Vor einiger Zeit stolperte ich ueber dieses Bild bzgl. der Kostueme in (Computer)-Rollenspielen (aber nicht nur dort):
Und erstmal dachte ich „Hey, das ist super :) „.
Dann aber wollte ich einen kurzen Weblogartikel draus machen und recherchierte dem Bild hinterher. Waehrend ich nicht das Original finden konnte, so stiesz ich doch auf einen Artikel mit dem Titel „When Is It Sexist?: A Chart That Doesn’t Get It Quite Right„. Und der hat ein paar gute Argumente, die meinem weniger gut qualifizierten ersten Gedanken teilweise widersprechen.
So steht dort:
The first set is definitely sexist […] and the second set is definitely one of the better, non-sexist ways to go about creating armored characters […]
The third set of characters are supposed to be the non-sexist way […][of] “we have magic barriers and don’t need no stinking armor […]“ […].
Aber dann geht’s los:
The problem […] with the [third] picture, and with that whole mindset in general [!], is that the sexual objectification and sexiness aren’t equalized between the genders.
Wait, what? Mal schnell weiterlesen.
[…] clothing (or lack thereof) is not the end-all-be-all measure of sexual objectification.
Auch wenn Kleidung das offensichtlichste Merkmal bei dieser Diskussion ist, so gibt es doch andere Dinge, die auch dazu gehøren:
In this particular case, there are four distinct things that keep the sexualization unequal (and therefore sexist): pose, type of clothing worn, facial expression, and anatomy.
Das hørt sich interessant an, nicht wahr. Fangen wir mit der Anatomie an. Zunaechst der Mann:
[…] the man […] is very much idealized. […] [He] has a body that would only be attainable by a select few men in the real world […].
Bei der Frau hingegen ist es deutlich schlimmer:
The woman’s body, however, is not an idealized body, but a body that has been distorted out of normal proportions into a sexual object that approximates a hyper-real idea of what a ‘Sexy Woman’ looks like. Her body is not even physically possible for humans outside of some pretty radical surgery: she’s missing parts of her rib cage and her waist is smaller than her head. There is also something to be said for the fact that the woman’s breasts are very exaggerated […].
Ok, da waeren meine Leserinnen und Leser (und auch ich) mglw. auch selber drauf gekommen, wenn man das mal analysiert haette. Aber es geht ja nocht weiter:
[…] their poses, [are] also unequal. The man is in a passive pose that suggests sexual objectification, but he’s also still standing at the ready. The only thing the woman appears to be ready for is knee pain and toppling over at the slightest breeze.
Als drittes dann:
[…] the issue of clothing. […] the man is […] not wearing much of anything at all, but the woman’s outfit far out strips (ha!) him in objectification. The man’s outfit, […] still somewhat looks like actual armor with it’s studded belt, large shoulder guards, and normal boots.
Die Frau hingegen …
[…] has almost nothing approaching real armor […] but does have components that would actively get in her way during combat or any sort of vigorous movement: high heeled boots, long hair that hangs loose in and around her face, and that strappy contraption trying to pass as a bra.
Und fuer heute als Letztes die Gesichtsausdruecke:
The man has got some vague bored/nonchalant/neutral expression on his face. The woman is in the middle of having a… really nice time.
Mhm … schon interessant all diese Punkte, die so schwer wahrzunehmen sind.
Zusammenfassend kann gesagt werden …
[…] the man in this picture is being sexually objectified what with his lack of clothing, idealized body, and passive stance.
Aber …
[…] the woman is far more objectified because her body has been distorted to non-human proportions, she is wearing very little clothing that also restricts her ability to be active, and has an overtly sexualized facial expression.
Deswegen sind diese zwei Charaktere nicht gleich, und anders als es in der dritten Zeichung steht …
[…] this pairing is actually sexist as well.
Wenn auch nicht mal in der Naehe des ersten Zeichnung, aber …
[…] it definitely does still have some lingering sexism in it.
Interessant fand ich auch den Abschluss des Artikels:
[…] for the last panel of this chart to be true […] We would need to see a man in heels and a skimpy, flimsy loin cloth that lifts and separates his balls, posed in an odd, unbalanced way that best shows off his impossibly tiny hips and waist and perfectly sculpted pecs while making a face better reserved for the bedroom than the battlefield.
Das ist aber nicht so gezeichnet, denn …
[…] it would look freaking ridiculous, just like the woman already does.
Und hier kommt das Wichtige:
We’re just so used to ridiculously sexualized images of women that it doesn’t even register as such anymore.
So von wegen, wenn mal wieder ein Spinner behauptet, dass wir ja laengst Gleichstellung haetten.
Und wie immer noch mein eigenes Bild; sozusagen als (einfache) Hausfaufgabe:
Leave a Reply