Remember the midgets in The Killing Joke? Midgets are funny.
Panels on Pages
We do have a main site.Silent K wrote:WTF is WiR?
Mnemosis wrote:I REALLY hate to poke the sleeping bear, but:
Mnemosis wrote:
Because they were supporting characters/loved ones to the male leads, and there needed to be a dramatic punch to the gut of the male lead, and so the supporting cast member/loved one was killed off. It's simple statistics and logic. Does it suck? Sure, I guess. But it's not misogyny. It's story telling, working with what exists.
Mnemosis wrote:
I'm not even listing Barbara, because her being shot as a loved one of a leading character was the same as Jason Todd being killed as the loved one of a leading character. Neither saved the day. Both were unceremoniously put down by the Joker as a means for a writer to effect change within the life of the leading character - Batman. Whether you like TKJ or not is totally a matter of personal opinion. I've never read it, personally. Didn't care to. But the point is, this is why supporting characters exist - to create drama within the lives of the leads. The lion's share of supporting characters are women, because the lion's share of established leads are men.
So yes, you're absolutely right when you say something like "This sort of thing happens to female characters more often than male characters" but you're not considering why.
It's statistics. Not misogyny.
Mnemosis wrote:
Remember, before the Green Goblin ever snapped Gwen Stacy's neck, Uncle Ben ate a bullet just so Peter could learn a lesson about responsibility. He wasn't being a hero. He was just serving his purpose as stage dressing. To imply that female supporting characters should be above that, simply because there's been more of them over the years, is asking for special treatment in the name of equality, which has always confounded me to no end.
Mnemosis wrote:
Next month, we can introduce Tony Stark's long lost brother, whom he can bond with, so that the next time we need to hurt Iron Man, we can attack a male instead of a female.
Mnemosis wrote:
And I honestly believe that, if the tables were turned and the majority of long established leads in comic books were females, their male supporting cast members would be the ones in constant peril.
Big Poppa Nick wrote:I understand some fans outrage against what happened to Barbara, but lets be honest, It's not the worst violence in even a Bat-book.
Big Poppa Nick wrote:
Jason Todd was a teenager. DC put up a public vote on whether to kill off a teenage boy, and then did so in the most violent and mocking way possible. Jason Todd had no redemption, and still hasn't to this day. He's been shown to have been broken by the experience, where as Barbara has grown, adapted, and dare I say been a stronger character since her tragedy. I'm not excusing the initial violence, so much as saying that the handling of her since then has been superior than what Jason Todd has gotten.
Barbara Gordon has the most heroic moment in The Killing Joke IMHO, as she is in the hospital, just having been crippled by the Joker, and her concern is for her father and not herself. She doesn't come close to breaking, as her father does, and she doesn't sit there yucking it up with someone who has caused so much violence and death in his life like Bruce does.
Big Poppa Nick wrote:
DC doesn't even have the worst treatment of female characters in comics, where I'll say that Marvel does. Two of the worst cases of violence against women come from someone who I've liked for a long time: Kevin Smith. What he does to Karen Page and more recently the Black Cat, IMHO is inexcusable. I also didn't see female fans doing crazy over Angel's origin in New X-Men. I really have a problem with people calling out DC on their treatment of women in comics when they don't really discuss either of these two instances. Marvel's female characters are treated far worse than DC's, and to me it's sad that the DC stuff gets more attention because those characters are more popular.
Big Poppa Nick wrote:Ok I listened to the Princess cast and here's some more thoughts.
Jason Todd was hit from behind, beaten with a crowbar, with the Joker questioning his sexuality and psychologically breaking him down. There was nothing heroic about his death.
Big Poppa Nick wrote:
The treatment of minorities and women IS a problem in comics as well as all entertainment medium. My problem with most of the people that focus on the issue is their narrow focus on DC. It just seems like front running on an issue.
Big Poppa Nick wrote:
Kerouac had a huge point that I think has gone uncommented on, and that the point of ancillary characters is to move the story of main characters on. Female or minority characters for the most part can't carry their own books, so they are relegated to this role. Violence against them is going to happen, because in proportion females and minorities are more supporting characters than headliners. This doesn't excuse the behavior, but explains the reason why it does happen. For every example of something horrible happening to a female or minority supporting cast member, there is a correlating one of a white male protestant one. It's unfortunately all about numbers.
Big Poppa Nick wrote:
Also the issue of costume ripping was brought up. You definitely have a point there. Again it goes to the fascination with the female form. There it's a problem with society as a larger picture. Comics need to sell. If a female character is in battle and her costume is ripped, the more compelling and marketable image is one of a rip near her breasts or genitalia. If a guy's costume is ripped, it's really hard to get one near the penis that would be titillating without getting censors all aggro about it.
Big Poppa Nick wrote:
Also the issue of costume ripping was brought up. You definitely have a point there. Again it goes to the fascination with the female form. There it's a problem with society as a larger picture. Comics need to sell. If a female character is in battle and her costume is ripped, the more compelling and marketable image is one of a rip near her breasts or genitalia. If a guy's costume is ripped, it's really hard to get one near the penis that would be titillating without getting censors all aggro about it.
Rath99 wrote:Gentlemen..you won't and can never get it. Meg speaks from a POV that we can never understand. Whether you see misogyny or not isn't the point. She does. That’s it. Just as from my perspective (being Latino) I see racism where other folks won't. A little news flash there is quite a bit of it in comics (see JMS' Superman).
So the best we can do is listen and respect her viewpoint and understand that there is now way we can feel how she feels about it.
Demonweasel wrote:
Words.
As I said before, that line of reasoning is pretty fucking repugnant. Yeah, it does sell. Does that make it okay? No. Is it damaging to our industry as a whole? Yes.Mnemosis wrote:
Any hint of female nudity sells. Period.
Mnemosis wrote:
I disagree with this, almost entirely. There's a "cry wolf" factor in any conversation such as this. What it boils down to is this: if people who take an issue (misogyny, racism, etc) personally make mountains out of molehills, they discredit their overall cause.
I'm not saying that's what Meg's doing. That's what this discussion is about - figuring that out. If there's good reason to interpret TKJ (or comics as a whole) as misogynistic, then there's every reason for outcry against it, and Bob's your uncle. If, on the other hand, the purportedly misogynistic writing can be explained away logically, then the louder she yells, the more she drowns out the legitimate concerns on the subject.
Mnemosis wrote:Demonweasel wrote:
Words.
Don't be dense just for the sake of your girlfriend, cause honestly, that's how you're coming across.
Mnemosis wrote:
The statistics argument is a valid one.
Mnemosis wrote:
Is it "wrong" that most strong lead characters are male? Sure. But until comic book publishers can figure out how to sell strong lead female characters, that will be a FACT. As long as that is a FACT, the majority of loved ones will be female. That is a FACT. Therefore, the majority of loved ones who are put in peril to further the story of the strong lead characters WILL BE FEMALE. It's not targeting women in particular, it's working with the reality of the comic book landscape. Publishers try to make female leads happen. Black Widow. Manhunter. These books do not perform well enough to continue to be published. Until that changes, the ratios are going to remain the same, and the statistics are going to make sense.
Mnemosis wrote:
Similarly, sex sells. Saying that it shouldn't doesn't change that fact, and expecting publishers to not take advantage of that fact is ludicrous. In a time when the comic industry is in such need of new readers and stronger sales, I think it's absolutely asinine to expect anyone to take the moral stance of "We're not going to use scantily clad women to sell out books." It's like telling cigarette companies they have to make cigarettes not be addictive. Yes, it's a nice idea, but no one in power is going to go for it, and that's because they're in business.
Or did you forget that you write for a website that has a sponsorship deal with a sex toy site?
Denim wrote:Sure there can be points made on other things here, but my whole issue with this is Meg saying that TKJ is mysonogistic, in which my view that is extremly off base. She opened a door and was shot. Then she was disrobed and photographed. The point of the shooting was that he is the Joker. It's not misogynistic it's the Joker doing what the Joker does. It's characterization. The taking of the pictures of her was for the Joker to torture Jim with.
Sexism in comics? yes there is lots of it, let's face facts, but let's be honest about it first. If anything, men should be more offended by the way we are portrayed in comics. Every male hero has these bodies that women drool over and this is way before the days of women with big breats and little waists. Let's look at some examples, Steve Rogers before taking super serum was a skinny weak twerp, he gets muscles and bam, he is no every girls dream. Peter Parker for years while wearing glasses and "unhip" clothes was considered a geek and picked on. Remove the glasses, get him a better wardrobe and once he enters college he is fighting off the girls. Superman put on the guise of Clark Kent, a bit of a dweeb and for years was shunned by Lois Lane, but remove the glasses and bam, she goes crazy la la in love for Superman.
The sexism in comics go both ways. As far as the violence, well, hell, let's count up everytime Batman took a punch in the head, or Ben Grimm took one. Does it make it differnt because they are men? These are comic books with super-heroes, fights are going to happen and in some cases like books like TKJ it is going to be amped up higher.
I went a bit off my main idea here, but seriously, I really do not see how TKJ is misogynistic. I feel that any case made for it to show me that it is has failed, I am extremly openminded but nothing that anyone has typed here as not shown me thatTKJ is misogynistic in anyway or form.
Mnemosis wrote:Words
Demonweasel wrote:Denim wrote:Sure there can be points made on other things here, but my whole issue with this is Meg saying that TKJ is mysonogistic, in which my view that is extremly off base. She opened a door and was shot. Then she was disrobed and photographed. The point of the shooting was that he is the Joker. It's not misogynistic it's the Joker doing what the Joker does. It's characterization. The taking of the pictures of her was for the Joker to torture Jim with.
Sexism in comics? yes there is lots of it, let's face facts, but let's be honest about it first. If anything, men should be more offended by the way we are portrayed in comics. Every male hero has these bodies that women drool over and this is way before the days of women with big breats and little waists. Let's look at some examples, Steve Rogers before taking super serum was a skinny weak twerp, he gets muscles and bam, he is no every girls dream. Peter Parker for years while wearing glasses and "unhip" clothes was considered a geek and picked on. Remove the glasses, get him a better wardrobe and once he enters college he is fighting off the girls. Superman put on the guise of Clark Kent, a bit of a dweeb and for years was shunned by Lois Lane, but remove the glasses and bam, she goes crazy la la in love for Superman.
The sexism in comics go both ways. As far as the violence, well, hell, let's count up everytime Batman took a punch in the head, or Ben Grimm took one. Does it make it differnt because they are men? These are comic books with super-heroes, fights are going to happen and in some cases like books like TKJ it is going to be amped up higher.
I went a bit off my main idea here, but seriously, I really do not see how TKJ is misogynistic. I feel that any case made for it to show me that it is has failed, I am extremly openminded but nothing that anyone has typed here as not shown me thatTKJ is misogynistic in anyway or form.
I think the reasons why what happens in TKJ is misogynistic have been pretty well laid-out. If you want to not see it, fine, but I sincerely doubt your extreme open-mindedness. There's a difference between getting punched in the head and getting sexually degraded. That's pretty fucking clear-cut.
Here's the deal, if comics didn't have decades of precedence of treating women like second-class citizens, I think you'd make a fine point. The Joker is a psychopath and Barbara just happened to be one of many victims; it wasn't done because she was a woman. On the surface, I can get down with that.Denim wrote:She opened a door and was shot. Then she was disrobed and photographed. The point of the shooting was that he is the Joker. It's not misogynistic it's the Joker doing what the Joker does. It's characterization. The taking of the pictures of her was for the Joker to torture Jim with.
Mnemosis wrote:Rath99 wrote:Gentlemen..you won't and can never get it. Meg speaks from a POV that we can never understand. Whether you see misogyny or not isn't the point. She does. That’s it. Just as from my perspective (being Latino) I see racism where other folks won't. A little news flash there is quite a bit of it in comics (see JMS' Superman).
So the best we can do is listen and respect her viewpoint and understand that there is now way we can feel how she feels about it.
I disagree with this, almost entirely. There's a "cry wolf" factor in any conversation such as this. What it boils down to is this: if people who take an issue (misogyny, racism, etc) personally make mountains out of molehills, they discredit their overall cause.
I'm not saying that's what Meg's doing. That's what this discussion is about - figuring that out. If there's good reason to interpret TKJ (or comics as a whole) as misogynistic, then there's every reason for outcry against it, and Bob's your uncle. If, on the other hand, the purportedly misogynistic writing can be explained away logically, then the louder she yells, the more she drowns out the legitimate concerns on the subject.
I'm saying, for her benefit and the benefit of anyone crusading for better treatment of women in comics, she should reconsider her argument somewhat. I would focus more on the nature of the abuse of women than the frequency thereof, considering the latter can be explained away by statistics as I did above.
Now, Nick brings up the Black Cat. To me, that is a MUCH better example of misogyny in comics. 1) It moved no one's story forward. 2) It was a retcon. 3) It was completely out of the blue. There is no logical aspect of good writing that dictates Felicia Hardy be a rape victim.
Meg brought up, however, Mariko. Where was the misogyny here? The Devil broke her spirit and so she attacked Wolverine. This isn't about her being broken easily because she's a woman. There's no double standard - the Devil also turned Sabertooth into his lapdog. We don't see her being raped by demons or any such thing. Her spirit is broken, and for her own survival, she attacks Wolverine. Or are we referring to her original death all those years ago, which was an honorable death that - as a supporting character - was used to progress Wolverine's story? If so, see previous posts.
My point is simple: Is there misogyny in comics? Absolutely. But don't go accusing every writer who hurts a woman of misogyny. That only cheapens your argument.
Demonweasel wrote:Mnemosis wrote:
I disagree with this, almost entirely. There's a "cry wolf" factor in any conversation such as this. What it boils down to is this: if people who take an issue (misogyny, racism, etc) personally make mountains out of molehills, they discredit their overall cause.
I'm not saying that's what Meg's doing. That's what this discussion is about - figuring that out. If there's good reason to interpret TKJ (or comics as a whole) as misogynistic, then there's every reason for outcry against it, and Bob's your uncle. If, on the other hand, the purportedly misogynistic writing can be explained away logically, then the louder she yells, the more she drowns out the legitimate concerns on the subject.
So there has to be some sort of established test that can be passed by someone who hasn't seen or experienced that kind of oppression to prove that oppression exists? You can't possibly stop for a second and go "Hey, could this look from the other side?" or think that there may be something that's going on that's hard for you to identify because it's outside of your own experiences? Is it that it's difficult or that you just don't want to do it? Plus, asking an oppressed group to explain their oppression to the satisfaction of a member of the group that is seen as the "oppressors" (no matter whether or not that person has done any oppressing) is exercising mad amounts of privilege and w
Be human enough to know that there are things that happen outside your own experiences and that you may not understand everything that comes across your path. No one person knows everything, and willfully disengaging from that idea but continuing to argue that things only exist and can be interpreted through your own veiwpoint is narrowminded and ignorant.
Demonweasel wrote:
Statistics =/= just.
Demonweasel wrote:
Your argument here is to not even bother trying because that's the way it is and change may be hard or may not sell as well. Fuck social justice, fuck equality, fuck TRYING.
That's cowardly, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Demonweasel wrote:
There's a difference between selling dildos/pornography and advocating for the continued exploitation of a group because it's profitable. Is that too hard for you to grasp? And the cigarette argument? Are you serious?
Rath99 wrote:Demonweasel wrote:Mnemosis wrote:
I disagree with this, almost entirely. There's a "cry wolf" factor in any conversation such as this. What it boils down to is this: if people who take an issue (misogyny, racism, etc) personally make mountains out of molehills, they discredit their overall cause.
I'm not saying that's what Meg's doing. That's what this discussion is about - figuring that out. If there's good reason to interpret TKJ (or comics as a whole) as misogynistic, then there's every reason for outcry against it, and Bob's your uncle. If, on the other hand, the purportedly misogynistic writing can be explained away logically, then the louder she yells, the more she drowns out the legitimate concerns on the subject.
So there has to be some sort of established test that can be passed by someone who hasn't seen or experienced that kind of oppression to prove that oppression exists? You can't possibly stop for a second and go "Hey, could this look from the other side?" or think that there may be something that's going on that's hard for you to identify because it's outside of your own experiences? Is it that it's difficult or that you just don't want to do it? Plus, asking an oppressed group to explain their oppression to the satisfaction of a member of the group that is seen as the "oppressors" (no matter whether or not that person has done any oppressing) is exercising mad amounts of privilege and w
Be human enough to know that there are things that happen outside your own experiences and that you may not understand everything that comes across your path. No one person knows everything, and willfully disengaging from that idea but continuing to argue that things only exist and can be interpreted through your own veiwpoint is narrowminded and ignorant.
Thank you!!!!
Similar topics
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
|
|