The Big Picture: Pink Is Not The Problem

[Yoshi4102]

Bob, I like when you talk about movies because that is what you're good at. When you get on your soap box about boys, girls, and the mystery 3rd gender though I can't help but to roll my eyes. You've had a million of these episodes where you essentially say the same thing over and over. I can only make it though about a fourth of it before it gets so repetitive I have to turn it off.

Let me say now that I don't care whether you like pink, as a guy or blowing shit up and you're a girl. Also let me say I don't mind if you're transgendered either, but if you are, you're not a third gender, you just switched places. It is a bit more binary than Bob thinks it is. You were a guy, now a girl. Were a girl, now a guy. No extra bathroom for you.

 

[CymbaIine]

His added point on the end is that it's potentially damaging to always portray "empowering female role-models" as essentially quite "masculine" characters (and conversely villains as quite "feminine" characters). It can send the message that traditionally "masculine" traits (such as physical prowess and a stern expression) are "good" traits and traditionally "feminine" traits (such as sensitivity and pride in appearance) are "bad" or "weak" traits.
.

Pride in appearance is not associated with femininity. Vanity and/or perceiving appearance as extremely important is associated with femininity. This is to the detriment of women and girls, dolls which promote negative body types and homogeneous ideas of beauty are bad.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Wow that was heavy and certainly brought to my attention stuff I'd never noticed or considered before.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Pastel colored Legos are just pastel colored Legos.

No Bob, you've got this all wrong. There is no such thing as pastel colored "Legos," because the plural of Lego is simply Lego.

 

[Lightknight]

TL;DR
- Telling girls that they must only play with dolls is bad.
- Telling girls that playing with dolls makes them weak and/or stupid is also bad.
- Telling girls that they are free to play with whatever the hell they want is good.

*Ding Ding Ding* We have a winner!

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

*gender norms*
*300*
*genderless society*
*Hunter's Game sexism conspiracy*



Really? Not even going to try to hide how sociopolitical this video, and how its extremely one sided?

Tell me again how being the "God-King" of an entire people or wanting to use war, violence and bullheaded aggression to try to conquer the entire world is a classical feminine characteristic? Or explain how wanting to protect your family and friends is somehow an exclusively masculine characteristic?

As for the Hunger Games, you must be joking. Seriously, have you seen what was worn amongst various European Aristocrats? You do realize that such images of how European Aristocrats dressed and acted is known in American society and is a go-to stereotype of rich people, right? What you just described in the hunger games sounds like a modern version of said Aristocrats.

To better explain what I'm talking about, just look up paintings of French aristocracy during the 18th century [https://www.google.com/search?q=John+Wilmot,+2nd+Earl+of+Rochester&safe=off&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=DEmeUvSlJcPJqQH42YDACA&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1366&bih=618#q=french+aristocracy+18th+century&safe=off&tbm=isch&imgdii=_] or "interesting" people like John Wilmot [http://www.jotempest.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/johnwilmot.jpg].

As for the gender segment, last I checked humans are not hermaphrodites[footnote]By hermaphrodite, I mean animals like earth worms, not individual born with physical birth problems.[/footnote] and/or don't reproduce asexually, so its odd that there is this hostility towards the fact that human are be biologically either female or male.

This video is amazing as always. This video gives me a new view on gender stereotypes and how hundreds of years of myths and tropes can have a negative effect on society. The stuff isn't the problem its the arbitrary way in which people label things as feminine or masculine.

I don't know that there is a problem in using terms like feminine and masculine when discussing things. I think the issue is in demonizing someone for being feminine or masculine. If you have a boy who likes feminine things, there simply should be no problem with that. Nor should there be an issue with a girl liking masculine things. Essentially, people should not be thought less of, made fun of, demonized, hated or condemned for liking what they like, no matter their gender.[/quote] And what if the feminine boy or masculine girl lives in a non-Western society? Should those societies be forced to conform to Western values or do the adults in such countries have the right to have their own cultural values and prohibit the boy or girl from acting in such a way?

 

[tzimize]

Expanding on that tangent from Catching Fire are we?

Good episode though. I've been thinking something similar for a while but couldn't put it to words.

Is it really good though?

I understand what Bob was getting at, but...well. Imagine the world of Katniss turned a bit on its head. The evil guys were not posh, but raw, masculine gladiators instead. Why would they need other peeps to fight for them again? The story would just fall on its face. Their poshness is a result of the society they have built.

I get what bob is getting at...but...well...what is a "real pink female role model" like then? What stories can you tell with that? Most good stories take conflict. Of some kind. It doesnt have to end in a sky high body count, but to me at least, it has to be a bit more interesting than a fight over what color lipstick is the best to catch guys with.

I feel like I'm sounding a lot more chauvinistic than I mean to here...but honestly, everything has its time and place. You might look at whatshisname in 300 and say it typically male traits, but beside his obvious looks...is it really?

He is powerful, he is loyal, he is brave.

I might as well be describing his wife here. Is she suddenly very macho because she has these traits?

I dont think so. Not sure what that means though. Maybe I'm just a bit free of the entire thing

 

[Deadagent]

Anytime someone claims that boys and girls are interested in what their interested in because of society, I will post this.
Dont ignore this just because of the title, just watch the damn thing.

 

[webkilla]

Good points all around

And while Hunger Games is also a matchup a la "Rich VS Poor" then its a really good point in how it displays those rich people: fops, effeminate men with makeup, people who are not rugged and manly and strong...

The problem I have with that is - vanity is objectively damaging and bad. Being fit is objectively healthy and good.

Honestly if you can explain how I am wrong I would be happy to hear it, I am trying to see the other side but just can't.

I don't see what's wrong with your observation

If anything you need to question why this rich VS poor thing is done as a "weak sissy ppl VS strong fit" people...

Are you supposed to see the movie and think that rich people are automatically weaklings who can't do anything on their own, while the downtroden poor are powerhouses that are just waiting to burst out and retake power?

...because if we look at obesity statistics, then the poor are far more likely to get fat in pretty much every part of the world, compared to those rich enough to dine on high quality foodstuffs... (and yes, there are plenty of other factors, this was just one example)

You should be asking: "Is the movie meant to make people who are poor in real life feel better?" "Is the movie taking the piss on how fake and superficial high society life can be?"

 

[spoonybard.hahs]

The thing about The Hunger Games is that it isn't coded Male and Female, but rather Rich and Poor. It's a commentary on our modern society. Just look at what the Rich are wearing, ffs. Those looks are straight from some designers runway. Butt ugly and expensive as fuck, but the rich still buy it because rich. Whilst the poor need to work their ass off to survive, having to fight against the system by the rich in the meantime.

I believe what Bob is saying is that the visual shorthand used in The Hunger Games to denote who's good and who's bad is what is coded male and female. The rich people aren't simply wealthy, they demonstrate their place in society through dressing lavishly and preening endlessly. These would normally be considered feminine traits. It isn't that all the rich wear tons of makeup and do all the preening either, because there is a rich good guy, and while he's still dressed well, he's not wearing the makeup or engaging in the same pageantry as the other rich. If they had done him up to be both preening, vain, lavishly dressed and makeup wearing, AND still had him as a good guy, then the film would not have this problem.

Now I get that this was probably not at all intentional, and Bob seems to imply that as well, it's just that this is so ingrained into our ways of thinking that we fall back into this visual shorthand without even thinking about it. Preening, makeup wearing vanity (supposedly feminine traits)? Must be a bad guy.

EDIT: I want to add that I have not seen the Hunger Games movies, I am basing my explanation off of the information provided by Bob. If there is more to this visual shorthand than what Bob has said, then I could be wholly mistaken.

I've seen the first film (yet to see the second), and you're pretty much on about what Bob was trying to say. Yes, all the pageantry of the Upper Class in The Hunger Games is definitely a cue as to who is rich or poor. However, the people of the capitol are ostensibly evil. They celebrate a war victory for 75 years by forcing the 12 districts to sacrifice their children in a fight a to the death. Never mind the socio-economic oppresion the capitol inflicts on the 12 districts every day. The capitol wants to punctuate the 12's loss in blood sport as a reminder that there is no hope or victory.

 

[kailus13]

Imagine the world of Katniss turned a bit on its head. The evil guys were not posh, but raw, masculine gladiators instead. Why would they need other peeps to fight for them again?

The reason they get people in the Discricts to fight is to keep the populace afraid. They'd still make them fight no matter what they look like.

 

[CymbaIine]

Good points all around

And while Hunger Games is also a matchup a la "Rich VS Poor" then its a really good point in how it displays those rich people: fops, effeminate men with makeup, people who are not rugged and manly and strong...

The problem I have with that is - vanity is objectively damaging and bad. Being fit is objectively healthy and good.

Honestly if you can explain how I am wrong I would be happy to hear it, I am trying to see the other side but just can't.

I don't see what's wrong with your observation

If anything you need to question why this rich VS poor thing is done as a "weak sissy ppl VS strong fit" people...

Are you supposed to see the movie and think that rich people are automatically weaklings who can't do anything on their own, while the downtroden poor are powerhouses that are just waiting to burst out and retake power?

...because if we look at obesity statistics, then the poor are far more likely to get fat in pretty much every part of the world, compared to those rich enough to dine on high quality foodstuffs... (and yes, there are plenty of other factors, this was just one example)

You should be asking: "Is the movie meant to make people who are poor in real life feel better?" "Is the movie taking the piss on how fake and superficial high society life can be?"

Sorry I confused my point a little with the quote. I was more talking about male/female than rich/poor.

I can't say for sure but I would bet good money that this "if we look at obesity statistics, then the poor are far more likely to get fat in pretty much every part of the world" is wrong. Maybe the Western world.

 

[90sgamer]

I disagree with your assertion that the characters in Hunger Games are coded male and female. They are coded hero and villain. The hero, a female, exhibits qualities that you assert are male because... they are traditionally associated with males. That is fallacious, because those traits are also traditionally associated with heroes. The Villains in Hunger Games have traits that are typical of villains and otherwise unattractive. You assert that those same characteristics have traditionally be used to characterized females, but you would have to cherry pick your examples in supporting that assertion, because for each example you give, I can name a female that is not characterized that way.

Your line of logic would suggest that the solution is to give the hero unattractive characteristics and the villains attractive characteristics in order to overcome a perceived gender problem. I don't think so.

 

[Brockyman]

Pink Is Not The Problem

MovieBob takes on the gender stereotyping our society dabbles in.

Watch Video

We don't differ too much here, and you bring up some good points that I never thought of (if I do think some of it's a bit of a stretch)

My question is did you read the Hunger Games books? Like you mentioned Katniss's inner monologue, the true nature of the of how the Capital is evil is their brutal oppression of the Districts, and the only way they can show that on screen is they dress nicer and have the time and money to worry just about their appearance and finding new ways to change themselves while people in the Districts are needlessly starving and dying.

(before you say anything about class warfare or Capitalism, I want to bring up that this is a government ran socialist style economy more like Stalin's Russia working his people to death in camps for the people he didn't like but took care of "the party" and allies (like Districts 1 and 2, but back to the issue...)

Ok, now to the bullet points

1. I don't think the books or the movie intentionally show feminine as evil as more as over decadence and getting genetic surgery to make yourself look like a cat while you watch children fight to the death on reality TV, and the government they support is working millions of people to death with no food, or freedom to make their own way in life outside the government saying "your district does this" IS evil. At best it's showing the folly and out of touch attitude of Ancient Rome and of the Modern Age. And I think they only way they can show this over decadence is fancy clothes, makeup, and big buildings and houses.

2. There are genetic, chemical, emotional, and physical differences between men and women. It's fact. It's not someone trying to devalue someone, but the vast majority of girls do trend a certain way and the vast majority of boys do the other. HOWEVER I do agree with you that if a little boy wants to play with dolls or a girl wants to play with Nerf Guns its awesome.
I think its a positive sign when they make female style gear for sports teams, and I even saw pink Nerf Guns while shopping for my infant twin niece and nephew. It adds more variety and choice of a girl that wants to feel feminine and have clothes, toys and accessories in the thing she enjoys.

3. I still think you overthink.... (yeah, GameOverthinker, it was intentional). I like you, I watch your shows, and even though we disagree on politics, on most occasions you at least give me a someone sensible view of the other side. A debate show with you would be amazing. lol

Keep on keepin on man.
EDIT: I will remind you that "stuff is stuff" and "stuff is neutral" if you ever bring up gun control, just saying

 

[spoonybard.hahs]

Interesting, well thought out, but ultimately wrong because it's based under a flawed premise. The entire argument is based around the behaviorist school of psychology that has largely been disproven, that posits that people are entirely influenced by their environment and what they are taught. That's really not true.

Can you please provide a source?

 

[MatsVS]

A lot of people are pointing out that the villains of the Hunger Games franchise are portrayed as rich, not feminine. The thing is, they're right, it's just that the franchise gets its message across in an unfortunate, slightly bigoted way, because it's just not very smart, and designed to appeal to people who're not used to thinking about the media they consume.

 

[Sejborg]

I don't know. The Capitol in Catching Fire is filled with fallos symbols. But I guess that don't fit in to Bob's analysis.

Not so sure about 300 either. All the heroes in that movie is running around half naked and poking their long spears (fallos symbol) into other men, resulting in liquid spraying all over. Our heroes is also often very happy and satisfied after an aggressive effort. Seems kinda gay, so perhaps this movie is actually a celebration of gay power. After all Leonidas leaves his wife without looking back and turns his back to the man (the villain) with the most female characteristics. He even goes as far as to detach himself of his long spear in an effort to keep the feminine man away, resulting in his own death.

But I guess that don't fit in to Bob's analysis.

 

[mionic]

It's sort of bizarre to get so much more insight in an issue like this from someone who makes a living as a nerd/pop-culture commentator than the people debating it in popular and public space.

Edit: To add onto the discussion, most people seem to think being coded rich/poor and masculine/feminine are mutually exclusive. I'd personally disagree. They're supposed to be extravagantly decadent, and the intention is to show the Capitol superficial and shallow.
It's just the issue that those things are ALSO 'coded', as Bob puts it, feminine.
Now, I'd like to also point out how Bob sort of missed out on some things that makes it more interesting, primarily the fact that Peeta, supporting male character, is very much 'coded' feminine, and is supposed to be found, (I think), more likable than the pretty cold Katniss.