Quote:
Originally Posted by Diablosangelis
I have two issues with your comment on gender dictating what type of abuse is okay. The first also relates to your comment on my TL,DR, and is simply that I was pointing out that misogyny, or the hatred of women, is necessary in the context of a female hero, as the villain must hate the hero (in a simplistic interpretation), and by strict definition, that is misogyny. The male counterpart, misandry, is never used simply because a man hating a man, or hurting a man, or torturing a man, is something no one thinks twice about. In fact, it is possible to write a female misandrist as a hero and it be justified. This leads into my second point, which was the primary point: the word misogyny comes up if you have a female hero--the villain must be a misogynist... isn't it more likely they just don't like the hero?
|
Yes it is. That's what's problematic about any male vs female conflict: it's easy to see that a male might not like another male on a personal level, but somehow when one side is female it stops becoming about personal interaction and becomes a gender dispute. Man vs man != man vs woman.
Quote:
|
As to your final point, yes: still torture, still rape. Interpretation would be different, execution of it in a manner that could be portrayed in a non-adult film/M-game would be more difficult, but it is still the same. If you'd like explicit explanations, I can go further--rape of men, by both men and women, does occur, as does sexualized torture of men by both men and women.
|
I'm vaguely aware of such things, but now I'm sorry I brought it up. :S That's a can of worms no one on this forum is prepared to deal with. Men on men and women on men is problematic to even discuss because no one talks about it, no one thinks about it, and no one even
wants to think about it.
To accurately bring rape into a gender inequality discussion you'd have to properly separate the power dynamics from the gender dynamics, and that's
hard. So whoops to me, I didn't go anywhere with this.
Could you elaborate the difficulties with the "interpretation and execution" of such a scene though? Just the fact that there are differences in the first place suggests that gender is relevant to such a scene.
Quote:
|
My primary point here is simple: I believe in equal treatment, which means I see no difference in a hero being tortured regardless of gender
|
You are a winner.
Quote:
--the difference in how it is done is a side effect of differences in anatomy. The issue here is that if the villain is male and the hero female, he MUST be a a misogynist... but if the hero is male, the villain isn't a misandrist.
Technically speaking, one should hate all members of the female gender to be a misogynist, or all members of the male gender to be a misandrist--and I find it doubtful that villains are usually developed to an extent that we can say that about them--although there are a few circumstances where that is the case.
|
While you emphasize that there is indeed an issue with misogyny being assumed on a character's part and misandry not, my issue isn't with the technical incorrectness of the use of the terms. I want to emphasize that
male vs female possibly being misogyny and male vs male never being misandry is a problem that needs to be fixed. It's assuming that gender is somehow always relevant and significant in any male/female interaction that is the problem.
PS: I haven't forgotten you Gixia. :P
??
Senior Member
