I wanted to revise my question, but first, a little diatribe about Sin City.
My interest in this film has been such ever since it came out and I just never got around to seeing. And, the lazy little thing I am, I didn’t research it much either. I knew it was based on a graphic novel series by Frank Miller and I knew that Robert Rodriguez directed it, and I also knew it was violent and Jessica Alba played a stripper.
What I did not now that is was the most brutal, 2 hour woman-hating blood bath I could ever endure, aside from watching a snuff porn.
I am very disturbed that many people I know, including intelligent, feminist women, could enjoy, let alone LOVE this film. For those who have not seen it, let me give you the run-down: 3 vignettes– one (“That Yellow Bastard”) about an aging cop who saves a little girl from a pedophile, and then when she grows up to be a stripper, proceeds to almost sleep with her, and then when she gets kidnapped by rapist AGAIN, tells her not scream, and then we are treated to a long, porny sequence of her being tied up and whipped. The second story (“The Hard Goodbye”) is about the revenge a deformed psychopath (who has a perpetually naked lesbian parole officer) tries to take on whoever killed his “perfect woman”–a prostitute who slept with him for protection; did I mention during the journey he slaps around her twin sister? And finally, “The Big Fat Kill” stars a band of scanitly clad prostitutes who are good with guns, have a silent Japanese girl killing machine on their side, but still need the woman-beating Clive Owen to save them from a spot of trouble.
Let explain a few things: a violent woman is not empowered if she is also a sex object. She is also not empowered if she has no VOICE. Not one woman narrated a story in this film. All the women were sex workers, except for the lesbian parole officer whose boobs were on display, oh, EVERY TIME SHE WAS ON SCREEN!!! A woman who wields a gun is not empowered if she is still slapped around by men.
These women had no agency. Yes, I understand the point of Sin City is to depict a setting where there is no MORALS left. But why why why why WHY WHY WHY does that have to mean women must be both sexually degraded and violently punished? And it’s not just within the context of the story? What about the lingering shots of women being tortured or abused? What about the needless stripping sequences? (Nancy’s story would have been just as powerful if she was not a stripper?) What about all the boobs, the fucking boobs? I’ll tell you why: because film-makers seem to think the only reason men would be interested in a movie is if some hottie was shaking her goods on screen. It should be insulting to both men and women. Furthermore, the silencing of women somehow makes the male characters, otherwise violently boring ingrates, more interesting. It gives them purpose: whether that be saving a silenced woman or punishing a woman.
And the story I keep getting over and over is that the women in Sin City are badasses. However, they are only aloud to be badasses in the context of a male fantasy: a stripper who is “strong enough” not to scream when being whipped by a rapist. A silent, exotic Japanese ningette. A half-naked prostitute, toting a gun and turned on by her boyfriend slapping her around.
That leads me to this: Are there any female superheroes who are not pornified? That is to say, they do not have breasts all ajiggle and strategically-skimpy outfits? Are they functional or eye candy? Can they have male fans for reasons other than their appearance?
Now, I know the blog sphere has been a-buzz with the rad fem vs sex pos debate: Well, hear DRF: There is feminist, and there is not feminist. You can enjoy sex, hate it, be apathetic towards it, and still be a feminist. The end. I love sex. But I hate Sin City.
43 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 26, 2008 at 5:11 am
Black Thirteen
See, one thing this draws my attention to.
Having women be targets of violence in movies, in an unapologetic manner…
Is equality.
Men have been the targets of explosions, knives, dismembering, gunshot wounds, decapitations, swords, axes, hangings, whippings, beatings, and every form of violence imaginable.
Nobody. Twitched.
Killing/beating men is acceptable, and ignored.
Someone does the same to a woman (in a fictional movie/book/etcetera) and suddenly, everyone is up in arms.
I can’t be the only one noticing the glaring double standard here.
July 26, 2008 at 5:13 am
Black Thirteen
I should add: You can’t much complain about “pornified” (my goodness, I hate made up words.)
Male superheroes are bulging, over-muscled Adonises, with square jaws and always-handsome faces, with perfect hair, and usually rich.
So, it’s really hard to find validity in complaints that female superheroes are too busty, too beautiful, etcetera.
July 26, 2008 at 3:11 pm
goingtomontreal
My problem isn’t violence, per say. I think violence against people in films is…well…maybe not problematic.
The problem is, for me, the sexualized violence. Name me a movie where a man is a victim of violence that is somehow turned into a pornographic moment.
And FYI: I also have a problem with the hyper-masculine depiction of men in action movies–however, I found that there was no “heartthrob” element in Sin City. Bruce Willis is an old man. Clive Owen is skinny and not exactly glamorous. And Marv is disfigured. All of the women, however, were young, supple, naked and beautiful.
But you are right…the same goes for male superheroes. But to me, there is still a difference. Batman, for example, does not wear his sexuality on his sleeve. Bulging muscles are functional in terms of being a superhero. Huge breasts are not.
July 26, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Black Thirteen
Well, violence in movies isn’t a problem. People need more entertainment than comedies and romantic dramas.
People enjoy violence. Deny it all you want, but humans like it. We’ve always liked it. Roman Coliseum on up to Die Hard.
Also, just for the record, a lot of women find Clive Owen very attractive.
There’s also a lot that find Bruce Willis attractive.
Anyway, moving on. Bulging muscles help Batman, sure. Does being a square-jawed, perfect-haired man help, too?
Do bulging muscles help Superman, who has strength that isn’t sourced in the size of his muscles, but in his alien powers? Does Thor need huge muscles? He’s a god. His powers come from his heritage, not his physique. In fact, most male heroes are not standard humans, or not human at all. Giant muscles are meaningless for someone who has superhuman strength based in powers, not muscles.
Does Tony Stark, (Iron Man) need to be square jawed and handsome? His face is shielded behind a helmet, but whenever he takes it off, there he is, handsome enough to draw everyone’s attention.
At least you didn’t go too much into the costume argument. I’ve heard that one too many times. If a female is wearing skin-tight spandex, it’s “sexualized”, if a male is, it’s “functional”.
As far as wearing one’s sexuality on their sleeve, I think you’re a little guilty of some misogyny in that. So, does having “huge breasts”, as you say, suddenly mean a woman is more sexual than another? It almost sounds like you’re implying that having big breasts means she’s slutty.
At the end of the day, male superheroes are square jawed, strikingly handsome, rich, and hyper-muscular for the same reason the females are gorgeous, wide-hipped, and big breasted.
They’re given the physical extremes of “masculine” and “feminine”. They’re idealized.
July 26, 2008 at 7:11 pm
goingtomontreal
I don’t think bulging muscles always = sexual though. I think bugling muscles can be problematic by depicting an image of hypermasculinity, but it’s not SEXUAL.
Again, I didn’t say that violence against women is inherently bad, or that muscley superheroes are ok. My problem is the SEXUAL VIOLENCE against women. And there are plenty of non-hypermasculine-sexualized superheroes: Spiderman, for instance, or the Hulk (whose hypermasculinity is so powerful it is grotesque). Big Muscles = Power. Big breasts = sexual.
Now, in real life, where you say that I am implying that big breasts MUST equal slutty (a claim I never made) is different than a FICTIONAL depiction of a character, whose animator CHOSE to give her big breasts.
And you are right, there may be no need for certain male superheroes to have such physical traits.
But the rule with action female-types is they HAVE to be “hot,” they have to wear skimpy costumes (skimpy means revealing, not tight) and they have to be gorgeous.
The power they have plays into a male fantasy. The power a superhero has also plays into a male fantasy: being strong, violent, and rich (a PERCEIVED masculine fantasy, is what I should say.) When male comic artists (and yes, the vast majority are MALE) draw a hyper-manly superhero, they crafting for male audiences–they are depicting what they thing a young boy would want to emulate. When they design a female superhero, they depict what they think a male audience would want to look at. Both are designed with the male audience in mind.
It’s wrong, either way, but I blame the patriarchy.
And that’s the end of that story.
July 26, 2008 at 7:54 pm
lindabeth
Bulging muscles are functional in terms of being a superhero. Huge breasts are not.
excellent point. And actually, huge breasts and skimpy clothing inhibits a female superhero or ass-kicker.
Not to mention, bulging muscles are not really all that sexually desirable, yet I keep hearing this same defense from men. Most women I’ve been talking to lately in person and in blogs do not find men who look like they could rip your head off to be desirable….the men they like wouldn’t be as compelling as superheros, though.
And don’t forget, just because the men have bulging muscles does not mean they are sexulaized or turned into objects of desire by the film itself. Possessing a sexually attractive body and being sexualized are 2 different things entirely.
July 26, 2008 at 8:04 pm
lindabeth
Also…
Sure Clive Owen and Bruce Willis are fairly attractive in real life…not in that film though.
And surely you see the discrepancies in age and (lack of) clothing. If they’re both wearing skin-tight clothing, no problem. But in this film, the women are largely naked (or almost) and the men aren’t.
It also says a lot when ideal masculinity is about strength, honor, and influence (and being dressed) and ideal femininity is about displaying and complying with male desire. That’s patriarchy, my friend.
July 26, 2008 at 11:16 pm
ororo
I just want to throw out there the idea that not only are female superheroes more sexualized than male superheroes but that there is more variety among male bodies in comics than there are among female bodies. You have sizes ranging from little Spiderman to The Hulk among the male characters. But female characters are much more limited in their variety. The major difference between women is their hair color. You’ll see some minor height differences and the occasional breast size difference (most have large breasts and then there’s Power Girl) but the female bodies fall in a narrower range than the male bodies. Plus, pretty much everything comic fans point out about the male characters (broad shoulders, height, square jaw) is just a visual short-cut to the audience. All of those things show strength, power, and heroism. They are not meant as sexual because the audience (at least, what the creators think of as their audience) is male. I really don’t see Wonder Woman’s large breasts signaling her strength or power.
Killing/beating men is not pointed out because there are more male characters and that means more violence toward those male characters. The stories are mostly told from male perspectives. The stories are written mostly by men for men. Women are, for the most part, marginalized in these stories. So when a woman is killed/beaten it means a bit more to the female members of the audience. Add in the sexualized nature of violence toward women in comics (think Tigra!) and you have a system that is more cruel to the female characters in comics than the male characters.
Sorry to go on so long. I rarely post on other people’s blogs but I loved this post. I can’t stand Frank Miller’s work and this movie is a perfect example as to why.
Great blog!
July 27, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Black Thirteen
I don’t think bulging muscles always = sexual though. I think bugling muscles can be problematic by depicting an image of hypermasculinity, but it’s not SEXUAL.
Well, big breasts can fall under hyperfemininity, not necessarily sexual.
And there are plenty of non-hypermasculine-sexualized superheroes: Spiderman, for instance, or the Hulk (whose hypermasculinity is so powerful it is grotesque). Big Muscles = Power. Big breasts = sexual.
In recent years, Spidey has been given larger musculature, and has fallen into more “standard” male hero physical cliche.
Again, for him, the size of his biceps are irrelevant. His strength comes from his genetics alterations. The Hulk is far stronger than his oversized muscles could achieve.
Like I said, it’s all in how you take it. Both are images of the extremes. One being masculinity, one being femininity. Big breasts are not inherently sexual.
Just because some people sexually desire big chested women doesn’t mean that big breasts automatically equal sex. If that were the case, then, because some women desire men with large biceps, then you could say muscular male = sexual.
But the rule with action female-types is they HAVE to be “hot,” they have to wear skimpy costumes (skimpy means revealing, not tight) and they have to be gorgeous.
Well, all the males are “hot”, wear skintight outfits, and are quite frequently wealthy.
The power they have plays into a male fantasy. The power a superhero has also plays into a male fantasy: being strong, violent, and rich (a PERCEIVED masculine fantasy, is what I should say.
That would work, except I’d argue that women want a rich man more than men want to BE rich.
It’s wrong, either way, but I blame the patriarchy.
I don’t think it is. Superheroes are characters that are idealized paragons of their respective traits.
excellent point. And actually, huge breasts and skimpy clothing inhibits a female superhero or ass-kicker.
How does skimpy clothing inhibit? The less you have on, the more freedom of movement you have. Somehow, I don’t think Wonder Woman would be fighting so well, if she was clothed in full body robes.
Not to mention, bulging muscles are not really all that sexually desirable, yet I keep hearing this same defense from men. Most women I’ve been talking to lately in person and in blogs do not find men who look like they could rip your head off to be desirable….the men they like wouldn’t be as compelling as superheros, though.
And there are plenty of men who don’t like huge boobs, or skinny women. You can’t really rely on what “some people you know” say about a thing.
Still, complaints about violence against female characters still ring hollow to me. If the males can take numerous methods of violence, so can the females.
July 28, 2008 at 12:29 am
goingtomontreal
Black Thirteen–
I don’t know how many times I have to type this for you to get, but I will spell it out for your simple brain:
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN IN THIS FILM IS NOT THE PROBLEM. IT IS THE SEXUALIZED VIOLENCE.
Men in this movie get shot and cut up. Women get tied up, slapped around, whipped and raped. SEE THE FUCKING DIFFERENCE?
Secondly: As a large breasted woman, yes, large breasts that are virtually unsupported by a flimsy costume would make it next to IMPOSSIBLE to run.
Thirdly: How can you say: “That would work, except I’d argue that women want a rich man more than men want to BE rich.” and then “And there are plenty of men who don’t like huge boobs, or skinny women. You can’t really rely on what “some people you know” say about a thing.” YOU JUST CRITICIZED THE KIND OF ARGUMENT YOU JUST USED.
FINALLY: It is a really really really really really really REALLY stupid thing to say that some men don’t like big boobs, therefore big boobs on a female superhero are not sexual. Our culture has constructed the female body in a way to say BOOBS = SEXUALLY DESIRABLE. And, while I will acknowledge that the way male superheroes are designed as well is problematic, it doesn’t erase the fact that female superheroes are objectified. The end.
You really have no argument here. Please, start using that brain of yours or I’ll stop posting your useless comments.
July 28, 2008 at 1:07 am
lindabeth
You know what, I just thought of another thing, since, ironically, as I was flipping through the channels just now, Sin City is on MTV.
I’m pretty offended that strippers and prostitutes are female version of lawlessness and immorality.
The men are killers, crime bosses, and overall violent people. Makes sens that this falls under the “sin” of Sin City. But why must the female version of “sin” be sex work? That’s pretty anti-progressive, eh?
July 28, 2008 at 1:17 am
Ashley
Kacie, you should definitely check out anything by Joss Whedon. His female leads are way more about character and way less about being sexual objects. If you’re looking for a female hero who is sexual without being sexually objectified, you’d love Zoe from the series Firefly especially.
Black Thirteen, the normalization and minimization of violence against men in the movies has everything to do with our culture’s understanding of what men “should” be, which feminists strongly challenge. It’s worth noting that it’s men who are writing, directing, producing, and viewing most of the movies about male violence, and that the protagonist in the vast majority of these movies is a man. Why do you think that might be? Why do men police each other and insist that other men have to act “tough” and invulnerable?
Anyway, Kacie’s post wasn’t about the way our culture enforces certain behavior in men. It was about the way our culture represents women in film. You’re ignoring her point and recentering the conversation on men, which is sexist.
While a discussion of masculinity as our culture imagines it is incredibly important, especially for men like you who generally accept cultural pressure to conform to gender stereotypes, not every discussion has to be about men—particularly when women’s experiences are so widely ignored in our culture.
July 28, 2008 at 1:36 am
goingtomontreal
Linda Beth– Wow, it was on MTV?!?!? How are they allowed to show it on television (even cable)? Is it just one big censor bar? And really good point about how female “sin” must equal sex.
Ashely– I will have to check out Firefly. Alot of my friends talk about it, and if it gets the fellow feminist stamp of approval…I’m in. Thanks! And also thank you for articulating my thoughts so well since I was just hung up on all the “what about teh menz!!” arguments and just getting pissed off.
July 28, 2008 at 1:47 am
JeezLouise
Out of curiosity, do you ever have an intelligent argument or debate with anyone? Possibly even listen to anyone else’s point of view? Every argument you get into in your comments section always ends with your uber-condescension and declaring that they don’t get it. How can you expect to change anything with an attitude like that?
It seems the only way for you to not snap at someone that disagrees with you is play to your ego.
For what it’s worth, our culture hasn’t constructed boobs as sexually desirable, talk to any anthropologist and they will more than happy to show you that is a part of evolution and perceived fertility. Also, the flimsy costumes were even flimsier in the comic, Jessica Alba’s character is supposed to be completely topless.
July 28, 2008 at 1:53 am
JeezLouise
I saw Ashley’s Firefly reccomendation. Check out Series 4 of Doctor Who, Donna Noble, I feel she is a strong feminist character.
July 28, 2008 at 1:56 am
goingtomontreal
Out of curiosity, do you a) actually read my blog–because if you did then you’d see that I have had plenty of people disagree with me using intelligent and well thought out comments that I didn’t “uber condescend” to or b) think that I care what you think.
I understand that in terms of biology, that yes breasts are a sign of fertility and therefore a desirable trait in a potential mate. I was simply rebutting what Black Thirteen said when he tried to tell me that “boobs aren’t always sexual!!!!” that in our culture, that biological desire has been massively overblown into an all-out tit-fest that labels all women’s chest-parts as “sex objects” to the point where even breast feeding in public is constructed as indecent.
And is that final piece about Jessica Alba’s character supposed to somehow make it all better? Oh, at least she wasn’t topless! I feel so great about this movie!! It’s like on another blog, someone equated a similar statement to “at least you stopped punching me in the head while you stepped on my throat!” Do you know why she wasn’t topless in the movie? Not because the filmmakers wanted to make it less degrading or objectify it less–plain and simply they wanted a big name starlet like her but she didn’t want to do nude scenes.
So in short, no, I don’t dismiss people that only disagree with me. I dismiss those who disagree with me when they have next to nothing of importance to say.
July 28, 2008 at 2:53 am
Ashley
Actually, I remember reading in Anthro 101 that before everyone was colonized and adopted European standards of beauty, cultures broke down about equally in terms of finding big boobs or little boobs more attractive. And another fairly large group didn’t care one way or the other. In fact, the only physical trait all cultures consistently found attractive was unblemished skin.
To biological essentialism I say pfft.
July 28, 2008 at 6:52 am
brainsandbeauty
ok can I just say that aside from what history or cultural guru’s say….
If a woman has big boobs she gets a lot more male attention.
No male who is being honest with himself and others (and is not homosexual) will deny that fact.
Therefore, boobs = higher sales for movies. It’s all about the $$$ for them and we know it.
I find it appalling that so often in our society the goal for most people is $$$ and entertainment. But at what price? To degrade women?
July 28, 2008 at 10:50 am
Jess
Montreal, Ashley: I’m so glad you’re around so that I can find words to explain things when my friends haul me over metaphorical coals regarding my unease over Sin City. The script was an absolute joke, it beggared belief (‘it’s *supposed* to be like that’! they whine. ‘It’s artistic!!’. hah.). And that other Frank Miller thing – 300 – that was pretty disgusting too. Rapist who gets ‘punished’ for his rape by actually being punished for another crime? blow it out your ass, filmmakers. The lesbians in evil xerxes (zertzees?) palace? Lesbians = depravity and evil?? My head asplode.
July 28, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Ryan
I find evolutionary psychology interesting and all but since breast size has nothing to do with reproductive fitness it is very difficult to argue that any breast size is favored by a society for evolutionary reasons. Obviously, sometimes (take our culture for example) larger is favored but it does not have a direct link to biology.
I am a bit confused about what this discussion is actually about. If the discussion is about whether Sin City is sexist, then the answer is a no brainer; it is extremely sexist. There is the implicit suggestion in some posts that because of that fact, that enjoying the movie somehow makes one sexist. This could be the case (or not) and I certainly understand somebody being completely turned off to the movie by the sexism. In other words I am not surprised that a feminist could enjoy this film but I would be surprised that somebody would try to defend Sin City on feminist grounds.
Firefly is a good example of my approach to movies/shows. Firefly is an amazing show. The fact that Whedon is a pretty strong feminist is a bonus; in a similar way the fact that Sin City is pretty sexist is a minus (in this case kind of a big one) that detracts from my enjoyment of the film. If Whedon made lame stuff I would not watch it no matter how feminist he was; but he doesn’t and Firefly kicks some serious ass.
July 28, 2008 at 4:48 pm
MzStilletto
Something I was thinking about recently that kind of ties in to all of this sexism in the movies, is that I was trying to imagine what it would be like if the roles were completely reversed: If all of the women in movies were intelligent, strong, mostly fully clothed and the hero of the movie, and all of the men were simpering, sometimes weak and/or airheaded, scantily clad and digitally enhanced with numerous close ups of oiled chests, buns of steel and bulging crotch shots, what would that be like? And the answer came to me immediately: it would be considered “gay”.
“What? It has a lot of nekkid menz and hardly any nekkid wimminz?? Well this movie MUST for for teh GAYZ then!” Which makes me sad. There are plenty of hertero women out there, I am sure, who enjoy looking at male “eye candy” just as the men enjoy ogling naked women. But since this society is geared towards men men men, pleasing men, marketing to men, producing movies and television and advertising for men, this is what we have come to. The fact that it would be equally sexist to turn the men into sex objects is not my point here (because it obviously would be), it is the automatic perception that naked women = HAWT (hetero) ACTION, and naked men = GAY. And being the kind of woman who does not enjoy watching naked boobies and fuck scenes for 2 hours, I am scorned repeatedly for being prudish, old fashioned, “uncool”. Because you know, if I was one of those COOL chicks I would be OK with watching hours upon hours of naked fucking. I always say “If I WANTED to see that, I’d just go rent a porn.” But to me, it’s not intelligent movie writing, it’s just the same old sexualized BS that’s been plaguing the entertainment industry for decades.
But after reading these comments, I think I will have to go check out this Firefly show that people are talking about which I hadn’t heard of until today…
July 28, 2008 at 4:54 pm
goingtomontreal
You bring up an interesting point, MzStilleto–
It reminds me of a little story. My step mom always said she wanted to open the male version of Hooters–a restaurant called Peckers whose logo would be a cartoon rooster with a really big beak. It would feature shirtless waiters donning package-curving pants.
It was a well and good idea until my dad pointed out it wouldn’t attract as many women as it would gay men.
At the end of the day, even in our heteronormative world, it boils down to male eyes (whether gay or straight)
July 29, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Black Thirteen
Secondly: As a large breasted woman, yes, large breasts that are virtually unsupported by a flimsy costume would make it next to IMPOSSIBLE to run.
You’re forgetting the whole “superpowers” aspect of it.
Thirdly: How can you say: “That would work, except I’d argue that women want a rich man more than men want to BE rich.” and then “And there are plenty of men who don’t like huge boobs, or skinny women. You can’t really rely on what “some people you know” say about a thing.” YOU JUST CRITICIZED THE KIND OF ARGUMENT YOU JUST USED.
Not really. One, was a commenter relying on personal experience (“My friends don’t like big muscles”), the other is relying on what’s socially common.
Would men have NEARLY as much drive to be rich, if there weren’t so many women out there that expected it of us? I’m perfectly comfortable with my income, but I know damn well that at my age, my income level will never get me a date, and if I wanted one, I’d have to find a way to make more money.
FINALLY: It is a really really really really really really REALLY stupid thing to say that some men don’t like big boobs, therefore big boobs on a female superhero are not sexual. Our culture has constructed the female body in a way to say BOOBS = SEXUALLY DESIRABLE. And, while I will acknowledge that the way male superheroes are designed as well is problematic, it doesn’t erase the fact that female superheroes are objectified. The end.
Well, some women don’t like muscles on men. You could say both are objectified. Both are simply the extremes of femininity or masculinity. Though, I’d argue a little against the desire for big boobs being purely cultural. I’ve been attracted to that since before I knew what you even DID with a woman once you got her. Long before I was subjected to any cultural bias on the subject.
Black Thirteen, the normalization and minimization of violence against men in the movies has everything to do with our culture’s understanding of what men “should” be, which feminists strongly challenge. It’s worth noting that it’s men who are writing, directing, producing, and viewing most of the movies about male violence, and that the protagonist in the vast majority of these movies is a man. Why do you think that might be? Why do men police each other and insist that other men have to act “tough” and invulnerable?
I wasn’t complaining about violence against men. Just pointing out that there wasn’t any feminist backlash to it, and the backlash starts when women are the targets of violence.
Humans like violence. Many will deny it, but as a species, we enjoy it. Always have.
Anyway, Kacie’s post wasn’t about the way our culture enforces certain behavior in men. It was about the way our culture represents women in film. You’re ignoring her point and recentering the conversation on men, which is sexist.
*eye roll* Not everything is sexist. Offering alternate perspectives isn’t sexist. Pointing out that violence against women is bad, without saying a word about violence against men…that’s sexist.
I find evolutionary psychology interesting and all but since breast size has nothing to do with reproductive fitness it is very difficult to argue that any breast size is favored by a society for evolutionary reasons. Obviously, sometimes (take our culture for example) larger is favored but it does not have a direct link to biology.
There have been a fair amount of studies linking it to biology.
July 29, 2008 at 6:56 pm
goingtomontreal
Did you SERIOUSLY just argue that its a superhero’s SUPER POWERS that keep her brests supported?
Wow.
I think there is one HUGE component of this whole thing you are missing: MEN are who have set the beauty standards for both men and women. They are the ones vastly in charge of charachter design in comics, as well as media outlets, adverstiment firms, and the diet industry. How dare you try to fault women for that?
Finally: “Would men have NEARLY as much drive to be rich, if there weren’t so many women out there that expected it of us? I’m perfectly comfortable with my income, but I know damn well that at my age, my income level will never get me a date, and if I wanted one, I’d have to find a way to make more money”
Ok. This is the basis of so many sad sad sad MRA’s arguements. Wah wah wah, women are golddiggers who only want money from me!!!
First of all: every guy I have EVER dated has made less money than me. Oooohhooo, I just disproved your little social theory. Ten bucks says, however, that your or some other sarky dumbass guy would be first to call my boyfriend “emasculated.” The insecurity about financial prowess is propagated by tired old gender roles that say: the man should make the money. Now, that’s NOT to say that women don’t play a part in this by sometime rejecting men basedon these grounds alone, but WAKE UP: these roles have bee in place forever, now and before, when MEN have been in power.
Also: you are kidding yourself if the reason you think you can’t gea date is because of your income. Really, it’s most likely because you are rude, can’t form a coherent thought, have issues respecting women (past outdated “chivalry” ) and are just plain bullheaded. By all means, keep believing that it as something to do with your paycheck. If it makes you feel better.
PS: Sorry for any glaring typos. This damn keyboard sticks.
July 29, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Black Thirteen
Did you SERIOUSLY just argue that its a superhero’s SUPER POWERS that keep her brests supported?
Wow.
No, I was implying that physical limitations that might keep YOU from jogging at high speed aren’t really going to affect someone with the ability to lift a city bus or fly.
Rogue, for example, often depicted with large breasts, is also nearly completely invulnerable, can fly, and has immense levels of physical strength. I doubt her ability to function is impeded by big boobs.
I think there is one HUGE component of this whole thing you are missing: MEN are who have set the beauty standards for both men and women. They are the ones vastly in charge of charachter design in comics, as well as media outlets, adverstiment firms, and the diet industry. How dare you try to fault women for that?
The fashion industry, as a whole, is almost completely controlled by women and homosexual men. Neither of which are average straight guys.
Where did I “fault women”? Also, it has nothing to do with men, when it comes to finding something attractive. By and large, people will be attracted to what they’re attracted to, societal input isn’t going to change that. I like women with wider hips. Society says I shouldn’t. Which am I listening to?
Ok. This is the basis of so many sad sad sad MRA’s arguements. Wah wah wah, women are golddiggers who only want money from me!!!
You can say that all day long, but really, this is going to come down to one thing: You’ll never understand unless you’ve experienced dating as a man.
First of all: every guy I have EVER dated has made less money than me. Oooohhooo, I just disproved your little social theory.
Your one experience isn’t exactly the qualifier for what all men go through.
For example: When I’d date around, the second date was usually where she’d ask how much money I made. After that was revealed, funny, no third date.
Go on a dating site. Search for women in your area, or any area. Find how many have an “income requirement” for their date. See how many require at least 50-75k/year or more.
Almost all of them. They won’t even respond, let alone date, a man that doesn’t meet their requirements for finances.
Now do the same for men, see if ANY men care what the woman they want to meet makes.
The insecurity about financial prowess is propagated by tired old gender roles that say: the man should make the money. Now, that’s NOT to say that women don’t play a part in this by sometime rejecting men basedon these grounds alone, but WAKE UP: these roles have bee in place forever, now and before, when MEN have been in power.
I don’t see ANY women in my social circles trying to change that. I see plenty, however, that demand an ATM with a penis.
Also: you are kidding yourself if the reason you think you can’t gea date is because of your income. Really, it’s most likely because you are rude, can’t form a coherent thought, have issues respecting women (past outdated “chivalry” ) and are just plain bullheaded. By all means, keep believing that it as something to do with your paycheck. If it makes you feel better.
Assumptions are quite ridiculous. That’d be as bad as me saying that since you’re overweight, you have trouble finding and/or keeping a male.
You know almost nothing about me, yet find it acceptable to make various judgement calls that you’d have no way of knowing, without knowing me. Good job, really.
You’re quite rude yourself, and the fact that I might not agree with you, doesn’t mean I can’t “form a coherent thought”. Please do, though, continue with the insults. It shows you have trouble attacking my argument, so you instead, attack me. Ad hominem.
I’m also not trying to get a date. It’s not worth my time. Frankly, I don’t trust women, thanks.
July 29, 2008 at 9:50 pm
faggots
Pointing out that violence against women is bad, without saying a word about violence against men…that’s sexist.
Jumping in quickly: As has been pointed out several times in this debate, violence against men has been addressed. The problem is that the violence against men in the film is not sexual violence. Again, SEXUAL VIOLENCE AGAINST MEN IS NOT DEPICTED IN THE FILM. Therein lies one of the biggest problems with Sin City.
July 30, 2008 at 3:41 am
Ryan
There have been a fair amount of studies linking it to biology
Oh, you mean this study?
I’ve been attracted to that since before I knew what you even DID with a woman once you got her. Long before I was subjected to any cultural bias on the subject.
Original research doesn’t count.
I wasn’t complaining about violence against men.
You were too busy complaining about the incredible sexism of other people not complaining about violence against men. QQ more?
July 30, 2008 at 7:55 am
d00d
Black Thirteen: You see men burned and shot, killed in the most horrific ways possible, but do you ever see them raped and killed? Are they usually beaten and slapped around? Do they run around with their crotches and asses exposed for the world to see while a woman or a man objectifies them and strips them of what little they are wearing with their eyes?
This is the main point of the article, and it’s a fact that you have barely mentioned. SEXUALIZED violence.
Quite frankly, I do find it sexist when only men get brutally killed, but you don’t usually find comics in which men are sexually assaulted and murdered. I’m fairly certain there isn’t a book about a male prostitute getting fucked to death in a 600 person gangbang; it’s usually females (author of Fight Club, look it up.)
You’re just focusing on violence when there is so much more to it when it comes to violence against women, especially in these kinds of films. The problem isn’t when men and women are killed by some giant tentacle monster in a film, the problem is that men are just killed and women are raped by the giant tentacle monsters, and sometimes made into sex slaves, because that’s just good film work.
Men are not victims of sexual violence in many films, and certainly not in Sin City. All your points about men having to be the providers, men wearing tight outfits and being handsome men with square jaws are valid. This is the comic book portrayal of men, and it is accepted without seeming sexist. However, women constantly being brutalized sexual symbols in the media is the issue here, and if you have any valid points to refute that issue in this particular film, I would love to hear them.
July 30, 2008 at 4:48 pm
goingtomontreal
Yes Black Thirteen, I am a rude, fat, ball-busting bitch and my boyfriend loves me for it.
If you seem to be going out only with women who do place high value on your income, you are going out with the wrong women: your experience (just like anyone else’s) does not tell whatthe “rule” is. Noneof the women I know have ever asked a man how much he makes on a date or online put a floor on their income that they perfer.
So really: whose experience is truth? They both are to some extent. But the difference is you implying that all women are golddiggers, I say that some may be, and some aren’t. You can’t let your experience dicatate how you say he WHOLE WORLD MUST OPERATE.
Finally, you are right, I don’t know much about you. But really, your arguements are really really really stupid and come off as whining. And of course it ends with, as so many MRA’s diatribe’s do, that you don’t date because you don’t trust women. Please, this is not the place for you to vent your dating frustrations.
The OP, if you remember, is about sexualized violence in Sin City, and you did attempt to hi-jack the thread and make it about teh menz!!1!!1
That really pisses me off.
July 30, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Black Thirteen
whine whine whine
I can’t seem to understand that this thread is actually not about violence against women, but about SEXUALIZED VIOLENCE and SEXUAL VIOLENCE against women. Because reading the worthless words of women is too much trouble for me! And I don’t trust women in general and making sweeping generalizations about them because of the few shitty people I have dealt with now and I am big cry-baby misogynist who would rather classify all women as golddiggers than actually look at each situation for what it is, I would rather blame a whole GENDER for my past relationship problems.
Maybe one day I will grow up and quite whining about this, but until then, I will remain a big jerk whose comments on this blog will from now on be deleted from this blog because they add nothing to the conversation.
August 4, 2008 at 12:43 am
goingtomontreal
(this comment is a comment from lindabeth, whose orginal I accidently deleted. luckily, there was a copy in my email!)
Wow, this is so ridiculous, it’s laughable:
No, I was implying that physical limitations that might keep YOU from jogging at high speed aren’t really going to affect someone with the ability to lift a city bus or fly.
Rogue, for example, often depicted with large breasts, is also nearly completely invulnerable, can fly, and has immense levels of physical strength. I doubt her ability to function is impeded by big boobs.
So really, all superheroes should be scrawny, skill-less, stupid people, because their superpowers would make up for the impediment of their weak bodies and minds. Do you realize how nonsensical that sounds? You’re really just grasping at straws to find whatever justification you can to explain why super-women have ridiculously disproportionately large breasts that defy the experiences of women with said breasts (ie back problems, pain when running, mere support against gravitational pulls). We want justification why they are there to begin with; since they’re there now, you just trying to justify (and poorly, mind you) why they shouldn’t be there.
The real answer: men like them, and pop culture is generally not produced with and mindfulness of female consumers unless it’s for women as a cliched, niche market.
On the naked men=gay thing. I’m actually very interested in that idea, so a little self-promotion:
Sexualized Ads Become “Obscene” When Guys are the Objects
Where are all the sexy men?</a
August 4, 2008 at 8:50 am
Black Thirteen
Do you realize how nonsensical that sounds? You’re really just grasping at straws to find whatever justification you can to explain why super-women have ridiculously disproportionately large breasts that defy the experiences of women with said breasts (ie back problems, pain when running, mere support against gravitational pulls).
Again, it’s not grasping at straws. If someone has the power to be able to crush mountains with a punch, and throw a train like it was a wad of paper, do you really think their back is going to hurt from holding up 5 pounds of boob? Honestly? Be serious.
They “defy the experiences of women with said breasts”, because last time I checked, you can’t fly, you can’t lift a bus, you can’t leave your fingerprints in hardened concrete, and you can’t bend steel.
If your arms can hold up a vehicle, your back could hold up boobs. If someone is invulnerable and feels no physical pain, why would they feel back pain, or pain when running?
Are you next going to get angry about the fact that while Superman is on Earth, he clearly breathes, but he’s able to go into outer space with no ill effects?
It’s a fucking comic book.
The real answer: men like them, and pop culture is generally not produced with and mindfulness of female consumers unless it’s for women as a cliched, niche market.
It’s almost silly to debate with someone who always believes she’s right, no matter what.
If you want to talk about grasping at straws, should all superheroines be depicted as flat chested and overweight so as not to offend you?
August 4, 2008 at 8:51 am
Black Thirteen
Oh, and FYI, the “back pain from boobs” is largely a myth. Caused by women with large breasts having self-esteem issues, and hunching their backs to disguise the size of their breasts.
Women who aren’t ashamed of their chests, and have proper posture, largely do not have said back pain.
August 5, 2008 at 1:13 am
goingtomontreal
WHAT A COP-OUT: “It’s almost silly to debate with someone who always believes she’s right, no matter what.”
“Oh, and FYI, the “back pain from boobs” is largely a myth. Caused by women with large breasts having self-esteem issues, and hunching their backs to disguise the size of their breasts.
Women who aren’t ashamed of their chests, and have proper posture, largely do not have said back pain.”
OH WOW. Again, talking about shit you clearly know NOTHING about. I am a size H-cup, and my breasts weigh about 12 pounds EACH. That’s about 24 lbs on my chest. And I have not the best posture, but any bad posture I have is not a result of my shame at having large breasts. You are such a fucking presumptuous jack ass for even assuming such a thing. Believe it or not, the carrying that much weight around on the front of your body WILL make your back hurt. And it makes many a task, like running or bending over, quite difficult. Of course, you, a male, do probably know more about it than me, who has been living with a full chest since the age of 15.
August 5, 2008 at 2:22 am
d00d
[Oh, and FYI, the “back pain from boobs” is largely a myth. Caused by women with large breasts having self-esteem issues, and hunching their backs to disguise the size of their breasts.
Women who aren’t ashamed of their chests, and have proper posture, largely do not have said back pain.]
That is by far one of the most asinine comments from a man I had ever read. I’m only a D-cup, and the weight from my chest is endlessly annoying and painful at times. Quite frankly, i love my boobs, and I don’t try to hide them, but whenever I run or jog or I’m tired, my back does hurt. I can only imagine what it would do if I had bigger boobs.
Since you don’t know the pains of being a woman and since you don’t walk around with extra globes of fat on your chest, you have no right to even begin to comment on such an issue. You don’t even know what the hell you’re talking about on that one.
August 5, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Jenn
“Oh, and FYI, the “back pain from boobs” is largely a myth. Caused by women with large breasts having self-esteem issues, and hunching their backs to disguise the size of their breasts. Women who aren’t ashamed of their chests, and have proper posture, largely do not have said back pain.”
I’ll second the everyone else when I say that you are an enormous jackass. I haven’t been able to run or buy shirts with buttons since I was 13 and my tits exploded to DD seemingly overnight.
August 12, 2008 at 1:01 am
Jessiawesome
This conversation/debate went downhill. From the topic of, “Why do women have to be tortured/overtly sexualized in film/comics” to “a guy who obviously has no background in medicine trying to tell women with big breasts that their back aches because its their fault for having bad posture”
I am here to get this back on topic.
I do believe it’s a ‘man’s world’ in the Comic Book Realm, not only because of the large breasted women adorning the pages of said objects but because countless times women, not men, have been stripped of their power, beaten, raped god knows WHAT ELSE to better the plot of their male counterparts. Women, regardless of their ’super stature’ have become plot devices. Oh what now? You do not believe me?
Black Canary: In Green Arrow: The Longbow Hunters Canary is kidnapped and tortured. The list of injuries: her Canary Cry is taken as she had her vocal cords cut. She lost the ability to have children (possibly from rape). Now, yes, Queen does avenge her and murders her attackers however; he cheats on her with many women, impregnates one (Shido) and gets caught making out with a groupie who stayed in Dinah and Oliver’s home. Wow, this guys an asshole, right? It gets worse. He was more distraught over the murder of the Green Lantern in a latter story arch (as the Green Arrow gives up being a ’superhero’), not so much the whole Canary was tortured/relationship ending thing.
Barbra Gordon: In the fist five(ish) pages of The Killing Joke Babs gets shot and maimed by The Joker, in front of her father. Said villain then takes Jim Gordon, puts him on a carnie ride to look at pictures of his (naked) daughter being molested. The Joker only does this to see if Jim Gordon will go insane. It had nothing to do with Barbra being Batgirl, a title she has to give up now that she’s stuck in a wheelchair.
In another Batman tradepaper I am reading (The Cult) it takes Batman only this to fall into a Cult lead by Deacon Blackfire: seeing the gruesome scars of a former prosecute– not him being hung by his arms, beaten or having food withheld from him. For weeks.
Sickened yet? Oh there’s more. If you go and take a gander at:
http://www.unheardtaunts.com/wir/
you can see the list goes on. And on. And on.
You may be asking yourself why Gail Simone decided on the name, “Women in Refrigerators”. This is such because in a Green Lantern comic, Hal Jordan comes home to find that his girlfriend had been brutally murdered and stuffed into their Frigidaire.
And to go back to Mr. Know-It-All (Black Thirteen)’s comment:
Men have been the targets of explosions, knives, dismembering, gunshot wounds, decapitations, swords, axes, hangings, whippings, beatings, and every form of violence imaginable.
Nobody. Twitched.
Killing/beating men is acceptable, and ignored.
I’m sure you haven’t heard of the term, “Dead Men Defrosting”, right? “John Bartol wrote Dead Men Defrosting and argued that when male heroes are killed or altered, they are more typically returned to their status quo. According to Bartol, after most female characters are altered they are, “never allowed, as male heroes usually are, the chance to return to their original heroic states. And that’s where we begin to see the difference.’”
(quote taken from wikipedia)
http://www.unheardtaunts.com/wir/r-jbartol2.html
And don’t try to give me that whole, “But Bart Allen is DEAD and has been for quite some time!!!11!!”– he’s back in Final Crisis
I am finished here.
p.s. Kacie- I’d suggest reading more of Gail Simone’s work. Birds of Prey is a wonderful comic series! Babs is back as The Oracle (Simone’s brain child) and there are plenty more empowered ’super women’ in it too!
August 13, 2008 at 5:35 pm
faggots
You know, I was thinking about something or other today, and suddenly “Silent Hill” sprung to mind. The scene at the end, where what’s-her-name gets barbed wire shoved up her genitals as punishment for being the main antagonist…yeah, sexualized violence again. Although Black Thirteen claims that “Men have been the targets of [...] every form of violence imaginable,” I don’t think I’ve ever seen a guy in a movie get his junk mutilated with living barbed wire. Just sayin’…
August 14, 2008 at 4:50 am
Reversing sexism in Hollywood « XXBlaze
[...] in a very non-sexual way. I decided not too, only because really thinking about movies like Sin City that sexualize violence against women makes me physically [...]
August 14, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Puni
Wow, actually I liked the movie.
But you’re right. I wondered why I had a bad feeling about this movie.
I think it’s an artistic masterpiece in some ways like the male characters (The main characters were complex and yes, their appearances were different and characteristic) and this whole black/white thing.
But thinking about it, most of the girls were really one dimensional.
You know: there is the hot-tempered dominatrix who likes to be slapped sometimes, the loves-to-be-naked-without-any-reason lesbian, the stripper and so on. But I fell in love for Miho. maybe because she wasn’t sexualized as much as the other girls and was strong and mysterious.
Rape in movies is often pornified. You’re right.
The only movie I could think of in which rape wasn’t pictured in a somewhat beautiful was “irreversible”.
It was like watching the said scene from the perspective of some
candid camera someone accidentally lost there.
I wouldn’t recommend that movie, however, to anyone who has been raped. Almost made me puke. But I think it’s at least an appropriate way of depicting rape.
Not as something entertaining. Not with the changing camera perspectives on the girls’ perfectly shaped breasts and buttocks and flowing hair and all that.
The depiction of the whipping scene in sin city really seemed to be somewhat aesthetical. A “little” too much.
BTW: I would recommend to ignore Black Thirteen. Someone who distrusts all women
(suppose he will be the first who cries “man hatin’ feminists” if a woman says something like “I just can’t trust men”)
and claims that breasts are as sexual as biceps
(did you hear about the newest “biceps flash” the other day? People flipped out about it! Or the biceps of the guy on the beach in the newspaper. I mean, what a whore! At least he could wear something that covered his biceps properly! Geez! Men nowadays… oh, and the mother who nearly crushed her babys skull with the power of her powerful breasts as she tried to breast-feed him.)
and last but not least:
his medical knowledge regarding the female breast.
Oh, all you guileful women! How could you think that you could get away with the lies about your back pain if black thirteen is around to see through you? Every woman of the millions with back problems because of large breasts is a liar! They just have a bad posture. As if their boobs could weigh like… like 24 lbs or what!? Oh shi….
Seems like many guys tend to see most of the problems of women as myths (rape myths anyone? There is like, nearly no rape at all, right? And there is also nothing like back pain caused by too heavy and large breasts. Right? Women just lie about all that to have something to complain about, right? Bah, how that pisses me off.)
Keep up the writing =)
Thank you for your thoughts.
(sorry for my english, it’s not my mother tongue but I try my best)
August 15, 2008 at 1:10 am
Black Thirteen
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a guy in a movie get his junk mutilated with living barbed wire. Just sayin’…
Silent Hill is known for violent, torturous, twisted forms of violence. It’s sort of the entire point of the “dark realm” in the games.
Also, James Bond – Casino Royale.
Sat in a chair and had his genitalia brutally whipped, over and over again.
Oh, wait, though, I’m sure someone will pipe up and say “That’s not sexualized violence, they were just hitting him in the balls!”.
August 15, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Faggots
Silent Hill is known for violent, torturous, twisted forms of violence. It’s sort of the entire point of the “dark realm” in the games.
Of course! That completely justifies having barbed wire shoved up your cooch! Why didn’t I think of that?
Also, James Bond – Casino Royale.
Never seen it. And as I stated, I was drawing from my personal experience with films.
Sat in a chair and had his genitalia brutally whipped, over and over again.
Even though I’m a male, and can attest to the pain of having my balls beaten around a bit, it doesn’t really compare to the most common form of sexualized violence against women, RAPE. Besides that, you’ve listed one instance of male-related sexual violence. Compared to a gauntlet of gynocentric sexually violent movies.
August 19, 2008 at 4:45 am
Megan
Frank Miller is mentally incapable of writing a female character without thinking about his dick. Proven fact.
http://www.shortpacked.com/d/20060207.html
Female superheroes who aren’t pornified… Hrm. I can think of some minor characters that aren’t (Callisto, Agatha Harkness, Destiny) off the top of my head but no major characters (in mainstream comics, anyway — indie comics are another story) who have been safe. It varies a lot by artist, too. Some of them try to draw female characters like characters, while others look like they traced their art out of a Playboy (some artists have actually been caught “drawing” female characters like this, eugh). I thought the Ultimate and movie versions of the X-men costumes were pretty good — IIRC, every member had the same costume, regardless of gender. But other versions will show Storm running around in a leather bikini while the men are fully clothed.