Women in Comics
July 4, 2007 6:08 PM Subscribe
When Fangirls Attack is a compilation of articles and essays about women in comics.
Obligatory Occasional Superheroine link, as seen previously (remember the phrase, "busted vagina"?)
posted by kimota at 6:48 PM on July 4, 2007
posted by kimota at 6:48 PM on July 4, 2007
Hmm, I read this:
posted by delmoi at 7:11 PM on July 4, 2007
That's what it's like to be a woman. Every day.If I'm not mistaken, I don't think most guys could get away with wearing a skirt to work, much less a short one.
Every day, there are unspoken rules. For work. For home.
"Dress professionally for business, preferably a suit." Those apply pretty evenly for both genders, right? How about these?
"Don't wear a suit with pants. Pants are mannish. Wear a skirt."
"Don't wear that skirt. It's too short. You'll look like a slut."
posted by delmoi at 7:11 PM on July 4, 2007
You mean comics still aren't just for boys anymore?!?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 7:50 PM on July 4, 2007
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 7:50 PM on July 4, 2007
Thank you for this post. It led me to this interesting piece… What Japanese Girls Do With Manga, and Why.
posted by tellurian at 7:53 PM on July 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by tellurian at 7:53 PM on July 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
This site seems like a compilation of people actively searching for something to be offended by, like an animal lover at a slaughterhouse. Probably because it's just not as interesting to focus all of your effort on Barbie dolls anymore since they've gone down in popularity. Some points:
Women in comics are big boobed softcore porn: Yes, yes they are. Superhero comics are fantasy directed towards hormonal guys (because, they buy a lot of them). You know why? Because men dig big boobs. Crazy, I know. Large breasted scantily clad women are as prevalent in comics as ripped spandex-wearing men. Shouldn't we be distressed that we're cultivating that boys should pop steroids to look like superheroes? At the very least, women in superhero comics, are represented as strong intelligent ass-kickers, and rarely as damsels-in-distress anymore. They also happen to have big boobs.
We just think that comics can be made without women being objectified: Yes, yes they can. And they are made, in tremendous, tremendous amounts, and sell quite well. Last I looked there was an entire section at the bookstore devoted to female-directed manga. And there are plenty of honest regular comics with female-respectful material. They, also sell quite well.
But, this should change in superhero comics!: Guys aren't going into your section and demanding that all the boys in those books stop being wussy sexually-questionable romantics. Oh, the world is a terribly unfair place indeed.
Conclusion: This is stupid.
posted by Stan Chin at 7:58 PM on July 4, 2007 [3 favorites]
Women in comics are big boobed softcore porn: Yes, yes they are. Superhero comics are fantasy directed towards hormonal guys (because, they buy a lot of them). You know why? Because men dig big boobs. Crazy, I know. Large breasted scantily clad women are as prevalent in comics as ripped spandex-wearing men. Shouldn't we be distressed that we're cultivating that boys should pop steroids to look like superheroes? At the very least, women in superhero comics, are represented as strong intelligent ass-kickers, and rarely as damsels-in-distress anymore. They also happen to have big boobs.
We just think that comics can be made without women being objectified: Yes, yes they can. And they are made, in tremendous, tremendous amounts, and sell quite well. Last I looked there was an entire section at the bookstore devoted to female-directed manga. And there are plenty of honest regular comics with female-respectful material. They, also sell quite well.
But, this should change in superhero comics!: Guys aren't going into your section and demanding that all the boys in those books stop being wussy sexually-questionable romantics. Oh, the world is a terribly unfair place indeed.
Conclusion: This is stupid.
posted by Stan Chin at 7:58 PM on July 4, 2007 [3 favorites]
This site seems like a compilation of people actively searching for something to be offended by, like an animal lover at a slaughterhouse. Probably because it's just not as interesting to focus all of your effort on Barbie dolls anymore since they've gone down in popularity.
*sigh* And so it begins. I'll be over here. Who wants popcorn?
posted by kittens for breakfast at 9:18 PM on July 4, 2007
*sigh* And so it begins. I'll be over here. Who wants popcorn?
posted by kittens for breakfast at 9:18 PM on July 4, 2007
Man, I don't know what to tell people who talk about the image of women in superhero comic books. Is there a problematic depiction of women in the superhero books? Yes, very often. Is there a movement to buck that trend? Yes. Is it very successful? Not especially, but it has its moments. Can you judge all comics by the superhero books? No. Is the problematic depiction of women a sign of bias in the genre? Nope, because it's not just women. The imagery of men in superhero books is even worse.
All superheroes look like brad pitt, even the ones with purely natural storylines to explain their origins. Skinny nerdy spider-man with the super trim frame is an adonis in his civilian clothes, and a super science genius to boot, and married to a super-model. And he's the more realistic one! He, at least, has had his share of marital strife and has faced rather a lot of difficult moral choices in his life which haven't always worked out for the best. Shall we talk about Captain America? The Perfect Symbol of American Manhood and Justice whose sex life has been non existant for 50 years? Or Superman, who dated and married ONE count-em-one earth girl, and I believe had a fling of sorts which may not have been consummated with some crazy alien. Batman, who has, if I remember correctly, only ever actually dated 2 women: neither of which successfully.
In comic books, you choose between the perfect/impossible and the imperfect/unhealthy. You're spider-man and Superman, or you're batman, and so driven you forsake all forms of personal life for whatever you're after. Not to mention the repeated and inescapable visual message that the pretty folks win and the ugly ones lose. There are exceptions (the lovable thing) but on the whole you're Cyclops or you're The Blob. You're the fantastic 4, or you're the Mole Man. You're Batman or The Joker, or Batman or The Scarecrow. You're Superman, or Lex Luthor or Brainiac.
But shit, that's life. That's all media. The only difference here is that this is a medium that, for whatever reason, started life as an escape for boys and in the superhero genre hasn't ever really left that pursuit. Ripped men and Huge breasted women sell books, so they're going to make more books with that in them. But also, that kind of storytelling seems to turn away the majority of female readers, so there isn't much chance for another storytelling mode to take hold. But that's why we have so many other types of comics. So what have you got? You've got a type of fiction that caters to poor self-image and unrealistic personal and social expectations. Yeah, but there's also a lot to be taken away from these books that has given people strength and hope when they needed it. You can see Xmen as a story about impossible looking people leading impossible lives, and you can also see the parallel to the civil rights movement, and the conflict within a minority between civil and violent revolution. And you can read Spider-man and for decades learn the value of inner personal strength when outer strength won't help. I mean, what the fuck do you do with a stiuation like that? You want to tear your hair out, and you want to show it to your kids. You want to get that moral message to people, and you sure as hell don't want your kids growing up thinking that's how life should be. I don't know. I guess that's why god made parents.
posted by shmegegge at 9:36 PM on July 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
All superheroes look like brad pitt, even the ones with purely natural storylines to explain their origins. Skinny nerdy spider-man with the super trim frame is an adonis in his civilian clothes, and a super science genius to boot, and married to a super-model. And he's the more realistic one! He, at least, has had his share of marital strife and has faced rather a lot of difficult moral choices in his life which haven't always worked out for the best. Shall we talk about Captain America? The Perfect Symbol of American Manhood and Justice whose sex life has been non existant for 50 years? Or Superman, who dated and married ONE count-em-one earth girl, and I believe had a fling of sorts which may not have been consummated with some crazy alien. Batman, who has, if I remember correctly, only ever actually dated 2 women: neither of which successfully.
In comic books, you choose between the perfect/impossible and the imperfect/unhealthy. You're spider-man and Superman, or you're batman, and so driven you forsake all forms of personal life for whatever you're after. Not to mention the repeated and inescapable visual message that the pretty folks win and the ugly ones lose. There are exceptions (the lovable thing) but on the whole you're Cyclops or you're The Blob. You're the fantastic 4, or you're the Mole Man. You're Batman or The Joker, or Batman or The Scarecrow. You're Superman, or Lex Luthor or Brainiac.
But shit, that's life. That's all media. The only difference here is that this is a medium that, for whatever reason, started life as an escape for boys and in the superhero genre hasn't ever really left that pursuit. Ripped men and Huge breasted women sell books, so they're going to make more books with that in them. But also, that kind of storytelling seems to turn away the majority of female readers, so there isn't much chance for another storytelling mode to take hold. But that's why we have so many other types of comics. So what have you got? You've got a type of fiction that caters to poor self-image and unrealistic personal and social expectations. Yeah, but there's also a lot to be taken away from these books that has given people strength and hope when they needed it. You can see Xmen as a story about impossible looking people leading impossible lives, and you can also see the parallel to the civil rights movement, and the conflict within a minority between civil and violent revolution. And you can read Spider-man and for decades learn the value of inner personal strength when outer strength won't help. I mean, what the fuck do you do with a stiuation like that? You want to tear your hair out, and you want to show it to your kids. You want to get that moral message to people, and you sure as hell don't want your kids growing up thinking that's how life should be. I don't know. I guess that's why god made parents.
posted by shmegegge at 9:36 PM on July 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
I forgot about clark kent's lana lang thingy. I apologize. He dated 2 earth girls in his 60+ years on the planet.
posted by shmegegge at 9:37 PM on July 4, 2007
posted by shmegegge at 9:37 PM on July 4, 2007
I like how schmegegge says things I mean, but in a much less assholish fashion. Probably because I'm distracted by big boobs.
posted by Stan Chin at 9:39 PM on July 4, 2007
posted by Stan Chin at 9:39 PM on July 4, 2007
Superman also dated Wonder Woman and Lori Lemaris at various times.
I'm sure there were others.
posted by Bonzai at 10:01 PM on July 4, 2007
I'm sure there were others.
posted by Bonzai at 10:01 PM on July 4, 2007
Man, you know if superman were real he'd be fat, I mean, how the fuck is he supposed to work out?
posted by delmoi at 10:21 PM on July 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by delmoi at 10:21 PM on July 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
Gosh, is it Anti-Feminist-Comics Bingo time again? Play along at home, folks!
posted by zamboni at 11:06 PM on July 4, 2007
posted by zamboni at 11:06 PM on July 4, 2007
Guys, blog aggregator. This is less 'a compilation of essays and articles', and more 'every somewhat coherent blog post vaguely related to feminism and comics some livejournaler made today'. I'm glad the resource exists, but using it as a counter-argument to this sort of thing is like submitting a bound week's worth of Technocrati tag = "Micro$oft" as an amica curae brief.
(I say this as someone who exactly once made a five-line post about old-school Wonder Woman in my personal blog that eight people read. It was linked on "When Fangirls Attack" within twenty-four hours.)
posted by ormondsacker at 11:32 PM on July 4, 2007
(I say this as someone who exactly once made a five-line post about old-school Wonder Woman in my personal blog that eight people read. It was linked on "When Fangirls Attack" within twenty-four hours.)
posted by ormondsacker at 11:32 PM on July 4, 2007
shmegegge and stan - No, superhero comics did not start as a genre for boys. I mean, look at the old comics - filled with advertisements for beauty and dress-up products AND x-ray glasses and decoder rings.
And no, men are not objectified in the same way that women are. Or else Superman would always be drawn like this and Batman would always be drawn like this. There's a difference between idealizing (the way that male heroes are drawn - muscular and strong) and objectifying (the way that female heroes are drawn - passive, helpless, and in poses that make it look like they're orgasming when they should, you know, be kicking someone in the face). Neither is healthy. But one is not comparable to the other, either. More here.
And I am sick and tired of people telling me to read *other comics* if superhero comics aren't good enough. There's nothing inherently sexist about the X-Men or Spiderman. So there's no excuse for crappy writers and artists to resort to sexism to sell those comics.
Except that sexism doesn't actually sell.
And Stan? People aren't upset that superheroines have big boobs. They're upset at the instances when superheroines who have big boobs are drawn and written as passive, helpless, walking boob-jokes - instead of, as you say, the "strong intelligent ass-kickers" that they are. You could try to actually read some of the links before you dismiss them all as stupid. But then again, if you actually bothered to read the links, then you wouldn't be able to show off your cleverness by posting three totally new and never before seen arguments that astound us all with your brilliant, insightful wit.
posted by anita99 at 11:37 PM on July 4, 2007 [4 favorites]
And no, men are not objectified in the same way that women are. Or else Superman would always be drawn like this and Batman would always be drawn like this. There's a difference between idealizing (the way that male heroes are drawn - muscular and strong) and objectifying (the way that female heroes are drawn - passive, helpless, and in poses that make it look like they're orgasming when they should, you know, be kicking someone in the face). Neither is healthy. But one is not comparable to the other, either. More here.
And I am sick and tired of people telling me to read *other comics* if superhero comics aren't good enough. There's nothing inherently sexist about the X-Men or Spiderman. So there's no excuse for crappy writers and artists to resort to sexism to sell those comics.
Except that sexism doesn't actually sell.
And Stan? People aren't upset that superheroines have big boobs. They're upset at the instances when superheroines who have big boobs are drawn and written as passive, helpless, walking boob-jokes - instead of, as you say, the "strong intelligent ass-kickers" that they are. You could try to actually read some of the links before you dismiss them all as stupid. But then again, if you actually bothered to read the links, then you wouldn't be able to show off your cleverness by posting three totally new and never before seen arguments that astound us all with your brilliant, insightful wit.
posted by anita99 at 11:37 PM on July 4, 2007 [4 favorites]
I would have read them all, but I was kind of distracted by big boobs again.
Listen, in all honesty I don't think there's going to be much ground given up on either side here. This is going to sound after-the-fact, but I've kept up with this debate since the Mary Jane statue debacle. I'm going to tender a suggestion, and that is more support and attention should be given to comics that get it right. A lot of When Fangirls Attack, Girls Read Comics, etc. reads as Outrage! Outrage! Outrage! But as always, getting it right isn't as interesting as outrage most days.
I think there's plenty of fine comics out there that are wonderful to everybody. (Actually, I always amazed when people level attacks at Joss Whedon for his works. Geeez, I thought he was doing pretty good.)
My position, as misogynistic as you want to believe, is that superhero comics are the result of demographics, free market, and institutionalism. I learned to draw from a book called "How to draw comics, the Marvel Way!" by Stan Lee and John Buschema. There's a section in which that describes how to draw the perfect superhero/ine figure in a vaguely Nazi-esque subtext, with glorious blonde haired men and well-endowed women. Idealism of the human form, is one of the basics of the superhero genre.
Now, ALSO, this idealism got fucked in the head during the 90s, and pervasive sexism got way out of hand in comics. (I, like everybody, blame Rob Liefield). If you were to compare comics from the 80s to the 90s, there's no doubt that women were getting way way way unrealistically beyond the original "Marvel Way."
And you know what happened? The comics market essentially crashed during the 90s. Not ALL because of the big boobedness of Witchblade, Lady Death, etc., but it's indicative of the line of thinking during the 90s, where comics were desperate for flash and polybags. And of course "flash = big boobs" to comics editors.
Now, having said all of that, my general position is, the market corrects itself. No doubt, that right now is an opportunity for comics to bring in an entire audience of readers that it threw away in the 90s. Are they fucking it up? Yes, yes they are. In which case, I agree with the Outrage. But I think that there are others taking up its slack, and they will rise to the top. Support the comics that present women correctly, bring them to light, and that's the best way this whole situation's gonna be solved.
There has never been a more prime ability for comics to save itself through independent publishing as it does now. This isn't like the movies or video games that have huge beuracracies that prevent people from publishing quality work. I think what the major shops like DC/Marvel are doing now, are (perhaps wrongly) emphasizing their base of hormonal guys like they did in the 90s due to independent competition. This is unfortunate.
My main WTF, is the outrage against the comics built for the hormonal guy base. They are what they are. I see it as wishing for unicorns. Just leave them behind, they'll die like they did in the 90s. Editors will start hiring talent that weren't borne from that decade, and start picking up real talent. Just you know, help the market support and celebrate what's right.
posted by Stan Chin at 12:27 AM on July 5, 2007
Listen, in all honesty I don't think there's going to be much ground given up on either side here. This is going to sound after-the-fact, but I've kept up with this debate since the Mary Jane statue debacle. I'm going to tender a suggestion, and that is more support and attention should be given to comics that get it right. A lot of When Fangirls Attack, Girls Read Comics, etc. reads as Outrage! Outrage! Outrage! But as always, getting it right isn't as interesting as outrage most days.
I think there's plenty of fine comics out there that are wonderful to everybody. (Actually, I always amazed when people level attacks at Joss Whedon for his works. Geeez, I thought he was doing pretty good.)
My position, as misogynistic as you want to believe, is that superhero comics are the result of demographics, free market, and institutionalism. I learned to draw from a book called "How to draw comics, the Marvel Way!" by Stan Lee and John Buschema. There's a section in which that describes how to draw the perfect superhero/ine figure in a vaguely Nazi-esque subtext, with glorious blonde haired men and well-endowed women. Idealism of the human form, is one of the basics of the superhero genre.
Now, ALSO, this idealism got fucked in the head during the 90s, and pervasive sexism got way out of hand in comics. (I, like everybody, blame Rob Liefield). If you were to compare comics from the 80s to the 90s, there's no doubt that women were getting way way way unrealistically beyond the original "Marvel Way."
And you know what happened? The comics market essentially crashed during the 90s. Not ALL because of the big boobedness of Witchblade, Lady Death, etc., but it's indicative of the line of thinking during the 90s, where comics were desperate for flash and polybags. And of course "flash = big boobs" to comics editors.
Now, having said all of that, my general position is, the market corrects itself. No doubt, that right now is an opportunity for comics to bring in an entire audience of readers that it threw away in the 90s. Are they fucking it up? Yes, yes they are. In which case, I agree with the Outrage. But I think that there are others taking up its slack, and they will rise to the top. Support the comics that present women correctly, bring them to light, and that's the best way this whole situation's gonna be solved.
There has never been a more prime ability for comics to save itself through independent publishing as it does now. This isn't like the movies or video games that have huge beuracracies that prevent people from publishing quality work. I think what the major shops like DC/Marvel are doing now, are (perhaps wrongly) emphasizing their base of hormonal guys like they did in the 90s due to independent competition. This is unfortunate.
My main WTF, is the outrage against the comics built for the hormonal guy base. They are what they are. I see it as wishing for unicorns. Just leave them behind, they'll die like they did in the 90s. Editors will start hiring talent that weren't borne from that decade, and start picking up real talent. Just you know, help the market support and celebrate what's right.
posted by Stan Chin at 12:27 AM on July 5, 2007
You know, it's difficult to argue that there isn't some element of misogyny in an industry that created Infinite Rape Crisis, but TBH from the comics I read it doesn't seem to be more so than in movies, TV, or other branches of popular culture*... how comes it's always the "comics are misogynist" post we see here? ANd always in such blanket terms?
And that Bingo thing is a bit annoying... it doesn't really counter any objections to the "comics are all misogynist" so much as recontextualise them or put words in the mouths of the objector to make them seem foolish. Totally strawman tastic. And Manga shouldn't be mentioned becuase only superhero comics count? WTF?
* Admittedly I tend to filter for comics I consider to be good, which may possibly shield me from some of the worst excesses. Like most of the rape-crisis crossovers TBH.
posted by Artw at 12:57 AM on July 5, 2007
And that Bingo thing is a bit annoying... it doesn't really counter any objections to the "comics are all misogynist" so much as recontextualise them or put words in the mouths of the objector to make them seem foolish. Totally strawman tastic. And Manga shouldn't be mentioned becuase only superhero comics count? WTF?
* Admittedly I tend to filter for comics I consider to be good, which may possibly shield me from some of the worst excesses. Like most of the rape-crisis crossovers TBH.
posted by Artw at 12:57 AM on July 5, 2007
Stan -
A *lot* of the things linked on WFA are praising and gushing. I know that actually reading the people that you're dismissing with blanket statements might be a herculean mental effort for a guy that keeps getting distracted by boobies, but you should give it a shot sometime.
Artw - When people are talking about superhero comics specifically, then yeah, manga doesn't "count" as a counter-argument. That would be like, say, if you were complaining that the latest Die Hard movie had some flaws, and somebody answered you with, "Yeah, well, if you don't like it, you should just shut up and watch The Princess Diaries!"
posted by anita99 at 2:01 AM on July 5, 2007
A *lot* of the things linked on WFA are praising and gushing. I know that actually reading the people that you're dismissing with blanket statements might be a herculean mental effort for a guy that keeps getting distracted by boobies, but you should give it a shot sometime.
Artw - When people are talking about superhero comics specifically, then yeah, manga doesn't "count" as a counter-argument. That would be like, say, if you were complaining that the latest Die Hard movie had some flaws, and somebody answered you with, "Yeah, well, if you don't like it, you should just shut up and watch The Princess Diaries!"
posted by anita99 at 2:01 AM on July 5, 2007
As a manga reader, I can tell you that what turned me off comics was not the big boobs and misogyny, it was all of those comics about sad comic book artists who are just so misunderstood by girls, by the world, whatever. Blankets was the last straw.
And why would anyone suggest that manga would be enjoyable for someone who has feminist objections to the way women are portrayed in comics? Manga not only has the big boobs, it also has tentacle rape, and the "I want to be a bride!" career goal.
posted by betweenthebars at 3:59 AM on July 5, 2007 [1 favorite]
And why would anyone suggest that manga would be enjoyable for someone who has feminist objections to the way women are portrayed in comics? Manga not only has the big boobs, it also has tentacle rape, and the "I want to be a bride!" career goal.
posted by betweenthebars at 3:59 AM on July 5, 2007 [1 favorite]
Nothing. I *like* The Princess Diaries. ;) But I like Die Hard, too. And I'm sick of being told that I'm not allowed to talk/write/discuss about Die Hard just because The Princess Diaries exists.
Replace "The Princess Diaries" with "manga" and "Die Hard" with "superhero comics," and you get the picture.
posted by anita99 at 4:01 AM on July 5, 2007
Replace "The Princess Diaries" with "manga" and "Die Hard" with "superhero comics," and you get the picture.
posted by anita99 at 4:01 AM on July 5, 2007
I too, like The Princess Diares ("Royal Engagement" not so much though), and I guess I'm tired of being told that I should be ashamed that I'm amused by superhero comics that pander to my hormones at the expense of women.
Well, I think this ended on mostly good terms. Merry Christmas and God Bless Everyone.
posted by Stan Chin at 4:20 AM on July 5, 2007
Well, I think this ended on mostly good terms. Merry Christmas and God Bless Everyone.
posted by Stan Chin at 4:20 AM on July 5, 2007
anita99 what is your suggested solution to the pervasive misogyny present in superhero comics?
posted by slimepuppy at 4:45 AM on July 5, 2007
posted by slimepuppy at 4:45 AM on July 5, 2007
This is an excellent read comparing "sexy" with "sexist." Stan Chin, slimepuppy, women don't have to be drawn ugly, but neither do they have to be drawn like they're about to face a tentacle raping. There's a huge difference, and the author links to a lot of good art highlighting that fact.
posted by Anonymous at 6:54 AM on July 5, 2007
posted by Anonymous at 6:54 AM on July 5, 2007
Isn't the primary market for superhero comics 30 year old man-childs who can't get laid anyway? What do you expect.
posted by delmoi at 7:16 AM on July 5, 2007
posted by delmoi at 7:16 AM on July 5, 2007
Schroedinger, my question is still unanswered. I understand and completely agree with the statement that superhero comics are filled with really unhealthy (physically, socially, psychologically) female role models. But what is being done to challenge this notion? I mean, besides having lots of counter examples of superhero comics where the stereotype is not pandered to and a healthy, open discussion happening within the industry? What more is there that can be done?
But thanks for assuming my question meant that I want hurf durf no fat chix in comix.
(And more to the point, I agree with Warren Ellis on superhero comics. They're the lowest common denominator of comic books, with some noteable exceptions.)
posted by slimepuppy at 7:57 AM on July 5, 2007
But thanks for assuming my question meant that I want hurf durf no fat chix in comix.
(And more to the point, I agree with Warren Ellis on superhero comics. They're the lowest common denominator of comic books, with some noteable exceptions.)
posted by slimepuppy at 7:57 AM on July 5, 2007
The decades of working under the cross-promotional business and narrative model means that traditional superhero comics are really just officially sanctioned fanfic. And this sexual controversy is really just arguing over whether it's "in character" or not. Except in this case, the "character" is the entire grotesquely convoluted DC/Marvel-verse, a humongous patchwork meme that provides comfortable familiarity for the fans, and a easy, steady business plan for the publishers.
This is a major reason of why I prefer manga. The manga publishing model keeps these sort of schizophrenic fanfic-esque pressures to a minimum. If you want epic god-slaying heroines uncompromised by chauvanistic sexual titillation, there are titles like Nausicaa. If you want heroines quite blatantly compromised by chauvanistic sexual titillation, there are titles like Negima. And despite this huge disparity, there's none of the stupid sexual waffling that comes with the traditional superhero publishing model, because no one has to fight over the same memetic territory.
Some people like having everything on the same memetic territory. All I can advise them is to be resigned to perpetual disappointment, because sharing your territory means constant compromise.
posted by PsychoKick at 8:30 AM on July 5, 2007 [2 favorites]
This is a major reason of why I prefer manga. The manga publishing model keeps these sort of schizophrenic fanfic-esque pressures to a minimum. If you want epic god-slaying heroines uncompromised by chauvanistic sexual titillation, there are titles like Nausicaa. If you want heroines quite blatantly compromised by chauvanistic sexual titillation, there are titles like Negima. And despite this huge disparity, there's none of the stupid sexual waffling that comes with the traditional superhero publishing model, because no one has to fight over the same memetic territory.
Some people like having everything on the same memetic territory. All I can advise them is to be resigned to perpetual disappointment, because sharing your territory means constant compromise.
posted by PsychoKick at 8:30 AM on July 5, 2007 [2 favorites]
As an addendum, the rate at which things will improve for superhero comics is highly dependant upon the rate at which the fans of superhero comics abandon Marvel/DC and its corresponding cross-promotional business and narrative model. Unfortunately, the fans are extremely attached to the heroes and shared canon of Marvel/DC. Improvement will therefore be very slow, relying entirely on the independant publishers and their ability (or lack therof) to counter the tremendous memetic inertia of Marvel/DC.
posted by PsychoKick at 8:42 AM on July 5, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by PsychoKick at 8:42 AM on July 5, 2007 [1 favorite]
PsychoKick speaks truth.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:47 AM on July 5, 2007
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:47 AM on July 5, 2007
anita99,
since you've lumped me and stan together (which is unfortunate since I don't agree with everything he said) I'm going to have to assume that everything you wrote in your response is directed at me as much as at Stan. If this isn't the case, do me the favor of letting me know when you are responding to me more specifically.
No, superhero comics did not start as a genre for boys. I mean, look at the old comics - filled with advertisements for beauty and dress-up products AND x-ray glasses and decoder rings.
They don't pick their advertisers, their advertisers pick them. But, in fairness, I don't have the stats in front of me and I'm at work and don't want to take the time to look them up. If it turns out that comics had nearly as many female readers as male back in the day I'll back off that point. The fact does remain, however, that at some point the superhero genre became the domain of an overwhelmingly male fanbase. The rest of what I said takes off from there.
And no, men are not objectified in the same way that women are.
Ah, then it's a good thing I never said they were. I said that superhero books are "a type of fiction that caters to poor self-image and unrealistic personal and social expectations." Yes, women are objectified, and the imagery of men in books is not one of objectification. But you don't get to use the word "objectification" as if it were the be all and end all of poor self-image in society. The portrayal of men as beefy emotionless stereotypes who are either handsome or evil is, in my mind, at least as serious a problem as the objectification of women in the books, if not more so. If you think objectification is much worse, then there's nothing I can say. It's a value judgment. That's mine, yours is your business. But if you believe that I'm arguing that men are objectified the way women are, this is me making it as plain as I can that that's simply not what I said. I don't recall Stan saying it either, but that's up to him to say.
But one is not comparable to the other, either.
Yes they are. The idea that objectification is the only form of self-image problem worth discussing is absurd.
And I am sick and tired of people telling me to read *other comics* if superhero comics aren't good enough.
Well, it seems to me that you're very specifically not replying to me when you say that, but just in case you've lumped Stan and me together in your head, allow me to be clear that I never said that, and don't believe it.
Except that sexism doesn't actually sell.
Yeah, you can keep your random blog rants. Sexism does sell to some people. It is not the motivating drive behind all comic book sales, though. But SEX is certainly one of them. Selling sex, in whatever subtle or not-so-subtle form, is not selling sexism. The sexism exists, but it's not what they're selling. It's a side effect. It's one something certainly should be done about, but it's not the product they're selling. They're just selling something that a little hormonal boy is going to want to buy, and part of that is women in tight outfits with unnaturally top heavy bodies. Your article talks about how the comic book companies should be making a move to bring women into the superhero genres, and that the success of the recent comic movie trend proes it's possible. Bullshit. Comics have been trying to do that for years. Everybody who can SPELL business knows that if a market doesn't grow it stagnates and dies. The comics have been trying to go mainstream and cross-culture for decades, from back when they made Wonder Woman a non-powered businesswoman (totally disaster, financially, btw) to the Spider-man tv show and the Batman cartoons. These things almost never result in a return on the books. Why? Why is there so little movement among women toward the books, even if they're in the audience for the movies and tv shows? Why are there so many boys who watch the tv shows but don't read the books? Shit, ask a sociologist. What drives women to markets versus what drives men to them has been a subject of debate and conjecture for as long as people have been selling things. Same for what drives every sub-classification of human beings you can think of. It's not as simple as "women don't buy superhero books because they have dumb big titted blondes in them." most high school girls would be hard pressed to tell you WHAT'S in a superhero book, much less whether there were any dumb big-titted blondes in them. There's an entire culture's worth of social pressures and mores that lead one person to the books and another away. This is not to say that there isn't a problem with the depiction of women, or that that problem shouldn't be fixed. But the idea that there's an audience just waiting to be captured when the genre "grows up" is laughable at best. It's just not that simple.
posted by shmegegge at 8:47 AM on July 5, 2007 [1 favorite]
since you've lumped me and stan together (which is unfortunate since I don't agree with everything he said) I'm going to have to assume that everything you wrote in your response is directed at me as much as at Stan. If this isn't the case, do me the favor of letting me know when you are responding to me more specifically.
No, superhero comics did not start as a genre for boys. I mean, look at the old comics - filled with advertisements for beauty and dress-up products AND x-ray glasses and decoder rings.
They don't pick their advertisers, their advertisers pick them. But, in fairness, I don't have the stats in front of me and I'm at work and don't want to take the time to look them up. If it turns out that comics had nearly as many female readers as male back in the day I'll back off that point. The fact does remain, however, that at some point the superhero genre became the domain of an overwhelmingly male fanbase. The rest of what I said takes off from there.
And no, men are not objectified in the same way that women are.
Ah, then it's a good thing I never said they were. I said that superhero books are "a type of fiction that caters to poor self-image and unrealistic personal and social expectations." Yes, women are objectified, and the imagery of men in books is not one of objectification. But you don't get to use the word "objectification" as if it were the be all and end all of poor self-image in society. The portrayal of men as beefy emotionless stereotypes who are either handsome or evil is, in my mind, at least as serious a problem as the objectification of women in the books, if not more so. If you think objectification is much worse, then there's nothing I can say. It's a value judgment. That's mine, yours is your business. But if you believe that I'm arguing that men are objectified the way women are, this is me making it as plain as I can that that's simply not what I said. I don't recall Stan saying it either, but that's up to him to say.
But one is not comparable to the other, either.
Yes they are. The idea that objectification is the only form of self-image problem worth discussing is absurd.
And I am sick and tired of people telling me to read *other comics* if superhero comics aren't good enough.
Well, it seems to me that you're very specifically not replying to me when you say that, but just in case you've lumped Stan and me together in your head, allow me to be clear that I never said that, and don't believe it.
Except that sexism doesn't actually sell.
Yeah, you can keep your random blog rants. Sexism does sell to some people. It is not the motivating drive behind all comic book sales, though. But SEX is certainly one of them. Selling sex, in whatever subtle or not-so-subtle form, is not selling sexism. The sexism exists, but it's not what they're selling. It's a side effect. It's one something certainly should be done about, but it's not the product they're selling. They're just selling something that a little hormonal boy is going to want to buy, and part of that is women in tight outfits with unnaturally top heavy bodies. Your article talks about how the comic book companies should be making a move to bring women into the superhero genres, and that the success of the recent comic movie trend proes it's possible. Bullshit. Comics have been trying to do that for years. Everybody who can SPELL business knows that if a market doesn't grow it stagnates and dies. The comics have been trying to go mainstream and cross-culture for decades, from back when they made Wonder Woman a non-powered businesswoman (totally disaster, financially, btw) to the Spider-man tv show and the Batman cartoons. These things almost never result in a return on the books. Why? Why is there so little movement among women toward the books, even if they're in the audience for the movies and tv shows? Why are there so many boys who watch the tv shows but don't read the books? Shit, ask a sociologist. What drives women to markets versus what drives men to them has been a subject of debate and conjecture for as long as people have been selling things. Same for what drives every sub-classification of human beings you can think of. It's not as simple as "women don't buy superhero books because they have dumb big titted blondes in them." most high school girls would be hard pressed to tell you WHAT'S in a superhero book, much less whether there were any dumb big-titted blondes in them. There's an entire culture's worth of social pressures and mores that lead one person to the books and another away. This is not to say that there isn't a problem with the depiction of women, or that that problem shouldn't be fixed. But the idea that there's an audience just waiting to be captured when the genre "grows up" is laughable at best. It's just not that simple.
posted by shmegegge at 8:47 AM on July 5, 2007 [1 favorite]
Artw - When people are talking about superhero comics specifically, then yeah, manga doesn't "count" as a counter-argument.
Sure - IF people are talking about superhero comics specifically.
posted by Artw at 8:48 AM on July 5, 2007
Sure - IF people are talking about superhero comics specifically.
posted by Artw at 8:48 AM on July 5, 2007
Man, I really hate manga, as a style, and no amount of praise of its complexity is going to make the fact that big-eyed girl-children give me the heebie skeevies go away.
It's like if you could only see Shakespeare being performed by people in clown makeup. Sure, the words would be the same, but...clowns! Agh!
Isn't the primary market for superhero comics 30 year old man-childs who can't get laid anyway? What do you expect.
Well, but the industry itself constantly wrings its hands over declining sales. And yet, if you only cater to a (hopefully) shrinking part of the population, as in aforesaid man-childs, then what can you expect? And yet, whenever women/gays/people of color say "I like comics, but I'd buy them a lot more if they weren't so stupid/sexist/racist/homophobic!" the response is chirping crickets. Or the occasional lipstick lesbian Batwoman.
The arguments that hero comic books, because of their origins, must be and remain inherently sexist is just simpleminded and wrong, and yes, irritating to those of us who would like to read about blasting bad guys without also having to look at women with pornface instead of an actual expression.
posted by emjaybee at 8:50 AM on July 5, 2007
It's like if you could only see Shakespeare being performed by people in clown makeup. Sure, the words would be the same, but...clowns! Agh!
Isn't the primary market for superhero comics 30 year old man-childs who can't get laid anyway? What do you expect.
Well, but the industry itself constantly wrings its hands over declining sales. And yet, if you only cater to a (hopefully) shrinking part of the population, as in aforesaid man-childs, then what can you expect? And yet, whenever women/gays/people of color say "I like comics, but I'd buy them a lot more if they weren't so stupid/sexist/racist/homophobic!" the response is chirping crickets. Or the occasional lipstick lesbian Batwoman.
The arguments that hero comic books, because of their origins, must be and remain inherently sexist is just simpleminded and wrong, and yes, irritating to those of us who would like to read about blasting bad guys without also having to look at women with pornface instead of an actual expression.
posted by emjaybee at 8:50 AM on July 5, 2007
The bottom line is that the comic industry is simply not tenable as an entertainment medium. The only thing that keeps it going is nostalgia and people who are wrapped up in the soap-opera plots (like a housewife hooked on 'watching her stories'), this is especially true with super-hero comics IMO. The costs are too high to sell comics at a price kids can afford.
When I got into comics as a kid, comics cost $1. Adjusted for inflation, that would be about $1.57 in today's money. But according to wikipedia the cover price of a comic is $3 and is jammed full of ads as well. Comic books are just too expensive for new people to get into. And the thing is, since the creative costs are independent of number sold, fewer buyers mean a higher cover price, so it's a self-reinforcing problem. Comics just aren't worth the cost unless you're invested in the story lines.
And, paradoxically, the price reinforces the age thing, since only independent adults can really afford the prices.
Ironically, if you look at the most successful U.S. Comic book, it's Archie, and that attracts of girl readers.
posted by delmoi at 11:42 AM on July 5, 2007
When I got into comics as a kid, comics cost $1. Adjusted for inflation, that would be about $1.57 in today's money. But according to wikipedia the cover price of a comic is $3 and is jammed full of ads as well. Comic books are just too expensive for new people to get into. And the thing is, since the creative costs are independent of number sold, fewer buyers mean a higher cover price, so it's a self-reinforcing problem. Comics just aren't worth the cost unless you're invested in the story lines.
And, paradoxically, the price reinforces the age thing, since only independent adults can really afford the prices.
Ironically, if you look at the most successful U.S. Comic book, it's Archie, and that attracts of girl readers.
posted by delmoi at 11:42 AM on July 5, 2007
The bottom line is that the comic industry is simply not tenable as an entertainment medium. The only thing that keeps it going is nostalgia and people who are wrapped up in the soap-opera plots
Define terms, please. This ("the only thing" -- which is TWO things -- shame on you, delmoi!) may be true of mainstream superhero comics; it is not true of almost any other comics. The $3+ per 20-some-odd-page pamphlet model may well be untenable...though this format appears to headed for the same graveyard in which the 8-track and the vinyl record have been long interred, their demise hastening the demise of popular music not one iota.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 1:08 PM on July 5, 2007
Define terms, please. This ("the only thing" -- which is TWO things -- shame on you, delmoi!) may be true of mainstream superhero comics; it is not true of almost any other comics. The $3+ per 20-some-odd-page pamphlet model may well be untenable...though this format appears to headed for the same graveyard in which the 8-track and the vinyl record have been long interred, their demise hastening the demise of popular music not one iota.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 1:08 PM on July 5, 2007
I think it's worth noting that the dramatic rise in comics prices happened either during or shortly after the period in the 90's when popular artists started earning in the millions for their work, and that since then the price has been justified by printing on glossy magazine paper with expensive digital color separations and printings. One may hope that eventually they'll go back to recycled newsprint and less expensive coloring and then pass the savings onto the consumer. But to be honest they'll probably go back to newsprint and cheap coloring and keep the savings for themselves.
posted by shmegegge at 1:16 PM on July 5, 2007
posted by shmegegge at 1:16 PM on July 5, 2007
"But you don't get to use the word "objectification" as if it were the be all and end all of poor self-image in society. The portrayal of men as beefy emotionless stereotypes who are either handsome or evil is, in my mind, at least as serious a problem as the objectification of women in the books, if not more so."
That's a deranged straw man to lay into. Beefy emotionless stereotypes? You must not have read a comic since '64. Male heroes are complex balls of waffling, angst and histrionics. Even Wolverine, the nadir of anti-hero bullshit at Marvel, is constantly launching into inner monologues about his animal nature. And the best example of a beefy, emotionless destruction machine is The Hulk, who's about as blunt a psychological allegory as you can get.
And why again is this more dangerous? Because it affects your emotional fiefdom?
"Yes they are. The idea that objectification is the only form of self-image problem worth discussing is absurd."
No, they're not, and it takes a remarkably self-serving viewpoint to argue that they are or that women and men have equal representation in comics. In fact, based on your previous argument, I might surmise that you just don't read very many comics at all.
"Yeah, you can keep your random blog rants. Sexism does sell to some people. It is not the motivating drive behind all comic book sales, though. But SEX is certainly one of them. Selling sex, in whatever subtle or not-so-subtle form, is not selling sexism. The sexism exists, but it's not what they're selling. It's a side effect. It's one something certainly should be done about, but it's not the product they're selling. They're just selling something that a little hormonal boy is going to want to buy, and part of that is women in tight outfits with unnaturally top heavy bodies."
Oh, Christ, I'm not sure whether I'm more annoyed by your question begging or by your inability to get the points made here. Go ahead and reread this.
"Your article talks about how the comic book companies should be making a move to bring women into the superhero genres, and that the success of the recent comic movie trend proes it's possible. Bullshit."
Y'know, if you hadn't just assumed that the world conformed to your assumptions and had backed up that with actual facts, I'd be a lot more likely to think that it wasn't just the shit-flinging of a piqued fanboy. Women's readership of superhero comics HAS been growing. The comics industry has made some movement toward a more inclusive aesthetic, and it has been rewarded. What it doesn't need is more reactionary bullshit from people who are so used to being pandered to that they get snippy when it's implied that maybe that pandering is bad for the overall survival of the medium.
posted by klangklangston at 1:54 PM on July 5, 2007
That's a deranged straw man to lay into. Beefy emotionless stereotypes? You must not have read a comic since '64. Male heroes are complex balls of waffling, angst and histrionics. Even Wolverine, the nadir of anti-hero bullshit at Marvel, is constantly launching into inner monologues about his animal nature. And the best example of a beefy, emotionless destruction machine is The Hulk, who's about as blunt a psychological allegory as you can get.
And why again is this more dangerous? Because it affects your emotional fiefdom?
"Yes they are. The idea that objectification is the only form of self-image problem worth discussing is absurd."
No, they're not, and it takes a remarkably self-serving viewpoint to argue that they are or that women and men have equal representation in comics. In fact, based on your previous argument, I might surmise that you just don't read very many comics at all.
"Yeah, you can keep your random blog rants. Sexism does sell to some people. It is not the motivating drive behind all comic book sales, though. But SEX is certainly one of them. Selling sex, in whatever subtle or not-so-subtle form, is not selling sexism. The sexism exists, but it's not what they're selling. It's a side effect. It's one something certainly should be done about, but it's not the product they're selling. They're just selling something that a little hormonal boy is going to want to buy, and part of that is women in tight outfits with unnaturally top heavy bodies."
Oh, Christ, I'm not sure whether I'm more annoyed by your question begging or by your inability to get the points made here. Go ahead and reread this.
"Your article talks about how the comic book companies should be making a move to bring women into the superhero genres, and that the success of the recent comic movie trend proes it's possible. Bullshit."
Y'know, if you hadn't just assumed that the world conformed to your assumptions and had backed up that with actual facts, I'd be a lot more likely to think that it wasn't just the shit-flinging of a piqued fanboy. Women's readership of superhero comics HAS been growing. The comics industry has made some movement toward a more inclusive aesthetic, and it has been rewarded. What it doesn't need is more reactionary bullshit from people who are so used to being pandered to that they get snippy when it's implied that maybe that pandering is bad for the overall survival of the medium.
posted by klangklangston at 1:54 PM on July 5, 2007
And that Bingo thing is a bit annoying... it doesn't really counter any objections to the "comics are all misogynist" so much as recontextualise them or put words in the mouths of the objector to make them seem foolish.
Did you miss the point-by-point rebuttal that comes with it? I think they've done an admirable (if somewhat snarky) job in countering these objections.
And not to put too fine a point on it, but some of these objections ("women should just learn to stay out of the superhero section!" "Men are objectified too, that's why mainstream comics are CHOCK-FULL OF ERECT COCK!") are just plain ridiculous, and don't really deserve much of a rebuttal in the first place.
posted by vorfeed at 1:55 PM on July 5, 2007
Did you miss the point-by-point rebuttal that comes with it? I think they've done an admirable (if somewhat snarky) job in countering these objections.
And not to put too fine a point on it, but some of these objections ("women should just learn to stay out of the superhero section!" "Men are objectified too, that's why mainstream comics are CHOCK-FULL OF ERECT COCK!") are just plain ridiculous, and don't really deserve much of a rebuttal in the first place.
posted by vorfeed at 1:55 PM on July 5, 2007
"I think it's worth noting that the dramatic rise in comics prices happened either during or shortly after the period in the 90's when popular artists started earning in the millions for their work, and that since then the price has been justified by printing on glossy magazine paper with expensive digital color separations and printings. One may hope that eventually they'll go back to recycled newsprint and less expensive coloring and then pass the savings onto the consumer. But to be honest they'll probably go back to newsprint and cheap coloring and keep the savings for themselves."
Well, except the price was generally justified by huge increases in paper prices, newsprint included, and the advertising falloff of the '90s. And arguing for reduced digital seperation is like arguing for handset type— not gonna happen, and directly counter to the survival of the medium.
posted by klangklangston at 1:59 PM on July 5, 2007
Well, except the price was generally justified by huge increases in paper prices, newsprint included, and the advertising falloff of the '90s. And arguing for reduced digital seperation is like arguing for handset type— not gonna happen, and directly counter to the survival of the medium.
posted by klangklangston at 1:59 PM on July 5, 2007
Did you miss the point-by-point rebuttal that comes with it? I think they've done an admirable (if somewhat snarky) job in countering these objections.
That would be the annoying bit.
posted by Artw at 2:19 PM on July 5, 2007
That would be the annoying bit.
posted by Artw at 2:19 PM on July 5, 2007
Speaking as someone who's read entirely too many comics blogs and message boards over the years, I promise you that the points addressed in the bingo game are NOT strawmen. Every one of those arguments has been made by I can't tell you how many people, each of them apparently under the impression they'd invented the argument in question right there on the spot.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 2:37 PM on July 5, 2007
posted by kittens for breakfast at 2:37 PM on July 5, 2007
Well, you'd expect them to come up a lot, seeing as when you strip them of them of the "anyone who says this is bad and wrong" framing many of them are completely reasonable and obvious.
posted by Artw at 2:43 PM on July 5, 2007
posted by Artw at 2:43 PM on July 5, 2007
Obvious? Yeah. Reasonable? Try retarded.
posted by klangklangston at 2:47 PM on July 5, 2007
posted by klangklangston at 2:47 PM on July 5, 2007
yay! it's the klangklangston show again! where making a cogent point or understanding someone else's point comes secondary to shit flinging and name calling!
Yeah, nothing you said even remotely resembles a decent rebuttal of my points. Furthermore, you've lumped me into a category of hardcore fans who frothingly defend their favorite medium to the death (ignoring where I point out that all the problems of female depictions in superhero books are, in fact, a problem that needs to be addressed) while at the same time saying I haven't read any books in years. You're not even internally consistent. Come back when you can make a cogent point.
I mean, for real: "What it doesn't need is more reactionary bullshit from people who are so used to being pandered to that they get snippy when it's implied that maybe that pandering is bad for the overall survival of the medium." Really? That's what you took away from what I said? You have some fucked up reading comprehension there, sir. You apparently missed the entire part where I did nothing but criticise the medium you claim is pandering to me. Oh but you couldn't have missed that part, because you vigorously defended that medium while you accused me of getting all snippy about it. Talk about simpering fanboys getting snippy. Look, I sympathize, because I know jumping in at the last second to call somone retarded is your thing and all, but this is pathetic. Take a breath, go for a walk, come back to mefi and before you type anything try saying this to yourself a couple times: "Not everything I disagree with is retarded. Nobody cares what I think about anything."
posted by shmegegge at 3:24 PM on July 5, 2007
Yeah, nothing you said even remotely resembles a decent rebuttal of my points. Furthermore, you've lumped me into a category of hardcore fans who frothingly defend their favorite medium to the death (ignoring where I point out that all the problems of female depictions in superhero books are, in fact, a problem that needs to be addressed) while at the same time saying I haven't read any books in years. You're not even internally consistent. Come back when you can make a cogent point.
I mean, for real: "What it doesn't need is more reactionary bullshit from people who are so used to being pandered to that they get snippy when it's implied that maybe that pandering is bad for the overall survival of the medium." Really? That's what you took away from what I said? You have some fucked up reading comprehension there, sir. You apparently missed the entire part where I did nothing but criticise the medium you claim is pandering to me. Oh but you couldn't have missed that part, because you vigorously defended that medium while you accused me of getting all snippy about it. Talk about simpering fanboys getting snippy. Look, I sympathize, because I know jumping in at the last second to call somone retarded is your thing and all, but this is pathetic. Take a breath, go for a walk, come back to mefi and before you type anything try saying this to yourself a couple times: "Not everything I disagree with is retarded. Nobody cares what I think about anything."
posted by shmegegge at 3:24 PM on July 5, 2007
Not all that retarded. Honestly, if you strip it of all the snark and framing that makes them retarded half of them translate to "Hey, if you don't like the comics that are crap and sexist why don't you try the comics that aren't crap and sexist instead?". Seems like a reasonable point, and it's totally not addressed.
posted by Artw at 3:25 PM on July 5, 2007
posted by Artw at 3:25 PM on July 5, 2007
Oh, shmegegge, heal thyself.
Or: Not everything I disagree with is retarded. That does not mean that everything I disagree with is not retarded, as exemplified by your ignorant positing of "emotionless" males and hackneyed attempts at justifying sexism in comics.
And yeah, I love comics. I'm not going to apologize for that, or see why your dislike of comics somehow removes the necessity of you supporting your case. Come back when you have more than apoplectic shit-flinging.
posted by klangklangston at 3:44 PM on July 5, 2007
Or: Not everything I disagree with is retarded. That does not mean that everything I disagree with is not retarded, as exemplified by your ignorant positing of "emotionless" males and hackneyed attempts at justifying sexism in comics.
And yeah, I love comics. I'm not going to apologize for that, or see why your dislike of comics somehow removes the necessity of you supporting your case. Come back when you have more than apoplectic shit-flinging.
posted by klangklangston at 3:44 PM on July 5, 2007
I've spent the day mulling this over, and I think Artw kind of points to the general argument from both sides of this whole deal, and that is:
Why can't shitty comics be better?
Pretty stupid when it's put that way. It's also the same argument about objectification in WWE professional wrestling, and many other boyzone-areas. They're shit. And they exist. Shitty things, exist. Shitty things are usually immensely popular. It's disappointing, but it's not unfair.
My point of view is that there are comics that are complete shit. I enjoy them, you don't. Why is that not okay? There are much better not-shitty comics out there, mainstream superhero comics in fact. Well written, not-pandering, and tastefully drawn. This entire argument is based around the worst of the superhero industry. It confuses me that there's so much anger over having shitty comics existing.
Now instead of saying that sexism in comics is some kind of quality of the genre, which I now believe to be the wrong argument, I'm going to say that sexism exists in shitty comics. It's there, and it's totally wrong. And it's unfortunate that some people don't care. I wish we could call it a day, and just say that they're shitty, wrong, horrible comics, just like professional wrestling is a horrible spectacle. But they still have their place, because some people enjoy shitty comics. Which is wrong. But it's not unfair. It's unfair that there are not more minority or female creators at the major publishers. It's unfair there is no marketing muscle behind good comics. It's unfair that females are ostracized by the creepy "No Girls" atmosphere of comic book stores. Is it unfair that shitty comics exist? Nah. Of course everybody wants shitty comics to be better. What was everybody arguing about in the first place?
posted by Stan Chin at 3:56 PM on July 5, 2007
Why can't shitty comics be better?
Pretty stupid when it's put that way. It's also the same argument about objectification in WWE professional wrestling, and many other boyzone-areas. They're shit. And they exist. Shitty things, exist. Shitty things are usually immensely popular. It's disappointing, but it's not unfair.
My point of view is that there are comics that are complete shit. I enjoy them, you don't. Why is that not okay? There are much better not-shitty comics out there, mainstream superhero comics in fact. Well written, not-pandering, and tastefully drawn. This entire argument is based around the worst of the superhero industry. It confuses me that there's so much anger over having shitty comics existing.
Now instead of saying that sexism in comics is some kind of quality of the genre, which I now believe to be the wrong argument, I'm going to say that sexism exists in shitty comics. It's there, and it's totally wrong. And it's unfortunate that some people don't care. I wish we could call it a day, and just say that they're shitty, wrong, horrible comics, just like professional wrestling is a horrible spectacle. But they still have their place, because some people enjoy shitty comics. Which is wrong. But it's not unfair. It's unfair that there are not more minority or female creators at the major publishers. It's unfair there is no marketing muscle behind good comics. It's unfair that females are ostracized by the creepy "No Girls" atmosphere of comic book stores. Is it unfair that shitty comics exist? Nah. Of course everybody wants shitty comics to be better. What was everybody arguing about in the first place?
posted by Stan Chin at 3:56 PM on July 5, 2007
or here's a better idea: go reread what I wrote. Not only do I demonstrate my love for comics in my FIRST comment, which I doubt you read, but I also talk about what's both great and not-so-great about it, without ever getting snippy or offensive to anybody. I've been honest and totally forthright in my regard of the medium, I've acknowledged where progress has been made and acknowledged where it still needs work. My point is internally consistent, and provides as much citation for my premises as you have. And all of this I did without insulting anyone. In fact, the first person to fling shit in this thread, as usual, is you. You're a joke by now. Nobody's agreeing with you, and nobody would miss you if stopped participating in this conversation. Everything was kosher and civil before you stopped by. Do us all a favor and make it kosher and civil again by leaving.
posted by shmegegge at 3:59 PM on July 5, 2007
posted by shmegegge at 3:59 PM on July 5, 2007
Not to sound like a stuck record, but does anyone have any actual solutions/suggestions beyond what I mentioned earlier?
As far as I can tell, no one is saying misogyny doesn't exist in the superhero comic genre. The extent and severity are points of contention, agreed, but not the existence. Arguing about how bad the situation seems to me like semantics. Where are the solutions? Beyond open conversation and a (hopefully) growing trend of realistic representation of women in superhero comics, that is.
Only buy female-friendly superhero comics? Boycott the ones that are blatantly misogynistic? What else can a concerned citizen do?
posted by slimepuppy at 4:18 PM on July 5, 2007
As far as I can tell, no one is saying misogyny doesn't exist in the superhero comic genre. The extent and severity are points of contention, agreed, but not the existence. Arguing about how bad the situation seems to me like semantics. Where are the solutions? Beyond open conversation and a (hopefully) growing trend of realistic representation of women in superhero comics, that is.
Only buy female-friendly superhero comics? Boycott the ones that are blatantly misogynistic? What else can a concerned citizen do?
posted by slimepuppy at 4:18 PM on July 5, 2007
there was somebody who said that the only real solution would be if the marvel/dc fanbase fell away and made room for the indepenent makers so that it was less nostalgia and more quality driving the marketplace. I don't know if that's the only solution, and it sounds like wishful thinking to me, but I imagine that some sort of very strong readership dropoff would be involved in some way. There's hope when you think of folks like Jhonen Vasquez making a more than decent living off of books that have, at times, made fun of the tights and capes genre. But I honestly don't know what would be required. It's all speculation.
posted by shmegegge at 4:23 PM on July 5, 2007
posted by shmegegge at 4:23 PM on July 5, 2007
The graphic novel market is so large now, that it's not hard to find a quality work and gift or recommend them to your friends. I don't think there's a need to explicitly boycott the bad ones, but it's important for the image of the comics industry that there exists a much larger world beyond the big boobed spandex. I think that's really the best way to do it, buy what you enjoy, but gift the comics that are really representative of the best to people who have the wrong view of the industry. I myself, have given The Dark Phoenix Saga as a gift to people that have enjoyed the movie. And that did a lot for them getting into comics.
As I noted before, some comic stores are excessively creepy, which is no surprise that it's more comfortable to look for works in a small section of Barnes and Noble. If you know your local comic store dealer, talk to them about what you can do to make it more accessible to non-fanboys.
posted by Stan Chin at 4:28 PM on July 5, 2007
As I noted before, some comic stores are excessively creepy, which is no surprise that it's more comfortable to look for works in a small section of Barnes and Noble. If you know your local comic store dealer, talk to them about what you can do to make it more accessible to non-fanboys.
posted by Stan Chin at 4:28 PM on July 5, 2007
Stan - you're absolutely right. But I think the tricky thing about superhero comics is that you can have long-running titles featuring beloved characters that are sometimes awesome, and sometimes shitty. So it's not like, say, manga, where if a title is shitty, then a title is shitty. So when a writer takes a totally awesome, iconic character like Wonder Woman and then writes her like shit, that's something worth complaining about, because we know that there's nothing inherently shitty about Wonder Woman or her comic. It's just the writer/artist of the month, or whatever.
And it works. Fan outcry got the Supergirl team to shift in a much better direction, for just one recent example.
You don't ever see anyone complaining about, say, Tarot - because we know what Tarot is, and we know that she's not going to change. But characters like Storm and the Invisible Woman and Misty Knight... That's another issue.
posted by anita99 at 4:30 PM on July 5, 2007 [1 favorite]
And it works. Fan outcry got the Supergirl team to shift in a much better direction, for just one recent example.
You don't ever see anyone complaining about, say, Tarot - because we know what Tarot is, and we know that she's not going to change. But characters like Storm and the Invisible Woman and Misty Knight... That's another issue.
posted by anita99 at 4:30 PM on July 5, 2007 [1 favorite]
"Not only do I demonstrate my love for comics in my FIRST comment, which I doubt you read, but I also talk about what's both great and not-so-great about it, without ever getting snippy or offensive to anybody."
Fair enough. I did read it, and honestly didn't put it together with you. However, the argument that men in comics are worse stereotypes is still unsupported (for every monogamous Superman or Captain America, I can give you an Iron Man or a Human Torch). And it's not only wrong, it's at best tangential to the discussion of women in comics. Sure, I lumped you in with people making moronic arguments about comics— because you were right in there with them. Pandering is OK because the genre exists to pander? That's a stupid, circular argument, and I don't really care if it offends you to say so. Instead of being right, you want points for being consistant? Fuck, that's stupid. Just like the "Dunno. Ask a sociologist. But lemme continue to rant." If you don't like me telling you so, take me to MeTa.
As far as what will "save" superhero comics? A slow broadening, helped along by criticism and active debate, just like criticism and active debate within the fan community helped create a lot of the problems seen in comics today.
posted by klangklangston at 5:05 PM on July 5, 2007
Fair enough. I did read it, and honestly didn't put it together with you. However, the argument that men in comics are worse stereotypes is still unsupported (for every monogamous Superman or Captain America, I can give you an Iron Man or a Human Torch). And it's not only wrong, it's at best tangential to the discussion of women in comics. Sure, I lumped you in with people making moronic arguments about comics— because you were right in there with them. Pandering is OK because the genre exists to pander? That's a stupid, circular argument, and I don't really care if it offends you to say so. Instead of being right, you want points for being consistant? Fuck, that's stupid. Just like the "Dunno. Ask a sociologist. But lemme continue to rant." If you don't like me telling you so, take me to MeTa.
As far as what will "save" superhero comics? A slow broadening, helped along by criticism and active debate, just like criticism and active debate within the fan community helped create a lot of the problems seen in comics today.
posted by klangklangston at 5:05 PM on July 5, 2007
However, the argument that men in comics are worse stereotypes is still unsupported (for every monogamous Superman or Captain America, I can give you an Iron Man or a Human Torch).
Well, it would have to be unsupported. It's a value judgement. You can't really quantify sexism or quantify the impact of stereotyping. You can say what feels worse to you or what you've personally seen worse effects from in the lives of those around you, but it's hardly something you can make an absolute ruling on. I only ever claimed to be representing my own viewpoint as far as the objectifying women argument was concerned, and I only ever brought up the impact on men as a way to say "Look, it's a fucked up genre. It's rife with stuff that puts all kinds of bad shit in the heads of kids with regards to their own self image. I don't think it's because of an inherent sexism in the genre, but rather the result of a more generalized problem with idealizing its characters." If someone thinks the objectification of women in the superhero books is worse, then I can't argue against it, and wouldn't want to if I could. I just wanted to broaden things a bit because I figure it'll help discussing the problem. Maybe I'm wrong. I dunno.
Pandering is OK because the genre exists to pander?
I'm really confused as to what I said that gives this impression, not because I think I never gave that impression but because you're the second person to think I said that. I really don't think pandering to nerdy fanboy's fetishes is okay. I think Stan sort of supported it. I really don't. I'll happily take back anything I said that implies I support the pandering you're talking about.
Just like the "Dunno. Ask a sociologist. But lemme continue to rant." If you don't like me telling you so, take me to MeTa.
I didn't see what I said as ranting. I said I can't tell you why women don't read comic books as much as men do, but I can tell you it's not just big breasted dumb blondes. There are a lot of cultural influences that created that divide. This isn't wrong. Do you honestly disagree and think that big titted superheroines are the only thing keeping some women from reading superhero books?
posted by shmegegge at 6:41 PM on July 5, 2007
Well, it would have to be unsupported. It's a value judgement. You can't really quantify sexism or quantify the impact of stereotyping. You can say what feels worse to you or what you've personally seen worse effects from in the lives of those around you, but it's hardly something you can make an absolute ruling on. I only ever claimed to be representing my own viewpoint as far as the objectifying women argument was concerned, and I only ever brought up the impact on men as a way to say "Look, it's a fucked up genre. It's rife with stuff that puts all kinds of bad shit in the heads of kids with regards to their own self image. I don't think it's because of an inherent sexism in the genre, but rather the result of a more generalized problem with idealizing its characters." If someone thinks the objectification of women in the superhero books is worse, then I can't argue against it, and wouldn't want to if I could. I just wanted to broaden things a bit because I figure it'll help discussing the problem. Maybe I'm wrong. I dunno.
Pandering is OK because the genre exists to pander?
I'm really confused as to what I said that gives this impression, not because I think I never gave that impression but because you're the second person to think I said that. I really don't think pandering to nerdy fanboy's fetishes is okay. I think Stan sort of supported it. I really don't. I'll happily take back anything I said that implies I support the pandering you're talking about.
Just like the "Dunno. Ask a sociologist. But lemme continue to rant." If you don't like me telling you so, take me to MeTa.
I didn't see what I said as ranting. I said I can't tell you why women don't read comic books as much as men do, but I can tell you it's not just big breasted dumb blondes. There are a lot of cultural influences that created that divide. This isn't wrong. Do you honestly disagree and think that big titted superheroines are the only thing keeping some women from reading superhero books?
posted by shmegegge at 6:41 PM on July 5, 2007
Honestly, if you strip it of all the snark and framing that makes them retarded half of them translate to "Hey, if you don't like the comics that are crap and sexist why don't you try the comics that aren't crap and sexist instead?". Seems like a reasonable point, and it's totally not addressed.
From the article:
"many women love superhero comics and are tired of the big NO GURLZ sign on the treehouse, and anyone has the right to complain about sexism in anything whenever they see it."
"If you don’t like them, don’t read them!
This is one of those arguments that reasonable people often make, unable to see why feminist comics fans spend time and energy discussing and deploring sexism in superhero comics when there’s just so darn much of it. Why not, the argument goes, simply stop reading? Give up comics altogether, or find alternatives to the superhero books that infuriate you so. But that’s not good enough. Most feminist fans hate sexism, but love superheroes. I know that there’s something about costumed people beating the crap out of bad guys, invading alien armies and each other that makes my heart happy. If there are explosions, so much the better! And the fair number of books that get it right is evidence that it can be done. But most importantly, your critic has every right to complain about sexism in comics because – crazy thought! – sexism is wrong, whether you think it’s a waste of energy or not."
Yeah. Totally not addressed.
posted by vorfeed at 8:06 AM on July 6, 2007
From the article:
"many women love superhero comics and are tired of the big NO GURLZ sign on the treehouse, and anyone has the right to complain about sexism in anything whenever they see it."
"If you don’t like them, don’t read them!
This is one of those arguments that reasonable people often make, unable to see why feminist comics fans spend time and energy discussing and deploring sexism in superhero comics when there’s just so darn much of it. Why not, the argument goes, simply stop reading? Give up comics altogether, or find alternatives to the superhero books that infuriate you so. But that’s not good enough. Most feminist fans hate sexism, but love superheroes. I know that there’s something about costumed people beating the crap out of bad guys, invading alien armies and each other that makes my heart happy. If there are explosions, so much the better! And the fair number of books that get it right is evidence that it can be done. But most importantly, your critic has every right to complain about sexism in comics because – crazy thought! – sexism is wrong, whether you think it’s a waste of energy or not."
Yeah. Totally not addressed.
posted by vorfeed at 8:06 AM on July 6, 2007
Absolutely totally not addressed. Again it's doing that framing thing, so that the questioner becomes some great thumping idiot who is basically saying "hey, shut up about the sexism", and fails to address the issue - if comics are a big plate of shit, why keep ordfering the big plate of shit? You complain about the big plate of shit all you like, but if it's what you pay for it's what you get.
And again, theres this rather annoying presuposition that comics that aren't a big plate of shit "don't count".
Sorry, that bingo card is a big heap of cop-outs and strawmen. Maybe it would be appropriate to throw it up when addressing a forum full of cavemen who don't think theres anything wrong with Rape Crisis type comics, but here it addresses precisely fuck-all, it's just a bunch of passive aggressive rhetorical techniques.
posted by Artw at 10:01 AM on July 6, 2007
And again, theres this rather annoying presuposition that comics that aren't a big plate of shit "don't count".
Sorry, that bingo card is a big heap of cop-outs and strawmen. Maybe it would be appropriate to throw it up when addressing a forum full of cavemen who don't think theres anything wrong with Rape Crisis type comics, but here it addresses precisely fuck-all, it's just a bunch of passive aggressive rhetorical techniques.
posted by Artw at 10:01 AM on July 6, 2007
and fails to address the issue - if comics are a big plate of shit, why keep ordfering the big plate of shit?
It says why RIGHT THERE. Why not, the argument goes, simply stop reading? Give up comics altogether, or find alternatives to the superhero books that infuriate you so. But that’s not good enough. Most feminist fans hate sexism, but love superheroes.
Seems clear to me -- many women put up with the plate of shit because they actually like the plate the shit comes on, and as customers and fans they've a perfect right to complain, and to try and get the restaurant to serve something better. "You get what you pay for" may be true, but as you may have noticed, superhero comics have a lot more going on than just sexism. Women shouldn't have to miss out on that, and if that means complaining until something gets done, then that's what'll happen.
And for somebody who likes to throw around words like "straw-men", you sure seem to quote a lot of things that aren't actually in the article. Nobody ever said non-sexist comics "don't count", they said they are not good enough -- it's great that they exist, but that doesn't mean that women should have to stay in the pink pastel ladies-only ghetto when it comes to comics. Personally, I think sexy and even sexist comics have their place, but as the vast majority? With talking negligee asses in mainstream books like Batman and such? Come on.
posted by vorfeed at 10:23 AM on July 6, 2007
It says why RIGHT THERE. Why not, the argument goes, simply stop reading? Give up comics altogether, or find alternatives to the superhero books that infuriate you so. But that’s not good enough. Most feminist fans hate sexism, but love superheroes.
Seems clear to me -- many women put up with the plate of shit because they actually like the plate the shit comes on, and as customers and fans they've a perfect right to complain, and to try and get the restaurant to serve something better. "You get what you pay for" may be true, but as you may have noticed, superhero comics have a lot more going on than just sexism. Women shouldn't have to miss out on that, and if that means complaining until something gets done, then that's what'll happen.
And for somebody who likes to throw around words like "straw-men", you sure seem to quote a lot of things that aren't actually in the article. Nobody ever said non-sexist comics "don't count", they said they are not good enough -- it's great that they exist, but that doesn't mean that women should have to stay in the pink pastel ladies-only ghetto when it comes to comics. Personally, I think sexy and even sexist comics have their place, but as the vast majority? With talking negligee asses in mainstream books like Batman and such? Come on.
posted by vorfeed at 10:23 AM on July 6, 2007
Sorry, but at this point anyone still reading All Star Batman And Robin totally deserves everything they get.
posted by Artw at 11:13 AM on July 6, 2007
posted by Artw at 11:13 AM on July 6, 2007
So they "fail to address the issue", and then when I point out that they do, they still "don't address it", and then when I point out once again that they do address it, the entirety of your rebuttal to their argument is LULZ ASBAR?
Who's not addressing the issue, again? Cop-outs and straw-men, indeed.
posted by vorfeed at 12:02 PM on July 6, 2007
Who's not addressing the issue, again? Cop-outs and straw-men, indeed.
posted by vorfeed at 12:02 PM on July 6, 2007
Pointing at some dumb pseudo-conversation with some hypethetical sexist idiot who is clearly in the wrong, and then declaring victory is 1st degree strawmanisn - of course it "proves" the point - the deck is totally stacked. And sorry, but relying on the hypothetical conversation with the hypothetical sexist idiot who is clearly in the wrong is totally a cop out.
The argument that ASBR (or equivalent crappy comment) is crap and sexist is totally valid. The argument anyone HAS to buy ASBR is total bullcrap. And continuing to buy and read it knowing that it's crap is insane. Worse, it encourages the continued existence of ASBR.
You are never, ever, ever going to affect the balance between shit and not shit comics by doing a dance about how bad the shit comics are. You need to start reading and pushing the not-shit comics, which contrary to the implications above do exist, and stop buying the shit comics. If slavishly buying every comic featuring character X or that is part of character Y leads you to buy shit comics then maybe you need to give that up.
The bingo-thing dodges ALL of this in favour of a rather lame “It’s my right to buy shit”. Well, yeah, sure, no one is questioning that. But if you contiunue to buy shit and then moan about shit people are going to look at you funny, and that’s their right too.
posted by Artw at 12:32 PM on July 6, 2007
The argument that ASBR (or equivalent crappy comment) is crap and sexist is totally valid. The argument anyone HAS to buy ASBR is total bullcrap. And continuing to buy and read it knowing that it's crap is insane. Worse, it encourages the continued existence of ASBR.
You are never, ever, ever going to affect the balance between shit and not shit comics by doing a dance about how bad the shit comics are. You need to start reading and pushing the not-shit comics, which contrary to the implications above do exist, and stop buying the shit comics. If slavishly buying every comic featuring character X or that is part of character Y leads you to buy shit comics then maybe you need to give that up.
The bingo-thing dodges ALL of this in favour of a rather lame “It’s my right to buy shit”. Well, yeah, sure, no one is questioning that. But if you contiunue to buy shit and then moan about shit people are going to look at you funny, and that’s their right too.
posted by Artw at 12:32 PM on July 6, 2007
And you can shovwe your implication that I'm pointing people towards some "pink pastel ladies-only ghetto" up your arse as well. Plenty of well written comics out there in a wide variety of types, including the action/superheroics stuff.
posted by Artw at 12:35 PM on July 6, 2007
posted by Artw at 12:35 PM on July 6, 2007
The argument anyone HAS to buy ASBR is total bullcrap.
Yes. Too bad no one here has actually made this argument. Nobody HAS to buy anything, but as you yourself have said, it's anybody's right. And I've given plenty of reasons why people want to buy stuff like ASBR, other than "they're crazy", which is the one you seem to be stuck on.
You are never, ever, ever going to affect the balance between shit and not shit comics by doing a dance about how bad the shit comics are.
This is utter bullshit. I'd say that websites like these have done a hell of a lot more to call attention to the problem than quietly buying things would. Or do you think the blog author's once-a-month $3 purchase of Smart Comix Vol. 4 (hint: she already buys and pushes this stuff, there's plenty on that blog about what's good in comics) is really going to affect things as much as a widely-linked website with thousands of visitors? Sexism in comics has gone from a non-issue to the kind of thing that's widely talked-about in comics circles, and this has happened even with the crap outnumbering the good. This is largely because feminist fans WON'T just shut up and shop. By buying that one issue of ASBR and making fun of it online, that blog may have kept 10 people (and I think that's a pretty low estimate, when all is said and done) from buying Miller's stuff ever again. And you're trying to say that's helping ASBR and its ilk? Please.
And besides, how do you expect people to find out about the cream of the non-sexist crop without sites dedicated to discussing sexism?
And you can shovwe your implication that I'm pointing people towards some "pink pastel ladies-only ghetto" up your arse as well. Plenty of well written comics out there in a wide variety of types, including the action/superheroics stuff.
Yes, there are, as I've said several times now. They're still in the "smart comics" ghetto, pink-pastel or not (the pink-pastel thing was a reference to your earlier "hey what about manga" suggestion, by the way) and many people don't like wading through 37 racks of sexist crap to get to something they can read. And as more than one person pointed out up-thread, lots of today's sexist comics were not always super-sexist in the past. I guess people are supposed to suddenly stop liking Wonder Woman or Batman, after reading them for 20 years, all because buying something and then complaining about it is "insane". Yep, it sure is crazy to fight to make your favorite things better, rather than forgetting about them and quietly buying a random issue of whatever's least-bad out of all the stuff in the store. That's sure to bring about swift and certain change!
By the way, the idea that people shouldn't buy comics and then bitch about them is just plain hilarious. This is a genre in which people write angry letters about the coloration of Green Lantern's boots on page 20, panel 3. There are hundreds of make-fun-of-comics blogs. Hell, bitching is so traditional, it's practically part of the art form. So if I'm allowed to complain that Bruce Wayne seems out of character or that the writer forgot what happened at the end of issue #397, then I'm allowed to complain that the artist should maybe put some clothes on the women.
posted by vorfeed at 1:42 PM on July 6, 2007
Yes. Too bad no one here has actually made this argument. Nobody HAS to buy anything, but as you yourself have said, it's anybody's right. And I've given plenty of reasons why people want to buy stuff like ASBR, other than "they're crazy", which is the one you seem to be stuck on.
You are never, ever, ever going to affect the balance between shit and not shit comics by doing a dance about how bad the shit comics are.
This is utter bullshit. I'd say that websites like these have done a hell of a lot more to call attention to the problem than quietly buying things would. Or do you think the blog author's once-a-month $3 purchase of Smart Comix Vol. 4 (hint: she already buys and pushes this stuff, there's plenty on that blog about what's good in comics) is really going to affect things as much as a widely-linked website with thousands of visitors? Sexism in comics has gone from a non-issue to the kind of thing that's widely talked-about in comics circles, and this has happened even with the crap outnumbering the good. This is largely because feminist fans WON'T just shut up and shop. By buying that one issue of ASBR and making fun of it online, that blog may have kept 10 people (and I think that's a pretty low estimate, when all is said and done) from buying Miller's stuff ever again. And you're trying to say that's helping ASBR and its ilk? Please.
And besides, how do you expect people to find out about the cream of the non-sexist crop without sites dedicated to discussing sexism?
And you can shovwe your implication that I'm pointing people towards some "pink pastel ladies-only ghetto" up your arse as well. Plenty of well written comics out there in a wide variety of types, including the action/superheroics stuff.
Yes, there are, as I've said several times now. They're still in the "smart comics" ghetto, pink-pastel or not (the pink-pastel thing was a reference to your earlier "hey what about manga" suggestion, by the way) and many people don't like wading through 37 racks of sexist crap to get to something they can read. And as more than one person pointed out up-thread, lots of today's sexist comics were not always super-sexist in the past. I guess people are supposed to suddenly stop liking Wonder Woman or Batman, after reading them for 20 years, all because buying something and then complaining about it is "insane". Yep, it sure is crazy to fight to make your favorite things better, rather than forgetting about them and quietly buying a random issue of whatever's least-bad out of all the stuff in the store. That's sure to bring about swift and certain change!
By the way, the idea that people shouldn't buy comics and then bitch about them is just plain hilarious. This is a genre in which people write angry letters about the coloration of Green Lantern's boots on page 20, panel 3. There are hundreds of make-fun-of-comics blogs. Hell, bitching is so traditional, it's practically part of the art form. So if I'm allowed to complain that Bruce Wayne seems out of character or that the writer forgot what happened at the end of issue #397, then I'm allowed to complain that the artist should maybe put some clothes on the women.
posted by vorfeed at 1:42 PM on July 6, 2007
You're allowed to complain about whatever the hell you like, I have no problem with that whatsoever. It's the this-is-shit-so-therefire-by-extension-all-comics-are-shit argument I have a problem with, as well the I-have-a-right-never-to-be-critised-for-excusively-focusing-on-shit argument.
posted by Artw at 1:56 PM on July 6, 2007
posted by Artw at 1:56 PM on July 6, 2007
What's up with the assumption that manga is "less sexist" than American comics anyways?
Last I checked, there were entire genres of manga dedicated to various forms of explicit sex, including rape. (I would put links in here but I'm not certain how great they are, just google hentai, ecchi, kancho, paisuri, and, of course, tentacle rape)
Oh, I've got it! Let's move over to Europe, they're enlightened after all! Oh wait, there's Serpieri, Milo Manara, Liberatore.... etc... LINKS NSFW
Besides which, if you have to go outside of your own culture to find something that's not sexist, doesn't that just prove the point?
posted by eparchos at 2:05 PM on July 6, 2007
Last I checked, there were entire genres of manga dedicated to various forms of explicit sex, including rape. (I would put links in here but I'm not certain how great they are, just google hentai, ecchi, kancho, paisuri, and, of course, tentacle rape)
Oh, I've got it! Let's move over to Europe, they're enlightened after all! Oh wait, there's Serpieri, Milo Manara, Liberatore.... etc... LINKS NSFW
Besides which, if you have to go outside of your own culture to find something that's not sexist, doesn't that just prove the point?
posted by eparchos at 2:05 PM on July 6, 2007
It's the this-is-shit-so-therefire-by-extension-all-comics-are-shit argument I have a problem with, as well the I-have-a-right-never-to-be-critised-for-excusively-focusing-on-shit argument.
Neither of which are actually made by the BINGO card you objected to, which makes a point of repeatedly noting that there are good comics out there.
posted by vorfeed at 2:08 PM on July 6, 2007
Neither of which are actually made by the BINGO card you objected to, which makes a point of repeatedly noting that there are good comics out there.
posted by vorfeed at 2:08 PM on July 6, 2007
If you say so. I don't particularly see that in there, and the rest of this thread (and the past three or four "comics are bad" threads) and the articles linked from it are overwhealmingly stuffed with negativity and blanket statements.
posted by Artw at 2:33 PM on July 6, 2007
posted by Artw at 2:33 PM on July 6, 2007
It's the this-is-shit-so-therefire-by-extension-all-comics-are-shit argument I have a problem with
Nobody is making that argument. Nobody in this thread has made that argument, nobody linked in WFA makes that argument, and the BINGO card never makes that argument.
I am floored by your lack of reading comprehension.
Look, the "manga" bingo square that you seem to have so much trouble with is an answer to this scenario, and this scenario specifically:
Blogger: Dammit, I wish that Michael Turner wouldn't draw Power Girl like an anatomically incorrect vapid blow-up doll.
Troll: Why don't you just shut up and go read manga?!?!
Blogger: ....But my post is about Power Girl.
It's about thread-derailing and changing the subjects. It is, yes, about pointing girls to the ghetto. If your only response when girls complain about sexism is to keep telling them to shut up and buy better comics, then yes, that is pointing them to the ghetto. And the whole "better comics" point falls apart when you're talking about superhero comics, anyway, because of the fact that they're not static - creative teams shift over time. So a comic that is really, really good can suddenly get really, really bad. Which is why fans complain about bad writing and artwork, but they're not complaining about the fundamental nature of the comic itself.
Superhero comics aren't like manga or independant comics, where generally if a comic sucks, then a comic sucks. But superhero comics are different. They could suck or rock, depending on who's writing and drawing them. Like I said many posts up, you don't see anybody complaining about Tarot. But you do see people complaining about the way that a particular artist draws Supergirl. There difference here is that we know that Supergirl hasn't been drawn like shit in the past, so there's no excuse for her to be drawn like shit now.
And nobody said that you can't like manga or independant comics. A good chunk of the blog posts linked on WFA write about manga and independant comics. The person who wrote that bingo card post likes independant comics and has posted in her blog about good manga before, too.
I-have-a-right-never-to-be-critised-for-excusively-focusing-on-shit
The point that you keep missing is that supehero comics AREN'T shit. For example, there's nothing inherently sexist about Power Girl or Supergirl. These are awesome characters that tons of fans, men and women, rightfully love. What sucks is when a writer or an artist portrays those characters in a really sexist way. And that upsets fans, so that's what they write about on their blogs and talk about in their podcasts. And again, it works - look at the creative team shift in Supergirl. The new artist is making all of the changes that bloggers have been clamoring for.
And who the hell is focusing on shit? It looks like you're reading one or two angry posts and then drawing the conclusion that everybody is filled with negativity and hate. Even a cursory glance through the latest WFA batch. shows a bunch of positive blog posts.
the articles linked from it are overwhealmingly stuffed with negativity and blanket statements.
1. "Blanket statements"? Pot, kettle, whut?
2. Whoever said that negativity and anger was a bad thing? If it offends your delicate sensibilities, then I'm sorry. But yeah, it's hard not to get angry at sexism, especially when you've been on the recieving end of it all your life. What, you would like it better if feminist bloggers only wrote about sunshine and puppies and rainbows? Sorry, but we're not here make you feel comfortable. And again, like I keep saying - which I have to keep saying, because obviously you can't be arsed to actually read any of the links that you're characterizing with your own blanket statements - a lot of the stuff linked from WFA is happy.
Happy now?
posted by anita99 at 9:17 PM on July 6, 2007
Nobody is making that argument. Nobody in this thread has made that argument, nobody linked in WFA makes that argument, and the BINGO card never makes that argument.
I am floored by your lack of reading comprehension.
Look, the "manga" bingo square that you seem to have so much trouble with is an answer to this scenario, and this scenario specifically:
Blogger: Dammit, I wish that Michael Turner wouldn't draw Power Girl like an anatomically incorrect vapid blow-up doll.
Troll: Why don't you just shut up and go read manga?!?!
Blogger: ....But my post is about Power Girl.
It's about thread-derailing and changing the subjects. It is, yes, about pointing girls to the ghetto. If your only response when girls complain about sexism is to keep telling them to shut up and buy better comics, then yes, that is pointing them to the ghetto. And the whole "better comics" point falls apart when you're talking about superhero comics, anyway, because of the fact that they're not static - creative teams shift over time. So a comic that is really, really good can suddenly get really, really bad. Which is why fans complain about bad writing and artwork, but they're not complaining about the fundamental nature of the comic itself.
Superhero comics aren't like manga or independant comics, where generally if a comic sucks, then a comic sucks. But superhero comics are different. They could suck or rock, depending on who's writing and drawing them. Like I said many posts up, you don't see anybody complaining about Tarot. But you do see people complaining about the way that a particular artist draws Supergirl. There difference here is that we know that Supergirl hasn't been drawn like shit in the past, so there's no excuse for her to be drawn like shit now.
And nobody said that you can't like manga or independant comics. A good chunk of the blog posts linked on WFA write about manga and independant comics. The person who wrote that bingo card post likes independant comics and has posted in her blog about good manga before, too.
I-have-a-right-never-to-be-critised-for-excusively-focusing-on-shit
The point that you keep missing is that supehero comics AREN'T shit. For example, there's nothing inherently sexist about Power Girl or Supergirl. These are awesome characters that tons of fans, men and women, rightfully love. What sucks is when a writer or an artist portrays those characters in a really sexist way. And that upsets fans, so that's what they write about on their blogs and talk about in their podcasts. And again, it works - look at the creative team shift in Supergirl. The new artist is making all of the changes that bloggers have been clamoring for.
And who the hell is focusing on shit? It looks like you're reading one or two angry posts and then drawing the conclusion that everybody is filled with negativity and hate. Even a cursory glance through the latest WFA batch. shows a bunch of positive blog posts.
the articles linked from it are overwhealmingly stuffed with negativity and blanket statements.
1. "Blanket statements"? Pot, kettle, whut?
2. Whoever said that negativity and anger was a bad thing? If it offends your delicate sensibilities, then I'm sorry. But yeah, it's hard not to get angry at sexism, especially when you've been on the recieving end of it all your life. What, you would like it better if feminist bloggers only wrote about sunshine and puppies and rainbows? Sorry, but we're not here make you feel comfortable. And again, like I keep saying - which I have to keep saying, because obviously you can't be arsed to actually read any of the links that you're characterizing with your own blanket statements - a lot of the stuff linked from WFA is happy.
Happy now?
posted by anita99 at 9:17 PM on July 6, 2007
Well... that would actually be my point about recasting perfectly reasonable suggestions to moronic trollism right there, but clearly this is going nowhere.
See you on the next comics-are-shit thread.
posted by Artw at 8:18 AM on July 7, 2007
« Older Don’t mention the O word | Panoptimus Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Frankly, I'm deeply saddened that this isn't the case.
posted by Avenger at 6:16 PM on July 4, 2007