Simply Sci-fi
Jedi Knight
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2014
- Messages
- 428
I received an earful yesterday from someone when the subject of "fantasy" art came up. The woman who reads (and writes her own) fiction based on kick-ass females, reckons that since women are as capable as men, any artwork or imagery of women being rescued, or shown as being in some way less capable than a man is "sexist". She mentioned the classic pose of a male "Conan" style warrior protecting a cowering female.
According to this person, the Hilderbrant Star Wars poster is sexist and is only slightly redeemed by Princess Leia holding a blaster.
While I'd agree that the Hilderbrant poster is not the best depiction of Princes Leia, I would not say that the poster or artwork in general that depicts women being saved or being less capable then men is sexist. Since "sword and sorcery" films, books, comics, etc are based around a medieval style society, women would be much less likely to be sword wielding warriors. To look at history, it's clear that women did not have anything approaching equal rights until fairly recently. Even in an alternative "fantasy" world, where women are treated equally there would be those would not be warriors and who are pretty much ordinary. Call me "sexist" if you like but an average woman might appreciate a burly man rescuing them from a tight spot, because he may be much more capable physically that she is to deal with it.
I also attempted to point out that a man who produces fantasy art of a strong man and weaker woman is not necessarily being sexist. Rescuing a beautiful woman from the clutches of danger is a pretty innocent fantasy isn't it? It does not mean that he is making a point about the place of women in general. Also, wouldn't some women have the fantasy of being rescued by a man? There are exceptional females who can tackle pretty much anything but in the overall scope of things, aren't men on the whole more capable of dealing with physical situations then women?
Now that there is so much in literature, films and television shows featuring exceptional women who can kick butt as well as men do, haven't we reached a level of equality? I would say that it would be going way too far to only produce artwork, films and television shows where women are as physically capable as men.
Women who disagree with this kind of thing seem to be in a difficult situation because women will always be the weaker sex physically. I'm fully behind "women's rights" and I'm all for equal pay, opportunities, conditions etc (although I'd make women tennis players play five sets if they are paid as much as the male players) but I don't agree that women should always be portrayed as the physical match for men, because I far as I see it, they're not.
Women have many attributes that men don't, which is why men and women can make such great partners. Women can be better/stronger than men in many ways that doesn't involve physicality.
What do you think? Did I deserve a tongue lashing for my "sexism"?
According to this person, the Hilderbrant Star Wars poster is sexist and is only slightly redeemed by Princess Leia holding a blaster.
While I'd agree that the Hilderbrant poster is not the best depiction of Princes Leia, I would not say that the poster or artwork in general that depicts women being saved or being less capable then men is sexist. Since "sword and sorcery" films, books, comics, etc are based around a medieval style society, women would be much less likely to be sword wielding warriors. To look at history, it's clear that women did not have anything approaching equal rights until fairly recently. Even in an alternative "fantasy" world, where women are treated equally there would be those would not be warriors and who are pretty much ordinary. Call me "sexist" if you like but an average woman might appreciate a burly man rescuing them from a tight spot, because he may be much more capable physically that she is to deal with it.
I also attempted to point out that a man who produces fantasy art of a strong man and weaker woman is not necessarily being sexist. Rescuing a beautiful woman from the clutches of danger is a pretty innocent fantasy isn't it? It does not mean that he is making a point about the place of women in general. Also, wouldn't some women have the fantasy of being rescued by a man? There are exceptional females who can tackle pretty much anything but in the overall scope of things, aren't men on the whole more capable of dealing with physical situations then women?
Now that there is so much in literature, films and television shows featuring exceptional women who can kick butt as well as men do, haven't we reached a level of equality? I would say that it would be going way too far to only produce artwork, films and television shows where women are as physically capable as men.
Women who disagree with this kind of thing seem to be in a difficult situation because women will always be the weaker sex physically. I'm fully behind "women's rights" and I'm all for equal pay, opportunities, conditions etc (although I'd make women tennis players play five sets if they are paid as much as the male players) but I don't agree that women should always be portrayed as the physical match for men, because I far as I see it, they're not.
Women have many attributes that men don't, which is why men and women can make such great partners. Women can be better/stronger than men in many ways that doesn't involve physicality.
What do you think? Did I deserve a tongue lashing for my "sexism"?