Check Your Privilege: Comic-book style!

It is amazing what one can randomly stumble on when looking up information about webcomics and hosting. I happened upon a bingo card of sorts that basically presents every non-feminist male comic book fan as a loony sexist. The card is meant to function as the Finally, A Feminism 101 blog does, which is to say that anyone linked to the card had better agree that he is a sexist asshole because saying anything else would actually prove that he is a sexist asshole.

The card itself is a wonder, not because it is particularly insightful, but because the bulk of it dismisses rather plausible arguments by basically repeating that sexism is wrong. This is not uncommon when it comes to feminists presenting their ideas and certainly not uncommon among feminists who feel entitled to have their opinions blindly agreed with. However, since the card is presented as rational and reasonable,  the dismissal of plausible arguments makes the whole thing look rather silly and driven by entitlement and ego.

Going through the whole list would be far too tedious, so I will discuss the most flawed arguments made, starting with the first:

Just read manga like the rest of the girls.

Oh, deary me. First, you decide that manga, which is much more a style derived from a specific culture than a genre, is universally appealing to all women. Then, you decide that, this being so, women should stop complaining about sexism in superhero comics, because they have manga! Where things aren’t sexist… well, not all the time!

You are wrong on all points. Manga is not universally appealing to all women, 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. Superhero comics shouldn’t stop with the blatant sexism because manga offers some alternatives, but because – crazy thought! – sexism is wrong.

While it is true that manga does not appeal to all women, the fact of the matter is that manga tends to provide the kinds of stories a lot of the female fanbase seem to want to read. Many women may love superhero comics, but a lot do not and rather than attempting to cajole the Big Two into doing something that will cost them their current audience, it makes more sense to buy the books that actually tell the stories that a lot of women would enjoy. Knocking the suggestion as somehow idiotic makes about as much sense as saying that Nintendo makes too much family-oriented games and should get greater third-party support with more mature titles or make more mature games themselves. That is a valid argument, however, in the meantime, since Nintendo probably will not do that, one could buy a 360 or PS3 and get all the mature titles one wants. Yes, it is true that one might be a Nintendo fan, but other companies provide what one wants, so why not buy it?

So you want comics full of ugly fat chicks?

No. Most likely, your critic want comics full of women treated as realistically as men are, in the same manner, with as much variety in face and body type. Apparently, you find that threatening and have jumped to an exaggeration of their argument that also demonises fat and those who don’t fit the cultural beauty standards. This says nothing flattering about you.

Variety in faces and body types? What comic books are these? These would not be the same comic books that tell us characters are supposedly 15 and 16-years-old, but they have the build and face of a 30-year-old man? These would not be the same comic books that rarely show slightly overweight, skinny, short, fat, disabled or multi-racial people in cityscape shots? I am not saying this is not a valid point, just that it is a stretch (a severe, Mr. Fantastic stretch) to pretend that males of all shapes and sizes and colors are presented equally and frequently in comic books while only women have one body type.

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.

Completely unrelated, but I think it is rather telling that the villains are clearly gendered in the above description, but apparently we are supposed to believe the author hates sexism. I suppose violence against males as entertainment does not count as sexism.

Back on point, one can complain whatever one wants. However, that does not change that the Big Two do not produce the stories one wants to read. So… one could boycott the books. This may seem like stupid, insensitive, pro-sexism idea… except a lot of civil rights groups and special interests groups have done it to prompt companies to acknowledge their positions. If the groups make a significant impact on the companies’ sales, the companies usually compromise. In short, the above argument is literally sounds like feminist fans are too good and too above a basic boycott. Their love is such that even though they apparently hate everything about comics, they will not stop reading them.

Not to be snide, but that is the reason the Big Two do not listen to feminist fans. You are still paying them.

That’s censorship!

No, censorship would be if the critic was heading a government body and inspecting each title before it came out, with the ability to prevent the publication of anything that violated the guidelines of that body.

Unless that is what the critic is doing, or proposing others do, what they are engaging in is critique, not censorship.

Personally, I’m not interested in censoring things. I want people to stop depicting women so poorly in comic books, but I want them to stop because they realise it’s fucking dumb, not because there’s someone with a rubber stamp hovering suspiciously above each page. If criticism contributes to people realising that depicting women so poorly is fucking dumb – and I have an inbox says it does – then that is awesome.

Um, I do not know where the author got the definition of censorship, but it is by no means limited to a government body:

Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful or sensitive, as determined by a censor. The rationale for censorship is different for various types of data censored. Censorship is the act or practice of removing material from things we encounter every day on the grounds that it is obscene, vulgar, and/or highly objectionable. Whether it is on TV, in music, books, or on the Internet, censorship is an inescapable part of human society. Censorship can be broken into different categories:

* Moral censorship is the means by which any material that contains what the censor deems to be of questionable morality is removed. The censoring body disapproves of what it deems to be the values behind the material and limits access to it. Pornography, for example, is often censored under this rationale. In another example, graphic violence resulted in the censorship of the “culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant” movie entitled “Scarface” originally completed in 1932.

* Military censorship is the process of keeping military intelligence and tactics confidential and away from the enemy. This is used to counter espionage, which is the process of gleaning military information. Additionally, military censorship may involve a restriction on information or media coverage that can be released to the public. This is also considered acceptable by even democratic governments as necessary for the preservation of national security.

* Political censorship occurs when governments hold back secret information from their citizens. The logic is to prevent the free expression needed to rebel. Democracies do not officially approve of political censorship but often endorse it privately.[citation needed] Any dissent against the government is thought to be a “weakness” for the enemy to exploit.[citation needed] Campaign tactics are also often kept secret: see the Watergate scandal.

* Religious censorship is the means by which any material objectionable to a certain faith is removed. This often involves a dominant religion forcing limitations on less prevalent ones. Alternatively, one religion may shun the works of another when they believe the content is not appropriate for their faith. This type of censorship is common in several Middle Eastern countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran as well in many U.S. Christian communities, especially Evangelicals.

* Corporate censorship is the process by which editors in corporate media outlets intervene to halt the publishing of information that portrays their business or business partners in a negative light. Privately owned corporations in the business of reporting the news also sometimes refuse to distribute information due to the potential loss of advertiser revenue or shareholder value which adverse publicity may bring. See media bias.

So despite the author’s best intentions, if she wants “people to stop depicting women so poorly in comic books, but I want them to stop because they realise it’s fucking dumb, not because there’s someone with a rubber stamp hovering suspiciously above each page” she wants censorships, specifically self-censorship, i.e. creators will not write or draw certain depictions of women (regardless of whether they exist in real life) out of fear of offending someone while also proposing overall dictation by feminists on what is allowed and what is not.

The reasons for this honestly do not matter. Freedom of speech and expression are both zero-sum propositions. If one has a way one wants women depicted and no one, particularly males, are allowed to show, write or draw anything other than that, one is promoting and proposing censorship. Just because one believes one is right does not change that.

No one wants realism in comics!

This is often used to assume a fantasy-get-out-of-misogyny-free card, so if you have employed it as “but comics are about men’s fantasies so it doesn’t matter if they’re sexist and demeaning so STFU” I am afraid that this blog probably can’t help you. Possibly, nothing can.

However, if you are arguing that superhero comics employ unrealistic situations like people being able to fly and punch through solidified walls of time, and thus a lack of realism in the depiction of women is only to be expected, then your bingo player was right to send you here.

The thing is that we all want a certain amount of realism in comics. We want, for example, characters to be speaking something recognisable as language, preferably a language we understand. Unless you’re a huge Dali fan, I doubt you want Superman to suddenly become utterly surreal. (And if you are a huge Dali fan, hi! Me too!)

While superhero stories often feature wildly improbable physical storylines, powers and character origins, the characters themselves usually maintain some grip on emotional reality. They have to, or we wouldn’t want to read about them. Even the aliens are usually understandably human.

That’s why things like there being only one woman in a team, to fulfil the role of “the girl”, or lots of superheroines thinking skirts are a good idea, or the constant focus on sexy!!! gets to feminist readers. It has no emotional reality. It doesn’t ring true. And it’s skeezy and demeaning to argue that because it’s fantasy, it must be fantasy that objectifies women.

It is demeaning to suggest that there might be instances in which only one or maybe a handful of women are part of a larger group of men? That never happens in reality? There are no instances where women might actually prefer interacting with males and would by default be the odd one out?

The emotional reality bit completely lost me. Without any examples I have no way of knowing exactly what is emotionally unrealistic about a woman who suffers from claustrophobia, but is a natural-born leader or a woman who cannot connect with others well because she cannot be touched or a young woman who lacks social skills because of an abusive father or a woman who acts as the glue for a family of misfits who bicker more often than they get along or a woman whose vanity barely hides her insecurities. Again, this sounds more like one wants to read a different kind of story that focuses on different aspects of certain characters, not that every male writer is a raving, closet misogynist who can only write vapid females.

If you don’t like it, shut up and write your own.

Oh, please. One, sexism is wrong and deserving of anyone’s disdain. Two, many feminist fans are also creators. Three, criticism is valid or not regardless of the creative skills or otherwise of the critic. No one dismisses Roger Ebert’s criticism on the grounds that he’s never made a movie. Criticism and creation are interlinked, but not interchangeable. Four, if “shut up” is any part of your discourse, you fail cogent rebuttal.

Again, believing one’s positions are right do not negate the validity of the argument. Telling feminists to shut up is inappropriate, however, the fact of the matter is that one’s believes should not control or dictate anyone else’s creativity. Like it or not, creators get to write or draw whatever they want to write or draw. Their work does not have to reflect one’s values or believes.

Secondly, if many feminist fans are also creators then they should be out there creating the kind of material that other feminists want to read and more importantly other feminists should constantly link to and help promote those works, not just out of comradery, but also because doing so would show the Big Two that there is a market out there they could tap into. It is unlikely that the Big Two would jump at the chance, but they might be more receptive to include titles or miniseries on the Vertigo or MAX lines.

However, dismissing the suggestion does not help the feminist cause. At the moment anyone who wants to create a comic can, so if there is a story feminist creators are dying to tell there honestly is nothing stopping them. If their story includes a Big Two character, then as a creator they should be completely capable of making some small changes so that they would not get sued and they could present their books to Image or Dark Horse or smaller companies like IDW or ONI Press or just self-publish.  However, the fact is that this does not seem to be happening. The majority of the indy superhero books and online materials seem to be done by males, so unless the claim is that the Small Two and all indy publishers and the all internets are all inherently sexist, maybe there are not as many feminist superhero creators as one believes.

This is just fanboy entitlement… from women!

And hence, presumably, even less attractive! Your critic may well have fan entitlement issues. They may also have feminist critique. Trolls often like to pretend one is the other, or else can’t tell the difference between “DC owes me a Blue Beetle/Catman mini-series!” and “Holy crap, if I see another Frank Cho cover where a woman is presenting at the reader, I’m going to scream.”

Honestly? Judgement call. But be aware that just because you don’t think something is offensive doesn’t mean the critic has no valid argument to make, and if you’re combining this point with others on the card, you should probably sit in the corner and think about what you’ve done.

To comment on one person’s style or depiction is one thing. To have the same criticism regardless of what one reads, who it is written and drawn by and what the story is about is nothing less than entitlement. So if the majority of feminists are constantly making the same complaints regardless of the artist, the writer, the story, the art, the emotional reality or whatever criteria they might have (which unfortunately seems to be the case), then yes it is extremely unattractive and annoying. Looking to be offended is never impressive except to those who already agree with anything one says.

Are you calling me a misogynist??

No, but now that you mention it….

If your reaction to a feminist criticism of comics is “But I like comics, and I’m not sexist!”, good for you. I’m glad you’re not sexist. But since you’re not sexist, why would the criticism bother you? You don’t need to identify with it. It’s not about you.

If your reaction is “But I like it and therefore it cannot possibly be sexist!” then you need to check out the concepts of “male privilege” and “patriarchy”. In your own time, please, but some good places to start are listed at the end of this column.

Up until this point I thought that the bingo card, while insulting to male fans, at least made some sense. However, the moment one plays the “I’m not calling you sexist, but…” is pretty much where the real point comes out: if one does not agree that one is sexist, then one is sexist.

The bottom line is that name-calling is not going to win over fanboys. Playing the “male privilege” and “patriarchy” nonsense really is not going to work. A lot of fanboys were constantly bullied, abused, chastised, mocked and ostracized and turned to comics for comfort, later finding other boys who were like them. So it is not very likely that a fanboy is going to “check his privilege” because some feminist who uses the same bully tactics this guy grew up fending off gets in his face and starts attacking the one thing that may have brought him some solace. In all likelihood he will defend himself and his passion, something he probably learned from reading comics.

But male characters die too!

They do! Your critic is probably not calling for a moratorium on the deaths of all female characters ever, but a closer consideration of the circumstances of female character deaths, the manner in which they are depicted, and the relatively lower odds of their resurrection compared to their male counterparts.

Women die more often, die more often to further someone else’s story than as a solid ending (or continuation, this being comics) of their own, and come back less often.

And, most disturbingly, they often look really hot in the process. Seeing a brutalised female body laid out like a sexy sexy centerfold can be very discomfiting for some reason! Visual association between the female body and sexualised violence just tends to push those buttons labelled “grotesque” and “the worst kind of objectification.”

Honestly, I am going to want some evidence for the claim that women die more often. That seems incredibly unlikely. For example, a few years ago Marvel had Wolverine take out the Hand by himself, which was something like 4,000 or more members strong. I cannot recall in the numerous shots of Logan stabbing bodies random women being killed. The same goes for the Punisher. The body count was overwhelmingly male. In fact, I cannot think of an instance in which women were shown being slaughtered, hurt or harmed and the audience was supposed to just write it off as a demonstration of a hero’s or villian’s badassness. As for heroines being killed, more often they are simply depowered and fall into the abyss most killed male characters do until a writer with enough clout wants to bring them back.

—–

The other points on the list have a similar pattern. There may be a portion that is valid, but it ends up getting wrapped in mocking and insulting male fans. The thing that bothers me most about the bingo card is that it is the total opposite of productive discussion. There are few fanboys who will read something like that and think, “Wow, she’s right. I am a sexist prick. I need to change my ways. Ed Benes and Frank Miller suck!” All it will do is antagonize them, and as I stated above, since the tactics feminists use are exactly same that the ones used by bullies who used to pick on fanboys when they were younger, the response will not be good.

More than anything, the “holier than thou art” attitude that seems to come from most feminists makes them sound so egotistical and entitled that I honestly cannot blame the fanboys who lose it. It is akin to going into a church, calling everyone there delusional because they believe in “Santa Jesus” and being surprised that they do not like you. They may in fact be delusional, however, one cannot say that–either overtly or in the aloof tone of the bingo card and its explanation–and think that they will just suddenly agree. They will get pissed and rightly so because one is not remotely interested in having a discussion or listening to their point of view. One already has an opinion and the only answer one will accept is “You’re right. I’m retarded and so is everything I like.” The same can be said of men who waltz in feminist spaces and start throwing around terms like “feminazi.”

So sure, insulting and deriding fanboys might make feminists feel good, but it also makes them look exactly like depictions of women they complain about: ridiculous.