This analysis makes a lot of sense until you think about it for more than half a second.
There are a bunch of flaws, but I’m posting from mobile so here’s the big one: Steve has entirely missed the point of the exercise /for the child/.
The point isn’t that conspicuous sacrifice is what’s important. The point is acquainting kids, especially well-to-do ones with mothers who can freely take time off and whose schools have “social action” requirements, with the human-level process of charitable work. It is about exposing the kid to new things, not strictly maximizing our altruistic output in a moment to moment fashion.
In short, it’s easy to shit on this as long as you ignore the primary didactic benefit it’s supposed to have.
Ah! I’m so sorry for having failed to respond to this earlier. There were some logistical errors involving me being out of town and thinking that this had already been posted in my absence.
At this point, it’s probable that you won’t read this, Anon, but here’s an answer for you:
a) In what way do you suppose that it is convenient to see images of sexual violence, even where there are none? What do you think that gets feminists? Like, I guess it allows us to claim victimage, but… Then what?
b) Can you get me some citations that agree with your 40-50% numbers? I’m interested in having accurate data, though I’m honestly not sure in what way this relates to your point. It seems like you’re just mentioning this to point out that bad things happen to men, too. That’s accurate, but not really germane? I’ve also literally never heard the stats cited as being that high on male victims.
Having said that, I additionally don’t know why “abused housewife” would suddenly become a false stereotype even if half of abuse victims were male? Like, lots of wives are still abused by their spouses, even if men are abused, too, right?
c) His leg is between her knees. He has a hand around her neck. Her legs are spread and her garters are exposed. Her wet dress drapes around her hips prettily. Do you not see any of those things as being sexual, or connected to sexual imagery at all?
I poked around and found a couple of pulp novel covers that reminded me of the posing an Triumph.
Here we have spread legs with the dress pulled up high on the thighs. http://fuckyeahpulpfictioncovers.tumblr.com/post/11119893094/backwoods-tramp-by-harry-whittington-gold-medal Certainly sexual, right? If a man were forcing her thighs open with, say, a knee and she was visibly struggling with him, do you think this posing would look like a sexual assault, or not so much?
Here we have a fight—a deadly fight! A dangerous fight!—where the female participants are still really sexualized. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-K7Mr1UPYWcE/T3UAaSjt1jI/AAAAAAAAA-0/tfQhHIEQsP8/s640/trapped.jpg Lilliana, in Triumph, feels to me like she’s in that mode.
But, like, whatever, really. I’m not saying, and I’d never say, “This art depicts sexual assault,” I’d only ever say, “Wow, this looks like sexual assault to me.”
d) Even if it is imagery of a man abusing a woman and it’s not sexual at all, maybe it would still be cool if that kind of art didn’t appear on Magic cards? Like, if we agree that the art is icky whether it’s sexual or not (and it seems like we do!), why are you upset that I see it as sexual?
Oops, sorry about that horror post. I posted, thinking that I’d just be a nice, helpful lit review, but then I realized that I had about 200 words more to say about mouths.
My greatest scholarly work was in the field of horror and I miss being an academic.
Has anyone else noticed that in the largely female horror/monster artist community on DA and tumblr (myself included) tends to focus a LOT on teeth, mouths, and violence as a consumptive act (there’s a lot of cannibal characters is what I’m sayin’) and that seems as a bit of a weird counter to mainstream horror and monster art where violence is nearly always penetrative? It’s usually knives, chainsaws and blades, heck even the Alien had a phallic mouth used to bore into faces.
Is this even a thing happening consciously?
No? Never mind then.
I… am trying to figure out approximately how much this post has irrevocably changed my life.
okay so we actually talked a lot about horror in my philosophy class this past week?
and like one of the things about typical horror movies is that they’re very much about violence towards women? like i don’t want to say that all horror movies are about violence towards women but i also don’t want to talk for a thousand years on the nuances of that trope so long story short if you watch a lot of horror movies there’s a lot of penetration imagery and blending the boundaries of sex and violence. and even the entire “final girl” trope that has become a basic structure of horror is basically asking for all of this imagery of penetration and violation etc. and all of it happens because the victims in horror movies are often women because he stereotype is that women are vulnerable.
i’m probably explaining this really badly it’s all waaaaaaaay more nuanced than this but it all kind of ties together in a really fascinating way.so when you look at it that way, it makes sense that a lot of monsters created by/for men (i.e., mainstream monsters) are going to be penetrative. as for monsters created by women being consumptive… that’s a very interesting trend and there’s probably a reason for it but i havent thought about it enough to pick one out
I wonder how much of that, then, is tied up with women’s consumption being a subversive act? Women being encouraged to not consume or take up space, so that then greedy, unapologetic consumption and largeness and loudness and appetite becomes monstrous, which could be problematic. But when driven by the people who are told not to consume, it become atavistic and wish-fulfilling and an outlet for impulses and desires, which the best horror always does.
Oh my god this is doing creepy, awesome things in my head.
Bookmarking this as something to bring up to my students in class this semester…
Gender and horror? MY FAVORITE TOPICS.
1) If we’re talkin’ mouths, teeth, and consumption specifically, there’s a line of argument In The Literature that goes something like this: mouth = vagina.
We see this pretty literally in ancient Greece where it was believed that the mouth and vagina were directly connected. So, if she talks a lot, if she’s hungry a lot… that’s sure concerned with her vagina, boy howdy. As a consequence, gluttony and inappropriate talkativeness become typically feminine vices.
Western society is sufficiently indebted to the Greeks that I think we see these ideas passed on and can point them and their echoes out nowadays.
Unless I’m mistaken—and I TOTALLY MIGHT BE—mouth=vagina is also something that pops up in Freud. Which is not to say “culturally, consumption is sexual and gendered female,” but is to say “these are old ideas that have popped up repeatedly and I would be utterly unsurprised to see them in modern horror, especially since horror deals with sex and taboo so often.”
I’ve seen mouth=vagina taken further to explain corruptive transformation via the bite that we see in vampires and zombies. I think I read a paper that claimed that this metaphor was especially clear in zombies because, basically, you have an encounter with the vagina (you are bitten by a zombie). You are corrupted by the vagina/sex (you get sick). You become mindless and seek only sex (you are now a zombie).
Surprisingly, I haven’t heard a STI-related argument, but when I last checked, there wasn’t a lot of literature about zombies, specifically.
2) As far as gender and horror generally goes,t here’s a not-completely-insignificant body of scholarly work on this subject, as is possibly clear from my previous comments. What I’ve read I’ve really enjoyed.
Here are two that seem particularly germane:
-May I recommend Men, Women, and Chainsaws by Carol Clover?
It’s a pretty imperfect analysis (TW: Freud), but I think it’s a very good book.
-I also enjoy the paper Monster Pains: Masochism, Menstruation, and Identification in the Horror Film. It’s by Aviva Briefel and can be found on JSTOR.
From the abstract:
"Male monsters in these films are associated with acts of masochism that allow for a comfortable spectatorial distance. In contrast, female monsters precede their sadistic rampages with moments of menstruation, which claustrophobically draw their audiences to them."
So hey, it turns out that Gillian Anderson dressed up like Morticia Addams was something we all needed in our lives.
[takes a knee]
OH MY GODS EVERYONE LOOk
if you’ve never seen this perfect photo, here you go
Oh, wow, this IS everything I ever needed. Two of my idols of femininity in one place!
I dunno. I feel like “I don’t understand how anyone could believe X” is a much, much better position to take on issues than “I know exactly why my opponents disagree with me! It is because they are stupid and evil!” The former at least opens the possibility that your opponents believe things for good reasons that you don’t understand— which is often true!
In general, I believe it is a good thing to admit ignorance when one is actually ignorant, and I am willing to put up with a certain number of dumbass signalling games if it furthers this goal.
:: wiping mustard from chin :: it’s not makeup it’s war paint