Some of these guys still don’t have names. I’m willing to take suggestions.
Discussion (416) ¬
[ Comments RSS ]
Shortpacked! by David Willis
Toys are serious business.
Convention appearances:
Calgary Expo Calgary, AB: April 26-28
Phoenix Comicon Phoenix, AZ: May 23-26, 2013
BotCon San Diego, CA: June 28-30
San Diego Comic-Con San Diego, CA: July 18-21
SPX Bethesda, MD: September 14-15
Phoenix Comicon Phoenix, AZ: May 23-26, 2013
BotCon San Diego, CA: June 28-30
San Diego Comic-Con San Diego, CA: July 18-21
SPX Bethesda, MD: September 14-15
Multiplex
Sorcery 101
Templar, AZ
The Transformers Wiki
Hail to the Slash
80 page GIANT
Axe Cop
The Book of Biff
Butt-Taco
Comics Curmudgeon
College Roomies from Hell!!!
Diesel Sweeties
Dinosaur Comics
Dr. McNinja
Dresden Codak
Fans!
Fleen
Gastrophobia
Girl Genius
Girls with Slingshots
Goats
Hark, a vagrant
Hijinks Ensue
Intrepid Girlbot
Legend of Bill
Medium Large
Not Invented Here
Octopus Pie
Overcompensating
Penny Arcade
PhDcomics
Power Nap
Questionable Content
Real Life
Rob and Elliot
Bad Machinery
Schlock Mercenary
Sheldon
So Far Apart
Something Positive
Two Lumps
Wapsi Square
Wonderella
Wondermark
Frumph.NET
Sorcery 101
Templar, AZ
The Transformers Wiki
Hail to the Slash
80 page GIANT
Axe Cop
The Book of Biff
Butt-Taco
Comics Curmudgeon
College Roomies from Hell!!!
Diesel Sweeties
Dinosaur Comics
Dr. McNinja
Dresden Codak
Fans!
Fleen
Gastrophobia
Girl Genius
Girls with Slingshots
Goats
Hark, a vagrant
Hijinks Ensue
Intrepid Girlbot
Legend of Bill
Medium Large
Not Invented Here
Octopus Pie
Overcompensating
Penny Arcade
PhDcomics
Power Nap
Questionable Content
Real Life
Rob and Elliot
Bad Machinery
Schlock Mercenary
Sheldon
So Far Apart
Something Positive
Two Lumps
Wapsi Square
Wonderella
Wondermark
Frumph.NET
Tags
amber
animated
batman
botcon
conquest
conventions
dark of the moon
david willis
dinobot
drew
duncan
ethan
faz
galasso
generations
gijoe
guest strip
hamsters
homosexuality
jacob
jesus
joe
justice league
ken
leslie
malaya
megatron
merch
mike
ninja rick
nipple
optimus prime
politics
religion
robin desanto
ronald reagan
roz
sdcc
sg ravage
shattered glass
star wars
tni strips
transformers
transformers prime
ultra car
©2005-2013 David Willis | Powered by WordPress with ComicPress | Subscribe: RSS | Back to Top ↑
I… don’t get it. Is it a homophobia joke, maybe?
I think it’s just supposed to be a general expression of frustration.
Just a classic, humorous reaction of terror – the sphincter itself isn’t so much the point as the sudden seizing up of the entire body. Only more exaggerated than just *tense*
Incidentally, I’d be very uncomfortable as well if the entire room were suddenly full of the sound of sphincters clenching.
1. How many female characters, in fanfiction or published fiction, do you know of whose origin story started with rape (or infertility)?
2. How many male characters?
(3. How about castration?)
…bwuh?
…I mean, I understand why you’re asking it, but… why HERE?
How many times have damage done to male genitalia, up to and including castration, is utilized in an attempt to be humorous?
How many times is rape used for the same purpose?
Man, I hope you’re really not equating getting kicked in the balls to getting raped.
He may have meant how often is rape used as a source of “humor” when the victim is male.
Well, that depends. Is a guy writing a humorous guy rape scene or is a girl writing a humorous guy rape scene? It’s kind of different.
So would everyone be fine with Red Hood’s portrayal of Starfire if the writer was a woman?
I really wish folks would quit trying to compare stuff to rape that isn’t rape.
The point I was trying to make below (and for some reason I can’t reply down there) was this: Why should there be a difference? If something is bad, or morally objectionable, or uncomfortable, shouldn’t it be so regardless of who or what wrote it?
Only if context is meaningless.
And that’s the last from me on this thread, since my original appearance here was intended to be strictly diagnostic.
This thread went really nokay, really fast. I don’t blame Willis for being done with it.
As far as cognitive lingüistics a written message lacks any real context that can be recognised. An experiment can be done by giving people old letters adn question them regarding the recognition of time and place of writing, wich can not be acomplished fully by the reader without information that is not contextual, at the same time when you writte something you can not adecuate you message to the reader, wich can cause missundersatnding.
However the partial reconstruction of written messages can reveal a lot about the use of structures of lenguage, while this has not been proved yet (Or I havent read about It). In my Country the studies in linguistics focus in oral speaking, so I never wander much about studies of the written lenguaje.
Anyway, the first postulated was used by Tel Quel founder, Roland Barthes, to state that a written work of art becomes independent of Its creator, the author becomes anihilated as an individual (thats why you cant judge someone for what he/she writtes), Foucault later states that the author still works as a production agent (at he is the representation of a society, history and culture), but again the real persob has nothing to do about his/her work. Instead the “author” becomes a subject that it forms from a group of works and is never the full individual tha wrote those works.
If a work us deemed sexist It is sexist no matter who wrote It or with what intention, then the problem is if is really sexist and why
Just a little explanation for the scientific and philosophic side of things
How is it different?
And is that difference affected at all by the sexual orientation of the writer?
I really don’t see how it would be different?
What if your blind to the gender? And anyway I go think kicking someone in the balls is a sexual assault but it is nothing like rape. The fact I still snicker just shows how badly non PC I am.
He may also have meant that rape is usually portrayed as serious, permanently damaging stuff (as it should be), while male genital damage is laughed off as comical (which it really shouldn’t, regardless that it’s nothing like rape). Ergo, they aren’t the same and aren’t treated the same.
Either way, it’s obvious he’s calling out the false equivalence made by the poster above him who actually did compare the rape of female characters to harm done to male genitals. In other words JT is specifically saying that rape is NOT like getting kicked in the balls. Man, Willis, come on.
It wasn’t my intention to respond to JT in particular. JT’s got a long history of very sane posts.
Oh, good! Criticism retracted.
But you can see how I would think that…
Kicked? I kind of figured he was equating cutting off the balls to getting raped… which is only slightly better, but still…
Yeah, I’m not seeing castration being used as a common theme in… anything.
I wasn’t quite with this one either.
Instead of one name, just name them “The Clenchers.”
Clench MOB.
no one’s saying it, so I gotta…
why is that guy’s sound effect GREEN?
Maybe its the Chutney Slurpee?
He’s one of the gooey alien from Zebraman in human form!!
Gender disparity? WHAT gender disparity?
*glances at sidebar ad*
*dies*
aha ha haha
ha ha
ha ha ha ha
*sob*
You seem to be doing that a lot today.
You might want to rethink taking that medication you are on.
He might want to consider taking more.
for those reading the archives, the ad the day this was published involved a naked redhead for a comic called “Living With Insanity”.
Just so we get the point across.
A naked redhead clutching her breasts, to be specific.
And oddly enough, the artwork of the girl does not match up with artwork from the actual comic.
…Make of THAT what you will.
Its the Evony of webcomic ads.
Would you all feel better if I replaced it with an ad for my webcomic instead?
Ha, wow that is some serious art-discrepancy. That really IS the Evony of webcomic ads.
To be fair, at least there are a lot of boobies in the strip that opens when you click on the link. So at least it doesn’t lie QUITE as much as Evony.
Except Evony isn’t dumb enough to put $365.80/day as their minimum bid.
Especially with someone is as big a jerk as me as a competitor to place a bid at 365.70 to raise it to the max.
MUWAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
PENANCE SHALL BE PAID FOR YOUR DECEPTIVE AD!
It isn’t totally deceptive. The image used for that ad does actually appear in the comic where they outright acknowledge that it’s a blatant attempt at getting more people to check out Living With Insanity. Specifically, a comic where the main character is like “How the hell do we get more views?” The artist character is all “I know how.” Then the last panel of the comic is that woman in the ad.
You’re making me regret having ads disabled.
You should feel bad about having ads disabled. It cheats the webcomics you are viewing out of their advertising income.
I feel bad about having ads disabled. Then I go to a site that has video ads that start automatically and I don’t feel bad anymore.
Seriously, if I could figure out how, I would set adblock to allow ads from the webcomics I read. But I’m not going to listen to some crap about how awesome Lysol is when I’m trying to learn how to finish a quest in Fallout.
Yeah, whoever started those ads is a giant dick. Especially when they put them on video streaming websites, and have the ads automatically refresh every 4 minutes.
Oh yeah, guys, that makes me want to buy your product/stay on your site. Listening to ads drowning out my videos.
Rightclick on the ABP icon on the status bar, then click “Disable on this website only”.
You’re done.
Apologies for using a fake email and name and whatnot, I don’t think it’s worth making an online persona for helping out.
And as a topper on that, I got the Sims 3 add about women being either a dream or a nightmare. This is so meta…
Mine is some comic with several panels of male adventurers, and one with a bar wench leaning far forward to serve them their drinks.
You really don’t have to look far when it comes to embarrassing webcomic ads.
Funny… I got one for a comic called Gaia up top. Has a girl in it holding onto a rope but sensibly dressed. Kind of conflicting with the side one eh?
That is a good one I’m already following – brought by the same writer from Sandra & Woo. I holds promise anyways.
I’m getting an ad for Master of Martial Hearts, which is arguably worse.
Specifically, this is the ad:
http://i.imgur.com/4w5N5.png
As amusing and ironic as those ads are with this comic, But there IS a big difference between using sex-appeal in advertising, and seriously portraying your characters in a bias fashion. There is nothing wrong with sex-appeal or making use of it, BUT consistently portraying one gender(or any group) as a cheap stereo type of that you think they should be or judge them as, is where things go wrong(especially when it’s geared to appeal to a different group then it’s portraying)
“consistently portraying one gender(or any group)”
Women
“as a cheap stereo type of that you think they should be or judge them as”
Sexy
“is where things go wrong(especially when it’s geared to appeal to a different group then it’s portraying)”
Men reading webcomics
Well, yes it that would be the topic in this case, which I acknowledged. but I was also making a more broad point.
Dooooood! You aren’t allowed to say “broad.” Knock it off!
Sphincter clench is now an imaginary sound that is BURNED INTO MY MIND’S EAR. It will now haunt my dreams.
I’m thinking of starting a band just so I can call it Sphincter Clench.
The Butthole Surfers managed to find success, so I don’t see why this name can’t.
Their success lacked that “sweet smell” I imagine…
Sphincter Clench really should be a Butthole Surfers cover band.
Huh. Surprised the flannel crew isn’t there.
Shh, they might think you are inviting them…..
Butts Disease evolves into Sphincter Clench.
“Hi. I’m Amber. And like millions of Americans, I suffer from Sphincter Clench…”
SPHINCHTER CLENCH learned UNSOUND EFFECT!
SPHINCHTER CLENCH is trying to learn NIGHTMARE FUEL. Unfortunately, SPHINCHTER CLENCH already knows 4 moves.
Delete a move so SPHINCHTER CLENCH can learn NIGHTMARE FUEL?
(oh god I feel dirty writing that so much. Is this how you felt, Willis?)
What would be the Sphincter Clench equivalent of Toe Aids?
Actually, I’m pretty sure I don’t want to know the answer to that at all.
SPHINCTER CLENCH uses BUTTMAD
Its defense rises!
AMBER uses RATIONAL ARGUMENT
It’s not very effective!
I think Willis may be obliquely commenting on responses to Friday’s strip.
He stated on Friday’s strip that he already had today’s written.
Actually, he went out of his way to let us know this strip was written in advance of any response to Friday’s strip. Sadly, it doesn’t exactly take an oracle to predict that the average response to “gender disparity in comics” would be *sphincter clench*.
So I guess reading this comic requires reading the comments from Friday’s?
…Yeah, I’m not going through over 500+ comments. >_<
Nah, Willis said on Friday that he had today’s strip written. I wondered why at the time, but considering that there were a few comments in that cluster that translated to, “let me explain why you lady folk don’t feel the way you say you feel…” well…Huh.
There are a lot of those comments (a lot of uninformed people), but to be honest, what group of people isn’t misrepresented or characterized in modern media? You have emotionless brainless male characters being outsmarted by their female colleagues, you have near racist African American proxies in movies like transformers, Asian stereotypes (ie 2 broke girls), nerd stereotypes (big bang theory)… the list goes on. I don’t think any one group of people (in the modern age, that is important) has a monopoly on media misrepresentation.
And to be perfectly clear, I am annoyed at the representation of females in comics. I just also find myself annoyed at other representations of other groups in other works as well.
I think it may be getting better (slowly) in marvels initiative series there was a funny comment by one of the female characters “cloud 9″ about how all the other super hero girls were like vogue models (she is shaping up to be one of my favorite female characters) and they even had a more average girl in the last one. Soooooooo maybe the companies are getting the hint
I think that might be a bingo square…”oppression olympics” I think it’s called.
But you’re right, there are stereotypes all over the place. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t call them out when they happen. And while “brainless male gets outsmarted by sexy wife” is a crazy irritating trope, it doesn’t change the fact that the default is still “male, straight, and white” in most entertainment. And really, most blogs and articles calling out for better portrayals of female characters are also calling out for more non-white characters and more LGBT characters.
Which is probably why Amanda Waller is at the top of the list as far as “worst things about the DC reboot.”
Why? OMG, what did they do to The Wall? I always liked the fact that she was short and fat, instead of some DDD Vogue-cover bimbo.
You haven’t seen?
She’s young, skinny, and sexy. Heck, in her first appearance, we even got some cleavage.
Le sigh.
Complaining isn’t doing something, though – anyone can write a blog about something they don’t like. Should go start a webcomic to close the gap! I know the average person usually lacks the skill perceived as necessary, but consider how many comics out there were started by someone who didn’t know what they were doing – and they developed the skill over time.
I was reading something about how some people from the Occupy movement have gone home and started to get involved in their communities to motivate reform. Similar deal. You can’t control other people, but you can control yourself.
Me, I’m in the planning stages of my own webcomic… I’m your average art-layperson, and therefore lack most of the skill needed, but I’m gonna start small.
And there we have the rhetorical fallacy that the people who are complaining aren’t simultaneously doing more to further the issue.
I am working as a freelance artist; I’m a part of a studio and working to get my work to the quality where I can work for one of the big publishers (don’t get me wrong, doing indie work is aces too, but the ten-year-old in me won’t be satisfied until I’ve drawn Flash for money or something).
But y’know, even if I wasn’t…it wouldn’t matter. Complaining is not “doing nothing.” Ideally, complaining is raising awareness and having discussions about issues that not everyone may even realize exists. I don’t think that most of the people who do or say massively sexist things in any industry are sexist themselves–they just never had it brought to their attention how often certain things happen or how accepted constants generate negative reactions from groups of people that they never considered might be reading their comics. It usually comes from a place of ignorance, not malice, and the more often the discussion comes up, the less ignorance there will be.
“Make comics yourself” was a flip and stupid answer from the SDCC. Women want to see less sexist portrayals of their favorite characters now, not a decade or so in the future after “enough” women have worked their way into the industry.
And there we have the rhetorical fallacy that the people who are complaining aren’t simultaneously doing more to further the issue.
No, that’s you putting words in my mouth. I said “complaining isn’t doing anything,” not, “people who complain don’t do anything.”
You’re right that complaining *can* get things done indirectly, if you get lucky and a lot of people are saying the same thing, and the person(s) being complained about are disposed to listen to you. But it’s far less effective than stepping up to the plate with something to stand in the gap – and there’s very little lag to “breaking into the industry” where webcomics are concerned.
Anyway, good on you for being the type who doesn’t just say stuff. I applaud you!
Nerds and men, as groups, are not the targets of oppression. I can’t really be bothered to care about their “stereotypes”. (Nevermind that men have a greater range of roles and are seen as the “default” while women frequently get stuck on the same number of tropes.)
If you’re talking about acting, that may have more to do with supply and demand. Every acting troupe I’ve been a part of has had many more women than men (the one I’m in now is just over 2 to 1). I tend to get a lot of roles – and varied roles – because men are in short supply, at least where I’ve been involved.
T r o p e. Not troupe.
Ah, I was out of context – but I didn’t notice the word “trope.” I was basing the acting thing off the word “roles,” theater has been on my mind lately. Sigh was referring to roles in society, I just didn’t follow the discussion backward from him correctly.
Still, theater is a good example of an industry where women have a good foothold.
Huh? No. Friday, Amber makes a point about gender disparity. Monday, every dude in the store gets tightass about it. It’s not necessary to know a bunch of real-world dudes also got tightass about it.
Willis might be going for irony here too. I mean all of the male characters seem to be unshaven and creepyish, while Amber is rather normal by comparison. Role reversal?
I have some name suggestions, but first I need to know which one’s Leland.
Purple shirt, 4th panel. From “Piss Green” strip.
Ah, THAT explains the color of his clench.
Leland’s the one clenching in green, presumably in a throwback to this comic.
Thanks, everyone. He wasn’t tagged in that when I clicked his name, for some reason.
Which one is leland? When I looked him up the only other comic had Ethan talking to a man made of straw. I also suggest the name Vincent
I appreciate the irony.
… You were being ironic, right?
I dun’ get it. Is it what Amber said, a response to Faz’s appearance, or something else I’m missing?
Bringing up the subject of gender disparity in comics caused all the strawmen in the store to instantly and instinctively react.
Okay, it took me a couple reads to figure it out. But I think everybody is gettin’ clench’d over what Amber said, and then she is getting clench’d over what Faz is saying at the end.
My impression was not that Amber was clenching (facial expression doesn’t look like the others), but more that she’s thinking ‘Oh crap, I didn’t mean to do THAT’.
Yeah, I don’t follow this strip.
Maybe I need a flowchart.
I see what you did there.
…I did something?
Yay, the return of Brody!
Uhh… suggestions. Darius? Kevin? Finch?
Bob.. There has to be at least one Bob.
If it’s good enough for a planet, then it’s good enough name for a human.
Tokenism Guy should totally be Arch. Not only is he always present around comics but he is totally the kind of asshat who imagines himself as an arch-this or an arch-that. So not Archie, just Arch.
Which is the sound a sphincter clench makes, BTW.
Hmmmm. Yes.
(It also helps that “Arch” isn’t a name I’m likely to name anybody else ever. S’probably why I’ll err on the side of not using names like “Kevin.”)
Yay! That is totally the bestest birthday present! And it really is my birthday (the 5th)!
happy birthday!
Thanks!
Happy Sphincter Clench! I mean birthday….
in my brain, it’s a very squishy sound
One of them should probably be named Victor. It seems appropriate.
And to him shall go the spoils!
Oh? Like in today’s Oglaf?
You certainly cannot claim Oglaf suffers from gender disparity for sure.
Oglaf is drawn by a pretty girl, so…it doesn’t count?
So the gender of the writer DOES count… gotcha!
A gotcha reply? Ambush journalism, I cry!
You also can’t call it heteronormative.
I can claim that, actually. There are an awful lot of dicks in that comic to go with the titties.
Which is why you can’t claim it suffers from gender desparity. It shows both in compromising positions while still having fairly interesting characters. Regardless of gender.
dammit, it’s been so long since Faz had any lines I forget what voice I use in my head. >_<
And…yeah, I don't know what's going on either? Are they trying to keep from pooping? Or…?
In my head he is voiced by Antonio Banderas.
This makes no sense at all but makes his dialog at least 120% more hilarious.
I was thinking the joke was that they were “butthurt”, or “tightassed”, though it’s entirely possible that it wasn’t either of those.
I’m sorry, I meant to reply to the same post you were replying to, I must have ended up replying to you instead.
Thanks for that, now I am imagining Faz with Puss In Boots voice.
En Garde!
For some reason I imagine him with a childish, somewhat high-pitch voice.
Actually, this comment just made me realize that I have a specific imaginary voice given to each comic character I read. I guess I never really thought of it before but that’s a whole lot of voices to make up out of nowhere. Huh.
I give him a somewhat high voice as well. Little bit like Mandark from Dexter’s Lab.
I kind of imagine him sounding like Jocko from Freakazoid. (As in “Laugh with my, Jocko, LAUGH WITH ME!”)
I don’t think Jocko had any lines beyond a Peter Lorre-esque “Hhhneeee,” but it’s the tone that says Faz to my mind.
In my head, he sounds very similar to Wilmer Valderrama (Fez, from “That 70′s Show”).
Yes! That’s the voice I give him, too!
I’m a little confused too, is this saying that most men don’t get the fact that there’s a gender disparity in comics?
I think it is more that these VERY PARTICULAR CHARACTERS have a…very strong opinion on the matter.
No, no, I’m pretty sure it’s the first thing.
This is me guessing based on experience, but I think it’s that some* men not only don’t see any sort of disparity, but that they will react very negatively to being told that there is, using any variation of the following:
“No, men are just as sexualized.”
“That’s just the way it is in comics.”
“No there isn’t!”
“Well, I know a girl, and SHE doesn’t think so.”
And my personal favorite: “Superhero comics are for guys anyway!”
*SOME is important. It isn’t “all” or “most” and I wouldn’t even say “many” because that’s a stupid, slippery term. But it’s still a response that I think those of us who follow geek news have been seeing an awful lot of the past year or so. Part of it, I think, is that no one wants to think of themselves as sexist. People have in their minds an image of what a sexist or a racist or homophobe or any kind of bigot is, we all “know” that a bigot is bad, and no one thinks of themselves as a bad person. So having sexist (or racist or homophobic) elements in entertainment brought to their attention tends to make a lot of people uncomfortable, and sometimes angry, because darn it, they just want to enjoy their things without having to worry about whether or not there’s anything questionable about it.
That and, I dunno, some guys seem legitimately upset because they’re under the impression that feminists want to take all the boobs and sex out of comic books.
*Sphincter clench*
Thank you for the some bit.
A lot of us dudes actually want our entertainment to you know entertain all manner of folks and not leave folks feeling icky (and honestly a lot of it leaves us feeling a bit upset to.) It’s nice to be included and not told that you are part of the problem. (Which honestly doesn’t happen that much but do to poor communication and the internet’s inherent limitations on understanding through a casual glance it’s easy for that to seem to be the case.)
There’s probably a lot of all of the things you say here. I suspect there are also a lot of other guys who DO recognize the gender disparity, and dislike it, but instinctively fear the second coming of Fredric Wertham whenever someone complains loudly about anything related to sexuality, violence, drugs, or occultism in comics. Dr. Wertham wasn’t even completely wrong about most of his complaints when he wrote Seduction of the Innocent, but most of us should be aware of what happened to comics when he published it.
I think that on some level, I may fall into this later group, and I will admit to it. I know the people complaining are generally right, and I dislike the thing they are complaining about, but the very fact that there are complaints about content of *any* sort sets off danger alarms
On the plus side, if we see a redux of the whole Seduction of the Innocent debacle, mothers will destroy comics and ten/twenty years from now, today’s comics will be worth money, and the whole collector’s bubble can start all over again and…oh. Hm.
I’ve never really thought of it on those terms, primarily because the people I hear speaking out the loudest against women being portrayed as sex objects tend to also advocate more LGBT characters as well, something that Dr. Wertham certainly would have had issues with. (Heh. Issues. Geddit? Cuz we’re talking about comics? Ha-HA. Eh.) Moreover, I don’t think most of us are arguing against women having sex in comics.
We just don’t like the fact that women are primarily in comics for sex. To be sexy. To be defined by their relationship to a male character, either as a girlfriend, wife, fem-version, etc. That’s probably why discussions can so rapidly devolve into fury on both sides. Because what we’re primarily trying to say is: “We don’t like the objectification of women in comics.” And, to be honest, most “Yeah, but…” responses still sound like, “Yes, but we’re going to keep it around anyway.” Whether or not they’re meant as that. It’s a touchy subject for a lot of people, and when something close to personal experience or anything that might challenge someone else’s view of themselves becomes involved, it’s easy to get offended, on either side.
Also, this is the internet, where it’s, like 20% easier to be offended.
Only 20%?
And yes, I understand all of that. And it is entirely too easy for males who are confronted with these issues to feel like they are being *personally* wrongfully accused of sexism, or that gender image issues that are also problematic for men (which also exist) are being dismissed out of hand, even when that’s not the case (although occasionally that is the case.)
As for my knee-jerk reaction… It’s not just Seduction of the Innocent and the Comics Code Authority, but also the ongoing debates over violence in video games, censorship in cartoons, moral panic over role playing games. Every time in the past that someone has made outspoken public complaints about The Stuff I Like, it results in Very Bad Stuff happening. The human mind is very vulnerable to that sort of conditioning, so even if I know it’s not likely to happen this time, a loud nagging voice in my subconscious tells me that it will. As a geek (not as a male) that is one type of “background radiation” that I live with.
Well, to be fair, Comic Books and Role-Playing Games have become such tiny niche markets that complaints about violence in them aren’t likely to register with any significant demographic. Wertham had such an impact because comics were really, really popular when he was unleashed. The urban legends about “D&D Deaths” resonated because at the time there were literally millions of people that were or had played D&D. Nowadays? Most parents probably don’t even know a kid that plays D&D or reads comic-books, so it’s not really a concern.
Now video games? That’s a whole different ball of wax and certainly mainstream and popular enough that moral outrage can take hold, however, with the rating system they currently have in place, and having already survived Columbine and multiple attempts at “moral outrage” generated by various corners, I think they may already have weathered the worst of the storm. Possibly because unlike comic-books and RPGs, video games have become SO mainstream that there are millions upon millions of adults that play them to one degree or another and consider themselves “normal.” That, and the average age of a “gamer” being well into the adult years might help.
“Nowadays? Most parents probably don’t even know a kid that plays D&D or reads comic-books, so it’s not really a concern.”
Who’s to say that’s not at least partly due to past moral outrage?
Off the top of my head? The number of ten-year-olds calling each other “fags” as they shoot one another in the face on any given first-person shooter server. People didn’t stop buying comics for their kids because they were scary, evil, and violent. Kids just aren’t interested in comics because competing media has their attention. Back in the ’80s, the moral outrage people had a good percentage of our population convinced Ozzy Osbourne worshipped the devil and would make your kids off themselves if they played his records. Now he’s a household name celebrity and parents sing his songs with their kids in Honda Pilot commercials. For all the publicity Peggy Charren and ACT received, kids’ cartoons are darker and more violent than ever these days. Their biggest accomplishment was the end of cartoons as blatant, thirty-minute toy commercials, a shift that obviously had a positive impact on how corporate media approached content creation.
Video games still attract some controversy from time to time, but even that is mostly a thing of the past. There’s certainly no threat to music, cartoons, or comic books anymore.
“Video games still attract some controversy from time to time, but even that is mostly a thing of the past. There’s certainly no threat to music, cartoons, or comic books anymore.”
That depends a great deal on what you consider a threat. I think Wal-Mart arbitrarily censoring music without telling anyone is a threat. I think some of the censorship that still goes on in cartoons is a threat. The insane level of censorship that was done to One Piece on American television was NOT that long ago.
Also look at it this way: Suppose you and I have survived a nuclear war, and are living in the empty wasteland where there used to be a big city.
“Well, on the bright side, with no city here anymore, at least we don’t have to worry about anybody nuking this big glass crater anytime soon!”
And that may be so, but I bet you’d still have nightmares about it. I bet you’d still get VERY uneasy during an unscheduled bomb drill too.
One of the most significant differences between criticisms of depictions of women and people of colour/glbtq persons in comics and the controversy which led up to the CCA is the origin of the criticism. The CCA preyed on the moralistic sensibilities of housewives and legislators outside of the fold of geekery, whereas the modern effort to get some more reasonable representation is coming from fellow geeks, and the suggested “fixes” (more female creators at the Big Two, promotion of well balanced female characters and the development of their storylines) don’t involve harming the industry or reducing output or even necessarily “censoring” anything adult. If anything, I see a vast economic gains to be had for comics and possibility for expansion of the industry, with more girls, women, people of colour, lgbtq persons, and other under served demographics buying the funny books, and consequently more titles being released to appeal them. I realize this raises the dark specter of tokenism, but since your argument was that you fear harm to comics not that you fear the integrity of the White Man Brigade being harmed, I totally believe that you think having some well-characterized, non-able-bodied, gay, black ladies would be rad, too! (and Chicano people, and Middle Eastern, and of mixed heritage, and Native American, and transgendered, and transsexual, and maybe if we are feeling crazy someone who doesn’t fall into the gender binary at all!) So get out of your bunker and demand that DC offer some fly ladies a contract.
I can’t say emphatically enough that I agree. I am FOR raising awareness of the issue. I am FOR fixing the disparity. As I’ve been trying to explain though, it’s a subconscious, *irrational* thing that raises the hair on my neck simply because someone is complaining about some kind of content in a medium I’m fond of. There’s some serious cognitive dissonance going on here that I can’t really do much about except own up to it, which I’ve done. It puts me in the bizarre position of getting defensive in response to something I completely agree with.
I’m certain that I can’t be the only person who experiences this, although some may not be consciously aware of it in those terms. The only point in my bringing it up is to offer some possible understanding of why some people would respond to this issue in certain ways. I am in no way suggesting any *actual* threat to the medium from this, just an irrational fear based on past events. I think you’ll see that if you give my “nuked city” analogy another look. Sorry for any poor communication on my part.
“No, men are just as sexualized.”
Thing is, this can be true and there would still be a discrepancy anyway. The two arnt mutalty exclusive so its not a counter arguement in any way.
The key difference, of course, is men are sexualised in a completely different way. Its a males idea of what a female wants, rather then visa versa.
And then you get into the problem of image of both sex’s (when was the last time you saw a fat person in a comic that was a regular character? how about ugly or short?). Everyones perfect…..or, rather, the artists perception of perfect.
Imho, this one does apply to both sex’s.
However, woman in comics get that AND they also have their pose’s sexualised, their plot-rolls (normaly) smaller and less important or weaker. We, of course, then also get case’s were we are told they are (somehow) strong percisely because they are oversexualised….as if one flows from the other. Not to mention if you start to say “isnt there too many big breasted, curvy, girls?” you always get answers like “ARE YOU SAYING GIRLS CANT BE PRETTY AND SMART?!?!” etc.
In many ways sexism in comics is about the (preportional) absence of other body types, rather then the existance of whats there already.
Since I can’t hit “like”, Ill type it instead. I’ve gotten this exact same reaction many, many times from guys, including several good friends who are otherwise great people. There’s just something about saying women get a raw deal in a lot of geek culture that makes some people go crazy.
Thank you Laura that was very well put.
Probably. Same thing apparently happens with ‘racism in Sci-Fi/Fandom’.
“I would like to talk about the racism inherent in these books…”
“There is no racism in sci-fi! NONE! It’s the most openminded fandom EVAR! We dream about other worlds and travelling to the stars! And on that note, I want to discuss some discrepancies in the depiction of the Enterprise’s warp coils between Episodes 2.12 and 2.14 of Star Trek: Next Generation. Now…”
At least, that’s how it sounds from a couple of anecdotes.
I dunno about other media, but Sci-Fi on TV is probably better racism wise then a lot of other genre’s.
Lost had a fairly diverse cast, Star Trek’s been “above average” (historicaly the first black/white kiss on screen too, remember), B5 had its fair share of showing the religeons of earth. Its not perfect, but Id say sci-fi has done ok.
Oddly I think sci-fi is mostly raciest in a fictional form when it comes to other species – if your not human your whole planet is depicted as having one culture or belief system.
I agree 110% that this represents sci-fi as a genre. That’s across all media, too. However, that does not stop some individual author from writing some single work that is grossly racist. The enlightened nature of sci-fi as a whole shouldn’t prevent anyone from discussing whatever racism is present in specific works, and I think that’s closely related to the point Jace was making.
absolutely. I wasnt really dissagreeing so much as just generaly thinking of the average level of sci-fi.
Thinking about the negatives. I do remember reading once that Gene Roddenbury tried to get openly gay characters into Star Trek but was never allowed. – Something corrected for somewhat by the fan star trek shows online. (Kirks sun being gay in ST: Phase 2, and Hidden Froniter having many gay relationships).
*son
wow, bit of a typo there. Allthough the idea of Kirk owning a gay sun is a interesting scifi idea….
A heliosexual? That would likely be better than a lot of the fanfic out there.
That, and the fact that people in a fandom, any fandom, are remarkably resistant to acknowledging that their fandom may have any flaws at all. Here’s the original version of the quotage I put up.
“The conversations would simply shut down, often thanks to respected personages/fans who would emphatically declare that there was no racism in the genre outside of a few unimportant loudmouths, and no need to discuss race since there was no racism, so let’s move on to something interesting like quantum physics.”
Taken from:
http://nkjemisin.com/2010/01/why-i-think-racefail-was-the-bestest-thing-evar-for-sff/
That too, absolutely.
Leland’s Sphincter Clench is green, as opposed to the various browns everyone else has.
Nice callback, Willis. That is both somehow very clever and very immature. Just how I like it.
And now, a weeklong mansplanation of mansplaining, I surmanse.
Now to begin my nightly Mayan ritual of running barbed wire through my penis.
That just sounds counter-productive to anything you should be doing with your penis.
They knew when the world would end, so I figure they were on to something.
I know it was used here in jest, but I hope I am not the only person who finds the word “mansplaining” to be sexist and condescending.
Nnnnnope. However, I don’t see anything to be done about it. There’s no other way that I know of to say, quite so succintly, that ‘this person is talking through a hole in their head about a topic they have no first-hand experience in, and trying to justify it to the people who DO have said experience’.
But, to be honest, I find ‘social activism’ in general, at least what I have seen on the net, to be an extremely toxic, hostile environment.
Ah, the internet, which gives us all the equality and freedom to choose who we want to be the second-class citizen.
I can think of a lot of very succinct words for things that I am MUCH better off taking the long way of talking about. People who want to fight for gender equality should not use gender-loaded terms of derision like this one. Any attempt to make excuses for it is just “womansplaining.”
Ok, there’s no way to say it succintly while pretending to be polite about it.
But yeah, that’s pretty much my issue with that and similar terms.
“Ok, there’s no way to say it succintly while pretending to be polite about it.
”
Yeah, or without looking like a complete hypocrite. I think that’s the bigger issue.
It is not a position of hypocrisy as woman do not come from the place of privilege that men do. Yes, women can be guilty if telling a man how he must be thinking because he is a man, and that makes him wrong, but it simply does not hold water. The term may be ridiculous, but there is a point to it.
Think of it this way. If a Caucasian is speaking out about how he/she gets to use the “n” word because those of African decent get to use is, they are not coming from equal ground in any way. This does not mean the Africans are not racist when they use terms to demean Caucasian, but it is nowhere near the same in the US.
The idea that it is empowering to slur the other sex when they disagree with you is bad, regardless of who sits where in the power structure, and regardless of whether the individual being slurred really is wrong.
I never said it would not be sexist if a woman tried the same behavior, but as that behavior does not hold the same weight, does not have all of history backing up oppression, the theory of manspalinin’ is unique to men, and thus the gender specific title.
It is not the best system in the world, but until men get it, then women have to over explain the offense that men perpetrate until we men wise up enough to understand we do not have the right to tell a woman that she is not allowed to be offended by us.
“It is not the best system in the world, but until men get it, then women have to over explain the offense that men perpetrate until we men wise up enough to understand we do not have the right to tell a woman that she is not allowed to be offended by us.”
But this word isn’t going to convince anybody that needs the explanation. It might do the opposite to someone who would otherwise have listened. It also might (and does) needlessly offend people who were already sympathetic. It also gives antifeminists more ammo to accuse feminists of not really wanting equality. I don’t think we want to do that.
Sometimes, in order to bring attention to an issue, one must shock and offend. If you are part of a community that is traditionally in the role of the oppressor, and wish to help the oppressed, you sometimes have to take a hit for the team. It is not always comfortable.
After all, the people that are the ones guilty of the “mansplain” are quite thick, and obviously do not get it. If they did, it would not require a metaphorical slap in the face. It would be just a simple statement of, “You, as a man, have no frame of reference of what it is truly like to be a woman, and thus cannot honestly believe you have the right to tell a woman how it is that she feels.” If this would work, then manspailnin’ would not have been a term invented in the first place. The simple declaration of the woman’s feelings would have been enough to stop it in the first place.
So, if it offends you, as someone that supports the movement of equal rights, perhaps it has the desired effect of offending those that do not, in their hearts, support the movement, and thus allows them to actually get the message that things are not okay.
Change that is worth it is not comfortable in the process of making it happen. Change that is worthwhile requires effort, and sacrifice, and perseverance. No one is saying that the term is not abrasive. What is being said is that the behavior comes from a place of obstinence and ignorance so deep, that larger measures are needed to combat it.
@TheDawgboy
To be honest, I don’t understand the mindset behind your explanation for supporting the use of ‘mansplaining’. You say if it offends the sympathetic people, then maybe it will be a slap in the face for the people it actually applies to, right?
… you really believe that?
Say that there is someone who truly deserves to be accused of mansplainin’ as it has been presented here, someone who is definitely, unequivocally trying to dictate to women how they should feel and why they should not be offended. Maybe he even actually says something stupid like ‘I’m a man so I know what I’m talking about’.
You REALLY think that kind of idiot is gonna be swayed by one little word? That they’re gonna sit up and go ‘Omigawd, what have I been DOING with my life?’
Ooooor are they more likely to get angry, defensive, mulish, stubborn, and just more and more unreasonable, and less and less unlikely to listen?
If they even NOTICE…
I know which one I’d bet on. Sure, you might get lucky once or twice, someone might have the wrong attitudes but be openminded enough to listen, but… I wouldn’t hold my breath.
“‘this person is talking through a hole in their head about a topic they have no first-hand experience in” – Which is a point of view that comes from a place that implicitly assumes that someone must know about _all_ sides of the issue to talk about an issue that affects _everyone_ in different ways. (Of course, no-one can know about _all_ sides, but pointing _this_ out gets you linked to that “derailing” site)
It doesn’t take even that much thought in this case. Here’s the easy version: The entire premise of “mansplaining” translates to “you don’t know what you’re talking about because you are a man.” If “you don’t know what you’re talking about because you are a woman” is never an acceptable statement, then neither is the version directed at men.
No. Mansplaining is a more specific term than that.
It requires both verbal diarrhea and misogyny.
And I get how it causes us guys to feel attacked to have a gender-specific word about a misbehavior. Truth is, though, that the masculine-dominated world is being attacked. The misogyny is being attacked.
“Attack” words like mansplaining are being used to combat an oppressive culture, and being as that culture favors us (and at a more basic level, being as we’re part of that culture) of course we feel attacked.
But we ought to accept women’s right to bear that particular memetic weapon. Because it’s meant to be used in self-defense, and you’d better believe the people using it are being attacked a whole lot more.
It… does not always get used in the way you suggest. The very construction of the word is offensive as well, completely regardless of whatever context you think it is supposed to have. It isn’t “misogynistsplaining” it is “MANsplaining.” Feminist women would not put up with a similarly constructed word about women, therefore this one is also not acceptable. We should be interested in equality, not role reversal.
It… does not always get used in the way you suggest.
Fine, then rail against people who use it wrong. How does that reflect on the word itself, though?
The very construction of the word is offensive as well, completely regardless of whatever context you think it is supposed to have. It isn’t “misogynistsplaining” it is “MANsplaining.”
If you’re offended, then you’re offended. But considering your offense is dependent on a refusal to consider the context of the word’s origin and actual definition, and an insistence on judging it on face value…well, don’t be surprised if some people aren’t too sympathetic to your concerns.
Listen. It’s called “mansplaining” because it’s basically a contraction of the type of condescending argument it describes: “Let me explain how things really work, since I’m the man in the room.” It’s not called “misogynistsplaining” because, well, that’s really long and awkward. But more to the point, misogynists typically don’t self-identify as misogynists. And they don’t think they’re right because they’re misogynists; they think they’re right because they’re men, and thus have better faculties for logic and reasoning than the silly, emotional women with their cute little opinions.
Just as a final thought, would you like to campaign for the word “manslaughter” to be changed? After all, the most straightforward reading of that word implies that you accidentally killed that guy because you’re a man. And that’s sexist.
@ Pandademic: Well the “manslaughter” case doesn’t hold because it’s literally “slaughtering a man (as a stand-in for “human” but please let’s not have that particular argument).” To say nothing of the fact that it’s an actual word and “mansplaining” isn’t. I know you’re doing some reductio ad absurdum here but that’s not really a productive way to hold a conversation. And that’s what everyone wants both here and on a broad scale, isn’t it? A respectful conversation about this issue.
Words that are designed as weapons, even defensive ones, damage that conversation. Does everyone have the right to be defensive? Sure–some groups more than others, but it’s a natural reaction to feeling like you’ve been or are going to be attacked. But if you show up to talk carrying around a big sack of verbal missiles then you put the other side on the defensive before you even start.
Words like “mansplaining” shut down conversation. So do words like “Feminazi.” They say, or -appear- to say, “here is what I think of you and everyone who’s like you, and if you argue I’ll just throw this word back in your face.” And whether or not that’s the intent, appearance matters a LOT, because how else can you judge what anyone else is saying? They’re clearly made up words, and they SOUND made up to be hurtful.
In short, saying that you shouldn’t get offended at how the word sounds because that’s not how it’s meant to be used ignores the way language works in any practical sense. What people think a word means is everything–the only thing, actually. In fact, most pejorative words are only offensive because of how they’re used or how they sound to the ear; it often has nothing at all to do with their literal meaning.
So I guess my question is: why bother with such a word to begin with? Does it really get you anywhere that the words “misogynist” and “arrogant” wouldn’t? Seeing as verbal weapons tend to bounce off anyone whose mind is already made up anyway, it seems to me you only stand to lose people who weren’t so so decided already.
Anyway, I’m with fp on this one. If we’re arguing for equality then the way to do it is not by taking aim at any group of people, and by doing our best to avoid even the appearance of it.
Lynceus said what I was going to say more clearly than I was probably going to say it. Much appreciated.
@Lynceus: Well the “manslaughter” case doesn’t hold because it’s literally “slaughtering a man
All right, I could have looked for a better example than “manslaughter”. My point was that just because it’s possible to interpret a word in a way that is offensive to you, doesn’t mean the construction of the word is offensive. Especially when you’re ignoring the definition of the word to do it. The word isn’t “mansplaining-as-all-men-are-wont-to-do”, so how do you justify interpreting it as an offensive generalization? Because it isn’t specific enough? That’s what a definition is for!
Words that are designed as weapons, even defensive ones, damage that conversation…if you show up to talk carrying around a big sack of verbal missiles then you put the other side on the defensive before you even start.
Great! If they’re on the defensive, then maybe they’re thinking about their own positions and assumptions.
Look, I get what you’re saying, but I disagree. Nice, polite arguments are not by definition more effective than pointed ones. Sometimes a good jab is exactly what you need to get through to someone. It might upset them (hell, just disagreeing with someone can upset them), but maybe later that night, they’ll be thinking about what that asshole on the internet said to them. And if it keeps happening, and they keep thinking about it, maybe they’ll come around eventually.
I’m all for showing respect for people, but I don’t believe in pulling punches. Agree to disagree, I guess.
Words like “mansplaining” shut down conversation. So do words like “Feminazi.”
I’m not seeing the parallel here. “Feminazi” is an insult, and it does indeed shut down conversation. Or rather, it shows that the one throwing it out has no interest in considering the opinions of the target. Whatever that person says, however they say it, it doesn’t matter because she’s just some strident man-hater.
“Mansplaining,” on the other hand, is not an insult. It is a term that calls out a particular behavior. All a guy has to do to stop being called a “mansplainer” is to stop mansplaining. It doesn’t shut down conversation, unless the person in question is incapable of engaging women as peers. And can we maybe agree that a person who insists on giving a condescending lecture isn’t interested in a real conversation anyway?
And whether or not that’s the intent, appearance matters a LOT, because how else can you judge what anyone else is saying?
Maybe by looking up the definitions of the words they’re using. Seriously you guys, are you really insisting that what a word looks like is more important than what it means?
What people think a word means is everything–the only thing, actually.
Apparently you are.
To be fair, I agree with that last part in one sense. Language is shaped by the people who use it. However, this doesn’t mean you personally get to decide what a word means just by looking at it, and it definitely doesn’t mean you get to pretend that’s what the person using it actually meant. If you’re offended by a word because you refuse to look it up and it looks mean, that’s nobody’s fault but your own.
In fact, most pejorative words are only offensive because of how they’re used or how they sound to the ear; it often has nothing at all to do with their literal meaning.
I’d be curious to hear examples.
To (finally) answer your question, “misogynist” and “arrogant” are just labels, and easy to dismiss as ad hominem attacks. “Mansplain” calls out a particular behavior indicative of a condescending attitude towards women. It points out that being a man does not make you right, and you’re going to have to back up your assertions like everybody else.
“My point was that just because it’s possible to interpret a word in a way that is offensive to you, doesn’t mean the construction of the word is offensive. Especially when you’re ignoring the definition of the word to do it. The word isn’t “mansplaining-as-all-men-are-wont-to-do”, so how do you justify interpreting it as an offensive generalization? Because it isn’t specific enough? That’s what a definition is for!”
But “mansplaining” is not in the dictionary, so that’s not really a valid suggestion. People can certainly poke around and find some person’s explanation of the word, but how they see the word used will have much more weight.
“Great! If they’re on the defensive, then maybe they’re thinking about their own positions and assumptions.”
That’s not generally what happens. Being on the defensive is what LEADS to so-called “mansplaining.”
“Look, I get what you’re saying, but I disagree. Nice, polite arguments are not by definition more effective than pointed ones. Sometimes a good jab is exactly what you need to get through to someone. It might upset them (hell, just disagreeing with someone can upset them), but maybe later that night, they’ll be thinking about what that asshole on the internet said to them. And if it keeps happening, and they keep thinking about it, maybe they’ll come around eventually.”
Or maybe they’ll become dismissive of those pompous hypocrites that decry labels, but use them freely, and will end up missing out on productive conversation with more sensible feminists. If I call you a “reverse-bigot” are you any more likely to come around and agree that “mansplaining” is a counterproductive word? I doubt it.
“I’m not seeing the parallel here. “Feminazi” is an insult, and it does indeed shut down conversation. Or rather, it shows that the one throwing it out has no interest in considering the opinions of the target. Whatever that person says, however they say it, it doesn’t matter because she’s just some strident man-hater.”
Oh nonono! you see, “feminazi” has a much more specific meaning than that! It requires both misandry and an attempt to disguise such as feminism. I can see how feminists might feel attacked by this, but it is meant only as a defensive weapon! (insert rolleyes emote here)
“‘Mansplaining,’ on the other hand, is not an insult. It is a term that calls out a particular behavior. All a guy has to do to stop being called a “mansplainer” is to stop mansplaining. It doesn’t shut down conversation, unless the person in question is incapable of engaging women as peers. And can we maybe agree that a person who insists on giving a condescending lecture isn’t interested in a real conversation anyway?”
That only works if people only use “mansplaining” the “correct” way. It also doesn’t preclude that there has to be a MUCH better choice of words somewhere. One that won’t look ridiculous to the bigots it attacks, bigoted to the men it supposedly doesn’t attack, and one less easy to misuse.
“To be fair, I agree with that last part in one sense. Language is shaped by the people who use it. However, this doesn’t mean you personally get to decide what a word means just by looking at it, and it definitely doesn’t mean you get to pretend that’s what the person using it actually meant. If you’re offended by a word because you refuse to look it up and it looks mean, that’s nobody’s fault but your own.”
Covered above, I think.
“I’d be curious to hear examples.”
“Nigger” is a rural mispronunciation of “negro” which literally describes the color black. It is offensive because of its pejorative use to dismiss and belittle people of African descent, not because of its literal meaning. “Faggot” describes a spark, ember, or burning coal. It is a metaphor for flamboyance (another fire-related word), as is the word “gay.” It is offensive because of its use to deride and ridicule homosexual men, not because of its literal meaning. Moving outside of epithets, the word “fuck” comes from German, and literally means to strike and/or puncture. It is considered offensive because of its frequent use as a crude, violent metaphor for sex. There is a very long list of these, but I think this is enough.
“To (finally) answer your question, “misogynist” and “arrogant” are just labels, and easy to dismiss as ad hominem attacks. “Mansplain” calls out a particular behavior indicative of a condescending attitude towards women. It points out that being a man does not make you right, and you’re going to have to back up your assertions like everybody else.”
Which is great, except that by dismissing an argument–no matter how wrong-headed and absurd that argument is–as “mansplaining” you decline to back up your assertion. The message that usually comes across is usually “you don’t know what you’re talking about because you don’t understand women’s issues; you don’t understand women’s issues because you have not been subjected to the same treatment; you have not been subjected to this treatment because you are a man.” It is by definition an ad-hominem argument, it misses the very point it is trying to make, and it also reduces very easily to “what you said is wrong because you are a man.”
I get all of this without ever having been accused of “mansplaining” myself, although I might by the end of this conversation.
People can certainly poke around and find some person’s explanation of the word, but how they see the word used will have much more weight.
You don’t have to do much poking around. Google itself will define it for you.
That only works if people only use “mansplaining” the “correct” way.
I completely agree. And if you see someone misusing it, call them out on it, just like you ought to if they’re throwing around the word “misogyny” when it isn’t warranted.
Regarding the epithets, that’s what I assumed Lyceus was getting at, but I wanted to make sure. I feel like this is a bit of a tangent, so I’ll keep it brief: all of those “literal” definitions you gave would be better termed “archaic”. They’re trivia. They’ve been supplanted by the new, offensive definitions. “Mansplaining,” on the other hand, is still defined in a non-man-hating way anywhere you look for a formal definition.
Which is great, except that by dismissing an argument…as “mansplaining” you decline to back up your assertion.
It doesn’t preclude backing up your assertion. You can tell someone they’re mansplaining and still address what’s wrong with their argument. We’re talking about the merits of the word itself, right? I don’t see how a pithy response like, “Thanks for the mansplanation,” is worse than one like, “You’re a misogynist.” In both cases, the person in question decided they weren’t going to take the time to engage the arguments put forward. That’s their choice.
And if they follow up that “Thanks for the mansplanation,” with an involved dissection of the guy’s arguments, is it undermined by that first sentence?
I get all of this without ever having been accused of “mansplaining” myself, although I might by the end of this conversation.
No need to worry. You see: (1) I’m a man; (2) I don’t perceive you (or Lyceus) as having been particularly condescending; and (3), as I may have expressed, it is important to me that I use words accurately.
Wait… “mansplaining” is not an insult? Seriously?
(And I would call out those who use the term “mansplaining” “incorrectly,” but… well… y’know? You can figure this one out on your own.)
“You don’t have to do much poking around. Google itself will define it for you.” Well, not Google itself, but Google search results, certainly. That’s what I meant by “poking around.” And I’ve done that. Had I stopped after reading the first result, all might have been well (no, not really), but I found *multiple* definitions. *Differing* definitions. It seems people are not in agreement on whether it requires a man to be “mansplaining” to a woman, or whether a woman can mansplain, or a man can mansplain to another man, or whether it is condescension, wrongness (also differing between whether it’s wrongness generally, or about gender issues specifically), or sexism that differentiates “mansplaining” from regular old explaining. I’m sorry, but I’m still going to have to stand by what I said before. I gave it a shot though.
“I completely agree. And if you see someone misusing it, call them out on it, just like you ought to if they’re throwing around the word “misogyny” when it isn’t warranted.”
I honestly do not have time to butt in and critique around a third of the uses I see on various web comments that I randomly stumble across–which is effectively what you’re suggesting. This is the first time I’ve bothered to participate, but I’ve seen the usual result of calling someone out on abusing the words “mansplain” or “misogynist.” You get accused of mansplaining and misogyny yourself. No thanks.
“Regarding the epithets, that’s what I assumed Lyceus was getting at, but I wanted to make sure. I feel like this is a bit of a tangent, so I’ll keep it brief: all of those “literal” definitions you gave would be better termed “archaic”. They’re trivia. They’ve been supplanted by the new, offensive definitions.”
That’s true of only one of the three words I suggested (the first one). “Faggot” or “fag” retains its original meaning in the U.K. or is used to refer to cigarettes (which is still sort of in line with that meaning). “Fuck” is associated primarily with its sexual meaning, but is still used more literally pretty often: “Fuck you;” “We’re fucked;” “That’s fucked up.” This literal meaning isn’t *thought* about much, generally but it’s there, and that’s why the FCC will tolerate limited use of it on the airwaves in a strictly non-sexual context. “Crap” is a similar case, where people think it is defined as “feces” but often use it to mean stuff of poor quality, or useless debris to be discarded–which is almost identical to its original use as an word for chaff. Sorry for the tangent. I just like words a lot.
“It doesn’t preclude backing up your assertion. You can tell someone they’re mansplaining and still address what’s wrong with their argument. We’re talking about the merits of the word itself, right? I don’t see how a pithy response like, “Thanks for the mansplanation,” is worse than one like, “You’re a misogynist.” In both cases, the person in question decided they weren’t going to take the time to engage the arguments put forward. That’s their choice.”
It doesn’t *specifically* preclude backing up your assertion… not any more than lobbing a racial epithet specifically prohibits some bigot from continuing to run his mouth afterwards. However, either word makes a very tempting excuse to dismiss someone, and I see “mainsplaining” used that way frequently. If the person using either word desires to continue on some bigoted rant, then either word makes a perfect appetizer. If the person intended to rationally explain why their target is wrong, then why start with an emotionally charged word in the first place? Especially one that should have such an obvious capacity for collateral damage.
“And if they follow up that ‘Thanks for the mansplanation,’ with an involved dissection of the guy’s arguments, is it undermined by that first sentence?”
If their goal is to discourage gender or sex bias or assumptions, then yes. You really don’t see the irony in using a gender-charged word for some variation of “sexist, presumptive explaining”? Especially when use of the word seems to be backed up by “no, see, let me explain to you why you should not find this sexist or demeaning”?
“No need to worry. You see: (1) I’m a man; (2) I don’t perceive you (or Lyceus) as having been particularly condescending; and (3), as I may have expressed, it is important to me that I use words accurately.”
(1) I’m not sure what that has to do with it? (2) I appreciate being given the benefit of the doubt. Even so, it looks like someone later on in the comments is calling me a bag of something or other, despite intelligence and nuanced views? I’m not really sure. It was bound to happen, though. (3) I appreciate this intent, but since I don’t think there’s a standard enough definition… yeah.
Look, I have no problem with calling out the behavior that this word is supposed to describe. I just think that this one is absolutely begging for abuse, and as people continue to use it, it will be increasingly abused, and the “standard” definition will become less and less standard. Having any one word for it is a tempting way to stifle disagreement, but if we absolutely must have a catchy neologism, I think we can do better. “Patriachsplain” would make a similarly fun chide, refers *much* more clearly to patriarchal justifications and/or an inappropriately self-important tone, and even makes a better portmanteau. It wasn’t difficult.
Anyway, my point of view (as a man who has not even been accused of this anyway) may carry less weight than that of someone who is a woman and a feminist, has been mistaken for a man and treated like such, and who has been accused of mansplaining. That being the case, I will close with her opinion rather than mine. I’ve already exhausted my thoughts on the issue. Oh, coincidentally, she also works in comics.
http://vaslittlecrow.com/blog/2011/10/27/let-me-explain-why-mansplaining-isnt-cool-in-a-condescending-and-long-winded-manner/
Oh, before anyone can jump in and accuse me of this classic gem, no I am not linking to Vas above because “oh, I know of a woman and she agrees with me!” I am linking to her because she has (obviously) experienced being a woman, and also has experienced gender bias against men coming from supposed feminists. I think she’s in a better position than most men *and* most women to comment on this.
“refusal to consider the context of the word’s origin and actual definition” – It’s in the wild, its “origin” isn’t relevant. This isn’t some new coinage that everyone can trace back to a single person (not unless it’s the guy who writes Sinfest); people can’t reasonably be expected to know its origin. As for its “actual definition” – words’ actual definitions come from _how they are in fact used_, not from how whoever coined it said it should and shouldn’t be used.
@Random832: It’s in the wild, its “origin” isn’t relevant.
When I said origin, I didn’t mean the actual event or person that coined it. I was trying to get at the reasoning behind its construction – that is, a contraction of “I’m the man in the room, so let me explain things to you.” I was responding to an argument f.p. made that struck me as, “the meaning and intent doesn’t matter, what matters is how the word looks.” Yes, usage is more important than origin, but that just wasn’t what I was arguing against there.
@f.p.: So what I’m seeing are several people coming on here (as well as the person in your link), saying that people are frequently using the word in a sexist way, using it to shut down dissent and dismiss arguments without addressing them. That hasn’t been my experience. But that’s my anecdotal evidence against several people’s anecdotal evidence, and it doesn’t seem productive for me to shout “NUH-UH!” and argue that those events are rare.
So maybe you guys are right. Maybe “mansplaining” is too ambiguous in its meaning, too often misused, and too often misinterpreted. Yes, there are probably better, more civil and unambiguous ways to express the same thing (though they would generally have to be longer and more thorough). And maybe it isn’t always the best tone to put forward in the public arena.
Honestly, I wouldn’t necessarily go so far as to call it hypocrisy, but I guess that’s where we’ll have to differ.
“Patriachsplain” would make a similarly fun chide, refers *much* more clearly to patriarchal justifications and/or an inappropriately self-important tone, and even makes a better portmanteau.
Actually, last night I was thinking about alternatives to the “man” in “mansplain” and came up with “patsplain” or “patrisplain,” likewise from “patriarchy” (I feel it loses something if you make the prefix too long). I can’t really say I see it catching on, though.
“It’s in the wild, its ‘origin’ isn’t relevant.”
Oh, I think the origin is relevant–or would be if we knew what it was and it hadn’t already become apocryphal by now. It’s just MUCH LESS relevant than the way the word actually gets used.
@Pandademic
Thank you for the thoughtful response. I will happily agree to disagree on the remaining points of contention
“Attack” words like mansplaining are being used to combat an oppressive culture.
Yes, but we can also talk about to what extent words like this are a helpful or productive way of combating an oppressive culture. I’ve seen good arguments on this thread for the use value of the term. I’m a lady and a feminist. When I first ran into this term I thought it was a useful and funny way of describing a particular kind of patronising behaviour. After a while, I revised that opinion because the majority of times I’ve actually seen the word used, it’s as an ad hominem (yes, although it supposedly describes a behaviour, not a person) that shuts down discussion in an unhelpful way. Sometimes the person being told they’re a mansplainer is, indeed, being a patronising ass – but even if all you want to achieve is to tell them to cut it out, it’s still not always the best way to do that – for pretty much the reasons outlined above. It’s a nasty gender-based insult that loses you the moral high ground. We all lose our shit sometimes when we’re offended, and that’s very understandable (example: I’m gay and this very morning I snapped at someone on public transport because he loudly made an unpleasant homophobic comment) – but it doesn’t follow that losing our shit is always the best strategy (I certainly could have handled this morning better, although it’s likely understandable that I didn’t) and we should endeavour to lose our shit as often as possible.
Well said, and I couldn’t agree more. “Like button” “+1″ and whatnot.
*applause*
Meh, I don’t think everyone needs to know ALL sides of an issue, but they need to be willing to listen and take it in when someone else expresses THEIR side.
I think it’s wanting to know all sides, or being willing to consider (not just listen to) all sides of an issue that matters. I was skeptical of the “must know all sides” suggestion myself, but I missed the opportunity to say so in favor of jumping right to my main point.
I agree.
Yes, because what is important in discussions about sexism (which does not apply to men because women do not have institutional power over them) is your comfort.
“which does not apply to men because women do not have institutional power over them” This never has been and never will be a legitimate component required for something to be sexism. The _sole_ purpose of the “prejudice plus power” definition is to excuse sexism against men. Sexism = prejudice and/or discrimination _based on sex_ (contrast: based on race, religion, etc); nothing more, nothing less.
Could you be any more butthurt?
You have the rest of society if feminism bothers you so much with its focus on women instead of men.
“Sexism” is an English word. It has an established meaning. If you need a new word to describe sexism by men against women only, invent a new word. But don’t e.g. tell male nurses that what they suffer “isn’t sexism”.
And, incidentally, this sort of introduction to the concept of privilege – using it to belittle people’s very real negative life experiences due to being part of a privileged group – is why so many people end up thinking that it’s the privilege of being told it’s raining.
My main point got away from me. The point is, _words mean things_. When people try to control words, to change their meanings, it’s only natural to look for an unsavory motive for those changes.
To me, “mansplaining” seems like the sort of word that should only ever be used sarcastically.
Maybe.
That was a stupid, useless comment on my part. Let me try to be more intelligent.
I can picture it being used innocently enough by the right people under the right circumstances. However, disguising hate speech or belittling language as humor is a common tactic of oppressive groups. To even risk doing the same in return potentially undermines the credibility of those who would combat inequality.
In short, you don’t care about bigotry and how marginalized people feel if they’re mean to you. Gotcha.
Ok, so… the only way a privileged person is allowed to interact with the less-privileged is by being more enlightened than they are?
It’s just that I’ve seen this dance before.
Privileged person says something ignorant. They mean no offense by it, but to the less privileged it IS offensive. The privileged person does not know this because they are new to this kind of discussion and possibly don’t even know they ARE privileged.
The less privileged lash out at the privileged person, attacking, mocking, using barbed words, indulging in all the cruelty endemic in the human soul. They tear this stranger to shreds.
And if any other privileged person, who may agree that the first PP was misled and ignorant and offensive but is disturbed by this verbal scourging and public humiliation, should happen to say ‘Hey, whoa, that’s a bit uncalled for’, they get accused of things like ‘mansplaining’ and attacked with just as much fervor.
So it seems like privileged people have to be able to rise above petty insults and be the better man, the bigger man, and let the less privilege vent their fury.
Which, to me, is an ass-backward way of looking at it.
One, that’s a single scenario that’s written in such a way that it sounds like it’s what happens every time. It’s not.
Two, privileged person is privileged. Should they have to take the high road in such arguments? OF COURSE THEY SHOULD. If for no reason than because they can.
The nPP has to deal with comments like the one from Example Fool Commenter all day long, all week long. This makes it hard to maintain one’s cool.
Meanwhile, it’s doubtful that the kid who got yelled at will become actively belligerent to women as a result, and far more likely that – if only in self-defense – he’ll watch his mouth in the future. He may even try to justify his foolish actions to someone who’s softer-spoken but equally knowledgeable about feminism, someone he really respects, at which point the yelling will indirectly lead him to a good chance of a more enlightened viewpoint.
At least, that’s how it tends to go for me. I say something offensive, I get yelled at, I attempt to justify to people I respect, and sometimes friends agree that the person who yelled at me probably just had a bad day and sometimes I learn that I was terribly out of line and how to better myself.
I’d also mention that “getting ripped to shreds” on the internet…It’s just not that bad. Other online behaviors – particularly ones that interact more directly with offline world – could make it bad, but those usually aren’t part of the telling-off you describe.
@karishi
One, that’s a single scenario that’s written in such a way that it sounds like it’s what happens every time. It’s not.
True, it’s not. But that exact scene is something I have personally seen happen, step for step. And minor variations thereof.
Two, privileged person is privileged. Should they have to take the high road in such arguments? OF COURSE THEY SHOULD. If for no reason than because they can.
And if they don’t KNOW they’re privileged? They may not take it well when someone yells at them and expects them to let it roll off their back because Privilege Says So.
At least, that’s how it tends to go for me. I say something offensive, I get yelled at, I attempt to justify to people I respect, and sometimes friends agree that the person who yelled at me probably just had a bad day and sometimes I learn that I was terribly out of line and how to better myself.
That’s how it’s been for me. Wouldn’t like to say it works out so well for everyone.
I’d also mention that “getting ripped to shreds” on the internet…It’s just not that bad. Other online behaviors – particularly ones that interact more directly with offline world – could make it bad, but those usually aren’t part of the telling-off you describe.
Noooo, but responses like (exact quote), “Look at the tears! Someone save her!” or “Fuck off, ignorant white girl” are not exactly conducive to making a person want to correct their mistakes.
No. In short, I don’t think that marginalized people get a free pass to become bigots themselves, or to marginalize others in return, and that it makes further conversation useless and further sympathy wasted.
If more people in group A are abused, slurred, and dismissed than in group B, the solution is to stop the abuse, slurring, and dismissal of group A, NOT to abuse, slur, and dismiss more people in group B. “Eye for an eye” is an incredibly immature view of justice that we should be long since past.
Women cannot marginalize men. What they are doing is showing their frustration with a system that favors people like you. Your comfort in sexism conversations does not override their need to express themselves.
Society caters to your feelings all the time. Stop crying “bigotry” whenever a feminist is mean to you.
No, opportunistic bellicose dumb shits trying to establish a fool proof means of claiming superiority and dominance over their preferred target are just bellicose dumb shits now matter what intentions they claim to have.
Antisocial is antisocial no matter how much future justice you promise. The noble revolutionary is ALWAYS a viking raider in a disguise. The tactics give the game away.
As I said, the internet is a place where you can choose your own second-class citizens.
It would indeed be difficult for women *as a whole* to marginalize men *as a whole* sine at that level men have already marginalized women. Agreed.
However, a woman or a group of women can certainly marginalize an individual man or a category of men. Marginalization occurs when someone is devalued, or excluded from participation. Men, even straight white ones, can be marginalized for falling into some undesireable category, or for living or working in a female-dominant environment. Just ask a male nurse. A person or group that is marginalized under most circumstances can still certainly be guilty of marginalizing others under some circumstances as well.
palaeoemrus: Put down the Large Tome of Pretentious Diction, please.
Jace: Yes, men are in danger of being devalued on the Internet because of very localized feminist dialogues. C’mon, now.
f.p.: The fact that you think “male nurses” are marginalized to a significant degree is laughable (Google “glass escalator”). As is the fact that you think women are the ones doing the “marginalization”. Women weren’t the ones who established the concept of gendered jobs that are considered beneath men.
“The fact that you think ‘male nurses’ are marginalized to a significant degree is laughable (Google “glass escalator”). As is the fact that you think women are the ones doing the “marginalization”. Women weren’t the ones who established the concept of gendered jobs that are considered beneath men.”
No, women did not create the idea that nursing is a job specifically for women. Unfortunately, many do buy into it and keep it going. Let’s go down the list though.
Depending on the workplace, male nurses may be given the glass ceiling, not the glass escalator (I did not have to Google that well known term, but thanks for assuming my extreme ignorance). In fact, male nurses have been winning discrimination lawsuits in court over this. The head nurse who would decide promotions is usually a white female.
Many male nurses are viewed with suspicion as outsiders by their (female) coworkers.
Many male nurses report being sexually harassed by female staff.
Many male nurses are excluded from (female-dominant) workplace conversation, or else are subjected to conversations that make them uncomfortable.
Some male nurses are told (usually by women) that they simply cannot do some aspect of the job that female nurses obviously can.
Male nurses are statistically more likely to be physically assaulted and injured by patients, because they are usually assigned to the potentially dangerous patients. Remember, their bosses are nearly always white women.
Many male nurses who are subjected to the above are made to feel inferior, held back, unsafe, or are just generally made to feel like crap every day. To top it off, many people (such as yourself) seem to completely dismiss their mistreatment. Does none of this sound familiar at all? I am told it has been getting better (Scrubs probably helped some), but it is still a prevalent issue in the field.
@Sigh
Hey, you’re the one dealing in absolutes.
@Sigh
Sorry for the double post, but I wasn’t happy with the way I left that.
No, men AS A WHOLE are not in danger of that, but the men who try to enter those dialogues with the honest intention of learning from them? How sympathetic do you think those men will really be if they get treated as the enemy just because they’re men?
Oh, wait, they’re privileged and they should automatically know and understand and appreciate just how privileged they are, so they should magically know that they HAVE to take the high road and put aside any offense they may feel because they have been so very privileged.
What I’m trying to say is that not everyone has a degree in social justice, or a long experience with these debates. They don’t always know their role in these things. I get that people are angry and hurt and all, but the attitude you bring into the discussion can hurt your cause more than help it.
Just as, I am sorry to say, you have done. You’ve pretty much reinforced my view that ‘social justice’ is a toxic, hostile environment. And while I doubt I have won any points either, while I do not matter and I am just one person, consider that I am not the only person you have sparred with, and I am not the only person reading these comments.
@Jace: There are so many other problems with that mindset than simply making a bad impression, too–although most of the other issues lead to that as well. It reminds me of the supposedly feminist people who have told me that nothing a woman can ever do to a man can be considered rape or abuse, or race activists who have said that white women cannot complain about male privilege because as whites they are also privileged.
The way I see it is this. The reason I care about discrimination against women, blacks, immigrants, homosexuals, transgenders, little people or the differently abled is not because it is mistreatment of a category. Categories are artificial constructs, labels that we can toy with, redefine, or mix and match to suit our own agendas. Labels do not have feelings. People have feelings–individuals. We should care about systems of discrimination because they cause individual people to be treated unfairly for having those labels applied to them by others. Because issues of privilege are always relative, and because fairness or discrimination is always defined by context, the size of the marginalized group should not matter, nor should it matter that a marginalized person in one context also falls under a label that carries privilege in another. The sample size that matters is one. The context that matters is the one in which that one person is singled out for abuse.
The system that is the enemy is the one that is inborn in our minds and says that it is acceptable to define someone, anyone, based on a label or category and to base our treatment of them and our expectations of them on that label. Privilege and oppression are the side effects that we all cause when we succumb to this instinct. They are also labels themselves. When we teach awarneness of this negative instinct and we each strive to overcome it under all curcumstances, for everyone, then all of the power structures of discrimination die together, on all levels and for all groups and everyone wins.
When someone who has been discriminated against decides that mistreatment of even one person is acceptable because of some group category that’s been assigned to them, they have failed to learn anything more from their own mistreatment than a person of privilege has. Engaging in the same mental behaviors that hold them back is not problematic because it looks bad. It is problematic because it actively perpetuates the thinking that leads to social injustice, within the very person who claims to fight it.
@fp
Thank you so much for putting that so well.
I was going to suggest my name for goatee guy, because he looks and dresses just like me, but apparently that’s Brody, so never mind.
Can tokenism guy be Toby K. Nasim?
Sorry to bring this up (I’m not) but I read your post as saying goatsc guy.
That deserves a *sphincter clench*
Is the goatsc guy even capable of sphincter clenching anymore?
Probably not, so I offer one in sympathy instead.
The last clenchers to be shown (the dark-haired one in the jacket) is totally JD from Heathers. He reminds me way too much of a young, awkward Christian Slater.
I have determined the guy on the right in the fourth panel should be Rube.
Boy, I’m glad this comic doesn’t try to touch upon gender disparity in video games, ’cause that’s a can of worms we’re all better off leaving closed.
…wait a minute
Oh, we’ve been there.
And opened once more it shall be
Ah, if only it got gamers at large to stand up and take notice the way comic fans have.
Maybe someday.
Nothing wrong with opening cans of worms, those poor worms must be very uncomfortable trapping inthose cans.
But it could be Mr. Mind. Then you’d be freeing the sealed eagle in a can.
Wow. That’s some evil autocorrect.
Canned Eagle: American patriotism at its lowest!
How else will you store it in the bomb shelter for when the Russians invade?
Oh COD, how you opened up the closed book of the Iron Curtain.
Uhh… what’s just happened?
They all had a bad curry??
Red Dave and Mullet McGee?
Tucker! One of them should be named Tucker! Also, I vote Kevin for Mullet Mctrenchcoat. Not sure why.
Uhm, seconded!
Yeah. No biggie.
Let’s do this!
Gareld, Barry, Fross, Bonnyface, Twarn, Smegan, and Blink.
These, coincedentally will be the names of my first- through sixth-born children
I recommend that at least one of them be named Sphincter Clench.
Even better, Sven ‘Sphincter’ McLench.
Oh snap! This oughta be good. I’m actually giddy with anticipation for what Faz’s take on this is gonna be, but I have a feeling the intro says it all.
OK im dumb i dont get it
I’m not sure there’s a joke.
The funny thing is that there’s a disparity between what Amber says she was trying to say and what she actually said. She didn’t just say there was a gender disparity, she said that comparing the two was a false equivalence, and “hulks” in comics a male power fantasy are not attractive to women such as herself, which automatically leaves out women who don’t find it attractive. Yet yesterday, a lot of people defending the strip were saying that women, period, don’t find muscled hulks attractive.
Nice strawman, I guess.
Are you referring to the people that Ethan and Amber always seem to get into arguments with? That seems to be the case.
“I don’t agree with Walky” doesn’t make them strawmen.
No, but having a preposterous, overblown or otherwise obviously bad argument does.
This may shock you, but people, especially those who consider their silly hobby of collecting children’s playthings sacred, do not often make logical and well-thought out arguments.
Do they still count as strawmen if their arguments have been used multiple times in real life or the comments sections of these comic strips, with just as little thought put behind them?
Arguable. Technically the straw man fallacy is when one counters a different but superficially similar argument to the one their opponent is actually making, which isn’t necessarily the case here. Informally though, it is often applied when some one takes the most absurd, most overly simplistic, easiest to refute version of a group of related arguments, and attacks it in place of any better examples that exist. Willis does seem to have done this, regardless that he’s right.
The characters are also “straw men” as characters, in that their sole purpose is to provide an effortlessly easy sparring partner for his other characters.
“And in response, you will thank Faz by offering Faz a sandwich.”
This line was clearly edited from the strip. Must have been a space issue.
http://www.crunchyroll.com/anime-news/2011/12/03-1/super-hero-taisen-literally-brings-together-an-army-of-rangers-and-riders
Totally unrelated news.
Was going to be all excited, but then I saw that an updated Oregon Trail will be made so now I’m excited for that. (Seriously Oregon Trail was awesome!)
Try this then: http://youtu.be/ZGBC7X7on-M
One chap had that a longer version up combined with the Power Rangers theme song, but he got hit by a copyright claim unfortunately.
It also showed some Zord fights.
I was also going to be excited but then I saw a link for a new FMA movie.
As long as this one makes some SENSE then hell yeaaaaaaaah
Lemar
There is gender parity in comics.
Both genders can get image issues because the comics put across body types that aren’t easily obtainable in real life and far from the average of either gender.
Excuse me I must go back into my hole. (The point that women in male dominated shows must be at least D and skinny is saddening for my annoyed feminist side.)
And in shows that aim toward female audiences, you end up with leads meant to appeal to women. See “Supernatural”, which has pandered more and more over the seasons. The funny thing is that the show is accused of racism and sexism when everyone is being treated in pretty much the same fashion. Someone on TVTropes complained (I’m not sure how accurate it is) that all of the female and minority characters have died permanently, when almost all of the people who die on the show go for good, and our main characters have actually died and worse several times.
Here’s the flip-side of noticing and calling out misogynist portrayals of female characters: it sets female characters to higher standards than male characters. Male characters can be assholes because there are tons of shows, movies, books, and comics about male characters who aren’t assholes. We’re less likely to notice or take issue with it. The same is true for male characters who are honest and true, male characters who have lots of powers, and male characters who die a lot. Not only do male characters not carry the whole history of less-than-favorable to outright-offense media portrayals on their backs, a single show, movie, book, or comic may present several to a dozen different types of male characters over the course of their run. Find ONE of the men in your favorite comic an offensive portrayal of maleness? $5 says there’s at least two other guys with completely different personalities in the same comic who don’t bother you as much. So at the very least, you know the writers didn’t mean this one dude to represent every man, everywhere.
Meanwhile, a female character being bitchy will draw flak, so will a female character who’s honest and true, one that’s super powered, and all the ones that die with alarming ease. We’re more likely to notice it and judge. Some of that is because it’s “par for the course”; we’ve seen it before, we’re expecting it, and it hits all the harder because it’s there AGAIN. Some of it is because so much media has only one or two female characters who do anything significant, so it’s really hard not to feel like the creators intended these one or two female characters to represent all women, everywhere — which means every flaw is extra noticeable, extra judged. Many creators are literally shooting themselves in the foot by trying to make ONE perfect main female character portrayed in a non-sexist way. It’s still going to draw flak.
And sometimes, it’s some good old internalized-misogyny fueling the hyper-awareness of what female characters are up to. Men are given a free pass to do what women aren’t. Double-standards, yes, but NOT, ultimately, in women’s favor.
Either way, it’s a pain in the ass when someone starts going “but you aren’t noticing how awful the MEN are being portrayed! You aren’t noticing how often the MEN die (and then come back to life, because they’re the main damn characters)!” Also, stop bringing up Twilight and Supernatural to show how media “for the ladies” have negative portrayals of men. Bella spends the entire series desiring a pathetic, psychopathic stalker, who is cruel and disparaging to her, gets laughed at as deserving it by her own father when her arm is broken, and is accepting of the abuse at the hands of her lover — and this is sold as a grand, positive romance that women should aspire to and sigh over. Please do tell me how feeding young girls this bullshit hurts men more than women.
“Someone complained that all of the female and minority characters have died permanently, when _almost_ all of the people who die on the show go for good, and [the white male] main characters have actually died and worse [not permanently, I'll assume, especially if it's] several times.” For serious? Did you even _glance at_ this statement before posting it?
I think the complaint is that the minority and female characters on the show have died permanently and been discarded by the story, but the main characters, a couple of white guys, keep coming back…
I think.
I know nothing about it and I got that much from reading Jonn’s post. I just don’t get how he’s somehow framing this as a defense against the very same complaints.
I’m not sure either. Every time I read it, I get a different interpretation.
The butthurt is visible.
The only one missing, as far as I can tell, is Buckets of Blood Guy.
Man, that guy’s awesome. I hope he shows up some time this week.
In the meantime, we get Faz! Yaaaaayyyyyyyyy!!!!!
In some people, the sphincter clenches when the brain liquefies, to keep it from dribbling out of their heads.
The worse part?
My stomach growled while I was reading this. So… is my stomach doing its own sphincter clench?
Pony Boy.
Name one of them Pony Boy.
Pony Boy Tom or something.
I want desperately that the redhead be named Oscar. He has the pseudo-intellectual frown of the worst kind of Oscar.
Hey, it’s Duncan!
I almost wanna suggest Jimbo for the black-mulleted guy, if only because he has such a mullet.
I don’t remember what he did in a previous comic, I’m just naming him solely based on that mullet.
Ok… now if we can put Amber’s speech from the first panel on perma-loop, those guys will either implode as the clenching tightens, or they’ll get reeeeeally backed up and EXPLODE.
… I’ll make sure mops are in the budget.
Hey, I may not be able to solve world hunger, but BAM! I solved yer jackass problem.
The sphincter clench made me smile, but Faz made me choke on my coffee. I’ve met guys like that.
“No, see! She was a stripper in her backstory! That means her appearance totally isn’t demeaning in any way! You just didn’t know what you were talking about!”
I’m a little surprised that Brody the Brony is one of the individuals upset about this. His main trait is being a fan of a show starring a primarily female cast that isn’t sexualized at all.
Bronies are still quite susceptible to this kind of behavior. Remember, they’re not just pony fans, but also bros.
Some of the younger bronies in particular will argue that since they like it, it can’t be “a girls show”, or that because the creators intended it to be enjoyable a larger audience then their target demographic that somehow it wasn’t really meant for “little girls” in the first place.
Older bronies sometimes act as though liking a show for girls makes them personally and anything else they also might like immune from misogynous dispositions or the male privilege. “It’s ok for me to like sexist depictions of females in comic books since I also like MLP”.
Neither attitude is the majority of any of the Brony communities I’ve engaged with, and both usually get rightly called out, ime, but they’re still something you see crop up every now and again.
http://www.youtube.com/user/kyrospawn?feature=grec_index
Note how many of the comments on the videos are sexual.
The fact that they call themselves “Bronies”, as if being a man and liking a girl’s show was something commendable or special, should tell you everything.
Or maybe they simply act that way in order to find a group identity as a reflexive defense against {whatever sexism is called instead of “sexism” when it’s perpetrated by the majority of men against a smaller group of men}.
His other main trait is thinking it doesn’t matter what women want.
Yeah, there’s a gender disparity in comics. Comics are made by white males for white males which is why the sales numbers are in the crapper right now. But tell a comic fan that and they’ll spinchter clench.
I’m not sure that’s why the sales are poor. There are plenty of big budget movies and video games made largely by white males, largely for white males, that do plenty well. Transformers: Revenge of the fallen was one of the worst offenders in my recent memory in terms of racism and sexism (and just plain terribleness), and that made tons of money.
I think the issues of a lack of diversity in the production staff / poor representation on non-white, non-male, non-straight characters and the issue of their poor sales are both serious problems in American mainstream comic books, but I’m not sure to what degree those two problems are related.
Revenge of the Fallen was a big budget movie. They ALWAYS do well, no matter how awful. This is fact.
The reverse is also true – a GOOD big budget movie, even if it doesn’t treat its audience like idiots, e g Inception, will also do well.
So it really doesn’t matter what the movie industry makes in big budget movies at the moment, since they’ll always earn money on it. Long term, I’d hope they’re shooting themselves in the leg with a sawed off shotgun over and over again. It’s not like the script is the expensive part of a movie.
Big budget movies don’t always do well [i]enough[/i]. Waterworld, for instance.
The point remains, big budget movies seem to do about equally well regardless of how diverse they are or aren’t, or how good their representations of diverse characters are. Similarly, mainstream American superhero books seem to have similarly poor sales, regardless of how they treat their characters or their audience.
I’m black and I liked ROTF, and didn’t notice any racism.
And so did a lot of other people, judging by the sounds coming from by the packed theatre.
All the more to the point. Just because an entertainment product is insanely insulting to some portion of its potential audience (or even, in RotF’s case, all of humanity and every possible subset there of) doesn’t necessarily mean that a ton of people won’t buy it anyway.
So again, while the sexism and racism is there in mainstream superhero comics, I don’t think that problem necessarily has anything to do with the financial difficulties and limited readership base of the big two.
I thought also that the racial concern with ROTF(L?) was the parts that were removed.
The very idea that there could be some sort of worse version of that film then what was released implies a reality too hideous for my fragile human mind would allow me to believe exists.
You’ve misunderstood. There were two characters in ROTF whose portrayal was perceived as racist. These two characters were slated to reappear in the next movie, and were removed from that due to the backlash.
Instead, that would be a price hike that wasn’t accompanied by a hike in quality.
I asked a black friend whether he thought there was racism in Revenge of the Fallen. He answered, “Let me guess, white people said that, didn’t they?” And he left it at that.
I’m still not completely sure what to make of the whole situation.
“And that is why women get Masters of the Universe, where the human characters are designed to make any straight man feel uncomfortable.”
Hey Judd Winick, why did you inflict Catwoman #1 on her fans?
(Actual quote)
“This is a Catwoman for 2011, and my approach to her character and actions reflect someone who lives in our times. And wears a cat suit. And steals. It’s a tale that is part crime story, part mystery and part romance. In that, you will find action, suspense and passion. Each of those qualities, at times, play to their extremes. Catwoman is a character with a rich comic book history, and my hope is that readers will continue to join us as the adventure continues.”
(Translation software activated)
sorry guys, they wouldn't budge on this one for some reason] sex scenes as possible. Please hold as the answer resumes soon. While you wait, please listen to random nouns and adjectives from the marketing copy for the issue. Okay we’re back. So yeah, sex and stealing. The rest of DC was going 90s EXTREEEME with the costumes (and Liefeld) so I had to extreme the sex in order to fit in around here. Catwoman is a character that has been in hundreds of issues before, but I was specifically told to ignore all of those issues and focus on the sex thing which I assure you was not hard (ha! classic). Please buy issue #2 once the controversy dies down or they will cancel it just like it was any show Summer Glau gets to appear in.”
“Comics can have sex now and not get fined, I just found out! I made this comic to be “modern” which is to say I told the artist to cram in as many panty shots and fully clothed [
“The rest of DC was going 90s EXTREEEME with the costumes (and Liefeld) so I had to extreme the sex in order to fit in around here.”
DUUUUUDE! *Smells Like Teen Spirit plays*
Seriously, if it turned out 90s Kid was DC’s new secret Editor in Chief, I would not be shocked.
Is that the same Judd Winick who had Kyle Rayner have a breakdown after his gay assistant got beat up? FYI: Kyle Rayner is a cartoonist charged by ancient aliens with using a magic ring to protect the universe, primarily his sector of it, which includes the entire planet. His girlfriend was murdered, cut up, and stuffed into a fridge specifically to screw with him, and it didn’t affect him as strongly as Winick said this supposedly did.
So, yeah, Winick has…problems.
Didn’t he also write that issue of Titans where Wendy and Marvin from SuperFriends get eaten by a demonic Wonder Dog?
I think problem’s is a bit of an understatement.
That was Sean McKeever.
I like McKeever but that was a bit of a groaner.
I feel like the gay bashing storyline (not that he was, but that evil muggers were) deserves some defense. First, he didn’t write the part where Alex (old GF) was fridged, so he couldn’t control Kyle’s response to that event and shouldn’t be beholden to write his stuff in subservience to that (especially if he didn’t like it, like many of us). Second, that fridging happened right at the start of his career, which is far too soon from a storyline perspective to have him run off planet and explore. Third, why is your friend being beaten to near death for something he can’t even control NOT a good reason to lose faith in those you protect? Fourth, it was interesting to see the responses from the community to said event. Like “well, he didn’t deserve that beating per se, but you can understand where they were coming from” or “that sort of thing doesn’t really happen” type stuff popped up not as infrequently as you’d hope. Fifth, he did use said trip to character develop Kyle AND he did continue heroism out in space (remember, he has a whole sector, not just Earth) AND he didn’t just abandon Earth, he set up John Stewart in his place first.
Wait, Winnick’s writing? Shit, does that mean Holly is going to die of AIDS?
No but someone will inevitably contract the disease and it will be VERY SAD.
I want to know what font was used for the sound effects.
If it isn’t actually called Sphincter Clench, it should be.
I believe it’s “YOU MURDERER” from BLAMBOT!.
http://blambot.com/fonts_design.shtml
I miss Thad.
No one is suggesting names? I’m going to throw “Nigel” out there. For one of the two in the lower left. Either of them look like a Nigel to me.
Are you making plans for them?
I wasn’t aware I had to have a plan or anything… It’s not like I’m running for office…
Oh, wait, that doesn’t require a plan either. *rimshot*
the Sphincter Clench: a sophisticated symptom of Butts Disease.
Sphincter Colossus! Sphincter Leader-1!
One of my wife’s professors always used the term “butt-puckering fear” for this kind of situation.
That’s a good one. I’ve also heard it called “asshrink.”
They should be themed i.e. Huey, Dewey and Louie
Has anyone ever seen a cover for a romance novel?
The comics industry wishes it could be that trashy. Millions of half naked men with fully dressed women. Do a Google image search for “romance novel covers” it makes this comics business a non issue.
I don’t know, for some reason it’s okay for Amber to have her objectified mummy stories as an outlet but reading comics with sexy women in them is wrong.
I am pretty sure nobody, at least not in the comic and at most very few people in the comments, has said that reading comics with sexy women in them is wrong.
What people tend to have a problem with, in a nutshell, is when creators and fans try to deny that a series/character/etc. is all about appealing to male fantasies. That there’s a disproportionate amount of media that does it is a secondary concern, but the existence of it and the fact that people enjoy it isn’t really a problem.
Scantily-clad warrior women are fine, just don’t pretend that they’re there to serve the gender-inverted equivalent of the role the shirtless burly men play.
I… guess? But look at that wording. “There’s STILL a GENDER DISPARITY in comics.” We’re supposed to be trying to get rid of it, apparently.
I don’t know, I guess I don’t get why it’s important to change the comics to suit all tastes instead of, say, making new ones that suit the tastes that aren’t being catered to. It feels like scolding your cat for not playing Frisbee like a dog.
Neither are happening, so I don’t see your point.
Women don’t just want men to objectify. They want more female presence in comics that isn’t tied to being sexual objects.
You need to realize that “romance novels” that have dreamy men and shit are not a common form of entertainment. They’re an escape for women. Entertainment that sexualizes women (among other things), on the other hand, is the norm. It’s in movies, television, video games, and comics. It’s just another instance of how society caters to the needs and desires of men over women.
But the sales of romance novels far exceeds the sales of comics.
Yes there is GOLD in them thar shirt rippers.
“Romance novel” is a genre of a medium. There are plenty of other novels. “Comic book” is an entire medium. The two are not comparable things.
Actually, superhero comics are a genre – there are other kinds of comics. Superhero comics dominate the mainstream to the extent that people often use the ‘comics’ and ‘superhero comics’ interchangeably.
This might seem like a tangent, but I think, in a very broad way, near-monolithic genre in comics and near-monolithic representation of gender in comics are kind of related problems. In both cases there’s a persistent lack of diversity that’s very tough to shift, although more thoughtful creators do keep trying.
That also kind of implies that these comics and characters have never appealed to women. In which case, we wouldn’t care so vehemently. Instead, you’ve got a host of women who enjoyed the hell out of Brubaker’s Catwoman and Ostrander’s Amanda Waller who are disgusted by their current portrayals and what those portrayals say about the mindset of those making the comics.
(Honestly, though, I never want to know what goes on in Adam Glass’s mind. Probably looks like The Cell.)
Really? Did you not even read the strip before this? Did you not actually Google false equivalence? Really?
Is there anything to say for seeing if you could shift the western comics media to a situation closer to that of the manga industry where there are expressly comics for young boys, young girls, young men and young women? While I might not be a huge fan of the NuDC portrayal of Starfire there is a point that she is being used in a book aimed squarely at young men. Now she’d probably be more use in a book aimed at young girls/women or does the market for such a book just not presently exist?
Now that’s what I’m talkin’ about. I love me some all-ages comics (Oh God, Marvel Adventures Spider-Man forever!) but is it so wrong that some will have certain audiences and get them through classic tactics like sexing-up and violence?
I’m not saying it’s not a little exploitative, but so is all marketing.
The difficult part of it is that the audience doesn’t determine which content is ‘for them’ based on the content labels; they determine it based on the famous characters in it. (Unless they don’t know the characters; then they will take note of the labels.) Thus when they put Catwoman and Starfire in family-friendly television cartoons, they inadvertently flagged them as family characters to a respectable percentage of the audience, who then thinks that any Catwoman or Teen Titans book is now their business. And thus the outrage begins.
Is it the company’s fault if the audience ignores content labels, though? I mean, Wolverine was in cartoons for kids – in fact that’s how many people know him – but that doesn’t mean everything he appears in is family appropriate (I’m looking at you, “Sex + Violence”). That’s why the labels exist.
But Wolverine was never a character that lent himself to kid/family friendly. However, he was a character that was popular to the comic fans, and needed to be included in any X-franchise to have a hope at getting the approval of the X-audience from the comic readers. So, what we have here is a bunch of comic fans that turn their noses up at a watered down Wolverine, and a bunch of kids that clamor for Wolverine comics and merch.
Once Wolverine becomes the family friendly guy with the blades that violently explode from his hands, used to disembowel opponents, the company then needs to continue to foster that audience, or rick its wrath. Marvel has done a fairly decent job of maintaining some further kid friendly entertainment available for Wolverine and some other characters, but it has also gone to the point of now marketing Wolverine to toddlers (Super-hero squad).
If you tell me that you think Wolverine from the early 80′s should be one of the poster boys for Marvel’s toddler based initiative, then you are cracked.
So, what we have here is a company that has painted itself in a corner regarding a character, forcing itself to further water down an (at one time) unique and interesting character (I can’t say I ever really thought Wolverine was worth the attention he garnered, but for many of my generation he was the coolest thing around). So, they have now placed themselves in a no win situation. Parents will scream out that certain Wolverine items are not friendly to their kids, and adult fans will holler that Marvel has sold out Wolverine in so many ways that you cannot take the character seriously. Both have a point, and both are correct.
Now, the point of the ire of many these days is that when you take characters that were family friendly for decades (a lot due to the comics code, and the general cheesiness of the silver age ie: Catwoman), then expose them to a broader audience (Batman the Animated series and Batman 2), then contrive a former prostitute/sex-starved killer out of a character that was once presented as the female version of a Cary Grant style “gentleman thief,” and people have a right to get their ire up.
I would actually say that neither is right. Parents who ignore a warning on a comic cover saying “mature audiences only” have no right to complain if their child is exposed to objectionable content. Likewise, someone who can’t recognize that the chibi-fied, smiling wolverine in the ‘E’ rated video game probably won’t be gutting anyone with those claws has no right to complain either. These companies don’t make it hard to tell who a given product is aimed at, if people would just pay a little attention.
While I might not be a huge fan of the NuDC portrayal of Starfire there is a point that she is being used in a book aimed squarely at young men.
That’s the Starfire defense I don’t understand. I mean, I get that young men want sexy women, but is a dead-eyed, cold sex-bot who callously implies that it’s pretty much just bestiality to her preferable to a woman who is equally sexy on a physical level, but also warm, friendly, fun, and understanding?
I think the point is that the new Starfire is an attempt to appeal to the sex drive of young male readers. Whether the result is actually sexy or not is a matter of personal taste, but the point is that the motive behind it was nothing more sinister than the age old “sex sells”.
But that’s what I mean. The argument of “sex sells” completely passes over the argument that people complaining about Starfire’s new portrayal are making. It’s not an argument against sex, it’s an argument against taking a warm, loving, well-rounded character and turning her into a dull-eyed doll for no good reason aside from “sex sells,” which is insulting to women, men, and the concept of character and storytelling.
Sex sells. No one is saying we can’t use that. But yeesh, why wouldn’t we complain when a book that had the potential to be so much better winds up just being pandering crap that they can get away with because “the boobs will bring readers in?” Why shouldn’t we be irritated by that?
Lots of things can be so much better. Heck, *I* could be so much better than I am. You saw how terrible I was at communicating my ideas the other day.
Personally, if I don’t like something, I just move on and consume something else I do like – vote with my pocketbook.
I like Flash. I like Amanda Waller and Selina Kyle and Starfire and Barbara Gordon and Power Girl and Harley Quinn.
I don’t like what’s been done to them. So yes, I stopped buying the books. That’s one thing to do. But I’m certainly going to add my voice to all the others kicking up a fuss so that DC and comic writers in general know why we’re dropping the book and what we want out of our characters, what we have had before, at the best of times. Remember, this is an industry that said that the Catwoman movie bombed because audiences won’t see a female lead, not because the movie itself was crap.
The past six months has been bizarre–suddenly, instead of the occasional lone complaint here and there, there’s been a torrent of it, women who are just freaking sick of having to accept constant sexualization as the norm (and men who are equally tired of it, since half the time it’s lazy and undercuts the impact of the story, or serves as a replacement for actual story).
All that aside, you do remember this is comics we’re talking about, right? Geeks complain. They discuss. They examine what they do and don’t like about any movie, comic, book, tv series. There’s just a certain pattern that people are tired of seeing.
So, the whole New DCU thing is the straw that broke the camel’s back so to speak. And the idea seems even more betrayl since the whole point was to get new readers interested. So, DC should have found a way to appeal to the women who’d be intrested instead of focusing on the same demographic as before. Even as someone from that demographic, I can’t help but find that as increadibly stupid.
You know, now that I think about it, after the relaunch, I’m reading less female centric books than before. I mean, I really loved the Steph Brown Batgirl book, and I was enjoying Gail Simon’s Birds of Prey a lot. I was also looking through the back issues of Power Girl. Now, with the exception of the two team books I’m reading (JLI and JLD (which while having enough women to ussually pass the bachel test, still has more men)), my comics are complete sausage fests. Gets even weirder when considering that the comic that got me into American comics was Runaways, a team book that is predominatly female. Weird how that works. (btw, anyone know if and when they’ll bring it back?)
Three! Three team books. Just remembered Demon Knights. (How did I forget Demon Kinghts?)
How did you forget Demon Knights? I’m lovin’ that book.
I wouldn’t exactly say the relaunch itself was the final straw that boiled fans over. For one thing, it’s kind of hard for me to separate my feminist-rage from my fan-rage when I think of it on those terms (where the HELL is Wally West? etc). But yes, there is the fact that this was all about a company-wide overhaul to bring DC into the twenty-first century and get rid of old and awkward continuity, making it a golden opportunity for DC to recognize the female market (and the PoC market and the LGBT market)…and they didn’t. They so spectacularly failed to deliver anything that actually was new or revolutionary that it’s kind of amazing.
But I think what really got people riled up was Didio’s comments to questions about women in comics, both as characters and creators. That was a hot mess, and I think a lot of folks were just stunned that the man running the company at the biggest promotional convention right before a massive relaunch to hook new readers had the kind of belligerent mindset that he showed and couldn’t even keep himself in check during the biggest PR event of the year.
And you’re right, I’m not reading as many books with women in the spotlight as I was before. Secret Six and Power Girl were amazing, and I miss those. Batwoman, however, is just a work of art, so I’m glad we got that out of the relaunch, and I’m hoping against hope that JLI will show a little heart sooner rather than later.
Heh, one of the first comics I remember reading was Generation X, but Scott Lobdell of all people, and he had a very balanced team, not only gender-wise, but racially as well. And he could write Emma Frost as someone who was sexy but not a sex-doll, which is kind of amazing. I don’t know why he changed so much, but I was disappointed.
Well, I’m fairly certian that the current Kid Flash is Wally. Partially because he’s the Kid Flash on Young Justice, and partially because Bart died at the end of Kid Flash Lost (though with the wibbly wobbly timey wimey nature of the retcon, we could see him agien). Then agien, I’m not reading the Teen Titan comic, so I might’ve missed that revieal.
On the bright side, I’m actually reading more comics staring non-white heroes. Static Shock, Blue Beetle, Justice League International (with Vixen, August General in Iron, and Fire) and Demon Knights (Al Jabr). So, I guess DC’s doing something right in that department.
So, what did Didio say? This is the first I’m hearing about it.
@Alex: Regarding DiDio: http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/07/28/dc-dan-didio-female-creators/
It’s a long (and quite good) editorial, but what’s important is the summary at the beginning, and specifically the audio recording she links.
Johann, I understand your point, but someone like Laura above me shouldn’t have to give up something she loves with a mere “oh well” and let the medium go on becoming an increasingly hostile environment for women.
Personally, at this point, I would tell Amber to give up on North American comics and read manga. Seriously, there are enough series out there where the guys are the token characters, and tons of shows where they have male heroes that somewhat resemble the A-Batman-ation she drew.
Better yet, become an expat, if that’s practical for you. Personally, I’m looking at France.
And see, that is just patronizing as hell.
“Instead of having principles, and demanding better of society, as a whole, which is your right as an American, sit down, shut up and read this ‘girly’ thing from another culture that is actually worse to your gender than the majority her aspires to be.”
You should go to the girl-wonder.org forums and try that argument.
I think Amber would very much enjoy manga.
Not that shoujo manga doesn’t have its own headache-inducing sex and gender issues, but my god at least they /try/ to reach out to young women.
And indeed, many girls and young women who like American comics but are put off by weird and sexist portrayals of women have turned to manga. Sales of manga in North America and Europe, and the amount of female readership compared to American comics, are kind of an object lesson for the Big Two. When superhero comics creators and editors claim that there just aren’t that many female comics readers, they’re actually ignoring a market that’s already out there! Out there buying other people’s comics.
In my experience, this is partly about a greater diversity of address (comics aimed at teen girls, teen boys, middle-aged women, etc.) and of genre – but it’s also about . Sure, there are a ton of manga representing women in exploitative and problematic ways – and the female reader who doesn’t enjoy those portrayals can put that manga down and pick up the manga next to it which has more likeable, active female characters and less egregious sexism. Manga’s diversity of genre and representations makes it easier for girls and women to vote with their feet and choose the better stuff over the bad.
Bottom line: American publishers of manga are profiting nicely from releasing lady-friendly comics. The Big Two would benefit from considering the preferences of the existing geek girl market. (Which is one reason why complaining and making our preferences known online is actually a pretty useful thing to do!).
Even manga meant for boys often has a huge female readership compared to Western comics. This is even true when the cast is predominantly male, and the men are not necessarily great eye candy (sure seems to help when they are though.) I can’t account for that completely, but I think it helps that male characters like Uzumaki Naruto, Vash the Stampede, and Himura Kenshin are written with a lot of emotion and sensitivity. They aren’t as walled-off and stoic compared to a lot of male comic book heroes. As a “soft” guy, I know that appeals to me.
Yes, absolutely, I agree! I actually meant to add that many shonen manga have lots of female readers, but seem to have forgotten in my tl;dr. I think those that appeal to girls often have some great female characters (Soul Eater, Inuyasha, Ranma, Fullmetal Alchemist) but there’s definitely more to it than that, I agree (again
). Not that there aren’t dodgy sexist manga, or dodgy sexist moments in manga, but the greater diversity of representations in general helps a whole bunch when one encounters that. And yes, also appealing to guys who like a different kind of male character and who find egregious sexism offputting.
Here’s one interesting thing – a lot of the shonen manga you and I mentioned have female creators – Takahashi, Arakawa, Hoshino. This makes me think re. American superhero comics: let’s carry on critiquing the bad stuff when we encounter it, but we can also be vocal in our support and enthusiasm for excellent female creators and lady-friendly male creators – the Gail Simones and Joss Whedons of comics. They’re out there, and more of them means less NuStarfires and Women in Refrigerators.
Takahashi is one of the first manga-ka I was introduced to, back in the 1990s. Ranma never fails to make me laugh.
Shojomanga heroine’s dream is to marry and have a family, and if she is gay the mangaka always remind us how hard and horrible is the life for a lesbian in japan, if is a comedy the lesbian resembles an old dirty man.
Exeptions exist, both in north america and in japan
hey anyone esle not able to gt on BLC’s main site?
Which sphincter are you speaking of? There are several in the body, and I want to know just how disturbed I should be?
I think it’s pretty clear based on the brown outline of the words which was intended. And that’s what disturbed me. All the brown. Don’t these dudes wipe their asses at all.
Well, unless you use a bidet, you’re probably not getting everything…
?
I imagined the sphincter clench as something of a crunching sound, oddly enough.
“Sphincter clench” should be a tag.
I also imagine it like the sound of … have you ever had one of those pipe vacuum cleaners, and you know that sound you get when it’s running and you put your hand over the nozzle and block the pipe … ?
I didn’t read 230 comments, so sorry if this is a repeat.
Is it just me or does the red-haired guy look like a Ginger Willis?
“I know it was used here in jest, but I hope I am not the only person who finds the word “mansplaining” to be sexist and condescending.”
Wow…
I think the moral of this story is that you can hold intelligent, nuanced views and still be a giant bag of -choose whatever the hell body part you want-. The point of the word is that it is sexist and condescending and it’s purpose is to be sexist and condescending and being spoken down to by sexist, condescending men sucks so maybe you shouldn’t mansplain because it’s sexist and condescending and that sucks. It is a satirical word and if satire didn’t work then the conservative right wouldn’t hate John Stewart as much as it does.
Ummm we don’t. he’llgo to the lion’s den to defind himself. And he calls the the left out on their bullsh*t ( only in the most exterme cases like ACCORN advice on getting tax credits on pimping underage prositutes but still.)
Sorry, you don’t get to defend yourself by viciously attacking John Stewart and claim you don’t hate his guts. Pick one and try again later.
The right hates the green lantern? That’s weird.
Well, the the Sinestro certainly doesn’t like him.
John Stewart makes liberals laugh and feel good and irritates conservatives. However, I don’t believe for a second that he’s effective at getting through to conservatives and converting them, or even shaming them into changing their behavior. I know damn well that conservative satirists haven’t changed my point of view.
Look, what should happen is that all baby boys should be taken up and eaten… but I was spared this by sick, sick parents, whom I’ve never forgiven… I can feel all the ways my body could feed women… I want to be destroyed… but I can’t destroy myself, that’s abuse… fuck… destroy me… I can feel all the meat in me… and the addictive cheese… but that’s a drug based on the wrong kind of veneration of the female form, as though women were cattle, rather than men being steerage to butcher, as it should be…
When I first read this, I thought Faz was trying to persuade her to take back what she said to avoid a shitstorm, but that’s probably way too insightful for Faz, and he’s probably just casting the first stone.
According to me: the biggest problems in super-hero comics right now are :
1.) Super Hero comics are written for the wrong audience which is mainly jaded aging males who have been reading comics for a long time. – Of course the right audience doesn’t want to buy them even when they ARE written as the main focus or at least when serious attempts are made in that direction. Green Arrow is a lousy idea to an adult audience. He seems kind of cool to a younger kid who doesn’t look at him in detail. Trying to make it seem like a good idea to adults apparently leads to a very distorted version of Green Arrow that usually STILL seems like a lousy idea to an adult audience. Green Arrow is not inherently a bad idea. He’s just not aimed at adults who will tend to wonder how many trick arrows he carries, how fragile they are, what variety he carries, how much they weigh, and how he avoids running out of them in prolonged confrontations and how swinging around urban roof tops for longer distances actually works. But only adults want to read about Green Arrow (because they remember thinking it was kind of a cool idea when they were kids) so he is adult-ized into a shady hard-bitten semi-murderous horn-dog with a kung fu grip and a heart of gold. If he just shot trick arrows to beat the bad guys and no one worried about the tension on his bow string or how knock out gas arrows work and why the police doesn’t have those…well it might work better.
2.) Super Hero comics are dying as a profitable medium under the current business model. – Superhero comics seem to be a useless irrelevant vestigial appendix like lobe barely hanging on to the much more profitable licensing business. They are like a high priced ugly test marketing lab for possible movie and TV ideas or toy lines. The kids super hero TV shows are WAY better than the the comics that spawned them. The comics seem superfluous or even harmful to the success of the licensing product. Comics are mostly bought by older men and $3 a pop who don’t seem to actually like what they are buying but are waiting for it to enter some sort of renaissance. Some don’t like them because they are missing the old magic and the others don’t like them because they aren’t quite enough like a hybrid of John Norman’s Gor novels and Thomas Harris’s Hannibal Lector stuff. The two groups seem to engage in a bitter tug of war over the preferred future of super hero comics and they seem to slowly peel off as they are disappointed beyond their ability to endure as a fan willing to spend $3+ on late issues with wildly fluctuating numbering schemes.
3.) Do comic creators even want to be where they are? – I hear about so many writers trying to break into TV or Movies or who have come to comics from TV once their marketability declines. I understand that making comics is a job but a lot of the people in comics today seem to think of it as a job they do until they can get their REAL job later on. It’s feels like writing for comics is a bit like the actor who waits tables until he gets his big break. A lot of artists seem to work on other projects such that they turn their work in late substantially delaying publication. I get the idea that working on comics is not a primary focus for the people working on comics.
4.) Loss of direction, coherence, consistency, and technical skill – super hero comics today seem to be written and drawn by people who seem to think that they are improving comics and bringing them sophistication by making them more like really lame storyboards for a TV show only with lots of gradients.The good stuff has been contemptuously thrown away by doofuses who never really understood it. There is no iconic house style, the art doesn’t pop off the page anymore, pages are less dynamic than ever, panel flow is usually awful and cluttered. Simple but powerful origins have been turned into tedious rehashed psychodrama that actually weakens as bad writers try to amplify the intensity. Todays comics are written and drawn by yesterdays fans who tried to escape from the shackles they thought bound up the old creators and kept them from doing good stuff. Sadly the shackles were largely what made the older stuff good. All the freedom has resulted in laziness, crap, confusion over how the characters are supposed to be, and overwrought debris that is supposed to be interesting by being shocking again and again and again and again only more so. Instead of the old know how, we get photoshop lens and gradient FX, painterly pin-up panels, low contrast pages with dark backgrounds, and digital lettering.
5.) Maturity? – People talk about expanding super hero comics with mature themes but generally end up with bad portrayals of lipstick lesbians, bondage jokes, ‘very special episode of’ style rape, home cities on fire twice a week, and super heroes failing to protect their loved ones again and again. Meanwhile the medium is SUPPOSED to focus on Batman escaping from a trap and punching Mr. Freeze just before the weather satellite overhead starts the blizzard in Gotham in July. Everyone whines about superhero comics being stuck with a dumb formula, but the genre IS dumb formula. The mature super hero crowd seems to want a DUMBER formula that appeals to neither older or younger audiences. They want a scarred up Captain America who says “fuck” and gets a blow job from a hooker with a heart of gold and then avenges her death after the Red Skull decapitates her and stuffs her into a laundry hamper.
6.) Flailing and lack of respect for the past. – Writers claim that they want to adhere to continuity (and in a very loose way they probably should most of the time) yet they constantly tear it up and start over or reinterpret it in strange ways that usually end up conflicting eventually. Editors allow this. Star writers are encouraged to really screw things up and then favorite writers are called in to fix it when (the few remaining) readers hate it. Super hero comics try to get interest from readers the same way that a little kid tries to get noticed at an office party.
A gender disparity is the least of the problems if in fact there is one that is any different from the gender disparities in female targeted titillating pop culture trash.
*APPLAUSE*
I agree with everything you wrote. Been what I’ve been saying about this medium for years.
You are so cute! You dont even realise where you got wrong!
First people has been saying what you say for years, even decades. And here we are, still with comics, hell even rock music hasnt died after all the critics doomed the sound of guitars.
But I agree comic books have to start drifting away for the pretention of “art”, writers are better when they dont take themselfs seriously, I remember a book titles “Art, enemy of the people”. I bet you could like that.
Anyway, people like stories about prostitutes. Frank Miller WAS a very good writter and wrote a lot of prostitues stories, after that everyone went after that style. In music is the same, even today there are guitar players that rip off Eddie Van Halen.
What I really dont like about you is how you dignify Adults as people than dont get kid entretainment, and the thing is that kids now know a lot more of violence and sex than adults when they had their age,
Well anyway you kinda right and you made me laugh with the whole “sperheros comics are coming to an end”
I’m worried about green sphincter clench guy. That seems like it would be a serious medical condition.
As long as men have rights, any rights at all, the world is misogynist. I drink to forget this, but it is my misogyny that allows me to drink.
Look, it’s hard for me to not get all ad hominem on people so I’m not even going to bother. Your comment before this? Rubbish. Total, utter non sequitur rubbish. If it had a point it was lost in your poor diction and horrid misuse of ellipses.
Your second comment? Patently wrong. As long as the world continues to be dominated by heteronormative white males, the world will continue to reaffirm white, straight man-ness.
Everybody else is -not- trying to dethrone the white straight man. They just want to get up to where he’s at. White, straight, traditionally masculine males have been advantaged for so long that it’s difficult for them to see that -not everybody else is so privileged-.
Women get gender-bias against them when they express interest in traditionally masculine jobs or hobbies. Men get gender-bias against them when they express interest in traditionally feminine jobs or hobbies. Ethnic minorities get racial bias against them for jobs, education, criminal justice, cheap laughs and whatever else. Gender nonconformative men and women get bias against them for everything. And you -DARE- to claim that the world is out to get you?
But, hey, as long as we’re talking about misogyny and alcohol, let’s talk about that. Let’s talk about how marketers can’t figure out how to market alcohol to anybody but men. Let’s talk about how when they try to advertise alcohol specifically to women, the best they can come up with is sugary and pink. Let’s talk about how when they’re not, they give us crass burping frogs and half-naked women on beaches bullshit. And let’s talk about how alcohol is a man’s drink, consumed by masculine men that do manly things to enhance their machismo. (Here’s looking at you, Dos Equis guy and Jack Daniels.)
/Bitter
I’m only familiar with the Dos Equis ads, which glorify a real MAN, ignoring the sack of meat he is that he has stolen from women in the natural order, in which they let him take in beasts to eat, and then eat him, as every other animal should, rather than this Ponzi scheme we call “society.”
Please, kill me, and, if you are as male as your name suggests, yourself. Come here, and do it, please, take the skin from my body, and all male bodies, and tear it off, and feed my flesh to women, please. I beg you. I am a sickening creature who must be destroyed, but I cannot destroy myself, since that would only exacerbate my reign of terror. Please, destroy me. Please. Take my flesh and rend it from my bones. Please. Please
The Cyclops gravatar suddenly seems very apt.
I can’t tell if you’re just a troll or an idiot tool bag.
All I’m sure of is that you have a tiny, tiny penis.
Yes, anyone who says anything you disapprove of for any reason on a forum or a comment thread for a comic strip has a tiny penis. That’s a very clever and relevant observation well beyond the intellectual capacity of an eleven year old child on a school playground at recess. Well done. That kind of wit will surely be the solid foundation of a successful career in comedy and satire. Keep it up, and you may well be the next Carlos Mencia or Dane Cook. Have you shared this awesome stuff with Reddit yet?
Truthiness = big penis! Wronginess = tiny penis. -APPLAUSE- White people got no booty! They walk be like THIS! -APPLAUSE- Meme/nostalgia reference! -APPLAUSE-
His post indicated an insecurity in his manhood – so I automatically inferred that he had a tiny penis.
Or at least that he’s worried that he does.
Either way, someone secure in his manhood doesn’t respond the way he did – so I believe my snide comment to be justified.
If trolling is an art, you are Rob Liefeld.
seconded
I think he’s trying to be funny. It didn’t work, but it enabled you to make me laugh. Thanks!
Mr. Willis, thank you sincerely for reminding me that there are occasionally some male webcomic artists who are not a bag of ass. It helps.
Thank God I saw Doug Walker’s Twilight Breaking Dawn vlog, or I wouldn’t have noticed the Lewis Black reference as per the sphincter clenching (Lewis Black said the mere mentioning of the word “abortion” does that to people of both genders in a room).
This comic might not actually be about the strawmen being evil douchebags who want to oppress women, if Willis’s comments are unread one might have come to the conclusion that sphincters be clenchin’ because these strawmen want to have some response but have no idea how to fix the problem, or if they have any right or ability to fix said disparity at all.
That was my interpretation of it anyway. Dunno if Willis meant a reeeeallly subtle Lewis Black reference but it’s certainly able to be read into it.
I’m a little confused by all the clenching. :/
I feel the need, after reading the comments for the last two comics, to quote 30 Rock: “No I won’t calm down. Women are allowed to get angrier than men about double standards.”
What weirds me out as well is how autistic characters in comics are sometimes more scarce than women, the women may be written horribly and as strippers, but there’s at least ONE female character that isn’t a stripper every now and again. Not saying it’s right, I’m just saying that it’s better than seeing the only autistic character in the DC Universe being Black Manta and constantly seeing mentally handicapped villains in stuff like Human Centipede 2.
It’s like society is telling me as an autistic person that I either don’t exist or shouldn’t exist among normal people, and Human Centipede 2 in particular once I watched Phelous’s review pissed me off because if there’s anything disabled people don’t need to feel about themselves, it’s the idea that society hates you because they all think we’re creepy depraved weirdos who deserve to be marginalised as sick minds or something.
The double standard for female characters is terrible, I’ll admit, white guys have it pretty good, but what happens to the disabled white guys the other white guys make fun of and bully until we feel we’re creepy by default as far as society is concerned? That’s what I have the right to complain about, I’ve got one shot for minority status and I’m gonna use it to make a difference, DAMMIT!
You know, that is especially weird now that people have started assuming that comics geeks have Asperger’s.
The lack of representation for people with disabilities is a separate discussion from sexism and is not something unique to white men.
I know that, but to fight this battle I must create a powerful ally. Considering that my masculinity can withstand watching Showgirls and Jem and the Holograms unironically, it only makes sense that I should diversify my mighty legion with women of various backgrounds.
Yes, I know it’s a separate issue from gender and race. But we need to band together into some kind of “Minoriteam” to combat inequality wherever it is found! TO ARMS, MY BATTLE BROTHERS/SISTERS/TRANSGENDEREDS! LET LOOSE THE LEASHES OF THE DOGS OF FABULOUS WAR!
I been asking about a series featuring Jericho and Rose Wilson, this is a translated fragment of a longer post in a anti Didio forum.
“The fact you can get a character with a deep psychiatric trauma is great, many kids suffer schizofrenia or autism and no one tells that story (my own actually), the one where 15 or 14 yo kids take as many pills as their grandpas. The fact that Rose wilson needs a family figure fits perfectly with Jericho, in many families the older brother takes care of their brothers as a mother/father while the single mother that works all day, pretty standard in many third world countries.”
Now in recent issues Its been stated that mutlPle personality transfers have left Jericho with a psychiatric condition, and also that he has the same powers of recovery that his father Deathstroke. Besides there is the thing about if Rose’s mother is still alive.
I have a condition known as Meniere’s disease. The are only two fictional characters to date that have ever had a diagnosis with this condition. One is loosely based on a true story (so it barely counts), in a book named Sugar Hill House. The other is Count Vertigo.
The epidemiology of the two conditions is roughly the same considering all aspects of autism (Meniere’s beating Autism 200 to 187 per 100,000 people), however Autism receives much more attention in the media (fictional and non-fictional accounts).
I do feel your pain, in regards to feeling under represented, but we are not really discussing .4% of the population here (the combined #’s for both Meniere’s and Autism, if we were to assume nobody has both). What is really being discussed is greater than 50% of the population being represented in an offensive manner.
I feel that sticking the “stigma” of Autism (or Meniere’s) on a villain that many consider psychopathic at best, after the fact, is revolting if there is no valiant individual to offset such a characterization, but the disabled have been treated quite well, in general, over the years. After all, we have Daredevil, Doctor Midnight, Professor X, Oracle (though we still had to deal with cheesecake shots of her transferring herself from her wheelchair to the shower, etc.), Echo, and others.
While certain disabilities are not represented well, disabilities as a whole are covered in a friendly light, compared to the “flotation device” breast, and porn stances of female characters.
I have a friend that works with asperger kids and she said that people has come to belive that asperger makes people smarter, wich is stupid, having asperger is not something good. Representation of asperger characters as incredible smart persons is as bad as present autist kids as difficult and uncapable to adapt.
After all autism and asperger are a disease, the problem is that “disease” has a wrong connotation (I was talking with my sister, a medicine student, that people usually get offended when she tells them that being gay is an anomally, while medically speaking is true, being gay or being extremly tall is an anomally). People think about sick people as criminals and doctors as the wards of a prision, I meet just few people that thinck psychiatric patients can be “cured” (another hard word). I have many friends in psicology depatments that speak about how much we acomplished in recent years about treatments and therapies but how little we have advanced in make the people understand the needs of the patients. I work with History and Lingüistic so I dont know much but I trust my friend
Fock yeah! You said It. My main proposition
LESS LESBIANS MORE GAYS
Hate the fricking thing about lesbians, they are really fanservice that poses as “gay support”. Besides I dont get along with lesbians.
Now I think series Like Birds of prey and authors like Gail Simone, characters like Stephanie Brown and Cassandra Cain (awsome batgirl and black bat), do a pretty good job.
Now, as much as e recent work of my teachers is abour representation Im worry more about the material implications of the bussines, in other words more female creatives could help to change the views that this is a boy’s job
They shall live forever in my heart as, in order: The Thumb, Shaggy D. Baggy, Neckbeard The Pirate, Tony Brony, Pudge, Hugh “Jass” Hat, and Dick Grayson.
Ack – too many posts – Just hope this is still pertinent.
List of names – not including avocado clench …. Staring from the top.
Matt
Jedd and Spencer
Archibald
Nathaniel and Ivan but pronounce Eeevahn (he’s very anal about the pronunciation and will threaten to hurt you if you continue)
I sense… a disturbance in the force.
As though millions of sphincters just clenched in agony.
I don’t think that yesterday’s comic is quite that fair and yes, it took me this long to figure out why. What makes the male sexual objectification in comic books a male fantasy isn’t the huge bulging muscles as much as it is the powerful status they have in relation to the female characters. They tend to be the ones in control. Her own personal preference in men being used as an example of what women look for is a bit unfair as the objectification comes not by the pure physicality but in the stripping away of anything beyond the physicality. When done to women in comics the character is reduced to a symbol of sex while on the male end the male is turned into well… an asshole. The purpose is to make him some calm, commanding presence but usually you end up with a bossy idiot who doesn’t care about his teammates or anyone around him.
As for today’s comic there will always be disparity in treatment between men and women. Although the word has a negative connotation its simplest definition is “difference between things.” Looking at the two dimensional rendering of the powerful male archtype that is what happens to a male character who is supposed to be the good guy and is written poorly. Take a women and do the same thing and whatever sexual objectification is present she is turned into a vapid, frigid bitch. Same but still different as she is not a man. So long as women and men are not the same sex there will always be disparity and characters of either sex will have to be handled differently if they are to be written well. The objectification of males and females is nothing more than the comic industry trying to appeal to a fanbase that they still belive is comprised of weak twelve year old boys who get beat up by the big kids destined to be police officers.
Now on to today’s joke. Faz is about to explain something in regards to human sexuality. If that thought doesn’t cause YOUR sphincter to clench then you need to check the archives.
First your observation is a little flawed, at least I havent read the comics you are mentioning (Is shortpacked one of that comics?). What you are doing is imposing an structure over a corpus, the premise might be good but is not something honest.
Of course is easy to complain that to cheer for good things. If you think superheroes are assholes then good for you, I dont think so and maybe you are wrong. But in the early days of comics the thing was that every men wanted to be like a superhero, It was the male fantasy. Is not about beign in control over women but over the whole world, something that is present in a lot of western culture.
And look, if you are going to be serious about a topic you cant speak about things generally, if there are exptions to a rule then there is no such rule. There are good representations of women in comics so the basic premise is wrong. However there is a problem that cant be ignored and that is the point Amber is making.
But rant never solves anything, is much better to enforce and celebrate the exeptions and solutions.
So, as long as we’re talking about gender disparity, when do we get to see more female strawmen?
Strawwomen, if you will.
The real problem with comics is that women (and everything else) is better than the real thing (when your girlfriend is in bed with you she is really looking at that batman poster lol, just joking).
Evidence women in comics kick ass:
http://beccatoria.livejournal.com/151936.html
http://be-themoon.livejournal.com/122645.html
I think there are more ranting fans that sad fans, because is fun to hate the straight white male and is fun to troll “defending” the straight wite male
Pd: I saw something that said ” heterosexual white men rules”, it really strike me because in english the word “rule” have different connotations while in spanish It doesnt
You are allowed to think that, but it does not mean that you are wrong.
After all, the photo essays you present are full of “cherry-picked” shots that, in most cases, illustrate a lot more of the problem than it does evidence of a lack of problems.
Well, in a way every evidence is cherry picked, as people have to agree something is in fact an evidence. I could say the same about evidence against me. The fact that something is undergroud doesnt mean It doesnt exist, let say we discuss if pop music is valuable or not, Get my point?
I dont say there is not a problem, I say there is a solution! But people like to rant and complain, claming how sad a disease is without realising there are selling the medicine just a few corners away.
But if you are so brave tell the persons that “cherry picked” this images how wrong they are. See my point? I think we both agree.
I am not, in any way saying that the person that made those photo essays is wrong for feeling that those pictures do not depict women being powerful in comics. What I am saying is that you using these essays to say that there is not so much an issue of women being depicted in a manner unbecoming and offensive is not as much of an issue as much as the issue people looking for a way to (in all effects) attack the straight white male. To say that the images shown are proof that the real problem is that the women portrayed are in essence “larger than life” is completely ignoring the issues at hand.
Let us look at some of these, and see what is really being shown.
In the Wonder Woman essay:
We have a heroine that is wearing, at bast, a swimsuit. In the third picture from the top, we have what is a traditional heroic flight shot. What is not typical about this pic? The costume, as opposed to Superman, Green Lantern, Batman (leaping from a roof), Spider-man (swinging), or just about any male comics character (save possibly Conan) is a shot of the almost bare chest being the focal point. The males all have their proud emblem being displayed in this area. This female has sexualization being displayed. In this same example two panels down from the same page, we have the hero delivering a side kick, which is standard, but it seems that great effort was taken to ensure the shield she was holding did not get in the way of her chest, even though such a posture would probably throw her off balance.
From here, we have a couple of shots the have gone to great efforts to show off anatomy. The picture of her dominance of prone Batman gives barely a hint of costume at all, save for the boots, but ensures that her most prominent feature shown is her chest. The next picture show her backside in a manner that I do not believe I have ever seen of a male superhero. In fact most back shots of males stop at the lower back, or have the entire body. They generally do not feature the butt as a focal point.
Then we go to the issue of WW’s relationship with Zeus. What was once a character created by a woman and goddesses without a father, has now become another in a long line of heroes sired by Zeus. So, her arguments with Zeus are now really just daddy issues, and making up for abandonment. It is an unnecessary change to the character that simply demeans her. If anything, it would show your argument of straight white males being popular to hate being more utilized by the writers than it would be the upset fans.
With these arguments presented, (even though they barely scratch the surface of my contempt for the treatment the flagship female from DC) I would like to move to the second page.
The first thing we encounter, to no great surprise, is a series of “serious” attempts at portraying empowered females wearing bathing suits in combat (Black Canary, Huntress, etc. so evident that even horndog Flash is clearly shown making a comment about how it makes him uncomfortable) followed by cheesecake shots of Big Barda in an extremely skimpy bikini (when she is a character that has traditionally been one of few that remains fully clothed and in a suit that is not seemingly made to show off her body more than it is to protect), and a young lady from X-factor that have a neckline that goes past he navel. Visually speaking, this is quite concerning. Fortunately they have recently change Green Flame’s costume to be a little less revealing, thus keeping her fashion faux pas from times past out of the spotlight.
Now, let us go to the Marvel contributions. We have Hawkeye, a character that is a female version of a male hero, which is a rip-off character of Green Arrow, who was a rip-off character of Robin Hood. Then we have Stature, who is seemingly (even down to the costume) just another Giant Man. We have empowered women here, as you can see by how extremely original they are, and how much thought was put into their heroic identities/ power sets. [/end sarcasm]
Next we have Fire and Ice (formerly known as Green Flame and Ice Maiden). I cannot say much about them currently, as I only know them from the 80′s runs of JLI, but all that comes to mind is the, “We like shopping and staying up late to talk about boys” characterization they held. Have the writers updated them? I really don’t know, but I have such a bad taste in my mouth, I really don’t care to find out. What I can see is that the two characters still seem to not be able to exist independently, and are only valuable as half a character each. It seems Ice is now lost the sense of innocence which never fit well in the superhero world, but seems to now be a cheap “frigid bitch” joke.
I cannot really speak on the new X-factor, so I will skip it.
Now we have the world of Bat-girl/Bat-women. So, once again we have what can best be described as a bunch of seemingly capable crime-fighters that are so insecure they have to hang their identities on the much stronger male character. After all, were they more capable, surely they would make their own identities, such as the Huntress did, when she was more a member of the Bat-family. Let us not forget what has happened with the female bats.
First, we had a character that was great in the role (Babs Gordon), and actually bloomed from a teenager with a crush to a more well rounded individual that was marginalized for shock value.
Next we have Cassandra Cain. She is the one that even when she stops being “the second Batgirl” still has to be “the Black Bat” because she has such “loyalty.” This seems to be presented as an endearing quality, but once again shows this woman to be weak spiritually, and does not have the drive to be her own hero, just a girl version of a male hero. Sure she makes fun of Batman, argues with Batman, and proves herself to be physically up to the challenge of facing off with Batman, but at the end of the day, she lets it be known that he is the boss, and she is subservient.
Stephanie Brown… Oy, where to start with this character. At one point she has her own identity, in so much as Robin needed a girlfriend, and there was already a Batgirl, so we have to make her wait her turn to drop her own identity to step into the shoes of a bat-family member proper. When she finally does get “promoted” top Robin, she is killed. So, dead Robins get their costumes displayed in a glass case in the Batcave, even if they are already alive again, right? I mean Jason Todd’s costume is memorialized in this manner. Oh, Stephanie is a one note joke, that really doesn’t work as “not Robin’s girlfriend,” so we will use her for shock value, and then discard her in a manner that suggests she never existed in the first place…. What? She is alive again? Well, then she must be the new bat girl because lord forbid she remain her well established Spoiler identity.
Now, let us count how many of the above mentioned women (and those not mentioned, but still pictured in the photo essays) are rape/bondage “fantasy” torture victims. If we include that Wonder Woman could be magically dominated by any man that tied her up with her own lasso, in this count (which is the least critical in the crimes committed against these women), then we have to say that 90% of them fit into this scheme.
So, you see a series of shots that are empowering women, that are only hated because they are too much to realistically aspire to. I see a bunch of female characters that are second class citizens placed into a world where they have to be raped to be interesting, and more often than not have to copy a male predecessor to have their own identity. And don’t forget that if you aren’t showing as much skin as you would at the beach, well you just aren’t trying!
All im trying to say is that I feel some people love more to rant about bad things in comics than to read and cheer for good comics.
Sometimes somepeople like to be pessimistic and sometimes when that happens some of they deleuse themselfs by thinking they are adresing the problems instead of ignoring them.
So yeah I think these “cherry picked” pictures are an evidence of some sort, and I feel that a lot of people, some of them honest comic fans, are exited and happy about that, and that doesnt make them naive about problems or less critical about society.
And once again, I have no problem with the cherry picked photos being appreciated by the fan in question, nor do I have a problem with their excitement.
What I do have a problem with is them being used as evidence that the is no offensive nature to the portrayal of females in comics other than the female readers simply being jealous or envious that they will never reach this level of perfection, which is what your initial post (the one that holds the links) implies.
The simple fact is, that even though it does not cover the harshest examples of mistreatment, it still shows a lot of evidence that female characters are mistreated compared to their male counterparts. Some of the statements in these pictures are overt, and some need additional context, but it is all there.
More power to the creator of the photo essay. Hopefully, they will never lose their enthusiasm to adore comics. However, something tells me that they know that these characters have been kicked around in ways that make characters never will be.
This is a good controversial take on women representation, at least I was convinced and before I read It I thought exactly the oposite.
http://theragingfanboy.wordpress.com/2011/12/01/a-touch-of-voodoo/
(Yes, I’ve been using that name for myself for a while now)
I actually stopped reading superhero comic books over ten years ago… and that was before some of the things that have come along since then. But I would note: the male characters ARE indeed sexualized, and for similar reasons to the females. Simply put: the male characters are what the stereotyped reader wants to BE; the female characters are what the stereotyped reader wants to HAVE.
This was especially prominent in the 90s, where we saw an unending litany of “superheroes” who were freakishly deformed (both male AND female) and whose attitudes were essentially no differant than that of the gangsta rap of the same decade; made by and for insecure overgrown boys who fetishized what they believed a “real man” was.
However, I believe I already answered the key issue when I used the word “stereotyped.” We’ve been seeing a series of comments from male readers in this thread who are against the sexism in comics. Ones who would LIKE to see more strong, intelligent, capable women who can redefine sexual attractiveness by not making it the center of their personas (I’m thinking “Storm from the 1980s X-Men,” as a perfect example. Leader of the X-Men despite having no actual powers, was respected by her team, and at least once grabbed Wolverine by his shirt collar and chewed him out while he tucked his tail between his legs and took it). The real problem here isn’t the readers, but the writers. I don’t think ANYONE here would defend “One More Day,” or “Civil War,” or “All Star Batman and Robin.” As has been said: superhero comic books are a dying genre. Not because of the readers, but because of the creators. We all want better. We are not getting it. So we are taking our money elsewhere. Willis showcased that in an earlier comic about a fan of Starfire from Teen Titans.
As for the “mansploitation” thing… I noted a while back that militant feminism actually hurt women in several important ways. The one most relevant to this discussion being that militant feminism seeks to create a gender conflict where none needs to be. You can’t win an issue like this by demonizing and attacking the other side; you have to win the other side over. The “privileged men” here are also brothers, fathers, sons, uncles, boyfriends, husbands.
Lastly, I’d like to respond to what Steve said: I agree, but with one reservation. Personally, I don’t think much of the typical “badass” antihero character regardless of gender. Try playing through Saint’s Row 2 twice with both a male and female character (And remember that you can have an instant sex change at any time, just by hitting up the surgeon). You’re still just as vile.
But champ you are demonizing! You start by imposing a law that might have passed away long time ago or never existed as such! There are always exeptions but you chose to make an absolute out of the mayority! Even if its bad!
Worse you are attaking a whole decade! Man, what happens If someone like superhero comics and also likes the 90′ (thats not a point, just rethorical joking)
Read my posts above, I already talk about this whole “super hero comics geting to an end” thing
I’ll make fun of DCnU for looking “too 90′s” but when people start on the whole “everything in the 90′s was CRAP” I’ve gotta shake my head, because the 90′s gave us Young Justice, Impulse, Waid’s run on Flash, Generation X, and the latter half of JLI. The stuff with the major push behind it was “Raaaaaaadical!” but I kinda feel like the 90′s was the last place that had truly fun books that were fun for the sake of being fun.
Well, Marvel Adventures has been pretty fun for fun’s sake.
Oh and I still like geoff Jhones, Morrison, Waid and Rucka. But they have been around for decades! There are too little new creators in DC or women like Gail Simone (who writtes those superhero comics)
Willis, if you’re still accepting name suggestions for the butt-clench boys, I’ve got one for your consideration:
Rip McEaster
Appropriate for the character role, no?
Ok, sorry I don’t have time to read ALL 413 comments, so if you already have names for the characters, sorry. But, for the guy in the blue hat, he kinda looks like a Thomas. Not sure why?
I’ve already made two threads about this on The Escapist. Why do people ALWAYS equate athletic/voluptuous female figures in media with deliberate, unrealistic sexualisation? It’s infuriating. There are plenty of women out there with NATURALLY large breasts; who labour to achieve athletic figures for their own health. It’s not all artificial, you know.
Additionally don’t they ever consider such choices may simply be an unassuming, realistic decision pertaining to the characters environmental adaptation/physical ability within the story etc? Yeah, some may find such figures sexually attractive, but then such a reaction wasn’t necessarily intended by the creator.
On an interesting note, despite that some people think bestowing a woman with a voluptuous body or large breasts is sexualisation, what people consider as sexually attractive is SUBJECTIVE! I’ve met men who find a woman with small breasts pettily attractive.
That’s why for me the term “sexualisation” is a considerably nonsensical term when it comes to BODILY structures, as a natural sexual attraction will always be there regardless of physique.
Besides, bodily structures of any kind have never correlated with sexualisation,; it’s HUMAN’S themselves who are responsible for perverting their primal image (for example breasts are biologically and were primarily mammary glands, now they’re mostly portrayed as sexual objects).
“Some girls look that way” is one of the dumbest red herrings in these lines of debate. Of COURSE some girls have large breasts! Hell, Amber does, the girl in this very strip. The sticking point is ALL girls in comics tend to have large breasts, if not the same physique all around. Yes, guys can find girls with smaller breasts more attractive, but those guys apparently aren’t drawing comics, or feel moved to conform.
For the thirty-billionth time, the physique of women in comics is only one small part of the perceived problem. The rest is presentation. Guys in comics don’t pose with their asses cocked pointing towards the ceiling. The “cameras” aren’t pointed on guys in comics to accentuate their sexual characteristics. Guys are drawn to look powerful, girls are drawn to be eye candy. And this off-kilter balance is SO PERVASIVE in our society that most people don’t even notice. Many folks assume girls actually stand with one hip out to the side all the time, in real life. (Hint: They don’t.)
But that’s an aspect of media that’s hard to argue against, so of course people who feel uncomfortable being told media representations in comic books tend to be inherently sexist flock to the “but some girls have big boobs!” distraction.