Quote:
Originally Posted by whiteflame
I am going to keep this laconically short compared to my normal modus operendi for the sake of opening up debate, but:
It would seem that the Process Forum's structure and function can be criticized severely from Feminist, LGTBQ and Queer Theorist perspectives. I am not going to offer up any extended critiques myself, as the topics and issues are, at the very least, obvious and ostensible.
Before everyone mans their posts with "the sexual preference club cannon" please consider the idea that preference need not exclude reasonable consideration of agency nor does preference entail objectification of one's preference.
The questions to be raised are:
Is gender distinction a legitimate moral foundation for an art, subcultural and fetishistic social website such as this? In other words, is vehement exclusion of all male depictions and topics to a separate category with limited internal demarcation and representation, (arguably "separate but equal but not actually equal"), justifiable? (Consider the category title "Everything Else" which doesn't just pragmatically include obscurer topics but the entirety of male-focused media.) Does the topic of "process of women changing" constitute a morally legitimate foundation for a network of social interactions?
Does the Process Forum actually "celebrate" its subject matter by embracing all variations, expanding boundaries and questioning itself to better improve its ethical treatment of its subject matter, or does it "objectify" its subject matter by establishing rigid categorization and treatment and disallow self-identification that may contest its viewpoint? Does favoritism constitute prejudice? Or does the forum qualify for favoritism as opposed to exclusion and exclusivity? Where does one draw the line between preference and objectification?
What is the functionality "the female form" or "femininity" in the context of this forum? (This question may elucidate answers to previous questions.) How does "female" operate here? What is its dialectical function, if any? Or, if it doesn't have any, is this problematic?
Is this website hetero-normative? If so, on what basis and does that constitute a justifiable foundation for a social media site? How does "transgendered" function within the site? Is it an identity allowed a concept of agency? Or is it objectified: is transgendered functioning as a subconcept of "objectified femininity"---the transformation from male to female being a role enforcement mechanism utilizing the sadomasochistic spectrum?
----
Of course, the phrasing of some or most of these questions is not rhetorically neutral because I am trying to simultaneously illustrate the points of contention while inviting polarized debate. I personally believe that the site's structure as a whole is problematic, and I am not attempting to veil this feeling with neutral discourse. I am, however, posing these criticisms as questions because I would rather take a step back and allow the site itself to have an introspective debate than present my views as some form of "force-fed aggressive enlightenment pomposity".
|
I'm going to attempt to answer some of your questions too, but seeing as it's late and I tend to flub up in situations like these, my answers may not be the best...
In regards to the whole "gender segregation" issue, it's like others have said: it fits the purpose of the forum to feature women. I mean, it's not like you could just walk into a Doctor Who convention and complain about the lack of MLP characters. (I mean, you could, but since the point of the convention is Doctor Who...) That being said, I think we could be doing worse. I mean, we're actually providing a place for male transformation, even if it is thrown in with Everything Else. Some of the categories don't even work for men, like Breast Expansion. I'm sure that, if there were a larger demand for and a greater number of male transformation media, The Governor would create a section for for it. (It's hard to promote equality between the two when there's so little of one and so much of the other, too.)
On the topic of a moral reason for creating a forum... Well, it's kinda hard to talk about. I mean, morals are different from person to person and from country to country, so there's no real set moral values, so to speak. Is it "right" to have an interest? This particular interest isn't exactly wrong, per se, but that doesn't mean that it's automatically right, either. So... Kinda?
For the most part, I'd say that the forum is much like the majority of society: we don't like change. (I know, that's kind of a joke, and I don't speak on society's behalf, but work with me here, ok?) Would the forum accept it if an artist decided that a man turned into a woman who happened to be pansexual? Odds are they'd just see her as either bisexual or a lesbian, since those are the only options, right? (That's a hypothetical question, not something I believe.) Ethical treatment doesn't usually come into play either, what with kinks/fetishes like humiliation and the like. And yeah, objectification is definitely an issue. I would guess that a large number of people here really only care about what ways they can change the women, much in the same way that a little kid changes a doll's clothes or a Mr. Potato Head's body parts.
In most cases on this forum, women are seen in much the same way that western society has perceived women for years: skinny, big boobs/butt/hips but not too big, subservient, sexual but not too sexual (but perfectly willing to suck dick at the drop of a hat, the harlot), likes wearing sexy clothes, not too smart that she's smarter than the guys (but some guys like their women smart), etc. (Yes, that whole thing was partially a joke, partially a representation of how it actually is. In other words, I don't think women who suck dick are harlots.) There are no sexualities other than straight and lesbian (I'd say "gay," but since there's so little in the way of male material...) and sometimes bisexual if it makes things hotter, and the gender binary is strong with this forum (the guys don't like anything that isn't 100% female). So yeah, I'd say we might have a biiiiiit of a problem (and again, I'm not speaking for anyone/everyone, but rather, I'm generalizing).
Yes, the website is hetero-normative. As I mentioned before, there's no real variety in sexual orientation when it comes to the material, but it's hard to speak on behalf of the members. I'd guess that most of them are heterosexual and that they guess that as well. As for the term "transgender," I really think we need to come up with a different term, since the way this community uses the term and the way it's used in the real world are definitely different. And yes, it's very much objectified. *sigh*
...I probably got a little off-topic during my responses, but like I said, it's late, and I flub up. Hope I helped a little!
Quote:
Originally Posted by tea
It's porn, the women depicted are objects for the consumers sexual gratification.
|
I disagree: not all of this is porn. Porn relates to sexual material, and not all content posted here is of a sexual nature. Besides, just because women are "depicted as objects for the consumer's sexual gratification" in some media doesn't mean that it's right.