I don't want to be a feminist. I believe in equal rights for the sexes, but if I call myself a feminist, that carries extra weight I don't want to bear.
Do I think there's sexism in comics? Sure. Do I think there should be more comics that women like? Oh yeah. Do I think DC or Marvel are somehow morally* obliged to provide women with comics suited to their tastes? Uhhhhh... no. Do I think having lurid, sex and violence, even misogyny-filled comics in the "mainstream" is going to damage people's perceptions of the genders? I doubt it.
Let me digress for a second: What is it with the idea that if comics are sexist, that's going to make people sexist in real life? It's like saying that most of everyone is stupid and can't tell comics from reality. Oh wait, maybe they are! I'd buy that. But then that means that the whole "make media less sexist" thing is part of a larger battle to steer the "herd" of barely-thinking cattle-people into believing one way or another. Is that what it all comes down to? Intellectual elitism? "We know better than all of you how you should think, so we'll take responsibility for showing you what's acceptable to read..."
Thanks. Moo.
Anyway, once you get past having equal rights and move into engineering a better world by stamping out that which offends you, that's where feminism loses me. And I don't want to call myself a "feminist" and then constantly have to justify why I don't live up to someone else's feminist standards.
I mean, look what that gets Mad Thinker Scott.
*"Morally" being a separate issue from "financially".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
I disagree.
Much longer answer on my blog.
While I see where you are coming from and I largely agree with much of what you are saying, the problem with your theory is that societies are largely defined and shaped by their stories, by who they say their heroes are and how those heroes act. We can see that how some societies treat women is vastly different than how other societies treat women. A major element of what shapes those sexist or less sexist attitudes is the religious stories, the heroic ideals, of those societies. If comics and other media make sexism seem like the moral choice, the heroic choice, sexism will become more prominent. I think it is true that to suggest that media can’t dramatically affect a society is to suggest that there aren’t dramatic differences in societies. Stories are important and not just to the stupid. Very bright people are still products of the stories they are told.
Scott:
I'm not sure I agree that society is all that shaped by its stories anymore, at least not nearly as dramatically as it once was. For one thing, how the stories are delivered has changed a lot. How many people actually do read books these days? We don't sit around the cooking fire swapping mythology, either. No, we go to the movies for entertainment and get our news from cable TV. I'd put Fox News as a much stronger influence on society than any entertainment media, and even then it's not like it'll turn some liberal Republican. And the feminists who protest, let's say, Frank Miller's depiction of Wonder Woman and Vicki Vale, aren't gonna suddenly decide they should act just like either example. Reactions to what's depicted in comics can be a positive, assimilatory thing, possibly, but it can also be a negative rejection, too. Not everyone raised as a Christian stays a Christian, and there's more to everything than just "the stories told me so".
The problem with *your* theory is that if the attitudes portrayed in comics do indeed cause those same attitudes to increase in society, then Wertham was right all along about all those EC crime comics, and maybe we should have more Senate hearings and reinstate the Comics Code.
elias:
(and if someone replies to you off your own blog, is it the proper form to follow them over there? I dunno.)
See my reply to Scott for additional thoughts, but more directly, I don't think it is Marvel and DC's responsibility to produce less sexist comics, not so much because comics aren't real, but because it isn't their responsibility. Does any publisher, any producer of entertainment media, have a responsibility to do anything besides make an entertaining product? I don't think so. They can act enlightened if they like, and maybe that'd be better for society, but I don't think they're obliged to be that way.
But aside from that, I don't like the "sexism in media equals sexism in real life" argument because it is a close parallel to the "violence in media equals violence in real life" argument, which I also don't agree with. When you believe that the Mary Jane statue is going to herd young girls into the laundry as docile servants, you kind of also have to believe that Doom caused the Columbine shooting or that Grand Theft Auto is why people steal cars and beat prostitutes.
I have no problem with discussing it here. :)
That's an interesting argument, but I don't think sexism and violence in the media can be connected like that.
Few people will actually get in gunfights in their life, but everybody has to do with women. With gunfights in movies and games I think most people are aware that it's just entertainment and real life doesn't work that way. And even those who are not will hardly start to act like James Bond. That entertainment stereotype just doesn't affect a fundamental image of society roles, like sexism does.
And I'm not talking about comics because they "seduce" innocent kids, I would say the same about movies and books and so on.
Sure comics are not very important, and one tasteless cover won't change anyone's life. But that's rather the argument that if I don't pay my taxes the government won't go bankrupt.
"That's an interesting argument, but I don't think sexism and violence in the media can be connected like that.
Few people will actually get in gunfights in their life, but everybody has to do with women."
Sure, but does everyone deal with women in particular ways because of what they see in the media? If a guy openly ogles some passing woman, is it because he saw the same thing happening in some TV show? If Heroes for Hire has a bondage scene on the cover, does that mean people think it's okay to chain women up? Even if it's played for sexy titillation instead of scary danger, or even some combination?
Even if I grant that comics can be a contributing factor to sexism (albeit not a large one considering the relative popularity of comics in the larger world), I still don't see how it is the responsibility of any publisher to make their comics sexism-free. And THAT leads into the whole debate over just what is and isn't sexism, and who gets to say which is which.
I’m sorry. I didn’t make that clear. I’m using "stories" in the broad sense that any story, fiction or nonfiction, news or comics, is a story. I’m not supporting the idea that sexism or violence in media makes people sexist or violent. I’m saying that stories that use sexism (or violence) as the heroic ideal will promote sexism (or violence.) For instance, a rape story in which the rapist is unsympathetic and punished, sexism will not be increased. In a story were a rapist appears to be giving the woman what she deserves and he is rewarded or respected, that will increase sexism. In areas where stories about suicide bombers portray the bombers as heroes, we see more suicide bombers. In areas where the stories about suicide bombers make them look like evil nuts, we see fewer suicide bombers. And Fox News is effective because they are storytellers. They frame the stories so that one group looks heroic (“The Republican Senator tried to defend family values!”) and the other looks evil or at least has traits that are culturally negative (“He’s mad man who gassed his own people and wants to kill you.” “The Democrats were afraid to fight terrorism!”). Stories shape the society. Casting groups as heroes or villains shapes the societies values. The Kerry Swift Boat stuff was a story. The Blacks are from the cursed race myth was a story. Gone with the Wind told a story about how a woman wanted a strong man to rape her and there was more rape then than now. While seeing violence on TV might not make someone violent, having a violent hero might. Idolizing violent people for their violent actions leads to violence. If it isn't the stories we tell that shape our society to make some more violent or more sexist and some less violent and less sexist, what is it? What is it besides our stories that shapes our values?
"If it isn't the stories we tell that shape our society to make some more violent or more sexist and some less violent and less sexist, what is it? What is it besides our stories that shapes our values?"
Well, I'll admit I don't know right off the top of my head. But there must be something. After all, the video game Grand Theft Auto features a "hero" who grows and progresses by committing crimes, I'm not sure you can proceed in the game without doing so. In the game, bad behavior has its consequences (the Police try to get you), but completing some nefarious mission gets you rewarded as well. And does that make anyone more violent? Well, some think so. But why doesn't everyone playing the game think it's okay to yank people out of the driver's seat and take their car in real life? Good family upbringing? A decently-developed sense of empathy? Other better stories? I dunno.
Perhaps what seems like lurid, violent, even sexist behavior in media isn't something that truly glorifies a bad act, but instead provides a vicarious release for nasty little urges bottled up inside many of us. Why is Wolverine, who KILLS people in many of his stories, considered a good guy? Because he only kills bad people? He's popular probably because he appeals to the part of us that says, "yeah, I wish I had a bunch of knives that could come right out of my arm and then I could slice off my boss' face." Most of us don't kill our boss because we get better training elsewhere in life.
To what degree can violence or sexism really be attributed to the same in media? Some say miles, I think fractions. YMMV.
Anon, I guess I agree with a lot about what you say about video games. And I can see what you mean about also stories being just a harmless way to blow off steam.
But where's the limit? Especially if there's another group involved who are the target, not part of the fun.
Let's say for example a video game about stealing cars also includes policemen as the enemy - and as an enemy that is clearly mocked and in portrayed in a mean way. Probably that won't make anyone shoot policemen in real life. But will it encourage to make dirty jokes about them, also outside of the game? And if it is not just one game, but hundreds that do the same stuff? Do you think policemen will enjoy it?
Sure I don't want to forbid stories that are about uncomplicated wish-fulfillment. But stories should also treat human beings with respect and fairness, especially if they are representatives of a discriminated group.
And the point is not so much some "sexy" covers. The point is that sexy shouldn't imply the message that it's totally okay to look at women in a disrespectful, objectifying way in that context. I guess that difference can actually be really hard to get if you're not used to that point of view. But it's a rather clear difference, believe me.
"Let's say for example a video game about stealing cars also includes policemen as the enemy - and as an enemy that is clearly mocked and in portrayed in a mean way."
I'm not sure what you mean by "a mean way", but in the Grand Theft Auto game, police are indeed the enemy (if you are seen committing a crime, they attempt to arrest or shoot you). To complete your missions, sometimes you must evade or even destroy them. I'm sure the police DON'T like the game at all.
"But where's the limit? Especially if there's another group involved who are the target, not part of the fun."
Well, turn it around: where IS the limit? At what point do we STOP trying to not offend any particular group or subset of people? How far do we go to remove all possible offensive stuff from comics? Do we not make fun of sexist white males because it might upset them? Is it cruel to mock stupidity?
Is it even possible to produce a work that absolutely does not offend a single person in the world? If not, does that mean we just shouldn't produce anything?
Anon: It's seems to me you are turning everything into a black and white thing. Either everything should be allowed (as you seem to suggest) or everything should be forbidden.
But it's not so easy. A society has rules and values and laws. And sometimes those values are rather twisted and should be adjusted, by means of a lot of public discussion.
It's like the difference if a friend calls me mockingly a bastard and I know it's a joke, and if a complete stranger screams it at me on the street (for whatever reason).
There's a lot of "mean" comedy that I enjoy, but the limit for me is when I realise the jokes are actually meant to be sexist or racist or whatever. Signs for that would include enjoying to humiliate one specific target group and repeating that very often to generate a "we against them" feel in the audience.
As I said, society has rules what is acceptable and what not. Sometimes stupid, sure, but I can't imagine not having something like that. That doesn't mean I would outlaw porn, but I think it's all right that porn and "normal" entertainment are separated. I guess what I'm trying to say is some of the things you seem to think are acceptable in normal entertainment (or comics) should belong in the porn sector.
To avoid misunderstandings: That doesn't include nudity of artistic value and stuff like that. I know that distinction is often used for jokes and so on, but I guess you won't disagree that most of the cases there is quite an obvious difference.
And in cases where it's not so obvious, like the covers we debate about - well, then it SHOULD be debated, if you get what I mean.
"That doesn't mean I would outlaw porn, but I think it's all right that porn and "normal" entertainment are separated. I guess what I'm trying to say is some of the things you seem to think are acceptable in normal entertainment (or comics) should belong in the porn sector."
Perhaps. But that leads to the question of just what is "normal" or not, by whose standards, and in which society? The American (or perhaps Western is a better word) societal norms are much different than those in, say, much of the Middle East. What we might consider merely cheesecake, they might see as porn. There's even differences in standards between residents in New York and in Kansas.
In my opinion, it is better to be widely permissive in these matters, and just deal with anger and complaints, than trying to appease as many people as possible, but in the process limiting what can be said or depicted.
You may think, for example, that your own standards for what should be in "normal" viewing are very balanced and reasonable. But would a deeply conservative Christian feel the same way? Or a liberal atheist? A soccer mom or a gay interior decorator?
I don't mind debating what should or should not be put in a mainstream comic, but I disagree that it is somehow a publisher's moral duty to conform to any particular standards, especially when those standards vary wildly from person to person.
That's a good argument. By the way, I admit I didn't expect such an intelligent and interesting discussion when I replied here first time. :)
(And, by the way again, I actually am a liberal atheist...)
First, to avoid misunderstandings, I am not talking about mature comics like Authority or things like that. I admire Watchmen and Sandman and so on. I guess I would say that there should be less rape and gore in comics, but not so much out of the fear of "hurting" children or whatever, but because children will not be interested to read that. Doesn't mean ALL comics should be all-ages of course, or even the majority, just a lot more would be no bad idea.
But that's not the topic here. I would say a publisher has the responsibility to portray human beings, especially if they are representatives of minorities or other discriminated groups, in a fair and balanced way. And especially in marketing and targetting an audience.
To give a really extreme example, maybe a comic aimed at Ku klux Klan supporters would actually sell. But I certainly wouldn't like it supported by a big media campaign.
I guess a conservative christian would object to comics starring gay couples. If that would have to be in a mature readers comic is another question. But if the story depicts gay persons in a fair and realistic way (and non-gay persons too of course), I can see nothing wrong with it. It's probably an opiniated story, sure, but not exactly what I would call propaganda.
Stories expressing christian values are fine, too, if they do that in a tolerant way, free of prejudice.
I guess that's the big difference I make: Prejudice I don't support. I allow it the right of free speech, unless it's extremely hurtful and openly calling up to major crimes. But I can see nothing wrong with critisising it and not providing it with a platform to reach major audiences.
And I think it's the responsibility of publishers not to support prejudice, at least not in mainstream entertainment.
I guess there actually are objective ways to distinguish what's prejudiced and what's not. And even if that's more about values and opinions than I think, those are the values of the form of society I want to live in, and I think they need to be promoted and defended.
That may seem to have moved the topic very far away from sexy covers on comics. Maybe. Actually I don't oppose the covers so much as the content of the story, the way women are written and portrayed inside. Fortunately there's been a lot of progress with that in the last decades. But if no-one had protested in the 60s and 70s, directly or indirectly, I wouldn't be surprised if superhero comics were still full of timid girlfriends that have to be saved on every occasion.
And again, covers are a special case because they are a part of marketing and will not only be seen by the actual buyers. Not a big problem in the direct market comics of course. But they same principle applies as would in other media, even if it's a lot minor problem.
"I would say a publisher has the responsibility to portray human beings, especially if they are representatives of minorities or other discriminated groups, in a fair and balanced way."
Why? Why does any organization, particularly one devoted mostly to entertainment, have any obligation to live up to any specific moral standards?
And again, whose standards?
"And especially in marketing and targetting an audience.
To give a really extreme example, maybe a comic aimed at Ku klux Klan supporters would actually sell. But I certainly wouldn't like it supported by a big media campaign."
Well, let's take that idea and run with it a bit. If someone did start publishing "KKK Komix", what do you suppose might really happen? Anyone who objected to it would protest, possibly most potential distributors and retailers would refuse to carry it based on its offensiveness. You'd be hard-pressed to find places that would even allow advertising for such a thing. There may be racism about in the land, but most people these days wouldn't support such a blatant example of it (at least not openly).
If it DID sell enough to be considered "mainstream", that might imply that society's norms are a bit different than is expected. Would such comics create racism, or would they sell because they appeal to people's pre-existing racism? If society says it's okay, does that legitimize the racist comics?
I know the answer that comes up naturally is, "no, wrong things are wrong things", but nearly everything we consider "good" or "bad" is the result of conditioning. A Middle Eastern society treats women very badly not because they're just mean (though they might be that, too), but because their society ingrains certain beliefs into them. To what is perhaps a majority of those people, what we might consider horrible treatment is normal, just fine. To refer back to what Scott said, stories may be a part of the process of shaping those beliefs, but they can also be a reflection of those beliefs.
"I guess there actually are objective ways to distinguish what's prejudiced and what's not. And even if that's more about values and opinions than I think, those are the values of the form of society I want to live in, and I think they need to be promoted and defended."
I don't think a value judgment can be objective. Prejudice is easily defined: Judging something before fully understanding it. But defining whether that has actually occurred is a matter of opinion. Sexism is also fairly easily defined: Making judgment calls solely on the basis of sex. But whether that is actually what is occurring in any given instance is also a matter of opinion.
Is the Michael Turner drawing of Power Girl sexist? I don't think so. There's some merit to the argument that it depicts that heroine in a dull, lifeless manner, and critique of the way Turner draws anatomy is not completely off-base. But is that a form of prejudice, or just a technical failing of the artist?
I think the latter, but by some of the rhetoric regarding that piece, you could get the impression that many feminists think it is sexism. So who's right? Everyone believes their own perspective is the correct one.
Each other instance of controversy has the same variation of opinion. Some may be clearer than others.
"Well, let's take that idea and run with it a bit. If someone did start publishing "KKK Komix", what do you suppose might really happen? Anyone who objected to it would protest, possibly most potential distributors and retailers would refuse to carry it based on its offensiveness. You'd be hard-pressed to find places that would even allow advertising for such a thing. There may be racism about in the land, but most people these days wouldn't support such a blatant example of it (at least not openly).
If it DID sell enough to be considered "mainstream", that might imply that society's norms are a bit different than is expected. Would such comics create racism, or would they sell because they appeal to people's pre-existing racism? If society says it's okay, does that legitimize the racist comics?"
That reaction to the KKK comic you describe is what I mean. There the protest would be huge and obvious, and actually have a direct effect. That retailers would refuse to carry it may sound like a form of censorship, but I prefer that to the alternative. (If there are no good enough reasons to actually forbid the comic, I guess persons who really want to buy it could get it by mail order from the publisher or so, so there's still more or less freedom of speech.)
That Turner cover is not a big deal, sure. I am not really sure if I would call it sexist myself, and I guess that there are a lot of feminists who overreact in such cases. But that doesn't change the fact that discussing the matter is important, and that there are a lot of cases where protest is justified, and even more importantly, discussing such things raises awareness for the problem.
Sure there will be different perspectives. That's the point of discussion. You might claim that the other ones overreact and don't listen to arguments. That may be a justified claim, I don't want to judge that. If that's your point it would be a different discussion, one in which I probably wouldn't interfere at all.
But from your initial post I had the impression you want to say there should be no protest and no discussion at all.
If a publisher feels no obligation to avoid prejudice I would protest, especially in comics I want to read. If enough people feel the same the publisher will react for the sake of sales. Also the people working there might feel uncomfortable with it, and freelancers might prefer other publishers if they have alternatives, and so on. I guess that has a similar effect as an "ethical obligation", so I'm not sure what distinction you exactly want to make here.
Again, what I'm saying is that I support protest against prejudice.
"If it DID sell enough to be considered "mainstream", that might imply that society's norms are a bit different than is expected. Would such comics create racism, or would they sell because they appeal to people's pre-existing racism? If society says it's okay, does that legitimize the racist comics?"
The causal connection between actual racism and racism in the media would be a feedback I guess, one influencing the other. In such a society protest would be even more important, and would need much longer to have any effect. Again, creating awareness of the problem and starting a public debate is essential here. (Ignoring possible violent oppression for the sake of our discussion now.) That may include overreacting and exxagerating sometimes, maybe that's even necessary to gain attention.
"But from your initial post I had the impression you want to say there should be no protest and no discussion at all."
Hardly. Discussion is fine. Protest is great. (By the same token, discussion and protest of that protest is also worthwhile).
Despite what some people say, I happen to believe that a lot of feminists are indeed attempting to remove what they find offensive, mostly without any consideration for people who might enjoy what they dislike.
The justification varies: it's "bad for society", or it would be "good for business", or they just don't want to have to ever accidentally come across something offensive themselves.
Much of the tone of the blogosphere suggests to me that a large portion of people who call themselves feminists would support the idea of forcing rules upon publishers regarding sexism. Instead of letting each person, be it publisher or reader, decide for themselves what to make or what to read, they want to take the choice away by preventing what they find offensive from existing in the first place, and preventing readers from having easy access to it.
That's one of the points where I draw the line, when it becomes not persuading people that something is wrong, but attempting to side-step the persuasion process by absolutely forbidding what is offensive. And once again, what you actually consider offensive is different for each person.
"That may include overreacting and exxagerating sometimes, maybe that's even necessary to gain attention."
The problem with that is that's also an excellent way to increase the anger and mistrust on both sides. You may get your attention, but if it also brings in a lot of yelling, pointless arguments, barely-contained loathing on both sides, will anything constructive really come out of it any faster than not hyping the issue and discussing things calmly?
Post a Comment