a considerable fringe, is that anything but gravy?  Should the author instead abandon the original artistic vision?

How about providing a response of substance instead of repeatedly making unproven assertions that confirm your beliefs?

Maybe if you could tell me exactly what you'd consider to be of substance, I'd do that.  As it is, your responses seem like nothing more than a rejection of logic & reason because they happen to conflict with your particular prejudices.

[Ian]

I think it's obvious this discussion has outlived its usefulness. It feels to me like I could post signed affidavits from everyone in the comics industry and you'd reply with something like, "Everyone knows they just say that sort of thing in public." If I'm rejecting logic, anyone reading the thread can judge me accordingly. I'll let the exchanges so far speak for themselves.

[ender]

This thread has been really interesting to read.

Someone previously said something about how feminists are often perceived similar to how evangelical Christians are perceived, ie based on extremist nutjobs (westboro "church") which really hit home for me.  As someone with a very strong Christian faith, the internet is very not-friendly and 100% filled with preconceived notions about who I am to the point I often don't even mention my faith online anymore, because people immediately assume all sorts of false things about me, my beliefs, my lack of intelligence, and a whole variety of other inane things.

I would caution everyone reading this to be aware of similar tendencies. Whether assuming things about those who are self described feminists in the thread, or, assuming anyone asking questions or probing automatically is an asshole who hates women, it seems there is a lot of assuming going on here.

[footenote]

This thread has been really interesting to read.

Someone previously said something about how feminists are often perceived similar to how evangelical Christians are perceived, ie based on extremist nutjobs (westboro "church") which really hit home for me.  As someone with a very strong Christian faith, the internet is very not-friendly and 100% filled with preconceived notions about who I am to the point I often don't even mention my faith online anymore, because people immediately assume all sorts of false things about me, my beliefs, my lack of intelligence, and a whole variety of other inane things.

I would caution everyone reading this to be aware of similar tendencies. Whether assuming things about those who are self described feminists in the thread, or, assuming anyone asking questions or probing automatically is an asshole who hates women, it seems there is a lot of assuming going on here.

Excellent point. I agree that a small number of people here take the most extreme example of X to attack X. For me, it's intellectually dishonest and immediately discredits the commenter. I just stop listening to (reading) their comments.

I'm glad you felt comfortable saying you have a strong Christian faith here - good for you. The vast majority of Christians I have known IRL are wonderful, caring people. I don't consider the Westboro crazies to be the least bit Christian.

[CommonCents]

At Thanksgiving, my sister-in-law told me about how "girl" legos apparently come pre-assembled while boy legos don't.  (I clearly don't have kids or I would have known about this sooner.)  As a kid, I played with the pirates set while my brother had the fortress.  But, today, I'd have been encouraged not to build at all.  This bothered me, so I looked it up and found this interesting article on how boys and girls are both harmed by gender stereotypes in toys such as legos (and a great Rube Machine video, although the music apparently had to change for it). 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CE0QqQIwAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhealthland.time.com%2F2013%2F11%2F27%2Fgoldieblox-sparks-a-pink-toys-debate-this-holiday%2F&ei=b6qaUsWyD9TWoASy1IDoBw&usg=AFQjCNHJXut-tBk0UiUgVGzEDljw5TIwgg&sig2=p6p5JyuNlhuidRsP9niQeQ&bvm=bv.57155469,d.cGU

[brewer12345]

Lego in general has gone seriously downhill.  When I was a kid lego sets were piles of legos with a few lego people tossed in.  You built whatever you wanted to and creativity was, if not explicitly encouraged, at least unimpeded.  Look at lego sets today: damn near every one is intended to be built into whatever thing s on the box and the bulk of them have some kind of obnoxious marketing tie-in with a Disney or other media property.

[JessieImproved]

This girl played the bejeesus out of some Legos as a kid (and will sit down with them as an adult on occasion too) - and she turned into a software engineer.  Give those girls some damn blocks!! :-)

[Elaine]

...but there are factual representations of the inequality between women and men, rates of rape and sexual assault for instance, or wage differences.

The question, though, is what is inequality and what is non-identity.  As for instance the fact that there are going to be very few female on male sexual assaults, because of basic difference in physiology and psychology.  There are also instances in which the balance tilts the other way, in favor of women.  It's still quite possible for a woman to walk away from a marriage with a very large (non-child support) divorce settlement, even though the man has produced most or all of the income.  (See e.g. Tiger Woods.)

Curricula in schools (e.g. how many female authors are taught...

But why should we care whether the authors are male or female?  Surely what matters is that they are good writers?

1. The inequality in divorce thing is absolutely stupid. Something that happens a lot when feminism or gender inequality is brought up is just this kind of question, that basically says, "but what about this other inequality that's toward men?" I agree with you actually, I don't think feminism is only beneficial for women, I think it will benefit men in many ways too. I don't think men should have to be strong and stoic to be masculine, I don't think they should automatically have to be the go to guy for cars, construction, or other "manly" pursuits. I don't think they should be expected to buy diamonds, pay for dates, and all that crap, and I don't think men should be relied on to be primary income makers in a family by default. However, I do believe that there are massive inequalities that women deal with and most men do not. I speak internationally as well, there are many places where women literally do not have rights. At. All. We are still defending freedom to choose in this country (u.s.).  And there are many more places where women have rights, but not autonomy. There are still day to day issues of harassment that I think happen more frequently to women. Not ONLY to women, they happen to minorities of all kinds. So I think because of that it's still important.

2. Well, yes, what matters is that they are good writers. But that logic is a bit dangerous, you could say that a company with all white employees isn't discriminating or problematic at all as long as those white employees are all qualified. Would that be true? Writing also isn't math or science, it's personal, creative, expressive. It involves characters, world building, struggles, and themes. So the difference between a science dissertation written by a woman versus a man- I honestly don't know if you could even tell. But I think based on the differences in human experiences, female writers and male writers often have different approaches. Male writers are less inclined to have female protagonists, and generally as a teacher wouldn't you want to reach as large an audience as possible? When you're teaching to a group of men and women, it's nice to have work that speaks to BOTH experiences, not just one as a default. I also don't think you should teach only white writers, only rich writers, only American writers, only writers born after 1970, etc. There's also a strong history of discrimination in the writing field, and since for years female writers were undervalued and under-read, many of the greats never quite made it into the canon of LITERATURE. Since times are changing it seems that should as well.