Can we talk about the misogyny ?

Unknown

eris-wtga wrote:

Thugpatrol wrote:

Are we having a debate? I'm not sure we are. I've tried repeatedly to make points using examples. You haven't really bothered to address any of them. Your responses all boil down to variations of "This line is sexist. Sexism is bad. Context is irrelevant." What you have is a position, an extremely simple and rigid one at that, but you haven't made any point beyond one half mention of reinforcing negative stereotypes in the minds of readers. Likewise your denial of any kind of merit to context borders on intentionally obtuse. You're not engaging in debate, you've built a brick wall and you're hiding behind it.

What do you want? What is the recourse here that would satisfy you? Let's say the writers picked a different insult. That insult, by its very nature, would likely be at its core offensive to some subgroup of the player population, or it would be a really lame insult. They happened to pick your hot button issue and it's set you off. Would you be crusading as hard if she had made a fat joke instead? Would you be sympathetic to the people who were offended if you weren't? They could remove the section entirely, but now you've robbed the character of utilizing some of her defining characteristics, her mind and her wit, something that makes her interesting in a world of super powered brutes that smash first and ask questions never.

There are always going to be these grey areas when you're writing fiction. You cannot please everyone all the time and you cannot sanitize your work so completely lest it becomes so dry and boring that nobody will want anything to do with it. So please, enlighten us. What do you want? Step out from your barricade and debate if you want to debate. I enjoy a good debate as well, but right now you haven't put much out there.

Sorry but you are guilty of the same thing, "But the context". The only context that saying " hello ladies" that isn't sexist is to a group comprised of all women. And I'd say that using a sexist taunt is the absence of wit & intelligences. Yes I am brow beaten the point that the line used on a male as an insult is sexist, but I don't see how context can change that. If something is black, changing the lighting doesn't change the fact that it is black.

And I guess what I would like you to take away from this is to think about how we use language, and the effect it can have. There are very few contexts where sexism is OK (this is not one of them)

The difference is I keep bringing up context and giving examples to back up my points on how it is in fact a real thing that is relevant to this conversation, and you keep saying no it isn't without making any attempt to address my argument or rebut it in any way. I keep bringing it up because you refuse to address the issue beyond a declarative negative, which is not much of an argument. Either you don't understand what I'm saying or you have nothing compelling to counter it with, and either way it doesn't make for much of a debate. I asked you some questions and you mostly chose to ignore those too.

Yes, the take away is naturally to consider how we use language, except you're not prepared to talk about language in anything but the simplest and most isolated of terms without any discussion of how they appear and the difference it makes, because according to you it makes no difference. Sexism bad. Okay. We get it. But you don't make ideas go away by sweeping them under the carpet. This is how you get people burning books and thinking they're solving all the world's problems. To deal with serious issues like sexism you have to address them. That means sometimes the offensive language has to appear in ways that make people pay attention, and the context in which it appears is extremely relevant to that. Until you're prepared to address some of this without resorting to the same monolithic dismissal without any real exposition we really don't have anything else to discuss.

squirrel1120

eris-wtga wrote:

The only context that saying " hello ladies" that isn't sexist is to a group comprised of all women. And I'd say that using a sexist taunt is the absence of wit & intelligences.

After reading through this thread, I can't help but notice a 'sexism is always bad' stance, despite numerous rebuttals. However, and the point has already been brought up, Black Widow *is* intelligent and witty. We know this through canon of years of her comics, and in recent years movies. It isn't just a statement made about a singular contextual statement, being the entire crux of the thread creation from your OP. Her main defining features when she isn't thumping some heads together ninja-style is her rapier wit, and the ability to out-smart her enemy, as well as to get into their heads. If she uses a sexist line, it is indeed to those ends. Knowing the character that is Black Widow also means knowing she does not feel truth about what she says. She does so knowing the psychological effect.

Misogyny is not being depicted in the referenced comment, it is (indeed *because* of who it's coming from), merely a feign of misogyny. I've been on the receiving end of it. During a snowball fight, being told you 'throw like a girl' can indeed take the wind out of your sails for a bit. Even if it isn't true... because it's psychological. There doesn't need to be truth to it, neither does there even need to be truth to the stereotype. All that's really required for it to be effective is that the stereotype exist.

Lastly, the thought that any particular bad thing that offends us could not, or should not be depicted in literature, audio or filmography is simply never going to carry any weight with the majority of society. Thugpatrol brought this up above, but it bears reiteration. The absence of any depiction of any quantity of any issue that would offend anyone would make for boring material indeed. It would eliminate 99% or more of everything that has ever been produced, because there is always going to be something that offends someone. There is some misogyny depicted in marvel products. This case really isn't one of them. Nor does the fact that it is depicted by some fictional character in a fictional universe really a statement that the writers or producers actually have adopted such a belief or standpoint. If you want real examples of misogyny in Marvel, take a look at anything to do with Tony Stark. Iron Man is who he is, for better or worse, and the fact that each any every hero has a personality and human frailties despite being 'super' is the very thing that makes Marvel such a compelling and successful universe.

Unknown

squirrel1120 wrote:

There is some misogyny depicted in marvel products. This case really isn't one of them. Nor does the fact that it is depicted by some fictional character in a fictional universe really a statement that the writers or producers actually have adopted such a belief or standpoint. If you want real examples of misogyny in Marvel, take a look at anything to do with Tony Stark. Iron Man is who he is, for better or worse, and the fact that each any every hero has a personality and human frailties despite being 'super' is the very thing that makes Marvel such a compelling and successful universe.

This isn't intended as some blanket defense of Marvel--some of the writing over the decades has been brilliant; some has really, really stunk--but I want to reiterate something I said up-thread: misogyny is a very heavily loaded term; it describes a *severely* anti-woman attitude. There are some actions and attitudes that well deserve the label--honor killings and acid attacks were the examples I gave--but tacking this term onto anything that someone might consider vaguely sexist does a great disservice to the threats that some women face today, in the real world. (I don't think Tony Stark deserves the term, but I'm not familiar with all of the Iron Man canon, so it's possible I'm wrong.)

There's a tendency by activist-types to blow their rhetoric all out of proportion to the suggested offense. One reason is that it draws attention, but another is that it's an attempt to preempt any possible disagreement with the activist's position by tarring any opposition with the blackest brush that comes to hand. "I don't think that's sexist" is met by "You must hate all women, you horrible misogynist!!!" This is not an attitude that invites discussion; it's just thoughtless bullying at best, cynical bad-faith at worst.

Rusalka

Vairelome wrote:

I think the "you throw like a girl" insult works as an insult less because of a "you are feminine" implication and more because of a "you are not masculine" implication.

In a world where some women are killed because they were **** or hideously scarred by acid because they sought an education, calling the possibly-questionable use of language by a (female!) comic-book character "misogyny" cheapens the word and concept beyond all reason. It only demonstrates a complete lack of moral perspective.

Yes, well, from my moral perspective it's ignorant and self-serving to divide prejudice against women into the bad kind (done somewhere else by bad people who aren't like us) and the okay kind (done here by us and everyone around us). I mean sure, I can see the appeal. It's nice to have an easy litmus test for misogyny. Would I throw acid at a schoolgirl? No! Then I'm not misogynist, end of discussion. And it's nice to think that while those other societies are misogynist, ours is totally okay. After all, we let women go to school and our **** victims only have to worry about being vilified in the press, ignored by the justice system, and harassed and ostracized by their communities rather than murdered. You'd think they'd be more grateful. Plus, it's much easier to be a supporter of women's rights if we start from the premise that the only women who actually need it are too far away to be affected by anything we do or say. All those women who are "killed because they were **** or hideously scarred by acid because they sought an education" won't be any better off if we change our everyday behavior, so there's no reason to change it, right? The only women who would be affected are the ones around here, and they only complain if they have no moral perspective and love censorship, so no need to pay attention to them, right?

So we create a world where tiny, individually insignificant put-downs of women create a constant background noise in daily life, and we pretend that this isn't the soil where misogyny grows. And then when another football team gang-**** a co-ed, when another high school kid stabs a girl because she won't go to prom with him, when another spoiled rich kid goes on a shooting spree because women won't sleep with him, when another celebrity beats up his girlfriend and goes off with a slap on the wrist and a five-minute dip in his career, we can shake our heads and say, isn't it a shame. Some people are just bad. Or crazy. Good thing we're not like that. We'd never do such things. Now let's go play some ball and don't throw like such a girl this time.

Rusalka

*blink* Aaaand speaking of censorship... the forum software seriously replace my use of the word "r ape" in the above post with "tinykitty." That's hilarious, in a sick sort of way.

Unknown

Thugpatrol wrote:

The difference is I keep bringing up context and giving examples to back up my points on how it is in fact a real thing that is relevant to this conversation, and you keep saying no it isn't without making any attempt to address my argument or rebut it in any way. I keep bringing it up because you refuse to address the issue beyond a declarative negative, which is not much of an argument. Either you don't understand what I'm saying or you have nothing compelling to counter it with, and either way it doesn't make for much of a debate. I asked you some questions and you mostly chose to ignore those too.
.

I am usually writing on a tablet, so long explanations are kind of a pain in the ****. But it really doesnt need a long drawn out because your points dont show that the context change the sexist nature of the comment.

ok so we have a strong powerful women who uses her wit & intelligence to play psyc warfare on her opponents, so she uses as sexist line to thrown a guy off his game, because there is nothing worse then being called a woman (ok maybe being called a fat, gay, black women in a wheelchair). explaining all this this just shows why she might do this, but again doesnt change the fact that is is sexist. it is saying that the guy is something less because he is being called a woman, sexist.

literary device: if it was a antagonist that was using the line it would still be sexist but would be better as it would add the negative light a antagonist. but the line is used by a protagonist which is why this thread was created and why i chose to comment on it. the fact that is is a protagonist that is saying that is saying that there is nothing wrong with using such language. it reinforced this idea that women are something less then man. the fact that you have a strong fictional woman saying still negatively impacts regular women. you know that if you got into a fight with the BW you know you would get your **** kicked, but when dealing with a normal women on the street it goes back to her as the weaker sex.

it is based on reality: you are right it happens every day, by no means makes it less sexist, it is the reason why it needs to be called on on. sexist things happen every day, often times guys dont even realize that it is. I am going to use an example from my life, i am actually on the upper end of the physical bell curve of women, im 5'10 with a large frame, and quite strong, i also lift heavy things for a living. But when a customer asks for a case and i go get it men try and take the case from me as if i cant possible handle carrying that case, which i do every day, some of these men are smaller then men, but just because i have **** i am not as able to my job. gee why would i be offended by that. now i can almost here you saying "what does that have to do with this?" it is all part of the same problem, that women are seen as less then men, we are not as strong, (which is irrelevant to most situations in life), not as capable, more emotional (which makes us less able) and all those other negative stereotypes of women. it is not just something that pisses us off & that is the end of it, it negatively impacts are lives from life threatening things like honor killings and r@pe to things like having to work that much harder to get the recognition that we are just as able as a male (this can include things like who gets the job or promotion, how much we get paid, etc).to you it is just an off hand comment, but to us it in a major impact on our lives.

Thugpatrol wrote:

Yes, the take away is naturally to consider how we use language, except you're not prepared to talk about language in anything but the simplest and most isolated of terms without any discussion of how they appear and the difference it makes, because according to you it makes no difference. Sexism bad. Okay. We get it. But you don't make ideas go away by sweeping them under the carpet. This is how you get people burning books and thinking they're solving all the world's problems. To deal with serious issues like sexism you have to address them. That means sometimes the offensive language has to appear in ways that make people pay attention, and the context in which it appears is extremely relevant to that. Until you're prepared to address some of this without resorting to the same monolithic dismissal without any real exposition we really don't have anything else to discuss.

you have it backwards, you are the one trying to sweep this under the rug. this thread is trying to draw attention to the sexist nature of the comment & you are saying that it isnt sexist because of the contexts but like i said above, if this was trying to draw attention to the negative impact is has, BW wouldnt have said it, the bad guys would.

Adventfire

All this back and forth and after awhile I'm lost. I think this is tied to the game somehow but all this arguing makes me not care anymore about the subject or however it's tied to the game. It's just a game and I play to have fun not analyze it to suck all the joy out of it. The only "PC" I want out of this game is the PC I play it on. You guys should chill and play a nice relaxing game of MPQ!

Rusalka

eris-wtga wrote:

ok so we have a strong powerful women who uses her wit & intelligence to play psych warfare on her opponents, so she uses as sexist line to thrown a guy off his game,

Actually, since we're on the subject here, I'd like to know where people are getting this notion that Black Widow is the kind of character who only cares about the mission and who will do anything to make the mission succeed because she just doesn't give a damn.

This is the character who, in one of her early solo comics, is shown to be glowing with quiet pride because she overheard a couple of women in a coffee shop compare her to Gloria Steinem. She broke up with Daredevil, despite admitting that she loved him, because she felt he wasn't treating her as an equal. She's had multiple instances -- the most recent being just a few month ago in her current series -- of intervening in her neighbors' domestic disputes in order to protect battered women from their husbands. She also has a history -- again, there's an example from just a few issues ago -- of sacrificing the mission for moral, humanitarian, or just plain personal consideration. It's pretty much the essence of her character arc in comics: the Red Room tried to turn her into an amoral nothing-but-the-mission automaton, and she defected from the Red Room and spent the rest of her life refusing to be that kind of person. When she talks about her view of the world and of life, she says things like "Hearts always break, but in the end what matters is that we loved and lived."

Basically, Black Widow has a well-established, decades-long history of valuing love and compassion, of caring about lots of things besides the mission, and of taking an explicit feminist stance not just on her behalf but also on behalf of other women.

Unknown

eris-wtga wrote:

if it was a antagonist that was using the line it would still be sexist but would be better as it would add the negative light a antagonist. but the line is used by a protagonist which is why this thread was created and why i chose to comment on it. the fact that is is a protagonist that is saying that is saying that there is nothing wrong with using such language.

Congratulations, you have just discovered the importance of context. My work here is done.

Rusalka

Thugpatrol wrote:

eris-wtga wrote:

if it was a antagonist that was using the line it would still be sexist but would be better as it would add the negative light a antagonist. but the line is used by a protagonist which is why this thread was created and why i chose to comment on it. the fact that is is a protagonist that is saying that is saying that there is nothing wrong with using such language.

Congratulations, you have just discovered the importance of context. My work here is done.

And you've just acknowledged that the context is it actually stands is sexist. Applause all around!

Unknown

Rusalka wrote:

Thugpatrol wrote:

eris-wtga wrote:

if it was a antagonist that was using the line it would still be sexist but would be better as it would add the negative light a antagonist. but the line is used by a protagonist which is why this thread was created and why i chose to comment on it. the fact that is is a protagonist that is saying that is saying that there is nothing wrong with using such language.

Congratulations, you have just discovered the importance of context. My work here is done.

And you've just acknowledged that the context is it actually stands is sexist. Applause all around!

Go back and read the entire conversation and you'll find I tried to bring this up about two pages ago where I asked if qualifying the original line with a thought bubble or changing the surrounding circumstance would improve the scene in her view and was met with another barrage of "context doesn't matter". I also acknowledged long long ago that the line, taken completely out of context, is obviously a sexist taunt. What exactly is your point? Mine is that up until this very moment we haven't been able to have a real conversation about this because nothing mattered beyond "it is sexist". So yay for progress.

Unknown

"Thugpatrol wrote:

Congratulations, you have just discovered the importance of context. My work here is done.

Well except that the widow is the protagonist.... And again still sexist no matter who says it

Unknown

eris-wtga wrote:

if it was a antagonist that was using the line it would still be sexist but would be better as it would add the negative light a antagonist.

eris-wtga wrote:

Well except that the widow is the protagonist.... And again still sexist no matter who says it

Okay. One last time. Do you see the word that I highlighted in your statement. I hope so. I put it in bold faced italics and underlined it, you know, just to make sure. Context is the situation in which something happens. Changing the speaker is changing the context of the scene. By saying a change in the speaker would be "better" is an admission that the context of the scene has an influence on how you would receive it, and thus matters. QED.

The only point you've even remotely tried to make, and it is a valid one if you had bothered to fully articulate it, is the notion that using sexist language can reinforce sexist stereotypes in the minds of readers, which further fuels the stereotypes themselves. Here's the problem with your insistence that only the words alone matter: how many people read the first line and then immediately threw the device they were playing on out the nearest window? Because that is the only way the rest of the scene, the context in which the line appears, wouldn't matter. Most people watched the rest of the scene, fought the battle, and saw what happened at the end, assuming there was more dialog there. I don't recall. Their opinion, and any reinforcement of stereotypes etc., would be based on the entire scene, not just on one line of dialog. That is the importance of context. Stubbornly refusing to admit its value over and over again is just plain ignorant.

Unknown

Thugpatrol wrote:

Okay. One last time. Do you see the word that I highlighted in your statement. I hope so. I put it in bold faced italics and underlined it, you know, just to make sure. Context is the situation in which something happens. Changing the speaker is changing the context of the scene. By saying a change in the speaker would be "better" is an admission that the context of the scene has an influence on how you would receive it. QED.

The only point you've even remotely tried to make, and it is a valid one if you had bothered to fully articulate it, is the notion that using sexist language can reinforce sexist stereotypes in the minds of readers, which further fuels the stereotypes themselves. Here's the problem with your insistence that only the words alone matter: how many people read the first line and then immediately threw the device they were playing on out the nearest window? Because that is the only way the rest of the scene, the context in which the line appears, wouldn't matter. Most people watched the rest of the scene, fought the battle, and saw what happened at the end, assuming there was more dialog there. I don't recall. Their opinion, and any reinforcement of stereotypes etc., would be based on the entire scene, not just on one line of dialog. That is the importance of context. Stubbornly refusing to admit its value over and over again is just plain ignorant.

And you again miss the fact that it is still sexist...and again. I, and every other woman out there is are not superheros, we are not going to be seen the same way. Now without getting into too much psycho-babble, people do pick out things that reinforce our view of the world,so that idea that women are less then men get reinforced dispite the outcome of the fight. So even though it exists in the greater context, it is still damaging. (And yes I do have some language issues & do have trouble expressing myself in the written form. Which is why I do stuff like this so let me rephrase: if the antagonist has used the line, we probably would not be having this conversation)

Rusalka

Thugpatrol wrote:

how many people read the first line and then immediately threw the device they were playing on out the nearest window? Because that is the only way the rest of the scene, the context in which the line appears, wouldn't matter. Most people watched the rest of the scene, fought the battle, and saw what happened at the end, assuming there was more dialog there. I don't recall. Their opinion, and any reinforcement of stereotypes etc., would be based on the entire scene, not just on one line of dialog. That is the importance of context. Stubbornly refusing to admit its value over and over again is just plain ignorant.

Okay, so what was it about the rest of the scene that put the original line into a non-sexist context for you? You keep claiming that we can't have a conversation because people who think the line is sexist refuse to acknowledge context, but from where I'm sitting, we can't have a conversation because you keep going "But context! But context!" without providing any, well, context.

Unknown

Rusalka wrote:

Okay, so what was it about the rest of the scene that put the original line into a non-sexist context for you? You keep claiming that we can't have a conversation because people who think the line is sexist refuse to acknowledge context, but from where I'm sitting, we can't have a conversation because you keep going "But context! But context!" without providing any, well, context.

Have you actually read the last two and a half pages? Here's a quote from my very first post on the topic:

Thugpatrol wrote:

Black Widow is a master of mental manipulation, and if she thought that being called girls or ladies or fluffy bunnies would rattle a bunch of paramilitary tough guys enough to give her an edge, you can bet that's what she'd do.

To which I was immediately met with:

eris-wtga wrote:

The context doesn't matter...

Here's another quote from me:

Thugpatrol wrote:

The context is that this is a line of dialog spoken by a fictional character who does not share your world view. To her the only thing that matters is completing the mission and thwarting the villains. She's prepared to use anything at her disposal, including but not limited to her sex appeal, her perceived weakness as a woman, and even simple taunts. Could she have chosen a different taunt in that circumstance? Maybe. But that one was certainly appropriate, and this thread is proof enough of its potentially inflammatory quality. She could even be considered to be using it ironically as a strong woman using their own childish taunts against a bunch of macho soldiers, and in that context it could even be considered empowering.

To which I was met with:

eris-wtga wrote:

I object to it's usage, period. The context is irrelevant to the core that the use of calling males feminine as an insult is sexist.

Do you see a pattern here? I'm sorry if you find the battle to establish the value of context that I was drawn into tiresome, but don't tell me I haven't tried to talk about the actual context. Because I have. Repeatedly.

Now see I actually read your posts, and you may want to come back at me with your knowledge of the character, particular recent events. I fully admit I haven't bought a comic this century. Most of my perception of the character is based on my memory of the comics I read from a much different era. You can tell me that my information on the character's personality or motivations is wrong, but that's part of my context, and part of how I received the scene containing the line in question.

What I saw was a strong, and yes female agent, using a sexist taunt that she did not believe any truth in against a bunch of male goons in an attempt to gain an edge in the ensuing combat. She then proceeds to beat the hell out of these goons, demonstrating that there was no validity to the sexist taunt in the first place and making the goons who were incited by it look very foolish. That's a strong woman, acting strong as well as clever, defeating a group of men in the arena of battle in which women are stereotypically supposed to be inferior. Sexist language is used, ironically, and then the basis for that sexism is immediately proved false. That is the context that I perceived, and when taken as a whole I don't think the scene is sexist in the least.

If you want to have a conversation about that context, let's go. If you want to discuss sexism in fiction and reinforcement of stereotypes, have at it. But don't tell me I haven't tried to address the issue. I have. It's just very difficult when you're told every step of the way that there is no context that matters in any way.

Rusalka

Thugpatrol wrote:

What I saw was a strong, and yes female agent, using a sexist taunt that she did not believe any truth in against a bunch of male goons in an attempt to gain an edge in the ensuing combat. She then proceeds to beat the hell out of these goons, demonstrating that there was no validity to the sexist taunt in the first place and making the goons who were incited by it look very foolish. That's a strong woman, acting strong as well as clever, defeating a group of men in the arena of battle in which women are stereotypically supposed to be inferior. Sexist language is used, ironically, and then the basis for that sexism is immediately proved false. That is the context that I perceived, and when taken as a whole I don't think the scene is sexist in the least.

Okay, so the context you're arguing is that the line stops being sexist because it's in character for Natasha to use a sexist taunt for the sake of the mission, and because she then undermines the sexism by beating up the goons? I must say I disagree on all counts; that is, I disagree that it's in character for Natasha, or that it had anything whatsoever to do with the mission, or that in undermines the sexism in any way. Natasha uses a gendered insult to imply that the goons are weak, then she beats them up, proving that they really are. The message is "if you think someone is weak, call them a woman, because women are weak." Natasha's victory doesn't change that because nobody, not even a strident hairy-legged feminist like myself, is going to think that Natasha's fighting ability is an accurate representation of what women can do in real life. Hell, it's not even an accurate representation of what men can do in real life. Natasha is a fantasy wish-fulfillment character, and she fights like one. Basically, that little bit of throwaway sexist language is the only part of the scene that anyone is likely to view as realistic. Which means it's also the only part that anyone's likely to absorb into their world view.

Xiltyn

When I first saw this thread it piqued my interest, but I didn't have time to read it in its entirety. Now that I have, I decided to go back to the story mode to find the line in question in the interest of having an informed viewpoint to try and contribute to the conversation.

Imagine my surprise when I finally got to the mission in question, and the enemy team is comprised of two spies and a lieutenant. Now unless I'm completely wrong here, the character of the spy looks female to me. So how is it sexist to say "Hello, ladies." to women?

Then I thought, maybe I have the wrong mission, and continued looking, but that was the only one I could find where Widow uses that line. In the fight following that, she says "Hello, gentlemen." To a group of soldiers.

Now there was a line that could be construed as sexist used by Wolverine: "Don't burn yourself on that, sweet cheeks." Which is said to a Pyro (also a female looking character).

Unknown

Thugpatrol wrote:

Rusalka wrote:

You keep claiming that we can't have a conversation because people who think the line is sexist refuse to acknowledge context, but from where I'm sitting, we can't have a conversation because you keep going "But context! But context!" without providing any, well, context.

Have you actually read the last two and a half pages? Here's a quote from my very first post on the topic...
(snip snip...quotes follow...quotequotequote...etc.)

I'm going to be petty for a second here. I know I shouldn't, but I'm going to anyway. I've certainly been accused of getting a little fired up in the course of a good forum debate. I do try to be civil, but I have been known to get a little feisty, and I've been called to task for it. When it's been fair I have apologized. That said, you accused me of something here that was patently false and then decided to ignore me calling you out on it. It's not the worst thing that's ever happened, the earth managed to continue rotating on its axis throughout, but I think that's a little ****, and this is me saying so. Anyway, moving on...

Rusalka wrote:

Okay, so the context you're arguing is that the line stops being sexist because it's in character for Natasha to use a sexist taunt for the sake of the mission, and because she then undermines the sexism by beating up the goons? I must say I disagree on all counts; that is, I disagree that it's in character for Natasha, or that it had anything whatsoever to do with the mission, or that in undermines the sexism in any way.

See, this is good. We're actually talking about the context. What it has to do with the mission is giving her an edge in the coming fight by impairing her enemies. I think that's fairly self-explanatory. For the purpose of this conversation though I'd ask that you disregard the fact that you think the line in question is out of character. This isn't really about her, it's about sexism. You're obviously much more up to date on the comics, I concede your superior knowledge on the subject. But if the line is grossly out of character then it's just bad writing, whether it's sexist or not. So let's just assume, purely for the purposes of this argument, that the character in the scene is not the character you know, but a different ruthless female agent for whom the line and the underlying motivation is in character.

Rusalka wrote:

Natasha uses a gendered insult to imply that the goons are weak, then she beats them up, proving that they really are. The message is "if you think someone is weak, call them a woman, because women are weak." Natasha's victory doesn't change that because nobody is going to think that Natasha's fighting ability is an accurate representation of what women can do in real life. Hell, it's not even an accurate representation of what men can do in real life. Basically, that little bit of throwaway sexist language is the only part of the scene that anyone is likely to view as realistic. Which means it's also the only part that anyone's likely to absorb into their world view.

I'm not going to attempt to argue with you on any of that, because this is precisely why context is so important. We both read the same dialog, witnessed the same series of events, and ended up drawing two completely different conclusions. Clearly we had different ideas coming into the scene of who Black Widow is and how she should talk and act. I see irony and wit in her usage, you don't. You seem to disregard the impact of Widow's gender in her victory because she's "super", where as that thought would never occur to me. Ultimately we each filled in the gaps with different pieces and arrived at vastly different conclusions. I find that interesting.

All of this is very much to the point on the potential danger of this kind of subtle reinforcement of stereotypes, and why this kind of language needs to be used very carefully. You can counter that it shouldn't be used at all, but I still contend that addressing things and finding ways to turn them around is better than ignoring them and hoping they'll go away. What this tells me though is that there isn't nearly enough information in the scene to make this use of sexist language "safe" in order to leave the reader with a positive rather than a negative. So, humor me here. I tried to ask before, I'll try again. What needs to be changed about the scene to get your take away closer to my take away? To make it empowering and leave a positive image on the reader rather than reinforcing a sexist stereotype?

Here's the catch, the sexist taunt has to stay and the scene can't be fundamentally altered: our imaginary ruthless female agent for whom the dialog and underlying motivation is completely in character uses the sexist taunt against the male goons to throw them off their game and then defeats them in combat. I tossed out the possibility of adding a thought bubble following the sexist taunt as a way of qualifying her intent, or adding some post fight dialog to that same end. I'm curious what other thoughts on the subject are.

Unknown

Xiltyn wrote:

When I first saw this thread it piqued my interest, but I didn't have time to read it in its entirety. Now that I have, I decided to go back to the story mode to find the line in question in the interest of having an informed viewpoint to try and contribute to the conversation.

Imagine my surprise when I finally got to the mission in question, and the enemy team is comprised of two spies and a lieutenant. Now unless I'm completely wrong here, the character of the spy looks female to me. So how is it sexist to say "Hello, ladies." to women?

Then I thought, maybe I have the wrong mission, and continued looking, but that was the only one I could find where Widow uses that line. In the fight following that, she says "Hello, gentlemen." To a group of soldiers.

Now there was a line that could be construed as sexist used by Wolverine: "Don't burn yourself on that, sweet cheeks." Which is said to a Pyro (also a female looking character).

You're not missing anything. This is the typical hyper-liberal kneejerk it always is.