Remember Jessica Rabbit, the unrealistic cartoon woman from Who Framed Roger Rabbit?
Yeah, well someone is "untooning" her, aka taking her cartoon picture and making it as realistic as possible.
Because what this world needs is another picture of an unrealistic "living" woman, touched up by computers. As if the first Jessica Rabbit didn't make it hard enough.
Pictures at the link.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
35 comments:
I think the ability to "untoon" something like that is amazing.
But why? I don't know. I like how the author of that blog was like..."I was just gonna do the face but I knew people would be unhappy if I did that."
Yeah. Because the only part of a real-looking woman that anyone really wants to see is her bust, no?
Gag.
Looks like they spent all of their time on the bust and not enough on giving her a human looking face.
Oh the magic of Photoshop... Stalin would have had a field day with it...
Wow, congratulations on completely NOT getting it, and what the artist does.
Knee jerk reactions are WAY more constructive than, you know, learning, anyway!
As an aside, I can't believe you'd complain about the existence of Jessica Rabbit.
Wow. Get a grip. Would you rather that Hollywood only showed fat women, because the "real" ones have gotten too lazy to be anything else?
Hey anonymous, why don't you explain what the artist does, if you have so much insight.
Also, I think that YOU don't get our critique. But if I'm wrong, please let me know why.
As an aside, I can't believe you'd complain about the existence of Jessica Rabbit.
As an over-sexualized cartoon character that screams "objectify me"? No, can't believe I'd complain at all.
"Hey anonymous, why don't you explain what the artist does, if you have so much insight."
Attempts to take a cartoon, and show what it would look like if it was human. He's done Homer Simpson, and Nintendo's Mario.
In other words, warping the features of a real person, to match the proportions of the cartoon.
"As an over-sexualized cartoon character that screams "objectify me"? No, can't believe I'd complain at all."
Did you complain about "He-Man"?
Yeah, those ARE some really loud crickets.
I take issue with the objectification of anyone - male, female - anyone. So yes, I would complain about that.
In my opinion, the large majority of cartoon characters are drawn contrary to the limits of the human body. He-Man could never be that pumped up, and She-Ra's got a pretty tiny waist. That being said, you're going to find objectification of women a far more common occurrence than of men. Who is more sexed up and objectified - Barbie or GI Joe?
Do you at least see the purpose of what he does, now? It's not him trying to create objectified women, or whatnot.
Look at his site. He's planning on doing Stewie Griffin, next. He just takes totally out of proportion cartoons, and tries to warp human features to match them.
Moving on from that, it's highly convenient you say you'd have a problem with He-Man, and the like, but I never see anyone really being vocal about that.
I'll agree GI-Joe is not sexualized, but is it any less objectified? No. It's a walking stereotype of everything society expects men to be. Big, loud, violent soldiers.
The only stereotype they didn't fit in there was "walking wallet".
Even if the artist isn't intentionally trying to be sexist, he still is.
I'm sorry if we're not paying enough attention to the objectification of males because we've got issues with female images that are far more prevalent and sexist without people realizing it. It's certainly something that needs to be addressed. If you're so angsty about He-Man, why don't you write about it?
The "walking wallet" is the parents who are expected to buy these objectifications for kids.
"Even if the artist isn't intentionally trying to be sexist, he still is."
How? There's nothing sexist about it. He specifically chooses very disproportionate cartoons, and then warps real images to make them match. If he took realistic cartoons, it would sort of defeat the purpose and artistic merit of doing it in the first place.
"The "walking wallet" is the parents who are expected to buy these objectifications for kids."
Please. The walking wallet is how society, and the vast majority of women treat men.
We are expected to be a source of money, and that outside of that, we are not important.
Just look at divorces, custody hearings, etcetera.
Yet...I never see that one fought against. Probably because it benefits women for men to be treated as a source of income, instead of a person.
There's nothing sexist about it. He specifically chooses very disproportionate cartoons, and then warps real images to make them match.
That's exactly what's sexist about it! It's telling women that these unrealistic images should be real, and women want to look like them. Take this example. Or an excerpt from this NY Times article:
''The cartoon women, on the other hand, have these seductive voices and huge almond-shaped eyes. The animators create the ideal woman. But if a guy fantasizes about Jessica Rabbit, does he think about a cartoon body or a real one?''
...
''Real women don't have curves like that,'' he explained. ''And with real women, you can like the way they look at first, but then, when they talk and move, it's all over. There's no charm. Animated girls never make ugly faces the way people do in real life. You never catch a cartoon figure at a bad moment.''
Yeah, too bad real women talk and move.
Please. The walking wallet is how society, and the vast majority of women treat men.
We are expected to be a source of money, and that outside of that, we are not important.
You have a very narrow, negative view of women. I hope one day you can come out of your dark cave to see that the world isn't as dark and dismal as you're portraying it to be.
Then again, white women do make 77 cents to every white man's $1.00, African-American women make 63 cents and Hispanic woman make 52. Maybe women should use men for their money - or at least their ability to earn a whole dollar for doing the same work as everyone else.
"That's exactly what's sexist about it! It's telling women that these unrealistic images should be real, and women want to look like them."
Uh... No. It's not. Unless it's also telling men they should look like Homer Simpson, or Nintendo's Mario.
It isn't "telling women" anything. You give women no credit. Are you saying women are so stupid that they want to look like an impossible cartoon?
All he did was create a piece of art wherein he warped an image of a real person to fit the cartoon's proportions.
Which he also did with two male characters, and will be doing with a third male character. It's because there would be no point in doing it with a realistically shaped cartoon.
Why is this hard for you to understand?
"Yeah, too bad real women talk and move."
So, wait. You're blaming men because there are women out there that are not charming, interesting, or act in such a way as to be completely unappealing?
Then I'd expect that no matter what a man looks or acts like, you're going to say how wonderful he is, right?
"You have a very narrow, negative view of women. I hope one day you can come out of your dark cave to see that the world isn't as dark and dismal as you're portraying it to be."
I've been around nearly 30 years.
I've seen enough to form my opinion. My opinions didn't come from thin air, they came from my own observations.
Don't blame me for thinking that a majority of women treat men as an ATM with a penis. Blame the majority of women that think that way.
Frankly, I like my dark cave. I get to keep my own money here, and no one tries to force me to do things I don't want to.
Hello 30-year-old Anonymous. I am 11 years your junior, so perhapsy I have less experience then you, but some of the things you said made me sad. For example, I am sorry about your cave.
I think you did touch upon an interesting point - women treating men like "walking wallets." I suggest that if it bothers you so much, you work to correct the pay gap, so that all women (of all races and ethnicities) with the same experience as men can make exactly the same amount of money.
That way, you could be sure to keep your money, and you could come out of your cave and enjoy life in the sunlight.
"Hello 30-year-old Anonymous. I am 11 years your junior, so perhapsy I have less experience then you, but some of the things you said made me sad. For example, I am sorry about your cave."
Saying that makes me sad. It reminds me that I'm old. ;) And, HEY! I said "nearly" 30 years, not exactly 30. Don't make me feel older than I am. :P
Seriously, though, why does it make you sad?
"I think you did touch upon an interesting point - women treating men like "walking wallets." I suggest that if it bothers you so much, you work to correct the pay gap, so that all women (of all races and ethnicities) with the same experience as men can make exactly the same amount of money."
Ah, that won't change a thing. I once dated a woman that made close to twice what I did, and she got deeply offended any time I even so much as hinted that she should perhaps pick up the check for dinner.
Besides, I don't date anymore, so the point is largely academic. Yeah, sucks for those guys that deal with it, but I don't have to anymore, so, it doesn't bother me nearly as much as it once did.
"That way, you could be sure to keep your money, and you could come out of your cave and enjoy life in the sunlight."
As said, I think it's less the wages, and more the entitlement factor.
I enjoy life fine without engaging in situations that require me to fork over my money and time and such, to a person that I don't want to. Even were the arrangement equitable, I'd still have to pay into it.
I would also like to make sure that you are aware of your generalization of all women.
I go to school full time and I work a job on campus, and I do not have a lot of money. But I never expect my boyfriend to pay for anything. We always fight over the check, because I respect him and don't want him to feel the pressure to have to pay for everything. He still tries to, out of respect, but I don't ever assume that he will.
So perhaps that woman you once dates with all the money and the unwillingness to pay was just a jerk. But not all women are that way, but we will never know for sure until we all get equal pay for equal experience/work.
"I would also like to make sure that you are aware of your generalization of all women."
I never say all.
"I go to school full time and I work a job on campus, and I do not have a lot of money. But I never expect my boyfriend to pay for anything. We always fight over the check, because I respect him and don't want him to feel the pressure to have to pay for everything. He still tries to, out of respect, but I don't ever assume that he will."
You're also only one person, and really not representative of the majority. If women largely didn't see men as outlets of cash, there wouldn't be ads such as "How to make two months salary last forever", and the like.
"
So perhaps that woman you once dates with all the money and the unwillingness to pay was just a jerk. But not all women are that way, but we will never know for sure until we all get equal pay for equal experience/work."
Perhaps, perhaps not. Like I said, once it no longer personally affects me, it becomes academic, not something I deeply care about.
Like I said, once it no longer personally affects me, it becomes academic, not something I deeply care about.
Then, my question then becomes, why hassle us? You have been a rather faithful commenter on this post. Is it some of that, "feminists are so easy to pick on!" stuff? I get that one a lot, but I may be wrong.
"Then, my question then becomes, why hassle us? You have been a rather faithful commenter on this post. Is it some of that, "feminists are so easy to pick on!" stuff? I get that one a lot, but I may be wrong."
I wasn't aware I was hassling you.
I was stating an opinion based on what the artist in question was doing, and how it wasn't what you were perceiving it as.
Then we sort of segued.
I can still debate an academic point, mind, I just no longer care enough about it to take any steps towards changing it.
I apologize. Hassle was an inappropriate choice of words. Your debate has been very civil, which I appreciate. I get a lot of nastiness around here. My apologies.
I am just curious as to how you can debate something academically with such vigor if you do not care to try to change it. My view that I can work to change the faults I see in American society is what gives livelihood to my debate. I am just curious. Perhaps you have much more experience with debate than I do, and do not need that sort of motivation?
"I apologize. Hassle was an inappropriate choice of words. Your debate has been very civil, which I appreciate. I get a lot of nastiness around here. My apologies."
Accepted, and thank you.
"I am just curious as to how you can debate something academically with such vigor if you do not care to try to change it. My view that I can work to change the faults I see in American society is what gives livelihood to my debate. I am just curious. Perhaps you have much more experience with debate than I do, and do not need that sort of motivation?"
Something like that, yes. I get the enjoyment, or satisfaction from the debate itself. The congress of ideas and opinions.
I've been told I'm a bit atypical.
I can be shockingly dispassionate and passionate at the same time.
So, wait. You're blaming men because there are women out there that are not charming, interesting, or act in such a way as to be completely unappealing?
That wasn't the point I highlighted... I wanted to point out that he doesn't lose interest when someone's not charming - it's when they move and talk in the first place. He likes animated women because they never look bad, they just look beautiful all the time. If he's fantasizing about women and tries to have a relationship with a real woman, his standard is a cartoon, a cartoon that never falters, never fails to interest, and never looks bad.
By holding up such a standard, it's impossible to have a real relationship with anyone because he's measuring his dates up against a fictional cartoon character - one that has now become "untooned" and an even more unrealistic standard for women.
Then you failed to see the point of what the artist is doing, entirely.
Also, the same thing you say could easily be applied in reverse. Women often do the exact same thing to men.
Except, when it comes to them, it's considered okay for them to dust off and move on from any guy that doesn't fit the impossible standard they've created in their heads, because, after all, they "deserve" better, or so everyone seems to teach them.
I see the artistry of what this person is doing - it is technically wonderful what they have accomplished. I just feel as if the social implications behind making an untooned Homer Simpson are different than making an untooned Jessica Rabbit because there is a real possibility for women to enhance their bust and fill out their lips to look like Jessica Rabbit, but it would be a lot harder (perhaps not even commercially possible as of now?) to get bug eyes and an elongated head like Homer. (I purposely ignored the other asessts of Rabbit's because they are not featured in the untooned picture.)
So I feel as if it is more harmful to promote even as an artist, an ideal like Rabbit, just because it is easier to try to achieve a Rabbit look than a Simpson look. But the fact of the matter is that that Rabbit look can never be fully achieved, so women could easily become preoccupied with trying. The same could not easily be said of Homer for example.
"I just feel as if the social implications behind making an untooned Homer Simpson are different than making an untooned Jessica Rabbit because there is a real possibility for women to enhance their bust and fill out their lips to look like Jessica Rabbit, but it would be a lot harder (perhaps not even commercially possible as of now?) to get bug eyes and an elongated head like Homer."
I really think that's reading too much into it. I'm fairly certain modern surgery won't allow for her giant eyelids, and other completely disproportionate features.
Besides which, if you really wanted to wax philosophical, if a woman really wanted to go out of her way to enhance her bust, etcetera, as you mentioned, that's largely her own choice, and it's no more up to someone to tell her TO do it, than it is for someone to tell her NOT to do it.
Though, I don't really believe an exaggerated cartoon would cause anyone to want to.
I know dozens of women that grew up with Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, and not a one of them seems to think they should look like Jessica Rabbit.
Fact of the matter is, the only thing any of them have commented on, is how sultry Kathleen Turner managed to make her voice.
"So I feel as if it is more harmful to promote even as an artist, an ideal like Rabbit, just because it is easier to try to achieve a Rabbit look than a Simpson look."
See, there's where I think the mistake falls: You're assuming he's trying to "promote an ideal".
I think he's just working at a style of art that he's very proud of, and that's about it.
I do not believe that the artist is actively trying to promote any ideal, but it still remains that very often, women are affecting by such portrayal, but it consciously, or not.
It really shouldn't be about someone telling a woman whether or not to change her body, it's the fact that she feels the need to change her body in the first place, as if it is inadequate, a result of the unrealisitic images portrayed in the media, from Jessica Rabbit to Jessica Simpson.
The point is that when women physically change their bodies to live up to the standard they see on tv, it's not a humanly attainable standard so women will always fall short and always be dissatisifed with their bodies.
Amelia's right - whether the artist means to or not, he's contributing to this unattainable standard.
"It really shouldn't be about someone telling a woman whether or not to change her body, it's the fact that she feels the need to change her body in the first place, as if it is inadequate, a result of the unrealisitic images portrayed in the media, from Jessica Rabbit to Jessica Simpson."
So, you're angry at real women for being too attractive? I've never really understood that point. I've seen so many feminists get irate over attractive women in the media, as if those women should have a McDonald's bender and get obese, just so they don't make anyone feel bad.
The fact of the matter is, some people are going to be more attractive than others. This is life. There's nothing you can do to change that.
It's not "unrealistic", as, obviously, real people look like Jessica Simpson, or whomever you wish to use as an example.
Though, in the United States, having a healthy weight for your height has become "unrealistic", but you can't go blaming the media for that. Blame excess and laziness.
"The point is that when women physically change their bodies to live up to the standard they see on tv, it's not a humanly attainable standard so women will always fall short and always be dissatisifed with their bodies."
How so? If other humans look in such a way, how is it not humanly attainable?
The fact that people (women, mostly) now treat having a healthy weight as an "unattainable standard" is more worrisome than anything else.
It's as though you're getting angry that more famous/attractive women are attractive, and not overweight, or slovenly.
I think that the overall point of this post was about Jessica Rabbit. Her bust is very very much larger than most women's, and that sort of ideal is one that cannot be attained.
You make a good point, Anon, about how some women do look like Jessica Simpson, but the fact of the matter is that she has personal trainers, she has chefs, she has make up and wardrobe artists with her all the time. She looks gorgeous nearly always. The reasons for that are not often discussed, so women can sometimes lose sight of that, and that's when the preoccupation with weight and appearance begins.
"I think that the overall point of this post was about Jessica Rabbit. Her bust is very very much larger than most women's, and that sort of ideal is one that cannot be attained."
Well, it *can*, but it's uncommon that women go to that length. By and large, you give women too little credit. Women that get their boobs done usually go up a small amount, and are satisfied. The only ones that go to such extreme increases tend to have more..."adult" careers, shall we say, and are obviously not representative of the mainstream.
I don't know any women that would look at Jessica Rabbit and say "Because I have seen this cartoon, I must get breast implants until I am an H cup", or somesuch.
I can't think of any that would even want to have a chest of such magnitude. I just think you don't give women enough credit, or think they're too easily influenced.
"You make a good point, Anon, about how some women do look like Jessica Simpson, but the fact of the matter is that she has personal trainers, she has chefs, she has make up and wardrobe artists with her all the time. She looks gorgeous nearly always. The reasons for that are not often discussed, so women can sometimes lose sight of that, and that's when the preoccupation with weight and appearance begins."
Still. You don't need personal trainers and chefs to exercise and eat right.
You don't even need a gym membership to exercise, it can be done around the home, with things you have around the home.
As far as eating right, there are more benefits than just a healthy weight. There is also the fact that every function of your body will be improved by a proper diet.
In this day and age of readily available food items that are balanced and healthy, there's no excuse for people to be eating 3500 calories of junk and milkshakes every day.
I think the problem comes from the fact that too many people have too much of a problem with moderating themselves.
It also doesn't take a professional makeup artist or wardrobe consultant to make a person look nice.
Most of the women I know look better *without* makeup. An article of clothing doesn't need to have a designer label on it to be flattering and such, either.
I think also, people tend to set it up and purposely convince themselves that it's impossible, so they don't have to try.
If other humans look in such a way, how is it not humanly attainable?
But Jessica Rabbit isn't a human! That's the whole point. It's not attainable because she's FAKE.
So, you're angry at real women for being too attractive?
Nope. You missed the point. Feminists are not ugly, bitter women mad because they're not pretty. It's the glorification of one beauty standard that's held up as the model for everyone, without recognizing the wide variety of beauty in the world.
Women that get their boobs done usually go up a small amount, and are satisfied. The only ones that go to such extreme increases tend to have more..."adult" careers, shall we say, and are obviously not representative of the mainstream.
Cite your sources. Document it and I'll believe it.
I do take issue with the assertion that women who get large breast implants are porn stars, hookers, prostitutes or just plain whores, assuming that's what you meant by saying "adult" careers. That's an just an unfounded claim that demeans women.
Though, in the United States, having a healthy weight for your height has become "unrealistic", but you can't go blaming the media for that.
I'm not quite sure if you're saying that media portrayals of women are realistic and to say that me saying Jessica Rabbit and Jessica Simpson are unrealistic is media-blaming...
Either way, the idea that the media doesn't construct images of beauty that are unhealthy for women is just plain wrong. Women are assaulted on a daily basis with constructs of beauty and expected to live up to it.
"But Jessica Rabbit isn't a human! That's the whole point. It's not attainable because she's FAKE."
You referred to Jessica Simpson, as well. Don't double back now that you've been caught in a falsehood.
"Nope. You missed the point. Feminists are not ugly, bitter women mad because they're not pretty. It's the glorification of one beauty standard that's held up as the model for everyone, without recognizing the wide variety of beauty in the world."
This is irrelevant. This is also an excuse I've seen used when (feminists) try to claim that people like Beth Ditto are "attractive".
Certain things are attractive, certain things are not, and certain people will always exist that are more attractive than others. Period.
I continually see feminists rage against the very existence of women that are very attractive, for no other reason than they are attractive.
"Cite your sources. Document it and I'll believe it."
Don't be an idiot.
One only has to walk down the street in any given city, at any given time. Earth is my source. How many women do you know with Jessica Rabbit-esque breasts, that have a career outside of stripping or porn?
There's your source.
"I do take issue with the assertion that women who get large breast implants are porn stars, hookers, prostitutes or just plain whores, assuming that's what you meant by saying "adult" careers. That's an just an unfounded claim that demeans women."
Again, you're being stupid.
Women outside of the porn/stripping/etcetera industries do not tend to get oversized breast implants.
It isn't unfounded, or "deameaning" to women.
You're just being ridiculously confrontational and you're flat out wrong, sorry.
"I'm not quite sure if you're saying that media portrayals of women are realistic and to say that me saying Jessica Rabbit and Jessica Simpson are unrealistic is media-blaming..."
Again, how is Jessica Simpson unrealistic? I thought your logic was that Rabbit was unrealistic because she's not real? Simpson is quite real. I'm very certain she exists, thanks much.
"Either way, the idea that the media doesn't construct images of beauty that are unhealthy for women is just plain wrong. Women are assaulted on a daily basis with constructs of beauty and expected to live up to it."
And the attitude that people should find you beautiful even if you're 170 pounds overweight (which is VERY unhealthy) is somehow GOOD and healthy for women? Have you taken leave of your senses?
A lot of it comes down to the fact that I see feminists that get angry that certain women are attractive, and certain ones are not. It's as though you wish to force people to find attractive what you think they should.
Doesn't work that way. Not everyone is going to be considered "beautiful" or "attractive", and you can't force people to, say, look at Beth Ditto and say "oh, she's so gorgeous and 'real'".
I'm so ill of the "real women" argument, where the standard of "real" that gets held up, are obese, unhealthy women.
Just because McDonald's has made it common, doesn't make it natural, normal, or more "real" than someone who takes care of themselves.
I refuse to engage in debate with anyone that calls me an idiot or stupid. I also refuse to have a debate with someone who doesn't provide proof for his/her assertions. But mostly I don't let people insult me. So we're done now.
By the way, I have large breasts. Does that make me a porn star?
"I refuse to engage in debate with anyone that calls me an idiot or stupid. I also refuse to have a debate with someone who doesn't provide proof for his/her assertions. But mostly I don't let people insult me. So we're done now."
Well, if you make stupid comments, people are going to call attention to that.
I prefer intelligent debate, not knee-jerk reactionary debate.
What proof would you like me to provide, other than the proof that is readily available all over the country/world?
"By the way, I have large breasts. Does that make me a porn star?"
Ding ding ding! Just as I said, here's the reactionary, knee-jerk response.
Did you purposely get giant breast implants to have large breasts? No? Then why even try to make the connection?
If you recall, that part was women getting oversized implants tend to be in porn/stripping. Not women with large breasts in general.
Too many feminists debate by trying to make analogies that aren't there, and put words in the mouth of their opponent, or try to divine his/her intent without actually knowing it.
It's very disingenuous.
The Maureen Dowd article is completely not true, or at least very culturally blinkered (as one might expect from Maureen Dowd). Hello, Japanese cartoons? -- animated or comic-book. Don't know what she was thinking.
Post a Comment