Sexism, and other forms of discrimination, are most often performed without the performer realising that it's sexism, or that it's being done at all. The term "casual sexism" was coined to reflect this.
Pun pun pun! 
But yes, male-on-female sexism is far more recognised than female-on-male, male-on-male, and female-on-female sexism, to the point where the last three are dismissed in favor of male-on-female. A couple got drunk and had sex? Clearly, the drunk woman was knocked out and helpless, while the drunk man went crazy and raped her!
How does drunkenness even work, anyway?
edited 4th Jul '16 5:35:26 AM by hellomoto
No longer a forum herald
The short version: Alcohol is what's known as a depressant, which means it narrows your blood vessels, lowers your heart rate, and reduces blood flow through your body, including your brain. At a certain point, your brain stops working properly due to a lack of blood oxygen, impairing any amount of judgment, motor control, speech, memory - any and all of the above can be affected, and it varies from person to person and case to case. And thus, you become "drunk".
edited 4th Jul '16 7:38:23 AM by TotemicHero
Expergiscēre cras, medior quam hodie. (Awaken tomorrow, better than today.)
Huh, so that's why Alcohol triggers my migraines. Adding that to another reason I don't drink.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
After reading the Tome 9 of the series, I have got to ask: are any of you reading Empowered?
And if you are, is it Sexist? Feminist? Neither? Both?
First, I have to say that, more than anything else, it is hilarious and I love it. Last tome had Emp (Empowered, the main character) getting rid of two villains by forcing one to admit that he voted Republican, cue Duel to the Death.
But I just can't for the love of me pinpoint whether the book is sexist or against sexism. I am going to try and list the issues I have that lead me to be confused, trope by trope.
1. Stripperiffic. Emp's costume fits it to a T. It's a skintight full bodysuit. The very first story has villains mocking her because it is obvious she is wearing panties underneath and it looks ridiculous. Plus, it is repeatedly (at least Once an Episode) that she has huge body issues (despite being gorgeous), and that the suit does not help her getting past that. Factor in that she loses the powers when the very fragile suits suffers ClothingDamage, and you get an icing on the problematic trope. However, she also mentions that the suit is a package deal, "no suit no powers", and she shows a willpower to do good on Captain America's level. Seriously, she is a hell of a Determinator, and even those who dislike her are sometimes amazed that she keeps going despite her many, many blunders and failures.
2. DamselInDistress. That's Emp's "shtick". Or reputation at least. She ends up captured on a regular basis, sometimes for ridiculous reasons, and it is hard to deny that the comics look like softcore bondage - it is repeatedly lampshaded when Emp leans on the fourth wall inbetween stories. One character even becomes a "fetish-themed superheroine" because she admired Emp being distressed - also, to get famous. However, it becomes quickly clear that despite her captures, she is the bravest and the best of them all, and she actually gets better - the reason she stills ends up as a DID is because villains fetishize capturing her, so they all try to do that. See Determinator above. Her being in distress even has some good consequences at points : she meets Thugboy, her boyfriend, while his gang captured her (he was the only one being nice and attentioned while binding her, and taking care that she was comfy) to the point that she purposefully got captured a couple more times to see him before they started dating. She also befriends a dying kid who ends up a genius supervillain because he wanted the opportunity to "capture a damsel like a true supervillain" before his death (the experience encourages the kid to find a solution to his disease). Later, when he discusses that with her, he says that he admired her not (only) because of her looks, but because she was a nice and caring person. Even worse, in that last tome, she weaponizes being a Damsel in Distress - she got captured so often and heard so much villains gloating and/or casually talking to their pals as if she wasn't there that she has become a villain encyclopedia, making her Awesome by Analysis and allowing her to get free of many situations without even lifting a finger (see the aforementioned "political debate" - that was one of many instances).
3. MaleGaze, and related topics. It's softcore. Emp is shown in alluring positions when she is tied up - and when she isn't, she is a gorgeous woman wearing a skintight suit. Her best friend Ninjette is even worse than that. However, this is lampshaded very, very, very regularly. To the point that last tome introduced a self-deprecating Creepy Fan Author Avatar who is a "super-author" so completely obsessed with Emp's butt that he wants to write his In-Universe biography and have it only focus on Emp's capture and helplessness. Then he doesn't understand when she tells him very clearly to go to hell. It's also not so subtly implied that he writes crappy fanfictions about spanking Emp during his free time, and that she knows it.
4. LeaningOnTheFourthWall. The characters do that ALL THE TIME, when Emp is not breaking it inbetween stories. Last tome included the word "mansplaining", for instance, by a supervillainess (who had captured Emp) complaining that maybe capturing her (because now she has become a valuable target) will finally have male supervillains stop trying to explain her how to do her job. One of the biggest villains in the universe, Deathmonger (basically on par with Willy Pete as the Darkseid/Thanos of the Empverse), casually revealed that she was, actually, a woman, and nailing fun as everyone assuming her gender was male ("What? Everyone just assumed I was male"). Mind you, this happens at least four books after she was introduced. She then proceeds (while, astonishinly, helping Emp) to discuss some common clichés ("The ruthless nietzchean will to power however, isn't gender-specific"), and then trolls Emp about changing her mind about helping her ("it's a Lady's prerogative to change her mind" - "Joking, obviously. Feminine capriciousness is, of course, a sexist trope"). The very first panel of that last tome has a superheroine anchorman named "Femifist". This very first panel also has a French Jerk superhero claiming that Emp is a horrible role model : ("She is une rôle modèle pauvre, c'est vrai. By choosing to porter such a scandaleusement skin-tight ensemble superhéroïque, she only reinforces le stéréotype repugnant of costumes des superheroines as toujours hypersexualisée, n'est-ce pas?"). His name is "Le Chevalier Blanc" - aka the White Knight. At this point, the author is just throwing Confusion Fu.
Seriously, I just don't know with this comic book. I hope my confusion is made clear enough in the above post. Note that no matter what the answer is - if there is one - I will still enjoy it because it is funny, cheeky, full of references and refreshing when I'm tired of Marvel and DC (I like the drawing style too, very manga).
edited 5th Aug '16 2:32:34 PM by Julep
Jupiterian Local
I haven't read Empowered, but from what I hear about it, I have a hard time thinking that it's a good thing re: feminism. Simply being aware that you're exploiting sexist tropes doesn't stop those tropes from being sexist. You don't get to claim a hipsterish "I'm only doing it ironically" cop-out. It's still a comic book that stars a female superhero in a ridiculous costume who is regularly damsel'd and constantly sexualized by both other characters (villains who capture her and tie her up in bondage-ish ways) and by the narrative itself (Male Gaze camera angles and the like). The fact that it knows this (and knows that it's bad) and calls it out doesn't mean that it's not doing it (or that it isn't bad).
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
In the pursuit of great, we failed to do good.
I read the first three volumes way back when. And I'd say both. It's an Indecisive Deconstruction. It clearly has a self-awarness and even critique of its sexist tropes. But it still uses them because it's basically porn. Iirc the author even got the idea to the comic when he was doing bondage comissions and developing a narrative for them?
Writer, Artist, Ignored
I read Empowered.I own most of the series, picked it up when I was younger. And it's uh.....It's complicated? The character started as a subject for bondage themed pinups and then the creator was like "I can do something more real with this" and then he did. It's a good story, it's about a very well written protag and it covers some interesting stuff and it's a fun parody of certain superhero elements.
Anti is right, it is basically an Indecisive Deconstruction. It wants to have its cake and eat it too. It is terribly male gaze-y and while our Hero is ultimately a hero for doing stuff and being a decent human being in a world where most of the superheroes are jackasses, it doesn't change the problematic elements, it just makes the whole thing more confusing. You're not a alone Julep, confusion is probably the healthiest reaction. I enjoy it for all the same reasons you do but am also uncomfortable with it for all the same things you stated.
It's probably one of those things one can acknowledge has good writing while still acknowledging its problematic elements. Basically be allowed to be intellectually honest about the whole thing, like basically be able to say you like the thing but also be upfront with its flaws and know you're not fine with it's problematic elements.
The Blog The Art
No, the other one.
You can like all of it if you want to. It's not like there's a thought police out there who dictates what you can and cannot like.
Check out my fanfiction!
Jupiterian Local
Yeah, it's totally possible to say "I like it, but there are parts of it that are seriously messed up". God knows I watch enough anime like that...
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
Grr... <3
In order to find this kind of comic sexist you need to find sexualisation of women sexist. And I mean all of it, unilaterally. And also sexualisation of men in fetish comics for women. If you consider all of it sexist, then yes. This is sexist. A form of sexism that is really weird to worry about, because it casts too wide a net.
It's just entertainment. Tropes are not bad. And sexist tropes are not sexist. Real sexism is about trying to shift the balance of power. About trying to impose ideas. About thinking things should be a certain way. Maybe this comic is sexist. I see no evidence of that in the writeup above.
I do see that the author is exploring the issue. But looking at something and participating are different things. Kinda. Sorta.
Yeah, okay. This is a rather hands on exploration.
Armour piercing question 1: could a non-sexist person write this fetish stuff? Absolutely. You can do it because you like it and know others will.
Armour piercing question 2: could a non-sexist person enjoy reading this fetish stuff? You know, I don't think your libido really cares.
As to the work being feminist, nope. Don't see it. Again, the comic is clearly exploring the issue. But the writeup above does not indicate that the comic is actually taking sides.
edited 5th Aug '16 8:05:28 PM by war877
About "not taking sides", for the early books, I completely agree. It was fetish stuff using a whole lot of sexist tropes in a very direct manner - the author only reminded the reader all the time that he was absolutely aware of the existence of those tropes;
During the later books...I am less sure. First, the distressing has been very much toned down, both because Emp becomes an efficient action heroine, because a couple of Knights of Cerebus are important parts of the story (Willy Pete and Deathmonger), and because tomes 7 and 8 prominently feature other characters (Ninjette and Spooky, respectively). Tome 9 gives more instances of "Emp is captured", but subverts it completely because she is shown to pretty much always be in control due to her extensive knowledge of villains that makes it look like she has a Sherlock Scan to push all the right buttons. During the last of these "distress situations", she even goes along with a blackmail she knows is fake to further her own agenda. She became very much a Damsel out of Distress at that point, considering she frees herself without any external input 9 times out of 10.
And to further the "sides", if I only had to take a couple of examples, the "White Knight" character who lectures the audience about the fact that Emp is a shame for the image of women is shown to be a complete a-hole. Meanwhile, the villainess who talks about the perpetual mansplaining of the male villains to explain her her job is not portrayed that negatively (for a villain) - she gets defeated by a missile, not by some goofiness such as her political opinions. Ghost Writer is also a complete douchebag unable to see Emp for anything else than a sexy distress-prone girl. And Deathmonger, who openly discusses gender with Emp, is this time in Even Evil Has Standards mode (and mentions "suprahuman solidarity between two misunderstood ladycapes"). She actually refrains from kicking the dog despite having a perfect secondary target at the time (the heroine who had captured Emp).
Still...it's Empowered. Some of the fourth-wall breaking panels mentioned that the concept was silly, too comic-y for manga fans and too manga-y for comics fans, and that the author was stupid to hope for commercial success considering these contradictions. Now, after starting as "too sexist for feminists", it almost looks like he is trying to make Emp "too feminist for sexists".
edited 6th Aug '16 5:32:19 AM by Julep
In the pursuit of great, we failed to do good.
No, the other one.
If you define it by representation and normalisation, I don't think you can't define a single work by it, since those are overall qualities for the society.
I would call out a single work if it's prescriptive. If it says or deliberately implies that things should be a certain way (that is sexist), then the work is sexist as far as that aspect goes.
Check out my fanfiction!
In the pursuit of great, we failed to do good.
True. Some tropes are only bad in aggregate or if all members of a group are portrayed the same way in a work.
No, the other one.
If all members of a group are portrayed the same way, it depends on if it's descriptive or prescriptive. I'd say there are three types of it, to simplify it as much as possible (which naturally doesn't cover everything, but it's a start). It can be plainly descriptive, such as a historical novel that doesn't try to make a point about it, but shows it as a part of its historical accuracy. It can be prescriptive, and show a pattern and have the message that that's how it should be. It can also be the reverse of that, by having the pattern there, but the message is instead that that is how it shouldn't be. The details themselves might always be sexist (or racist, or whatever), but the work as a whole might not be, despite having those in it.
Check out my fanfiction!
Grr... <3
@julep: Feminism is about more than getting rid of gender stereotypes. It is about elevating women to equality. So you can be very non-sexist and still not feminist at all. So, I am not convinced.
edited 6th Aug '16 5:02:36 PM by war877
Huh, yeah? I never denied that. Plenty of works are neither sexist nor feminist.
I will said empowered is feminisnt, just that it prefer to make light of the issue or taking a piss of it.
Also I disagree wth the idea that just because you just typical sexist tropes someone you are, is getting back to the idea that only ham fist aseop work
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"
I'll second Jovian's comment about how you can like something that's sexist—you just need to be aware that it's sexist. Same goes for any other problematic piece of media. To pick an obvious example it's perfectly possible to admire Birth of a Nation as a piece of cinema—it's only if you pretend it's not racist that we have a problem.
The law in the night
Cross posted from the Racism thread:
The Economist: Diversity fatigue
Making the most of workplace diversity requires hard work as well as good intentions
RONALD REAGAN once said that “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help’.” Today they are run a close second by 12 words: “I’m from human resources and I’m here to organise a diversity workshop.” Most people pay lip service to diversity in public. But what they think in private can be very different. Some HR consultants have even started to worry about “diversity fatigue”.
The arguments in favour of diversity are powerful. The most obvious is that diversity is simply a fact about the modern world. Women have entered the workforce in huge numbers. Mass immigration has transformed Western societies: even in once-homogeneous countries such as Sweden, foreign-born people make up 14% of the population. Gay men and women increasingly feel no need to stay closeted, in or out of the workplace. Companies that ignore this may starve themselves of talent, as well as be out of touch with their customers. Adding to the evidence for diversity’s benefits, a study published this week by the Peterson Institute for International Economics found that the more female executives firms have, the more profitable they seem to be.
There is also evidence to support the commonsense idea that encountering people with different ideas and different perspectives can boost creativity. Ronald Burt, a sociologist at the University of Chicago, has produced several studies which suggest that people with more diverse sources of information consistently generate better ideas. Sara Ellison of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has shown that mixed-sex teams can produce more creative solutions than those dominated by either men or women. And internal surveys at Google have found that diverse teams are often the most innovative.
Given all these benefits, why the talk of diversity fatigue? David Livermore provides some interesting thoughts on this question in his new book, “Driven by Difference: How Great Companies Fuel Innovation through Diversity”. As president of the Cultural Intelligence Centre, a consulting firm, Mr Livermore is a card-carrying member of the diversity industry. But over the years he has been struck by how many companies complain that they are not getting much return for their investment in diversity. “Tomorrow I have to go to a diversity-training workshop,” he heard one man say to another in the gym. “Oh God!” came the reply. “That’s right up there with getting a root canal.”
Mr Livermore says that one reason for this is that talk of diversity often comes accompanied with a faint air of menace. Managers are dragooned into sitting through lengthy seminars on equal opportunities. They are fearful of saying anything that departs from the “correct” line on any diversity-related matter. And they feel under pressure to hit their recruitment quotas. The more important reason, however, is that proponents of diversity often fail to acknowledge that there can be a trade-off: to get the benefits, employers must be prepared for, and deal with, some problems. Diversity does not produce better results automatically, through a sort of multicultural magic. It does so only if it is managed well.
The biggest challenge is to do with trust. Employees need to trust each other if they are to produce their best work. This is particularly true if that work involves tackling creative projects that have a high risk of failure and a circuitous path to success. But it is easier to establish trust with those you have a lot in common with. Mr Livermore notes that diverse teams have a higher degree of variance in their performance than homogeneous teams. They are more likely to produce truly innovative ideas, but they are also more likely to fail completely. He suggests that managers of diverse teams need to work hard at establishing bonds of trust. They need to set lots of short-term goals so that teams can see the benefits of working together. They also need to recognise that different groups forge trust in different ways. Westerners tend to think that getting straight down to the task at hand is the best way to do this, whereas South Asians believe in establishing rapport over cups of tea first.
A second challenge is to do with culture. Too many companies fail to rethink their management styles as they open their doors to new groups. They issue ambiguous instructions which presume that everyone comes from the same background. For example, one Western company urged its employees to “act like an owner” without realising that, in some cultures, acting like an owner means playing golf all day. They evaluate people on their willingness to speak up without realising that some people—women especially, in many countries—are brought up to hold their tongues and defer to authority. Mr Livermore argues that managers need to work harder at getting members of silent minorities to speak up and, failing that, give them other ways of contributing to the collective effort.
Beyond box-ticking
Your columnist would add a third challenge: distinguishing between genuine cultural diversity and the box-ticking sort. It is easy for companies to think that they have embraced diversity if they appoint the right number of people with the right biological characteristics. That can be hollow if they all come from the same backgrounds—if, say, all the black people a firm promotes to management are Harvard-educated sons of diplomats.
The growing diversity of the workforce should be a cause for celebration. Getting rid of discrimination against minorities represents a triumph for natural justice as well as a chance to make society as a whole stronger. But the celebration needs to be mixed with hard work and clear thinking. Companies will find it hard to make a success of diversity if they refuse to recognise that it brings challenges as well as opportunities. And they will find it impossible to confront these challenges if they dismiss any reasonable question that is raised about diversity policies as if it were a plea to go back to the age when white men ruled the roost.
No, the other one.
In a few words, I'd say that diversity is something that works a lot better if you simply accept it, rather than try to push it in to meet some quota.
Check out my fanfiction!
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Unfortunately you can't really enforce "is/isn't accepting diversity good" as a measurable statistic.
No, the other one.
If all you care about is statistics, you don't really care about diversity. The text above even gave an example of exactly that. Accepting diversity and enforcing diversity aren't the same.
Check out my fanfiction!
Ironically, quite a few on the side of social justice are firmly in the "enforced diversity" camp (judging by how often they angrily bring up statistics) and, at the same time, bitch about how minorities are being treated as nothing more than quotas to be filled. Funny how that works. These fellows think that dehumanizing people into percentages is great for promoting equality, then are pissed having seen it Gone Horribly Right for them.
edited 24th Sep '16 6:22:24 AM by nervmeister
More importantly, sexism isn't just something you "do" actively to someone else, or something that you inactively let someone else "do" to yet another person. It's a mindset, a mentality that groups folks by arbitrary lines to serve arbitrary roles.
In that sense, yes, sexism is very much something that men and women can "do", because limiting sexism to just guys unfairly being dicks to girls is an intense simplification.