What Actually Counts As Sexist?

I mean, not every depiction of a gal in a bikini can be called sexist. Where does one draw the line between a fetish and sexish?

Okay I'll bite.

sexist is the belief or attitude that one sex is inherently superior to other. A girl in a bikini is not inherently sexist but having girls's only role being to fill out a bikini is. A fetish is attributing supernatural powers to an inanimate object and I'm pretty sure you just made sexish up

Sexism is treating people differently based on what sort of genitals they have in situations that have nothing to do with genitals.

It's partly about cultural context. If the reduction of women to sexual objects wasn't a longstanding and ongoing trend in the media, and if women hadn't historically been afforded less privilege than men, there would be nothing wrong with the depiction of a woman in a bikini for decorative purposes. Barring other cultural factors (e.g. the nudity taboo), it might not even be slightly controversial. The controversy arises because objectification of the female form is so normal and is often just accepted.

edited 9th Jan '11 7:44:43 AM by BobbyG

What if the woman in question isn't of the body type that the media likes to objectify?

Sexist can be defined as when one gender is treated as better, worse, or different than the other is situations where gender is not a factor. A girl in a bikini isn't sexist unless they are saying/implying she's stupider than men or useless as anything but a sex object.

That being said, acknowledging a person as ALSO being useful as a sex object wouldn't be sexist by that definition.

"Whoa, she's hawt!" is not a problem.

It's a little more complicated than that, Firestarter. Context is important. Let's say you have a show that periodically does a Beach Episode where all the characters, male and female, are in swimwear. Totally fine, right? Well, maybe. If the male and female characters have equal screentime in the normal episodes but suddenly the female characters are getting the lion's share of it in the beach episodes, that's suspicious. If the female characters having changed into their bikinis is heralded by a slow pan up their bodies that stops short of their faces, and this is not done to the male characters when they show up in trunks, that's even more suspicious. You probably get the idea.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexist

According to the 2nd definition, though, "sexist" and "true" are not mutually exclusive.

America is pretty sensitive which is odd considering how in Europe, female nudity is not even considered taboo but a single breast from Janet Jackson started a shitstorm.

Meh, I don't know if pandering to the audience is really the same thing as sexism.

If the only female characters in a show are obviously there as part of marketing to titillate the audience, that's not particularly good writing, but even that's not really tantamount to saying "Females are only good as sex objects!"

At least in my writing, I've been accused of being sexist for having too many female characters with the reason being that men can't write good female characters, regardless of anything else. :V

So I guess the logic is that anything written by men will be sexist towards women?

More like what isn't sexist?

So I guess the logic is that anything written by men will be sexist towards women?

See, now that is a great paradox. Sexism defined by sexist standards.

@Salad: No, that's stupid.

They're just not used to The Smurfette Principle not being in effect.

Meh, I don't know if pandering to the audience is really the same thing as sexism.

If the only female characters in a show are obviously there as part of marketing to titillate the audience, that's not particularly good writing, but even that's not really tantamount to saying "Females are only good as sex objects!"

I'd have to agree with Bobby G above - it's not just about how female characters are portrayed in an individual movie/manga/soap ad/what have you, it's about whether or not that work repeats patterns that appear in a lot of other works. One TV show where men are portrayed as characters and women as a collection of sexy body parts isn't likely to harm anyone. Neither is one series of novels that depict women as perpetually hysterical and incompetent and men as ruthless, violent jerkasses.

Would you say that Lovecraft's books were sexist, or that he just knew he couldn't write women so he mostly left them out?

One of the criteria I use: I imagine myself switching places with the gal in the sexy situation and evaluate how I feel about the situation.

Lovecraft was undoubtedly xenophobic but I thought his choice for male leads was that a fair amount of time it was self-insertion.

The problem with that is that if you're unusually kinky like some people you may find it had to find a situation you are honest to god uncomfortable with. It's too subjective so to speak.

edited 11th Jan '11 12:19:47 AM by TheQuantumMind