Saturday, November 10, 2007

This illustrates my point better than I could.

In a recent comment section I said that comparisons between the recent Wizard cover blurb and segregation based on the "Continuum of oppression" fell under the "Slippery Slope" logical fallacy.

For those of you who are curious as to exactly what is meant by "Slippery Slope Fallacy", see the second half of this post.

Also on that website is a great example of a parallel made between the Civil Rights movement and feminists who want better comics of the sort I was complaining about earlier.

Obsidian got a speaking part?

Why wasn't I informed? Why did I have to wait to read JSA #10 a week late to find this one out? I mean, he was talking for at least three pages there. That's HUGE for this character. That's more panel-time than he's had the entire series.

Maybe they'll actually use him in a fight in a few issues.

Okay, maybe that's too much to expect. But wow. Obsidian actually got a speaking part.

Friday, November 09, 2007

Tangibly close now.

Wonder Woman #14 preview's up!

(I can't believe it, since I whined so much when they got picked up for the book, but I really missed the Dodson art.)

Finally caught up on my comics.

Countdown Week 26 has what is now my favorite "Donna Troy Dodges Death" sequence.

Jason deserves to be hit on a regular basis for being a jerk all the time.

I think I'm starting to love Donna Troy.

She's just so casual about this sort of thing by now. She punches Jason (Actually, his still having internal organs on the inside of the chest after she hits him twice is evidence that she has excellent control over her strength) and then scolds him for being rude, and rather than reassure Kyle (who is, wonderfully, the only one who didn't realize she wasn't a goner and is pretty thrown by the whole revelation) she seems to just roll her eyes at him and rattle off some exposition.

"Yeah yeah, Jason's a really big asshole but not that big an asshole. Bob helped. Let's get on with the multiverse-wide scavenger hunt."

She's coming off (over all the specials and the weeklies) as this bland sweet-natured person who has just enough flexibility in her character to be temperamental when the writers need her to be, and is resilient enough to always be good for either a fake death or a real death. I can honestly see the appeal now.

In fact, I think its safe to say I'm reading Countdown for Donna right now almost as much as Kyle.

I want to see her die and/or hit Jason again.

Wednesday, November 07, 2007

Oh, for the love of little green leaves!

Stop making segregation comparisons when talking about sexism!!!

Please.

It makes you look like an asshole, which makes any further conversation awkward and/or hostile.

Tuesday, November 06, 2007

Oh, and while I'm here...

Everyone who read this post and thought that "lowest common (male) denominator" means "men are the lowest common denominator" needs to retake English next semester.

You fail reading comprehension.

Seriously, that's really fucking bad because I specifically added the "(male)" because presumably the lowest common female denominator would involve pushing a completely different set of stereotypes. (I don't know, bodice rippers or boy bands or whatever stupid insulting stereotype of fangirls you figure is the worst.)

To be honest, I made a mistake by not specifying "straight male" because a "lowest common (gay male) denominator" would be quite different as well. I apologize for that oversight.

But the prevalent idea came out of fucking nowhere.

I mean (and I know I'm repeating myself but dammit some people seem to need that), the very reason I added the (male) is because if I had put "lowest common denominator" in reference to a magazine that caters directly to men, that is calling men the lowest common denominator. By adding the (male) I was leaving room for an equal low involving an all-female audience or an audience of mixed gender. (Note to those seeking a lowest common mixed gender denominator: Explosions appeal to everyone.)


Still, some unbelievably idiotic readers read that and thought I meant the opposite.

Now, I admit, I've put out my poorly worded phrases and my mixed messages. There have been miscommunications that are entirely on my shoulders in the past.

This is all on the distant end, though. I don't know how anyone fucked up reading that one.

Sunday, November 04, 2007

I can't believe I have to make this post.

(And one last Wizard post. This one is entirely tangential anyway.)

I've seen several places that people have been saying "Well, the Feminists have SAID that if DC and Marvel want to be male-only they should put it on the cover, and now that Wizard does it they're all pissed."

Yeesh. Here's the thing about DC and Marvel and I'm going to say it before some dumbass at one of those companies (probably Marvel) thinks this might be a good idea. I was a teenaged reader in the 90s, lured by my sister with the X-Men Saturday morning cartoon. I never got the "boy's club" impression off of comics even in the midst of the Image craze. Growing up with the animated series I grew up thinking superheroes were for everyone and you know what? The Archives, Essentials, and Showcases support me here. They're loaded with sexism but the same sexism you find in gender-neutral and female-aimed entertainment from the same eras, just look at old 60s sitcom plots involving women and compare them to plots involving girls in the comics.

These things were for everybody, and they still should be.

Here and now I freely admit that if Marvel and DC were to brand their stuff officially as a "boy's product" I would be seriously pissed off for two big reasons:

1) They would be taking something away that I enjoyed as a child, taking it away from me as an adult and any young female relatives I would have wanted to introduce to the hobby I loved. Oh, I would be free to buy it if I chose to do so, but my honest reactions as a paying customer would not be welcome because of my gender.
(Arguably, this is the unofficial state of the industry right now.)

2) Because they would be telling me directly that despite having been a loyal paying customer they don't care for my money anymore and don't give a shit if they offend me and I stop reading. I would not be welcome because my money is not as good as a man's.

This is why I can emphathize with the Stephanie Brown-fans. I'm not a Spoiler fan, I'm not a Robin fan, I could give two shits about what's in the damned Batcave. I'm a casual Batfan, no more.

However, these women had a hero, a favorite comic book universe, and a number of elements in the Batverse told them girls were welcome there.

And they were taken away. Not just Stephanie, but Leslie and Onyx. Montoya, Dinah, and Barbara went to other parts of the DCU. Selina stayed, but Selina is a slinky antihero/villainess who fulfills a lot of fanboy fetishes.

Effectively, Gotham went from being for everyone to being for boys.

If you really think anyone'll be happy seeing that spelled out on the cover, you're in for a surprise.

If not, and you are bringing up an argument that basically states "They weren't for boys when I started reading! Why am I being pushed away?" as a "See, you got what you wanted!" gloat, you are a jerk.

And if you are saying "Its always been this way," you're being an ass. If that's true, then how did all of these people who are so "easily offended" by the "natural state of comics" ever get to the point of being regular fans?

Something got worse.

Why This Is Notable.

Not that I'm above beating a dead horse but I really wasn't going to bother with this Wizard thing again.

Except for the large amount of people who don't seem to understand why Wizard magazine feeling comfortable enough to brand itself on the cover specifically as a "Men's Pop Culture Magazine" should piss anyone off.

For those of you shrugging your shoulders, I'd like to bring two comments to your attention.

First, Papervolcano at Blog@Newsarama:
What I am concerned about is Wizard-the-organiser-of-Cons. I’m not sure how separate the two are, but is this attitude going to be translated to the various Wizard-Worlds? Are women going to be explicitly unwelcome there too? God knows Cons can be iffy places for women at the best of times, but if the Wizard Worlds are emblazoned with the “Number 1 Men’s pop-culture convention!” banner, that’s going to exacerbate a lot of problems.

Floundering though they are, they still set a lot of the tone of the industry.

Personally, I haven't spent money on Wizard in over three years, but the easiest major convention for me to attend is one of theirs.

As a person who no longer reads the magazine it doesn't really bug me, but as a regular convention-goer I'm a bit out of sorts here.

Second, Rachel in her livejournal:
It's relevant because it's visible, and because it markets itself as the comics magazine. Also, it owns a huge number of other comics periodicals and many major conventions.

So the fact that it's now advertising itself as a men's magazine says a good deal about its attitude toward women in comics and sets the tone for a LOT of affiliated industry coverage and events.

As Rachel says, they are visible and for years they have been the superhero fandom magazine. Its a little irksome that they don't feel they have to even pay lip service to potential female readers.

Dumb as the magazine is, insignificant that this blurb may be, you can't blame people for being pretty pissed. Its more of the "girls don't like superheroes" shit and I know I'm not the only one sick of hearing and reading that idiocy.