No Nietzsche for now after all. For my second venture into the world of thymotics, I'll address a response to OUR BODIES OUR NONBODIES PART 1, which frankly I'd overlooked until recently. As it happens, respondent "JRBrown," who had also commented on Noah Berlatsky's blog, took issue with the concepts from respondent "Pallas" printed both there and here:
"Superman is battling to win reproductive rights to the girl, who is only interested in him due to his masculine strength providing the best genes..."
I then applied this concept (which I pointed out had been voiced by others as well) to ACTION #1, in which Clark Kent is buffaloed by several thugs until he becomes Superman and raises the ante by trashing the thugs' car. I maintained then, as I still do now, that there is neither homosexual nor homosocial symbolism in either the incident described or in the particular story in which the incident takes place. At best what occurs between Superman and his male foes is a game akin to "king of the mountain:" hence my remarks about the real appeal lying in "the exercise of one's abilities."
JRBrown wrote:
"Well, actually, this Pallas' evo-psych take on the situation is, at best, a massive oversimplification. The evolutionary pressure for great big manly men, is, essentially, the sad fact that great big manly men are more likely to be able to fight off all other men and declare themselves the owner of a woman, whatever her actual preference may be. For comparison: alpha male chimpanzees sire only 30% or so of offspring, despite trying their level best to be the only mating males; females will sneak off into the bushes with "beta" males whom they prefer, even though the alpha males will attack them viciously if discovered. The single best predictor of whether a female will try to mate with a certain beta is the amount of time he spends feeding with her, grooming her, and playing with her other offspring."
Now, let me clarify that while I think that the "evo-psych" interpretation is one way of interpreting Superman particularly and the adventure genre as a whole, I've not suggested that Superman or any other adventure-tale is a pure allegory of human mating rituals, real or imagined. Said rituals-- which one might choose to confine to what Jerry Siegel and Joe Schuster witnessed in their own experiences-- could be one of many symbolic influences on the Superman concept, but only one. Therefore, it hardly matters that chimp mothers trick alpha males in order to sleep with beta males. As long as the factor of compulsion is present, one cannot be sure that female chimps wouldn't sleep with both alphas and betas if their choice was the only factor involved.
Except in the most general way, human females can't be fairly compared to female chimps (which statement will, I'm sure, come as a huge relief to women everywhere). However, unlike chimps in the wild, human females in "first-world" cultures do have relative freedom of choice. And according to some of the studies with which I'll be trumping JR, statistics suggest that given such freedom of choice, they can and do seek out both alphas, betas and gammas according to whatever mood moves them.
More from JR:
"In humans, women in modern first-world societies strongly prioritize "good father" traits such as being kind, gentle, and good with kids over physical strength, competitiveness and aggressiveness."
"Men in most modern societies, on average, want to be hypermuscular, masculine-appearing, and masculine-acting. Women, in contrast, overwhelmingly prefer male bodies of average muscularity, male faces with a mix of masculine and feminine features (broad jawlines and large eyes, for example), an absence of stereotypical cultural markers of masculinity (such as scars), and sex-neutral personality traits such as honesty and friendliness. Superheroes are designed to reflect a type of heterosexually-intended manliness that does not actually appeal to most women, but does appeal to many men, including gay men. So from a certain point of view they are closer to being homosexual than truly heterosexual."
Ah, yes. No doubt that preference for "average muscularity" is the reason why so many romance novel-covers (which are, for any cave-dwellers reading this blog, primarily marketed to women) feature men with average builds, modest chest sizes, and spindly arms.
What's that? There aren't that many?
How many? A hundred? A dozen? Half dozen?
One, even?
Interested parties may care to browse UNCLE WALTER'S BAD ROMANCE NOVEL COVERS for some longer period than I did in search of covers that feature those average builds instead of the more common sales-device, the raging pectoral shot.
The fact that the majority (if not the entirety) of the exemplars of a genre directed at women (the genre with the largest volume of paperback sales, last time I looked) privileges the male hardbody should by itself disprove JR's careless statement.
But should one want more proofs that women sometimes do like exceedingly masculine men-- and that therefore Jerry Siegel and Joe Schuster knew a lot more about What Women Have Wanted than JR does now-- here's a writeup from 6-6-05 on various studies made of the subject of female attractions.
I call JR's attention to this heading:
"Some women use their long term mates for child raising while preferring other men as sperm donors."
I wouldn't dismiss this possibility, though I think a goodly number of women pursue the "bad boys" because they're something of a challenge-- which also happens to be the theme of about 90 million romance novels. I don't think the ending so often seen in the novels usually works out in real life, though, which may be why an awful lot of women "settle" for Johnny Beta.
Now I'm not a proponent of evolutionary determinism. However, the "evo-psych" paradigm cited by Pallas doesn't rule out the possibility that mating females simply like variety, and that said variety would seem to benefit the long-term diversification of the species (which not all human preferences do). As a critic of fiction I'm not particularly concerned with whether or not Mrs. Flintstone got it on with both Fred and Barney, but I am fascinated at the lengths to which some people will go to try to "gay-ify" a fictional character when there's no textual evidence for that viewpoint.
Let's look at this JR statement again:
"Superheroes are designed to reflect a type of heterosexually-intended manliness that does not actually appeal to most women, but does appeal to many men, including gay men."
So JR does admit that the intentions of (say) Siegel and Schuster was to portray Superman as heterosexual for their readers. Yet because JB wants to claim that women aren't actually so attracted, the portrayal of Superman as a hardbody is really a roundabout way of appealing "to many men, including gay men." I gather that the ones who feel that appeal but who aren't actively gay are merely "gay-curious."
Such statements make Dave Sim sound like bloody Socrates.
Yes, yes, everybody's got both *yin* and *yang* in him (or her). I get that. But if you're setting out to prove that there's a deeper aspect to context to Superman's muscles than signifying his ability to beat up Luthor (even when he has super-powers, doncha know), then you need more than the lame idea that *yin* doesn't and never really did like *yang;* *yin* really likes a lesser version of *yang* while the only people who like *yang* are-- comic book fans? But wait-- I thought they were misogynists who constantly bought T & A books and kept Jim Balent working??
Some time back, I read a post on THE BEAT where some artwad revelled in the idea of the gayness of superheroes because (and I paraphrase) "anything that makes fanboys self-conscious is good." The poster was a dipstick, but at least he was an honest dipstick. I can't say the same for the majority of critiques in which Critic X takes some character who represents some concept thought to be overly dominant (it can be either "conservative" or "liberal," though the bulk I've seen attack supposed conservative targets) and deconstructs them to reveal that the character is actually some psychological defense that displaces an opposing concept.
In other words, it's just Big Sigmund Freud's version of "king of the mountain."
Frankly, I think Siegel and Shuster did it better.
Jack H. Harris Presents Dark Star!
4 hours ago
50 comments:
Hello there!
This is "The Wife" from the Uncle Walter blogs (check us out at rottenromance.com -- we've got more than just the covers blog).
While I can't really weigh in on the homosocial implications in... um... comic books?... (I have no idea what they're called now), I thought I would weigh in a bit, with a woman's opinion, on the whole alpha vs. beta male.
Superman had the right "moves" -- ie being a knight in shining armor -- but Clark was the one the women wanted to marry. Thing is, it isn't an issue of one versus the other. The reason that Superman (or Batman for that matter) works is because you GET THE WHOLE PACKAGE. You get the "mild mannered" alter-ego while also getting the tough as nails, drool-worthy bad boy.
I don't believe that we (women) "settle" for the beta male because they make better husbands, fathers, etc. It's just that most alpha males generally have nothing going for them but their looks and the "I don't care" attitude. Superman encompassed all of that, as well as being an ideal that boys wanted to live up to (thus the appeal) -- which is why the sensitized, troubled versions are popular with women in film versions.
Why do we read about it but marry men vastly different? Because it's nice to THINK about, not so nice to live with. But that doesn't mean that Joe Buff doesn't get us hot and bothered. When given a choice, sure we'll go after the hot guy. Most of us, however, aren't willing to forego the traits we want (and want to pass on to our kids) just for a built body. Although it's one hell of a nice diversion sometimes!
What's also missing in this (from what I can tell) is that ALL the characters are ideals. The women aren't overweight, they don't have droopy boobs, their faces never break out. Does that mean that a man is "settling" when he marries a woman that doesn't live up to the stereotypical ideal? Hmm... interesting thought.
In my opinion, Lois wasn't in love with Superman for his sperm. She did, however, like his hot body. Ultimately, though, she would have been happy with Clark, because he was the more flexible, at least in a life-mate way (I'm sure that Superman was physically more flexible which would be a lot of fun!).
And just as a fun aside, even the books with beta heroes have awful covers with uber buff boys.
Thanks for the balanced response, Jennifer. As I said in the main essay, I'm not committed to the evolutionary determinism thing, so the only way in which I'm invested in the old "women want the strongest mates" thing is because it's become a pervasive societal myth that can't help but get transformed into fiction, even in a place like Superman comics.
As regarding Lois' ambivalence to Superman and Clark, long before she twigs to the whole secret ID thing, I've shown elsewhere that she does have some erotic interest in Clark himself in certain early stories. Of course it's a little hard to define Clark as a "beta male" because he has the attitude of one but he's still a damn big guy, which is something that Lois, fictional character though she is, can't help but notice.
I like your point that in romance novels as much in the superhero books I cover, the women are as much fantasies as the men. I'd suggest that the kids who originally bought Superman comics in the 40s probably had a pretty good notion that he was mostly a pleasant fantasy rather than (as my opponents have suggested) a deep revelation of those readers' hidden sexual proclivities. That's why I'd say that when boys read about hyper-muscled heroes, for most it's not so much for the pleasure of ogling the bodies as for seeing the hero demonstrate his toughness, triumph, and then receive the attentions of female admirers (even if the hero chooses to play coy and fly away).
I will definitely check out your site/blog in more detail as what I've seen is very funny.
I have to admit I can't read all of this. I will say that iIf you'd like to see a romance novel cover that doesn't feature hypermasculine men, you could look at any yaoi cover. Or any of the Twilight books. Said Twilight books probably selling better than virtually all those heavy-pecced romance novels combined.
Women like different things. Some of them like other women, for example. I think looking for evolutionary reasons for the popularity of Superman, or of anything, tends to beg just about every question possible. Looking to how our culture works now is a lot more useful than looking to how our primate ancestors did or did not behave.
I agree with you on one thing. Siegel and Shuster certainly had a gift for figuring out what it was their audience wanted.
And yes, I know the Twilight books don't actually have men on the cover at all. The guy the girls swoon over in those books, though, is pale and gothy and kind of androgynous and not especially hyper-masculine.
Kind of like Elvis, for that matter...to mention another massive cultural phenomena.
Noah:
I haven't said that modern readers are determined by evolutionary predecessors. I've only stated that it's a possible factor.
I've said that many modern women like variety, which would take in your pale knights, your dandies, your metrosexuals and your just average joes.
The basic point of this piece is to take issue with JR's doctrinaire statement:
"Superheroes are designed to reflect a type of heterosexually-intended manliness that does not actually appeal to most women"
Since I have no reason to doubt that "Jennifer" is a female-type woman, and since she has now validated what I had to prove via logic, the "not actually appealing" argument has no basis in fact or logic.
That's it in a nutshell.
Noah & Gene,
To reassure you both: Yes, I am (in fact) female. At least that's what my genitalia and my ability to birth 2 children tells me. I could be wrong, but my gynecologist tells me that's doubtfull.
The "hero" in Twilight, Edward, is actually not terribly androgynous in the books. He's just supposed to be terribly, horrendously, handsome. It's only Pattinson that makes him a bit metro. From a personal standpoint, the Twilight "saga" was barely more than teeny-bopper chick lit. While they are individually more popular than any one book of the romance genre, the genre as a whole sells more than the Twilight books have sold (over the course of decades, with a continuity of content). Twilight barely qualifies -- there's no sex and the first several books don't have a happy ending, which is sort of required for a traditional romance novel, even serial ones.
As far as what women like applying to what they read... I consider myself heterosexual, though I've had many and varied sexual encounters (some bisexual in nature), I prefer heterosexual novels. I have, however, read and enjoyed gay and lesbian novels.
While they differ in the sexual aspects, the stories themselves tend to be very similar in plot and style. Comic books in general (and Superman specifically), have never seemed to be hetero or homosexual in nature, at least in my opinion. But perhaps I'm in the sexually accepting minority.
What I will say (and perhaps this is because I'm female and have never been too into comic books in general), is that you cannot apply real-life sexual ideas and mores to a fictional strip that contains relatively few sexual undertones, let alone overtones. You can try to read anything you want into it, but ultimately the only person who can answer as to whether the characters are supposed to be homosexual in nature is the creator himself -- much like JK Rowling was the only one who could say for sure that Dumbledore was gay. Otherwise it's all speculation and arguing over it is like trying to determine whose spit tastes better -- it's a matter of opinion.
Hey Jennifer. I'm not female, but I have read and enjoyed all of the Twilight novels. I think Pattison's androgynous portrayal is pretty accurate. Edward's pale, fastidious, has slicked-back hair, is very cultured, and has a secret shame — the gay markers are fairly clear.
I don't know exactly the Twilight sales figures, but I know they're huge...and that the books have spawned an entire subgenre of popular imitators. Obviously they're not the kind of romance you're interested in, which is fine — but they do seem to have a lot of appeal to other folks (including me.)
Noah,
I've read all of the Twilight books as well (perhaps that's MY secret shame! :-P). I don't associate cultured behavior with being androgynous. I don't associate having a secret "shame" as being androgynous. I sure as hell don't associate having "slicked back hair" as being androgynous. LOL
Okay, maybe you're meaning gay instead, since that's the only way I can reconcile the descriptions you're giving as examples with the wording you're using. Neither of those descriptions have anything to do with androgyny or homosexuality, though.
I'm female, but not cultured. I have secrets that bring me shame, and I don't think that's limited to male, female or in-between. And neither my husband nor I have slicked back hair. A single Robert Palmer video does not represent an entire gender neutral look.
I'm not sure where you're going with the example of Twilight other than saying that women are in love with the books or the characters. I mean, Pattinson is pretty hot in general, but I think he looks bad as Edward. However, he's not supposed to be feminine looking, in either his description or in representation. He's supposed to be attractive. And man, have you seen the stills of RP shirtless? Said young boy is RIPPED. I suppose that is androgynous, too? Come now, let's not be silly.
And again, while I agree that the Twilight books have made gobs of money, they still can't compare to the single biggest selling genre ever (and we're talking decades!). Twilight will eventually burn out (it won't age well, that's for sure) but the romance genre will live on -- and again, I maintain that Twilight is at best a watered down version of a romance series, since it contains only some romance novel qualities.
Hi Jennifer,
My comment about your likelihood of being a real woman-type female was just me covering myself, not an indication that I disbelieved you in any way.
Anecdotally speaking, I've certainly seen evidence of the fact that a lot of women do like male hardbodies, but if anecdotal evidence does not suffice, any comics-fan can go to THE BEAT, search it for "shirtless Clive Owen," and find ample evidence as to the taste of at least one female-type woman generally acknowledged by all comics-fandom to be The Real Deal.
'I don't associate having a secret "shame" as being androgynous.'
Well, I assume Noah means that it's a shame foisted on the individual by conservative society, which might be true so far as it goes in real life but which doesn't apply very well to fictional characters who are at best two-dimensional.
Sometimes you can demonstrate that a given artist was working out his private demons in a way that even he isn't aware of, but you need to bring a *lot* of evidence to the table, like the literary guys who claim that Walt Whitman was gay or gay-curious.
I've not read any TWILIGHT books but did see the movie and also don't think Pattinson looks androgynous. Lack of a beard does not equal androgyny. I would agree that TWILIGHT is a bit of a fad nurtured in part by a raft of other vampire/paranormal romance books but it doesn't sound like it has the moxie to keep pop-culture mavens analyzing it to death for the next 20 years (unlike, say, Anne Rice).
I do agree with Noah to the extent of saying that sexual subtexts/symbolisms sometimes get worked out in adventure-genres like that of the superhero, but we differ on what constitutes good logical evidence.
Gene,
And we're going to differ on whether there ever can be "evidence" that someone has intended something. As I said, the only person who can confirm that is the author/artist himself -- everything else is just supposition. And a matter of taste.
The one thing to remember about the character of Edward: he's a 17 year old boy. Obviously he's lived much longer, but physically he will always be a 17 year old. And 17 year old boys are always going to look a bit feminine (even the really buff ones). But that doesn't mean that they're gay or can't be as buff as a young man can make himself. I mean, look at Daniel Radcliffe in his stills from Equus. That's one buff boy. But he still doesn't have the bulky, sexy, amazingly hot chests that Hugh Jackman or David Boreanaz have (fuck Clive Owen -- he does nothing for me). Then again, that's simply my taste to prefer men who look like MEN, not boys. I always feel skeevy if I think of 17 year olds in a sexual manner.
Having spent the greater part of my life as (what is tongue-in cheek referred to as) a fag hag, I can say that no one description can adequately depict the image of a homosexual or lesbian. I've seen everything from gay men who are the buffest body builders you can imagine, to truly scrawny androgynous men (*cough* Adam Ant *cough* -- god I lusted after that man). I've seen uber masculine and truly effeminate. I've also seen lesbians run the gamut.
And mostly I've seen people that you would never be able to tell, one way or the other, their sexual leanings. And I include myself in that, as while it's obvious I like men, I'm often asked if I'm bi-willing -- which, of course, I am :D -- meaning that people cannot tell my own sexual preferences based solely on my appearance.
One final thought: Gene, I'm sorry you saw Twilight. Noah, I'm sorry you read it. I wish I could wash my brain from both the books and the movie. It hurt me. I am scared.
You've a good point about the inability of a "frozen-in-time" vamp to age toward full manhood, though I gather that this author's vamps aren't so frozen that they can't do bench-presses to build their muscles. I guess that makes whatshernames' vamps of the "scientific" variety.
This is of interest to me since I'm working on a fiction project involving vampires of the traditional magical variety. As my logic goes, vamps of this nature would not be able to aerobicize to lose weight or to build muscle. Whatever body they have when they rise from the dead, they're stuck with it as is.
What you state about the variety of gay men ranging from the buff to the androgynous demonstrates that though gays are no more exclusively drawn to alphas or to betas than straight women are. I still can't begin to understand how the poster JR could ever have come to the conclusion that just because some gays like hardbodied guys, this fact in and of itself made the interest in hardbodies a "gay thing." It's tortured logic, to be sure.
It's a shame you guys at rottenromance.com don't have a forum. I'm not likely to read a lot of romance novels at this point in my life-- though I tend to read pretty heavily in manga with romance-themes-- but I'm curious about the prose genre and might like to ask questions to "seasoned veteran" readers. (I almost wrote "seasoned pro" but decided that might be taken wrongly.) Any forum you'd recommend?
Gene,
There are a few schools of thought (within the romance genre) of vampires. One of my favorites is by an author named Lynsay Sands. Her vamps are just normal people (granted from "the ancient city of Atlantis") that happen to be filled with nanos. Said nanos were designed as a cure for disease (with the assumption that they would then be flushed out) once the body was healed. But, as we're constantly aging and the sun is constantly damaging our skins, etc, etc. The nanos require blood to function, more than the human body can produce, so evolution granted the vamps certain powers and physical attributes to allow them to get the blood they need. These vamps grow until approximately the age of adult maturity (25 give or take), then remain at that stage, kept in optimal fitness and health. Some are bigger (muscularly or bust size for example) because they are built that way, but none are fat or particularly ugly (variations on beauty taken into consideration). They are only "immortal" in the sense that the nanos will continue to repair them unless the damage is too great to repair quickly enough (ie beheading). Sun does nothing more than make them require more blood. And they can eat and drink like anyone else, they just grow bored with it after a while since they don't need it for nutrients.
Katie MacAlister writes a series where the vamps are souless, tortured beings who must find specific mates that will redeem them thus gaining back their souls. While the... oh, darnit, what's that word? Ugh!... history of the vamps is not as unique, they also tend to age until a certain point. BUT this holds much to your notion in that they retain whatever damages they possessed prior to the change -- they just need blood and are virtually immortal. Sun can damage them, but they can still eat and drink, though since it's not necessary they usually don't.
There are, of course, many and varied vamp legends that have been used in romance novels, but these are two of my favorites. Stephanie Meyers... Ugh. Her "meyerpires" are a class unto themselves. They sparkle? Argh! They actually can't change their physical appearance. It just so happens that Emmet likes to work out. Won't make him bulkier, but will keep his muscles exercised. Oh, and unlike others, they don't sleep AT ALL. That leaves them free to stalk good smelling young girls. Whatever. Noah's right in that I disliked the books, but only because they were poorly written and didn't make any sense! Not because I had any particular dislike of them or the author prior to reading them. I did give them a fair shot.
I can't, in good conscience, recommend really any forums to discuss this. Those that I've attempted to visit are very cliquish and if you disagree with any of the posters, woe be unto you. They're mostly filled with women, and women on a whole (ha! here's a stereotype for you!) tend to be catty and uber defensive. Not my scene and I doubt it would be yours. I'll talk to Uncle Walter about setting up a forum. I think it would be fun.
Thanks for the info on other vampiric takes, Jennifer.
Since you say there aren't any good romance forums right now, I'll probably write up an essay I've been brewing up and post it here Monday. If you check back then I hope you'll respond. Mine will obviously be an outsider's take on a certain aspect ofthe prose romance-genre and I'd like to get a response from an insider, if possible.
Gene,
I'm happy to check out your post on supernatural romances. Also, I spoke to Uncle Walter and he's interested in setting up a forum. It'll be fun.
Hi guys, JRBrown here. I just found this discussion, let me respond.
What I said:
"Superheroes are designed to reflect a type of heterosexually-intended manliness that does not actually appeal to most women"
Your interpretation:
"I still can't begin to understand how the poster JR could ever have come to the conclusion that just because some gays like hardbodied guys, this fact in and of itself made the interest in hardbodies a "gay thing.""
Which is not what I said.
There are quite some number of research studies on what men want to be in terms of physique and behavior, and on what women prefer in terms of male of physique and behavior. The predominant result is that the average man want to be more muscular, and more stereotypically masculine, than the average woman actually wants them to be (I'll link some cites in a new post, for length reasons). In other words, the average man's vision of ideal masculinity is *more masculine* than the average woman's ideal. (Obviously, individual women - and men - do vary widely in terms of what they prefer, from ultra-thin and feminine to ultra-muscular and hypermasculine; I am speaking of the average here.) As gay men are men, it is entirely logical that they would find the "man's ideal of a man" more appealing than women do, and there is some evidence that this is in fact the case.
As you noted, romance novels are a genre targeted to women, and they have typically quite muscular men on the covers. As Noah noted, yaoi is a genre targeted to women, and it has typically quite slender and androgynous men on the covers (examples: http://www.junemanga.com/books/). As I will note, women's romance manga in general also portrays slender, androgynous men (examples: http://www.luvluv-press.com/manga.aspx). Whether this represents an actual difference in the tastes of the target audiences or a genre-specific convention as to how male beauty is represented is probably worthy of some academic's time, but it is absolutely not true that materials targeted to women consistently represent muscular, masculine men as ideally attractive, or that actual women women consistently consider muscular, masculine men as ideally attractive.
(You would think this would be welcome news, but in my experience, it quite common for a guy to become extremely defensive and unhappy when this latter fact is pointed out.)
In regards my comments on chimps, I was mainly trying to point out that Palla's evo-psych interpretation was massively oversimplified; chimps came to mind as an example, being a closely related species where mating choices have been studied with DNA confirmation (which is hard to do in a human setting for ethical as well as practical reasons). It is certainly true that human females do have multiple mating strategies and there is a consistent difference between preferences for short-term and long-term mates, but there is *no* across-the-board preference for muscular, aggressive, hypercompetitive or hypermasculine men and no (currently accepted) evolutionary theory that suggests they should.
And finally, a few cites; unfortunately I can't guarantee open access, but I have the PDFs and can expand on any study that you find interesting.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18089177
"Systematic comparison of popular magazines [...] revealed that the ideal male body marketed to men is more muscular than the ideal male body marketed to women."
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/157/8/1297
"In all three countries, men chose a ideal body that was a mean of about 28 lb (13 kg) more muscular than themselves and estimated that women preferred a male body about 30 lb (14 kg) more muscular than themselves. In a pilot study, however, the authors found that actual women preferred an ordinary male body without added muscle."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8337060
"[In preferences for ideal male appearance] Women emphasized lean/broad-shouldered and average/balanced male types. Men emphasized the muscular bulk male type."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15000974
"[Gay men] also scored significantly more highly than heterosexual men and women on Drive for Muscularity (a scale developed for this study), suggesting that the gay 'ideal' involves not only being thin, but also being muscular."
Jennifer said:
"Why do we read about [hypermuscular men] but marry men vastly different? Because it's nice to THINK about, not so nice to live with. But that doesn't mean that Joe Buff doesn't get us hot and bothered. When given a choice, sure we'll go after the hot guy. Most of us, however, aren't willing to forego the traits we want (and want to pass on to our kids) just for a built body. Although it's one hell of a nice diversion sometimes!
What's also missing in this (from what I can tell) is that ALL the characters are ideals. The women aren't overweight, they don't have droopy boobs, their faces never break out. Does that mean that a man is "settling" when he marries a woman that doesn't live up to the stereotypical ideal? Hmm... interesting thought."
I wouldn't frame it as "settling" for the beta male. Female chips *explicitly prefer* beta males and will largely avoid mating with alpha males at all if they are in a setting where they can do so without repercussions. Women, likewise, often prefer less stereotypically masculine males across the board; for long-term mates, short-term flings, and non-sexual companions. In other words, not all women find that Joe Buff gets them hot and bothered. It's been mentioned before in this thread, but the current best-selling form of sexually explicit comics for women is yaoi, which idealizes slim, pretty, androgynous men. (It should be pointed out that yaoi, and manga in general, does not ascribe to the "effeminate=weak" stereotype that is common in Western meda; it is entirely possible for the slim, pretty, androgynous bishounen to be tough, strong, and hypercompetent, maybe even violent.)
I also disagree strongly with the "all superheroes are idealized" argument; I feel that both male and female characters in superhero comics are idealized in a way that appeals to men; the guys represent what the (implicitly male) reader wants to be and the girls represent what the (implicitly male) reader wants to have (cough). Comics by women, aimed at women (and in comics I include manga), overwhelmingly do not have these same character types.
Clarification:
"current best-selling form of sexually explicit comics for women is yaoi"
- I'm speaking of the American (or at least English-language) market. Women's hetero-porn manga ("ladies' comics") have not yet been licensed in English, except for a few of the shmoopy-romance variety (manga adaptations of Harlequin romances from a couple of publishers and some of Aurora's LuvLuv line).
Incidentally, the items mentioned in the writeup on FuturePundit linked to in the main post are all reports on one study (free here). This study does *not* show that women prefer "exceedingly masculine" men; the study shows that women who are in a stable relationship and ovulating (that is, in a situation where cheating - more scientifically, "extra-pair copulation"- is evolutionarily advantageous primarily for the man's function as sperm donor) prefer the smell of sweat from more "dominant" men (defined below). However, the effect is modest (r of 0.29, indicating that the man's "dominance" score explained about 30% of the average respondent's estimation of his odor's sexiness) and has not been correlated with real-world behavior.
The scoring of dominance used by this study was the subject's agreement with the following statements (from the International Personality Item Pool):
DOMINANCE (Narcissism [Nar]) [.82]
* Try to surpass others' accomplishments.
* Try to outdo others.
* Am quick to correct others.
* Impose my will on others.
* Demand explanations from others.
* Want to control the conversation.
* Am not afraid of providing criticism.
* Challenge others' points of view.
* Lay down the law to others.
* Put people under pressure.
* Negatively correlated: Hate to seem pushy.
Aaaand I screwed that up. It's the r-squared that reports the influence of one variable on another, so an r of 0.29 indicates that the man's "dominance" score explained about 8% (0.29^2) of the average respondent's estimation of his odor's sexiness. So it's a quite weak effect at best. (I'm a molecular biologist, statistics isn't my strong point.)
Jennifer, I enjoyed Twilight, books and movies. No need to feel bad for me.
Pattison is no doubt ripped. He's also slender, pale, and generally looks more like he'd belong on a yaoi cover than on one of the romance novel covers Gene is talking about.
Obviously, having a secret shame and slicked back hair and being pale and cultured and so forth doesn't actually make anyone gay or androgynous. All those are cultural markers for gayness, though, to one extent or another. Obviously, Edward is not actually gay, but those tropes are used to make him...I think the word is probably fae.
I wouldn't necessarily bet on the Twilight books not lasting. You never can tell, especially when a cultural phenomena gets as gigantic as Twilight has.
JRBrown, I think it's really kind of unfair in these kind of conversations to actually know what you're talking about. Citing scientific studies and so forth...come on. How are the rest of us supposed to keep slinging bullshit when you pull stuff like that?
JR,
Far from doing anything noteworthy, as Noah apparently believes, you've just repeated your opinions without addressing my objections.
Writing the "Romance-Rape" essay today used up my time, so I'll have to shred your arguments tomorrow.
In short, my position remains that when Siegel and Shuster portray hardbodied men as attractive, they are doing so because at least a respectable segment of women finds them attractive, and that males like Shuster draw men this way because they believe they will enjoy greater success with women. Even IF this was a cultural myth, which is possibly your take on it, it would not invalidate Shuster's reason for using that artistic shorthand as appealing to women.
OK, I found a little more time after all.
JR, I have not had time to read your citations, but aren't these studies of contemporary women only?
Are you claiming, across the board, that if even if statistics prove that women today dominantly prefer the "beta male," that the women of Siegel and Shuster's time had to possess the same tastes because feminine psychology is basically unchanging?
Because that would be the only way that studies of current cultural preferences would be applicable to American culture nearly a century ago (and, one presumes, to the culture of prehuman anthropoids as well).
Are you then stating that feminine psychology is that unchanging, that monolithic?
JR said:
'As gay men are men, it is entirely logical that they would find the "man's ideal of a man" more appealing than women do, and there is some evidence that this is in fact the case.'
But your selectively-chosen studies do not prove that women don't like to mate with "alpha males." All that you have cited is evidence that women choose "beta males" as bond-mates, which *may* be because "beta males" are more nurturing, etc. But that says nothing about whether or not women find "alpha males" erotically stimulating. Thus I'm not surprised that you downplay my rejoinder regarding the dominant male erotic image of women's romances, which is not that of the "beta male."
You downplay it by citing yaoi as a genre that doesn't cater that image-- but so what? *I* am not the one who's been trying to define women's tastes as monolithic. *I* have said that they may like alphas, betas, dandies, metrosexuals, and everything in between. The burden of proof is on you and Noah, as the two of you are attempting to prove that the hardbodied male is not significantly appealing to women: that it is significant only to men in terms of their self-image. You JR don't seem to be insisting on the "hidden homosexuality" interpretation as strongly as Noah, but your counter-example does not disprove the significance of the romance-cover icons any more than a dog disproves the existence of a cat.
JR also said:
"(You would think this would be welcome news, but in my experience, it quite common for a guy to become extremely defensive and unhappy when this latter fact is pointed out.)"
I can't speak for anyone else, but what disturbs me is the sloppy logic, especially since you haven't cited a "fact" as such, but a broad interpretation of data. For instance, it's been noticed that a lot of hot-bod women gravitate toward men who may be nebbishy in appearance but who have become prominent in world affairs-- Woody Allen, or Henry Kissinger, who said, "Power is the greatest aphrodisiac." What do your studies say about whether the beta-male with stature might trump both the nurturing beta male and the narcissicistic alpha?
Finally, JR said:
"I also disagree strongly with the "all superheroes are idealized" argument; I feel that both male and female characters in superhero comics are idealized in a way that appeals to men; the guys represent what the (implicitly male) reader wants to be and the girls represent what the (implicitly male) reader wants to have (cough). Comics by women, aimed at women (and in comics I include manga), overwhelmingly do not have these same character types."
But again, even if I believed that the particular studies you cited provide rock-solid evidence of female preferences (which they do not), none of that invalidates the male fantasy that the infallible way to get women is to become a Superman. Like most fantasies-- including the feminine fantasy of rape I've just examined-- the fantasy is not particularly well-thought-out or logical, but citing scientific evidence that invalidates the fantasy's tenuous logic does not disprove the fantasy's appeal, nor does it prove that the fantasy is just a stealth cover for Something Else.
I would expect women's fantasies to have perhaps more variety with respect to relating what actually does arouse a woman, but this by itself does not make the Siegel-and-Shuster fantasy some sort of delusion or displacement. As for female comics-artists, if the superhero genre is indeed dominantly for men, as so many have claimed, why would anyone expect women to recapitulate the same fantasies the same way?
But that's a long way from saying that female comics-artists working in the superhero genre, or in related genres, don't work with the male hardbody from their own feminine aesthetic. (I would hope we're comparing like-to-like: there isn't any more point in comparing Joe Shuster to Aline Kominsky-Crumb than in comparing the former to Robert Crumb.) Some, like Cynthia Martin, have this yaoi-mentality you and Noah find so fascinating. Others, like Wendy Pini and Nicola Scott, show considerable investment in the male hardbody. I would hope that doesn't prove them to be gay, since you're still implying that's a "gay thing."
Gene;
I think you are tied up on the "gay thing". I don't think that Siegel and Shuster were secretly gay. I don't think that modern superhero comics readers are secretly gay. I don't think Noah necessarily thinks either of these things either. I do think that superhero comics, now and in the 40s, are representations of masculinity from an overwhelmingly male standpoint with minimal female input and, in fact, next-to-no acknowledgement that women's ideals of masculinity do not necessarily align with those of superhero comics. Superheroes are hypermasculine, hypermucular, and largely homosocial; this is a combination of characteristics that promotes homoerotic readings, has historically attracted gay readers and can easily be read as a coded statement of homosexuality. I think this is Noah's point. Hypermasculinity is ambiguous because it denies and excludes femininity, which signifies weakness and homosexuality, but the end product is suspiciously homoerotic, because it excludes femininity. This is men speaking to men, without women, and that is also a primary characteristic of gay men. It is not a trait that makes men appealing to women. Get it?
(Actually, women do think gay men are appealing, because they are culturally coded as handsome, feminine, and cultured. In the psychological literature this revels in the name of the "gay pretty-boy effect". This stereotype does not in fact reflect real gay men, nor is it particularly in line with actual gay cultural codes.)
Modern superheros are overwhelmingly hypermasculine. Physically, they are not represented merely as fit and healthy guys who hit the gym a few times a week, they are overwhelmingly drawn to be hypermuscular and steroidal. This is not a type that appeals to most women. I'm a woman, I hang out with women, I discuss hot guys with women; steroidal bodybuilders are not hot, trust me on this. Gay men are much more likely than women to think this type of guy is hot (for me, the "people who liked this also liked" panel pops up a pic that says "G-A-Y", which I think pretty much proves my point). Superheroes certainly do attract gay readers; check out Shirtless Superheroes (a site for men to admire four-color beefcake).
Here's an image from an informal "girls: what's hot?" poll conducted on a message board I frequent (geek-oriented, users mostly 20s-30s): hands-down winner was #11. Cue much lamenting from the menfolk about how this was an impossible ideal for men over thirty-five (as one female poster put it: "world's smallest violin"). Another female poster: "It bothers me that men in this thread keep referring to #11 as skinny. He is muscular and lean." There was a follow-up poll (image has gone AWOL or I'd link it) which included a couple of steroidal bodybuilders; they ranked dead last, with lots of "eew, that's hideous" commentary. The winner was another "skinny" (=hot) guy.
(More coming - length)
For real-life examples, look at perfume ads. Here's some ads for CKOne: ad 1, ad 2, ad 3. Calvin Klein is spending millions to print these images. They want you, the prospective female buyer, to think these guys are sexy. If they thought they could sell more cologne by putting guys with big muscles in these ads, they damn well would.
Look at clothing ads. Look at shampoo ads. How many guys that look like these do you see used to sell consumer goods to women? I agree that men who write and read superhero comics do actually think that this is an image of masculinity that appeals to women, but that is a symptom of the fact that they are completely disconnected from actual women.
And my cites do indeed reflect women's judgement of men's physical attractiveness. This paper (the second cited above) used a panel of male figures similar to the one schematized here (sorry for the small size, it was the best I could find). I have edited this to summarize their findings here. The scales are arbitrary; I've added the corresponding body fat percentage and fat-free muscle mass index to a few points for clarity.
This study queried 3 panels of men (in 3 countries) and one panel of women (in Austria), all mostly in their 20s. Two-thirds of American men in the study had actual physiques within the green box. Two-thirds of women picked "ideal male figures" within the red box. Two-thirds of men picked "ideal male figures" within the blue box. Two-thirds of men thought women would pick figures within the purple box. In other words, most men thought that the ideal male body was one that was largely outside the range picked by the majority of women. This is a consistent research finding that has been repeated in several countries and demographic groups. Superheroes are, if anything, even further up the vertical axis than the preferred male body type among men, meaning that they are even farther from the actual typical female ideal.
For real-life examples, look at perfume ads. Here's some ads for CKOne: ad 1, ad 2, ad 3. Calvin Klein is spending millions to print these images. They want you, the prospective female buyer, to think these guys are sexy. If they thought they could sell more cologne by putting guys with big muscles in these ads, they damn well would.
Look at clothing ads. Look at shampoo ads. How many guys that look like these do you see used to sell consumer goods to women? I agree that men who write and read superhero comics do actually think that this is an image of masculinity that appeals to women, but that is a symptom of the fact that they are completely disconnected from actual women.
And my cites do indeed reflect women's judgement of men's physical attractiveness. This paper (the second cited above) used a panel of male figures similar to the one schematized here (sorry for the small size, it was the best I could find). I have edited this to summarize their findings here. The scales are arbitrary; I've added the corresponding body fat percentage and fat-free muscle mass index to a few points for clarity.
This study queried 3 panels of men (in 3 countries) and one panel of women (in Austria), all mostly in their 20s. Two-thirds of American men in the study had actual physiques within the green box. Two-thirds of women picked "ideal male figures" within the red box. Two-thirds of men picked "ideal male figures" within the blue box. Two-thirds of men thought women would pick figures within the purple box. In other words, most men thought that the ideal male body was one that was largely outside the range picked by the majority of women. This is a consistent research finding that has been repeated in several countries and demographic groups. Superheroes are, if anything, even further up the vertical axis than the preferred male body type among men, meaning that they are even farther from the actual typical female ideal.
JR said:
"Superheroes are hypermasculine, hypermucular, and largely homosocial; this is a combination of characteristics that promotes homoerotic readings, has historically attracted gay readers and can easily be read as a coded statement of homosexuality. I think this is Noah's point. Hypermasculinity is ambiguous because it denies and excludes femininity, which signifies weakness and homosexuality, but the end product is suspiciously homoerotic, because it excludes femininity. This is men speaking to men, without women, and that is also a primary characteristic of gay men. It is not a trait that makes men appealing to women. Get it?"
What you and Noah don't get is that femininity is not excluded in the classic superhero comic of the 40s, which is one of the topics with which Noah began this involved discussion, not just the "modern superheroes" you reference in your next paragraph. I don't even think femininity is excluded from those features, either, although it's possible one might make a better case for certain titles having a homosexual vibe.
Femininity is not "excluded" simply because superhero stories do not play to all aspects of feminine taste. Feminine taste is represented as dovetailing with the hardbody's ability to defend himself and others, and only that. I suppose that I could try to count the number of times female characters in Golden Age comics ogle male superheroes and say things like, "What a man!", but I don't think that data would prove any more than the various marketing statistics you've cited. Your statistics suggest that those products marketed directly to women IN THIS TIME choose certain images, but none of that demonstrates that superhero comics of any time aren't marketed so as to play to men's images of What They Think Women Want. Further, the romance cover-images examined here suggest that some women do indeed want hardbodied images, even if (as poster Jennifer suggested) it's entertained by them as an over-the-top fantasy. She also noted that even novels with "beta" types inside were marketed with the image of alpha "hunks," which is a datum I think you've dismissed too quickly.
I think there's a disconnect here between what you and I are calling "hardbodied," too. When you speak of superheroes being "hypermuscular and steroidal," I certainly don't think of the classic Superman or Batman. Kirby's Captain America, maybe, but a lot of artists of the Golden Age tended to draw the heroes as rather limber, more with the build of a Brad Pitt than an Arnold Schwarzenegger. That changed somewhat in the 1960s (the influence of the "Hercules" bodybuilder films in America, perhaps), but I still wouldn't call the male bodies "steroidal." That term really applies largely to the Image Comics artists and their followers, which MIGHT indeed be rife for homosexualist analysis.
The romance-genre would seem to support my interpretation of the hardbody-taste in females. I've never suggested that any of these are "hypermuscular" or "steroidal" to the extent of an Image hero, but these covers almost always feature men with ripped abs. I don't doubt that some women aren't attracted to this body-type, but you're not going to convince me that NONE of them are. I think that there are other reasons as to why most contemporary female readers don't care for superhero comics, and it connects to the same reason that the majority of women don't like action movies. But that would require a whole 'nother essay.
You know, *I'm* getting "kinda hung up on the gay thing." Quite frankly, the assumption that "gays" can be lumped together in taste, or that certain behaviors are "gay" is pretty damned offensive.
As a woman as you say, JR, you should understand how frustrating it is to have behaviors associated with your entire gender that you don't agree with. "Gays" are neither more nor less attracted to specific body styles than any other person on the planet.
The constant references to particular behaviors as having "gay" under or overtones is absurd to begin with, but the more that "homosocial" descriptives are used, the more convinced I am that these are pejorative comparisons, not meant to actually identify the sexuality of the characters, but to criticize the use of traits that might be seen as "gay". As I said, the only person who can answer the question of whether or not the characters are gay is the creator. Otherwise it's speculation, and in this case it seems that a lot of speculation is being made on (at best) homophobic, or outright anti-gay stereotypes, that are meant in a belittling way -- much like claiming that "slicked back hair" is somehow an indicator of androgyny or homosexuality, let alone "secret shame."
Additionally, the problem with comparing chimp behavior to human female desires is that chimps do not have more than nature guiding them, whereas humans have a completely different social environment guiding them. And ideas of what has been deemed attractive change from generation to generation (unless you consider wearing mouse pelts for eyebrows to be an attractive practice as it was in the 1800s). Chimp behavior doesn't have that kind of development. The whole comparison is flawed.
Furthermore, for "studies" done about sexual attraction, it's much like any study that requires self--disclosure. Someone capable of duplicity is involved in it. Studies of behavior are easy to manipulate and easy to "fake." If you've ever participated in a study you know from what I speak.
A true indicator would be to monitor the brain functions of a participant in situations where they are presented with possibly stimulating appearances, thus seeing if what they say is actually backed up by nature. Anything else is also flawed, by its very nature because, get this... people lie!
I will post more later, but right now I have to pick my daughter up from school.
Gene said:
"Femininity is not "excluded" simply because superhero stories do not play to all aspects of feminine taste. Feminine taste is represented as dovetailing with the hardbody's ability to defend himself and others, and only that. I suppose that I could try to count the number of times female characters in Golden Age comics ogle male superheroes and say things like, "What a man!", but I don't think that data would prove any more than the various marketing statistics you've cited."
What female characters in Golden Age comics, written mostly by men, say about the male characters is not necessarily relevant to how women then or now actually react to those characters. I am sure that the authors wanted the characters to be highly appealing to women; as I said on Noah's post, "Lois Lane wants Superman because he's Siegel et al's perfect man, and that has to include getting the girl (or getting the chance to reject the girl, maybe)." But they are proceeding from their own conceptions of what women should want, not from actual observation of what women do want.
I don't have much familiarity with 30's-50's romantic fiction by women, so I won't speak to that period, but in the 1900s through 1920s, if you compare fiction for women by men, versus fiction for women by women, the former is overwhelmingly likely to present the "strong manly man" as the romantic ideal, while the latter is much more prone to focus on the artistic, sensitive man, the exotic foreigner, the debauched sophisticate who must be Redeemed By Love, or other alternative forms of masculinity (much to the dismay of moral guardians of the era). This actually lead to a sort of "didactic romance", published and often written specifically out of concern with female morals, as an exemplar in which girls would be taught to prefer wholesome, manly, all-American men of the football hero variety. (Women's and girl's magazines of the 1910's, of which I have quite a collection, are full of this sort of thing.)
In the context of modern comics, it is entirely possible to present images of non-hypermasculine men, and for that matter women, who have "the ability to defend [themselves] and others". Vide shoujo manga (for girls), where hypercompetent, protective male characters include this and this. As I said some posts above, shoujo manga explicitly rejects the idea that femininity, in men or in women, is weakness; one of the most violent shoujo manga ever, Aya Kanno's Blank Slate (review by Kinukitty), contains an exceedingly lethal, morally ambiguous antihero who looks like this.
[more coming - length]
Gene also said:
"Further, the romance cover-images examined here suggest that some women do indeed want hardbodied images, even if (as poster Jennifer suggested) it's entertained by them as an over-the-top fantasy. She also noted that even novels with "beta" types inside were marketed with the image of alpha "hunks," which is a datum I think you've dismissed too quickly. [...] The romance-genre would seem to support my interpretation of the hardbody-taste in females. I've never suggested that any of these are "hypermuscular" or "steroidal" to the extent of an Image hero, but these covers almost always feature men with ripped abs. I don't doubt that some women aren't attracted to this body-type, but you're not going to convince me that NONE of them are."
I have never said that NO women like hypermuscular men, muscular men, or masculine men. What I said, and I stand behind, is that the depiction of ideal masculine appearance and behavior in superhero comics is based on a specifically male conception of masculinity that does not align with the actual preferences of the majority of women.
I actually have a theory about the appearance of muscled male chests on romance covers regardless of content; many romance readers read staggeringly large numbers of them, and you have gone a long way towards selling a romance novel simply by making the potential reader aware that it is a romance novel. The "shirtless hunk cover" has value in the marketplace as a quick and efficient identifier, in effect, of "romance novel inside", even for the women who may not find the image appealing in and of itself. Romances that are trying to position themselves as "not the usual sort of trash" tend to specifically avoid that kind of cover.
jennifer said:
"As a woman as you say, JR, you should understand how frustrating it is to have behaviors associated with your entire gender that you don't agree with. "Gays" are neither more nor less attracted to specific body styles than any other person on the planet."
As individuals, yes. But in aggregate, there are trends, and I don't think it is inappropriate to discuss the strength and direction of those trends. The academic literature on the subject, scant though it is, tends to confirm my personal anecdotal observations that gay men are more likely to appreciate hypermuscular male bodies.
jennifer also said:
"The constant references to particular behaviors as having "gay" under or overtones is absurd to begin with, but the more that "homosocial" descriptives are used, the more convinced I am that these are pejorative comparisons, not meant to actually identify the sexuality of the characters, but to criticize the use of traits that might be seen as "gay"."
The conception of traditional Western masculinity is inextricably tied to "pejorative comparisons"; the entire point of being "manly" is to show that you are not homosexual and not feminine. I am not arguing about the actual intended or unintended sexuality of the characters, I am primarily arguing about the tension between the use of hypermasculinity as a marker of "heterosexual masculinity that is not gay" versus the fact that hypermasculinity excludes traits valued by women, while at the same time appeals to many gay men and is characteristic of many gay subcultures, both now and historically.
As to your last two points, yes, those are understood to be limitations of research on humans. It does not mean "The whole comparison is flawed", it means the comparison must be appropriately interpreted. Cultures can and do change their ideals of beauty and their ideals of gender roles, but there are recurrent themes that can be identified and studied.
As to your last two points, yes, those are understood to be limitations of research on humans. It does not mean "The whole comparison is flawed", it means the comparison must be appropriately interpreted. Cultures can and do change their ideals of beauty and their ideals of gender roles, but there are recurrent themes that can be identified and studied.
I should clarify -- I wasn't saying that the studies themselves are wholly flawed (though they ARE flawed, just as any study is). I was saying that YOUR comparisons USING those studies is wholly flawed. Because the studies cannot be taken as fact. They are a human attempt to understand behaviors and attributes, but they are just that: attempts. Quote and cite them at your own risk.
I am not arguing about the actual intended or unintended sexuality of the characters, I am primarily arguing about the tension between the use of hypermasculinity as a marker of "heterosexual masculinity that is not gay" versus the fact that hypermasculinity excludes traits valued by women, while at the same time appeals to many gay men and is characteristic of many gay subcultures, both now and historically.
I can't even respond to this without wanting to say something snarky. What you call "hypermasculinity" does not "exclude traits valued by women" -- many women DO like that image. And then to add that it "appeals to many gay men and is characteristic of many gay subcultures" is... well... stupid! You're implying that the women who find "hypermasculinity" attractive is small, while implying that the group of "gay men" who find it attractive is LARGE, when the sub-group you're referencing is small to begin with, and thus we're really talking about a small percentage of a small percentage -- not, as you seem to think, a LARGE percentage of a small percentage.
I will address your comments relating to romance novels in a following post.
Editing required for space reasons.
...the depiction of ideal masculine appearance...does not align with the actual preferences of the majority of women.
I agree with this statement. It does not reflect a "majority" opinion, because there IS NO majority opinion. There are too many differences, otherwise we'd all remain single unless we could find THE perfect specimen, or as close to it as possible. And yet women marry men that they find sexually attractive -- who run the gamut of appearances.
Women CAN appreciate the super-buff image without finding it ideal. Rarely are the images of the truly "hypermasculine" men (such as this example: http://covers.unclewaltersrants.com/2009/10/youre-so-veiny-i-bet-you-think-this-post-is-about-you.html ) considered ideal by nearly anyone, including heterosexual men. Mostly the images are just regular men... only... more. Some of them are even stereotypically ugly. And I'm not even talking about Fabio.
Take a gander at what the covers of homosexually oriented romances look like. They're very similar to heterosexually oriented novels. The men are generally not "hypermasculine".
Sure you could then argue that this is what heterosexual men believe to be an ideal (despite the fact that most covers are designed by women). But remember, the Superman of the time period discussed, is not the veiny, Carrot Top-type man. He's just (get this!) a man... only more. It's only recently (in my experience) that the image has changed into the huge, giant-necked, wide-shouldered look of shows/comics like The Justice League. Which are more funny than they could ever be sexy; and I think they're meant to be tongue in cheek.
...you have gone a long way towards selling a romance novel...by making...reader(s) aware that it is a romance novel. The "shirtless hunk cover" has value...as a quick and efficient identifier... "romance novel inside"...
This is an interesting theory, but not an accurate one. When romances first began to morph into what they are today, this may have held. Having the image also bolstered the fantasy (always nice to have an image of who you're fantasizing about). But as romance novels skyrocketed in popularity, the covers... changed! The ones shown on the blog that my husband and I run are primarily from the 80s (shortly after the romance "boom"). The late eighties/early nineties began the "tasteful" cover (with couples embracing but mostly covered, for example). Now? Now nearly all covers show houses, or flowers, or jewelry (especially with re-releases of previously "trashy" looking books). Still very obviously romance novels, but without the buff bods (those tend to be on the inside flap, because it's STILL nice to have an image). The reason isn't because of the concept of beauty changing. It's because women were embarrassed about the covers, because they were made to feel denigrated about their reading choices. They were not the images that women wanted to represent their reading habits.
Check out the romance section of your local bookstore. While yes, there ARE still a few publishing houses that use couples or men, they are not the trashy, absurd covers of even a decade ago. When there ARE men or women on the cover, they generally aren't overtly sexual. Or even the entire person -- sometimes it's just the chest or the head, or even the waist or shoulder of a man or a woman on the cover. There's a reason that those covers don't make our blog -- they tend to be artistic and even pretty. Doesn't mean that the book inside isn't trashy. And those with trashier covers don't necessarily contain trashy books.
The only statement that can be made about ANY of this, and still remain accurate, is that IT VARIES. There is NO UNIVERSAL, and trying to make one is always going to interfere with reason.
Edited for length:
...ambiguous because it denies and excludes femininity, which signifies weakness and homosexuality...This is men speaking to men, without women, and that is also a primary characteristic of gay men...Get it?...
This is just a continuation of damaging, wrong-headed, and absurd stereotypes. Yes, some people do believe them, but few, as you are, are claiming them as some sort of fact. I can't even address it without getting pissed off.
You continue to combine homosexuality, or homosocial, or homoerotic, or whatever homo word you want to use, with either steroidally muscular and grotesquelly enhanced men, or effeminate, feminine, girly (insert female-type adjective here) traits. You are implying that excluding femininity is gay, you're implying that INcluding feminity is gay. You're repeatedly saying that hypermasculinity, which you appear to associate with extreme muscularity is what heterosexual men view as a male ideal, by implying that any femininity would make the character appear gay. Not everyone feels that way, if you can believe that! Only someone who associates homosexuality negatively would say that -- and you've done so several times.
suspiciously homoerotic, because it excludes femininity
You can't have it both ways. Either the hypermasculine is attractive to gay men because they like the uber masculine. Or gay men like it because they're effeminate or feminine. They don't go hand-in-hand, and neither is an accurate depiction of a homosexual, or any other person within the queer culture.
Cont.
...women do think gay men are appealing, because they are culturally coded as handsome, feminine, and cultured...this revels in the name of the "gay pretty-boy effect...
Do YOU find gay men appealing? And how do you know? You really think you can tell whether a man is gay by looking at him? Sure, there are definitely some flamboyant people who are obvious in their sexuality, but agan, you're talking about an incredibly small percentage! So small that it blatantly stands out. It's the BELIEF that gay men are more "cultured" or "feminine" or "handsome" that is the fallacy, though, of course, some gay men ARE. Just as some heterosexual men are. "Metrosexual" may be a new term, but the concept has always been around. Ever heard the term "dandy"? These weren't gay men, but they were "cultured" and "handsome" (again, MOSTLY), although whether metrosexuals or dandies are feminine is entirely debatable.
...This stereotype does not in fact reflect real gay men, nor is it particularly in line with actual gay cultural codes.)...
Though this statement is probably the most fair-minded one you've made, it doesn't negate the rest of what you've said, sorry.
...I'm a woman, I hang out with women, I discuss hot guys with women; steroidal bodybuilders are not hot, trust me on this. Gay men are much more likely than women to think this type of guy is hot...the "people who liked this also liked" panel pops up a pic that says "G-A-Y", which...pretty much proves my point...
This about sums up why your statements are bigoted, absurd, and nearly entirely false. You are a woman who hangs out with women, who are most likely similar to you (or else you wouldn't be hanging out with them and discussing shared topics.), and you are projecting YOUR opinions on homosexuality to women (and even men!) as a whole. You're taking a single link on a single website and applying it to an entire group of people. I'm literally disgusted by some of the statements you're making. I've rarely encountered such blatant acceptance of generic and uninspired stereotypes that are so harmful in their perpetuation.
I could honestly go on and on (for example in your references to Calvin Klein ads, which feature people who look like CHILDREN more than it features buff or even not-so-buff men), or some of the "points" you've made. But I'm actually getting nauseated and should probably stop for now. I will say, though, that as a woman, I would appreciate it if you wouldn't lump me in with people who share the opinions that you have.
jennifer said:
"I should clarify -- I wasn't saying that the studies themselves are wholly flawed (though they ARE flawed, just as any study is). I was saying that YOUR comparisons USING those studies is wholly flawed. Because the studies cannot be taken as fact. They are a human attempt to understand behaviors and attributes, but they are just that: attempts. Quote and cite them at your own risk."
All studies are not flawed. Any individual study is, however, incomplete, since the scientific method is of necessity reductionist. Which is why the standard of evidence is reproducibility. There are multiple studies confirming the results summarized above in multiple Western cultures and among multiple demographic groups. It is a reproducible finding, and therefore likely to be valid.
And human behavior is a complex and experimentally intractable system, but it is a perfectly fit system for study and conclusions from properly framed inquires can indeed be drawn.
jennifer also said:
"I can't even respond to this without wanting to say something snarky. What you call "hypermasculinity" does not "exclude traits valued by women" -- many women DO like that image. And then to add that it "appeals to many gay men and is characteristic of many gay subcultures" is... well... stupid! You're implying that the women who find "hypermasculinity" attractive is small, while implying that the group of "gay men" who find it attractive is LARGE, when the sub-group you're referencing is small to begin with, and thus we're really talking about a small percentage of a small percentage -- not, as you seem to think, a LARGE percentage of a small percentage."
When hypermasculinity is depicted as a positive trait by women they usually edit the depiction to include those positive "feminine" traits, such as emotional openness, nurturance, and domesticity, that are not usually part of male conceptions of masculinity. I can't fully interpret your second point; is it that the percentage of gay men who are attracted to hypermasculinity is smaller than the percentage of women who are attracted to hypermasculinity (I disagree), or that the total number of gay men is smaller than the total number of women (true but irrelevant to my argument)?
And please feel free to be as snarky as you wanna be. ;)
[more coming - I cannot fit a post into 4000 characters...]
jennifer further said:
"It does not reflect a "majority" opinion, because there IS NO majority opinion. There are too many differences, otherwise we'd all remain single unless we could find THE perfect specimen, or as close to it as possible."
Yes. But the opinion of the majority lies within certain bounds (and I am aware that where the bounds lie depend on how large a fraction the "majority" is defined to include), and most modern superheroes (as well as many Golden Age superheroes) lie outside of those bounds.
"Rarely are the images of the truly "hypermasculine" men [...] considered ideal by nearly anyone, including heterosexual men. Mostly the images are just regular men... only... more."
But many heterosexual men do argue that this is the feminine ideal, or even that it should be the feminine ideal; there is a substantial amount of academic research (which I am aware you discount) that shows than men in Western countries believe women prefer hypermuscular men. As you do not appear to be a manga reader, you will probably not relate to this, but yaoi and shoujo manga and the women who read them are routinely derided (by men) because of the two genres' emphasis on androgynous, pretty male characters, which is taken as evidence that the readers cannot handle, cannot attract, or are afraid of "real men". I cannot count the number of times I have seen someone (almost always male) claim that all yaoi fans are pre-pubertal, terminally insecure or closet lesbians because real women want real men, who are by definition manly and muscular. (Plus the whole "gay is icky, women who like it are sick" thing.)
jennifer further said:
"But remember, the Superman of the time period discussed, is not the veiny, Carrot Top-type man. He's just (get this!) a man... only more. It's only recently (in my experience) that the image has changed into the huge, giant-necked, wide-shouldered look of shows/comics like The Justice League. Which are more funny than they could ever be sexy; and I think they're meant to be tongue in cheek."
Superheroes have certainly increased in bulk since the 1930s. But Superman was never a slender or average type; he was deliberately designed around the Charles Atlas bodybuilder, "muscular Christianity" image of masculinity. (Bodybuilders have also increased in bulk since the 1930s; Charles Atlas would barely qualify for a romance cover these days.) I have seen no evidence that this was the actual male ideal of a majority of women of the era. (From the preferences of the immediately prior era, I would suspect that it would be more along the lines of Cary Grant; wealthy, witty and urbane.)
And I disagree that modern superheroes are intended to be "tongue in cheek"; fans certainly take them very seriously, and many seem highly invested in their status as ideal males and as objects of female desire.
[part 3 coming soon...]
And then jennifer said:
"The [romance novel covers] shown on the blog that my husband and I run are primarily from the 80s (shortly after the romance "boom"). The late eighties/early nineties began the "tasteful" cover (with couples embracing but mostly covered, for example). Now? Now nearly all covers show houses, or flowers, or jewelry (especially with re-releases of previously "trashy" looking books) [...] The reason isn't because of the concept of beauty changing. It's because women were embarrassed about the covers, because they were made to feel denigrated about their reading choices. They were not the images that women wanted to represent their reading habits."
I am actually aware of this (I don't know if Gene is, however); I have read several academic studies of romance novels that make this exact point. The post was getting long and rambling enough as it was, so I decided not to make this distinction. I still think my theory is correct, in reference to the market of yesteryear.
"The only statement that can be made about ANY of this, and still remain accurate, is that IT VARIES. There is NO UNIVERSAL, and trying to make one is always going to interfere with reason."
There is no universal. There are, however, trends. If reductionism is carried to the point that each individual has to be considered in isolation, reason becomes pointless because no inferences can ever be made.
jennifer said:
"You continue to combine homosexuality, or homosocial, or homoerotic, or whatever homo word you want to use, with either steroidally muscular and grotesquelly enhanced men, or effeminate, feminine, girly (insert female-type adjective here) traits. You are implying that excluding femininity is gay, you're implying that INcluding feminity is gay."
No. I am saying that culturally accepted and widespread stereotypes of masculinity exclude femininity, in part because culturally accepted and widespread stereotypes of gayness include femininity, but by seeking to exclude femininity and emphasize masculinity the stereotypically masculine actually becomes MORE APPEALING to actual gay men as a class, and as thus can be read as gay. Do you see the difference?
"You're repeatedly saying that hypermasculinity, which you appear to associate with extreme muscularity is what heterosexual men view as a male ideal, by implying that any femininity would make the character appear gay. Not everyone feels that way, if you can believe that! Only someone who associates homosexuality negatively would say that -- and you've done so several times."
No. STEREOTYPICAL CONSTRUCTS OF MASCULINITY are based on the idea that feminine=weak, and gay=feminine=weak. I have repeatedly brought up shoujo and yaoi manga as examples of mass-market genres (aimed at, and constructed almost entirely by, women) where this is NOT the case, and mentioned that they are considerably more popular with American women than are superhero comics, which, I feel, is PRECISELY BECAUSE this is not the case. (Sorry for shouting, but this doesn't seem to be getting through to you.)
"suspiciously homoerotic, because it excludes femininity You can't have it both ways."
I am not trying to have it both ways. The entire point of this discussion is that stereotypical masculinity is, in Eve Sedgwick's term, "incoherent", because of the tension between hypermasculinity as an exaggeratedly non-gay state versus hypermasculinity as an exaggeratedly gay state. I can't put it any more plainly than that.
[more coming]
jennifer said:
"You really think you can tell whether a man is gay by looking at him? [..] It's the BELIEF that gay men are more "cultured" or "feminine" or "handsome" that is the fallacy, though, of course, some gay men ARE."
Yes. That was exactly the point.
"This about sums up why your statements are bigoted, absurd, and nearly entirely false. You are a woman who hangs out with women, who are most likely similar to you (or else you wouldn't be hanging out with them and discussing shared topics.), and you are projecting YOUR opinions on homosexuality to women (and even men!) as a whole. You're taking a single link on a single website and applying it to an entire group of people."
Hmm? I don't see where I am applying "my opinions on homosexuality" to women as a whole. I mentioned an observed psychological bias (stereotypes of gay men feature traits that are appealing to women) and cited an academic study exploring it, then I mentioned an opinion that is common among my peers and well supported by the academic literature (most women think steroidal bodybuilders are not hot), and then I pointed out that a significant percentage of gay men (not all, obviously) do think that steroidal bodybuilders are hot. The link was offered as an example.
"I'm literally disgusted by some of the statements you're making. I've rarely encountered such blatant acceptance of generic and uninspired stereotypes that are so harmful in their perpetuation."
I don't follow; the stereotype that gay men like muscular men? It is a stereotype that is well-known and frequently perpetuated by gay men themselves, partially as a corrective to the idea that gay men are universally feminine and desire to be so.
"I could honestly go on and on (for example in your references to Calvin Klein ads, which feature people who look like CHILDREN more than it features buff or even not-so-buff men), or some of the "points" you've made. But I'm actually getting nauseated and should probably stop for now. I will say, though, that as a woman, I would appreciate it if you wouldn't lump me in with people who share the opinions that you have."
Apparently Calvin Klein thinks these men will be appealing to purchasers. I don't think they look like children; I personally think they look like handsome, low-body-fat, slightly-below-averagely muscularity early-20s men. If you don't think that handsome, low-body-fat, slightly-below-averagely muscularity early-20s men are attractive, then good for you; many women do. If I was still in my 20s I would totally hit this guy.
Unfortunately I couldn't respond sooner: holidays with the family get in the way of posting.
Let's see what the heart of this is, eh?
"STEREOTYPICAL CONSTRUCTS OF MASCULINITY"
"culturally accepted and widespread stereotypes of masculinity"
"culturally accepted and widespread stereotypes of gayness"
They are just that: stereotypes. And only in narrow-minded people are they accepted or acceptable. It's statements like this that have limited the rights of queers (again, a preferred term within the culture), and hindered their acceptance. Remember, in very recent past, homosexuality was considered a mental disorder. That doesn't make it TRUE just because it was "culturally accepted" by "academics" -- any more than the previously "culturally accepted and widespread" belief that blacks are less intelligent than whites.
Until people like YOU stop perpetuating idiotic falsehoods about what is contained within gay society, the rights of a minority will continue to be depressed. So yes, I consider what you're saying false. As do any enlightened, intelligent, educated people.
You can throw around the word "academic" to justify what some random people write in a paper, but it makes it no more truthful than what you write. "Academics" can be people with biases, such as sexism and homophobia, too. Anyone who claims that a stereotype is fact just because someone with a couple of letters attached to the end of their name -- and enough time on their hands to spend it in nothing but an education setting (as opposed, apparently, to living life and learning from it) -- believes it to be true, is beyond ignorant.
Cont.
So far the studies you've used to "prove" your opinion are between 5 and 15 years old. They are studies that rely on self-disclosure which you have agreed, by your own words, are inaccurate (my statement) because of people who do not truthfully self-disclose: "those are understood to be limitations of research on humans."
As for CK, the people in those pictures that you posted look, at best, like 16-17 year olds. Which, as a non-20-something myself, I find I'm unable to be attracted to. They look like children on the cusp of manhood, and it is a little sickening, to be quite frank, to think that you give that as an example of a desirable image or ideal. They don't even have more muscular bodies to give them a more "adult" look.
I'd take Hugh Jackman, or even Daniel Radcliffe, over those boys any day. Despite being young, Radcliffe at least has the body of an adult (a "handsome, low-body-fat, slightly-below-averagely muscularity early-20s" person). Rather than what looks like a scrawny, androgynous child. And if you think that's a "healthy" body type, I have to wonder what you consider to be "skinny", or even "adult" in appearance.
What amazes me about your use of these pictures (and even these studies), though, is that (AGAIN) you somehow think that your opinion is fact, or even BASED on fact. You concede a point while then trying to prove that concession false. You like to throw *snicker* "big" words around (as if that will make you appear more intelligent or believable?), whereas I (and Gene and Noah from what I can tell) am capable of using the "big" words but don't seem to feel the same need to do so -- only using them when they're necessary to make a point. A sign of someone who uses them to make an impression is that they are used when a similar, but more basic, word would work just as well, if not better. In other words, there's no need to try to be pedantic.
Cont.
And finally, if you plan on continuing to spout homophobic bullshit, I have no desire to continue a conversation with you. I will happily converse with you if you can contain your bigoted statements, but I will not have a discussion with someone who makes me sick.
I had left this topic (after discussing the development of a forum with Gene), but could not allow such ignorant and hatefull "facts" go without rebuttal. I've made clear to anyone who comes across this, that what you've written is merely the perpetuation of out-dated stereotypes that are based solely on opinion, and a homophobic opinion at that.
What I'm saying I suppose, is that I have no desire to continue discussing this with you, because the more I read, the more disgusted I become. However, if you feel you must "get in the last word", I will be more than happy to let you. And even read it. But I will not continue give platform or voice to your asinine claims if that is what replying to you will accomplish. My time is worth much more to me.
Coming in late, I'm tempted just to say "what Jennifer said," but I'll speak to a few items.
I'm glad Jennifer mentioned that the formularization of "what gays want" is at base a putdown of gays in its attempt to stereotype their tastes in the same way JR objects to the tastes of women being misrepresented.
I would add that I think this whole "masculine incoherence" interpretation, while possibly applicable in some specific cases, is stunningly inapplicable to most adventure-genres, and not in the least verifiable by any data culled from studies requiring voluntary disclosure.
The "incoherence" argument amounts to a blanket condemnation of the male sex as well, and that the attempt to associate this "culturally constructed" masculinity with gayness is largely an attempt to use gay culture negatively; as a club with which to assail straight masculine culture. "See, you're not so tough: you like superhero comics where men dress up in tights, hee hee-- and therefore you're really as much a sissy as the gays--" The incoherence argument is rooted in nothing but that old rhetorical game, "challenge the dominant," with some quasi-scientific "evidence" tossed in.
The likelihood that "men in tights" may symbolize other things in addition to sexuality is one that I plan to address sometime soon.
jennifer:
I am pretty sure now that you have fundamentally misunderstood the purpose and context of this debate. Let me try one last time.
I am not saying that stereotypes of gay men are correct or desirable. I am saying that they were (and still are) powerful forces in the development of male identity and cultural ideals of masculinity. Let's walk through this step by step.
1. Traditional conceptions of gender roles state that women, and by extension the feminine, are weak, and that men, and by extension the masculine, are strong.
2. Aside from homophobia in and of itself, there is a stereotype (dating back to at least the Roman Empire) that gay men are feminine, and therefore weak.
3. Culturally-widespread conceptions of ideal maleness emphasize strength, both as a positive trait in its own light as well as a marker of masculinity.
4. Therefore, culturally-widespread conceptions of ideal maleness produced by men for male consumption (in the form of pulp fiction, action movies, and superhero comics, among others) reject femininity, both as a general marker of weakness and as a specific marker of gayness. This leads to the presentation of hypermasculinity as the ideal male state in such works.
5. Gay men, especially since about the 1930s in the US, have rejected the stereotype of gay femininity and replaced it, in part, with a culture of hypermasculinity.
So far I think this is pretty inarguable. Here's the bit that Gene finds contentious (I know he also objects to #4, which I'll get to in a minute, but so far he hasn't explained his evidence to the contrary):
6. The state of hypermasculinity established in #4 is unstable; since hypermasculinity is not safely established as a inarguably heterosexual state, it must constantly patrol itself not only for the weak and the feminine, but also for the homosexual. The problem is that the latter now includes (by virtue of #5) a state of being insufficiently feminine. Result: paranoia and incoherence.
As Noah put it in his first essay on the topic: "Heterosexual men are men who like women. But if you like women too much, then you’re feminine, and so gay. But if you don’t like women, you like men and then you’re gay." (Again, this is not presented as a true or desirable explanation of reality, but an explanation for how this particular cultural mentality works.)
Is this clearer now?
On to jennifer's other points:
"So far the studies you've used to "prove" your opinion are between 5 and 15 years old. They are studies that rely on self-disclosure which you have agreed, by your own words, are inaccurate (my statement) because of people who do not truthfully self-disclose: "those are understood to be limitations of research on humans.""
I do not agree that the studies I have cited are inaccurate; self-disclosure is an issue that can be properly controlled for. The "limitations of research on humans" is my pointing out that this should be controlled for, not a blanket statement of inaccuracy.
I can provide additional cites, if you like, of studies that find that (both gay and straight) men on average desire to have hypermuscular bodies and that women on average prefer average-muscularity bodies, although I cannot guarantee free access (most scientific publication isn't free, sadly). The literature on male body image and female preference is not particularly large, since these are topics that do not get the same amount of funding as, say, cancer research, but I don't think American popular culture has changed enough within the last 5 years to reject studies of that age as out of date.
"As for CK, the people in those pictures that you posted look, at best, like 16-17 year olds. [...] They don't even have more muscular bodies to give them a more "adult" look."
Muscularity is not a direct sign of adulthood; there is no mental or emotional development that is connected to muscle mass. Are guys that are rail-thin at 35 somehow less adult than guys that are bulkier? In any case, the point is that Calvin Klein thinks men who are, if anything, less muscular than the average can be used as part of an advertising campaign to sell cologne to women.
Yes, the guys in the CK ad are young. But I sincerely doubt that they are 16 or 17. (Somewhere on the web I'm sure I could find info on the models; I don't have the energy to look for any.) The target audience for the ads is probably also in the 20s. I don't see an issue here.
"You like to throw *snicker* "big" words around (as if that will make you appear more intelligent or believable?)"
Hmm? Maybe I'm a little out of touch with the average person's working vocabulary. But I am not trying to be pedantic. I am trying to be clear.
Gene;
"I'm glad Jennifer mentioned that the formularization of "what gays want" is at base a putdown of gays in its attempt to stereotype their tastes in the same way JR objects to the tastes of women being misrepresented."'
What I have said about "what gays want":
1. Hypermasculinity has been used, since the early 20th century at least, as a coded reference to homosexuality (example: any gay pulp novel of the 1940's, before publishers got the courage to become explicit),
2. There has historically (and still currently) been an aspect of gay culture that valorizes hypermasculinity (influential early example: Tom of Finland),
3. Gay men, like straight men, wish on average to be hypermuscular (a 2004 study, free PDF from the author's lab), and are more likely than women to find depictions of hypermuscularity and hypermasculinity appealing (compare the last line in table 1 of that study to Pope's findings: "The images chosen by these women had a mean percentage of body fat of 14.9% (SD=5.3%) and an FFMI of 20.3 kg/m2 (SD=1.6).").
I stand behind all three statements.
[more coming - comment form is acting up]
Gene further said:
"I would add that I think this whole "masculine incoherence" interpretation, while possibly applicable in some specific cases, is stunningly inapplicable to most adventure-genres, and not in the least verifiable by any data culled from studies requiring voluntary disclosure."
"Most adventure-genres", aimed at men, since the 1890's at least, have most certainly adhered to the presentation of hypermasculinity as a male ideal. The "incoherence" argument applies most clearly to works after the 1930s, when alternative formulations of gayness began to be disseminated and (a bit later) when women began to more seriously question gender roles, but before that the "weaknesses" being defended against have included not only femaleness, femininity and feminine-gayness (since time immemorial) but, for example, also Jewishness and intellectualism (particularly the Muscular Christianity movement of the late 1800s and early 1900s). (Considering that Siegel and Shuster were themselves Jewish, it's a bit odd how well early Superman conforms to the Muscular Christianity ideal.)
As to your dismissal of voluntary disclosure, why would women, en masse, lie to a computer program (as used in the Pope study) about which pictures of men they found more appealing? This smacks to me of the hoary old "women don't know what they want" argument. Show me any data set that uses an inclusive range of body types and finds that the average woman prefers hypermuscularity.
""See, you're not so tough: you like superhero comics where men dress up in tights, hee hee-- and therefore you're really as much a sissy as the gays--" The incoherence argument is rooted in nothing but that old rhetorical game, "challenge the dominant," with some quasi-scientific "evidence" tossed in."
If that's what you are getting out of this then you are as far off the mark as jennifer is. The point is not that superhero comics are sissy, but that they are too afraid of being sissy. The "dominant", in this case, is restrictive (not to mention oppressive); why should we not challenge it? Superhero comics, action movies, 1950's pulp fiction, etc. all present the warning that to be a real, valued, respected adult (male) you must be "a real man", i.e., not weak and not feminine and not gay. I would argue that growing up and becoming a healthy, well-adjusted adult necessarily requires forgetting all about "being a man" and instead focusing on being a good and responsible person, which is a gender-neutral state.
On the chance JR stops back by I'm making it official that if she has further input she should post it to the newer threads in which her topics are addressed. If she posts in *this particular comment-thread* I'll be obliged to delete her comments here, but only here.
For the time being I'll leave the thread open for other interested parties though I imagine I'll close it sooner or later.
In order that she can find topics directly responding to her I'm belatedly inserting the tag, "JR's comments."
Post a Comment