On the contrary, it's supposed to respond to all to the incredibly plausible-sounding arguments which are actually, at the end of the day, sort of right. Most of the statements on the Comics Bingo Card are true. For each female character with a provocative outfit (read: all of them), there are valid characterological reasons why they dress that way. For every event which is demeaning to women, there are real narrative forces at work setting it up.
I don't agree. The problem isn't just the accumulation of demeaning incident or oft-repeated explanation, but the different levels of analysis. When you focus on characterological analysis in this way, you ignore that you're dealing with a created story that's shaped by particular people from a particular culture and act as if these "real narrative forces" are independent of any social or political influence. Not necessarily you personally, but "you the reader": I see this as a common conflict in discussions of media, where a critic may be arguing that the *narrative* is sexist or racist and the response focuses on whether the *characters* are.
And frankly a lot of the time there *aren't* valid characterological reasons and one of the things that we criticize in media fandom is the difference between what we're told the characters *are* and how they actually *act*.
ETA: Added a comma and a sentence to clarify meaning.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-27 09:40 pm (UTC)I don't agree. The problem isn't just the accumulation of demeaning incident or oft-repeated explanation, but the different levels of analysis. When you focus on characterological analysis in this way, you ignore that you're dealing with a created story that's shaped by particular people from a particular culture and act as if these "real narrative forces" are independent of any social or political influence. Not necessarily you personally, but "you the reader": I see this as a common conflict in discussions of media, where a critic may be arguing that the *narrative* is sexist or racist and the response focuses on whether the *characters* are.
And frankly a lot of the time there *aren't* valid characterological reasons and one of the things that we criticize in media fandom is the difference between what we're told the characters *are* and how they actually *act*.
ETA: Added a comma and a sentence to clarify meaning.