>Implying there's some kind of inherent difference or conflict between these two categories
"The problems"
Are they actually *problems*, or are you just calling them that to try and give your opinion some extra weight?
I've yet to hear an argument against "fanservice sexualized characters" that wasn't just "I don't like it, so it's objectively bad".
Translation: "I have a point to make but can't or won't elaborate on it myself, so I'll just redirect you to some articles to do the legwork for me."
You keep on using these weasel words here too. "Plenty of research". What constitutes plenty? Who is doing the research? Are they feminist organizations or impartial scientific groups? The Scientific American article cites a study, but the study is behind a paywall, so that's not even a credible source. Looking up the people conducting the study gives me some interesting results. The women in charge of the study aren't even scientists or statisticians, they're Communications professors at some universities in California and are both noted feminists. Already, your sources are poor because they're tinted with bias and don't come from a credible source on top of not being able to be accessed. The article's summary of the study reeks of bad science too.
"To explore the effects of watching sexualized female victims and heroines, Pennell and Behm-Morawitz asked female college students to watch a 13-minute video montage of scenes that either featured female victims from the Spider-man series or female heroines from the X-Men series. After watching one of these video montages, participants completed a survey that assessed gender role beliefs, body image, and self-objectification. A number of other measures (e.g., movie-going habits, enjoyment of different film genres) were included to camouflage the purpose of the study, and in a control condition, participants simply completed the survey but did not watch either film montage. Gender role beliefs were assessed via the Attitudes toward Women Scale, which evaluated participants' views about men's and women's responsibilities at home and in the workplace, appropriate attire and appearance in public, rationality and problem solving skills, and physical strength. Body image was measured using the Body Esteem Scale, which requires individuals to rate personal satisfaction with general appearance and specific body parts (e.g., face, chest, thighs). Finally, the Self-Objectification Questionnaire required participants to indicate the importance of their body image and body competence to their personal identity. "
Right off the bat I notice errors in their method. The control group is not partaking in the same activities as either of the variable groups, so any baseline that the control would have given simply doesn't apply. Then they deliberately sabotage their survey results by introducing questions that have absolutely nothing to do with the experiment. I could forgive the control not setting a good baseline if the article at least mentions the comparison of the data sets between the control and the variables, but it doesn't, so at best I'm skeptical.
And then there's lines like this: "Because these sexualized superheroines have unattainable body dimensions and engage in unrealistic physical feats (e.g., saving the world in spiked heels), it’s not surprising that female viewers are left feeling dissatisfied with their own physical appearance and prowess." Unrealistic physical feats it says. Considering the study is about superheroes, one can also argue that flying and being able to shatter boulders with one's bare fists are also unrealistic physical feats. The article, and I'm guessing the study too considering who is conducting it, automatically insinuate that any feelings of inadequacy in regards top SUPERHEROES are due to sexualization and objectification, and not the amazing powers that the heroes have at their disposal, effectively making them into demigods. The study, from what little the article actually cites, has an aura of confirmation bias.
Honestly, I haven't looked at your second source and I have no intention to right now. If your first was this cartoonishly bad, then I don't see a point in wasting more time.
Also: lol @ the idea of a rape culture. Maybe if you live in the Middle East where rape is actually legal and even encouraged under Sharia law, then sure, except here in the West rape is not only illegal, but one of the worst offenses a person can commit. Rapists are arguably seen as worse than murderers.
I've quoted your initial post to me to give context to what I'm about to say. Your OP indicated willful ignorance about the difference between sexualization and empowerment. Those terms are well defined and you just proclaimed that your assumption that there is no difference as truth. That's red flag one as it shows you don't know accepted terminology. Red flag two was outright denial that sexualization is a problem as you haven't "seen any evidence". That's the old argument from incredulity which creationists are quite fond of using. That statement told me you haven't done your homework or that you are just willfully denying any evidence presented.
So, I point out that you can easily Google research and, despite knowing better, post links to respected sources and, predicatably, you try to deny that the research is credible. That's flat out science denial and I've seen this tactic used again and again. I just want to point out that it is not my job to educate you. You want to claim that sexualization isn't harmful, don't actually do your own research, and claim any scientific research done is biased and not credible.
You insinuate that feminists and communication professors doing research in their own field are, for some reason, not credible sources. Do you have the same standard for other researchers researching their own field, such as physics? Psychologists? Sociologists? Just curious how fairly you apply that odd standard.
There's also the issue of complaining about Scientific American as a source. I'm going to go out on a limb and bet that you don't normally require access to scientific journals to evaluate everything in your life. Let's be real, most of us rely on reporting from respected news sources. Scientific American is one such source.
Most studies are locked behind a pay wall, unfortunately. But you are going to use that fact to actually question how much research has been done. Again, a quick search will get you pages of research with abstracts and articles reporting on it. Just that simple search is an indicator of the volume of research and who is doing it. Two of your questions answered. Articles on research and abstracts show research is being done and their conclusions. Evidence if you care to look.
Your entire response is by the book denialism. There's actually a term for the tactic you are using; it's known as hyper-skepticism and is a method to shrug off any evidence that doesn't conform to your preconceived ideas.
ETA: Just an FYI, not for you Ventus but others, the link he ignored is the American Psychological Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls; it is a heavily sourced report (so you have an idea of the amount of research, by whom and where to find it) about the prevalence and effects of sexualization of girls and what can be done. I'll link to it here again :
https://www.apa.org/...report-full.pdf
Sometimes you gotta take a break from the BSN. I will probably post more here the closer to the release date. Also, I was playing Saint's Row 3 all last week! Such a fun game.
Retour en haut
