It’s hard to discuss feminism with regards to comic books online without encountering the Bingo Card, a tongue in cheek way of highlighting common responses to feminist concerns. (An explanation can be found here.)
Point:
Dick Hyacinth, in a post previously linked on Meanwhile, points out the problematic nature of the Bingo Card.
Excerpt:
Maybe you should give the bingo thing a rest. Yes, we might find it funny, but I think it alienates people who might otherwise be sympathetic to complaints about sexism/misogyny. The post which explained the whole bingo concept (which I can’t find right now) does a fairly good job in explaining everything, but I still think this is a fairly exclusionary rhetorical device–you’re for us or against us! You get it or you don’t! In the present landscape, I don’t think this is a useful way to frame the argument. People are much more willing to consider your perspective if they think you’re inviting them to do so, rather than telling them they’re too stupid to understand.
Counterpoint:
Lyle Masaki, from Crocodile Caucus, points out the rationale behind the Bingo Card.
Excerpt:
The thing about the BINGO post is that, yes, the point is that there are some people who just won’t get it and, frankly, aren’t worth attempting a conversation with. ‘You’re for us or against us!’ isn’t the point, ‘You get it or you don’t!’ is. Maybe you have to get stuck in a few dozen conversations with someone who truly believes that The Thing is a good example of a sexually idealized male superhero to counter Witchblade, to understand the feeling. But too damn many conversations that go on in comics fandom are like discussing global warming with someone who thinks a cold winter’s day is reason to start questioning if global warming happens. Sorry, the vast majority of people who bring up one of those BINGO points aren’t worth treating credibly for one who values their sanity — any of those arguments usually ends up in a circular conversation with someone who just isn’t listening to you.
So what do you think?
June 29th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
I think that when you’ve given up on someone as lost to your cause and doomed to never get your cause, you’re doing something wrong.
The person you’re explaining something to for the millionith time may not get it, but the person who is viewing the conversation, but not posting, may be convinced.
Giving up on someone isn’t the answer. Anyone can be educated. Something I’ve taken to doing when I see someone isn’t going to be convinced is stating my case once more, as clearly as possible, and then simply not posting. You don’t need the last snark in a conversation. This way, your point isn’t diluted and is there for everyone to see in its purest form.
Plus, not everyone is versed in the facts behind the bingo card. If a well-meaning, but unknowing, person brings up a bingo point, screaming “BINGO!” and marching off like you won something isn’t going to do anything but anger that person and make you look like a dick. What if that person just didn’t know that something was wrong or hadn’t thought it through all the way? Dissing them with the bingo card is a dick move and likely to make them balk, rather than entertain the notion of learning more.
The explanations that were added to the card later on were a nice touch, but I can’t get down with it in general. I don’t see how it furthers discussion at all.
June 29th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
David,
You keep assuming that whenever someone writes about sexism in comics they are aiming to educate those who don’t get it, and that their work only has value if it accomplishes that. This is an entirely false assumption.
June 29th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
I’m not sure why that is a false assumption.
I mean, I understand that at a certain level, it’s good/healthy to rage at the wrong things in comics, and it’s cool for blogs to do that. But, I don’t exactly see those blogs as being what Dick or Lyle are referring to here. Dick and Lyle seem to be speaking on those blogs which are trying to convince/educate/whatever.
I know that personally, if I’m writing about something, I try to keep an eye toward showing why something is wrong to someone who may not get it.
What am I missing? This may be my personal bias or experience or whatever speaking, but I think that implicit in speaking out about wrongdoing is attempting to fix it in some way or another, be it educating or organizing a movement or whichever.
June 29th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
For anyone’s writings about sexism in comics to have value TO ME, I think they do have to be aiming to educate. If nothing else, to educate me about their viewpoint. But if they’re just writing to vent their frustrations, then I’m not interested. (True of just about any writing on any topic, nut just sexism and not just comics).
I think the bottom line is if the same points are encountered all the time, maybe it’s because there isn’t an effective counter to those arguments being disseminated widely enough. It’s better to light a single candle than curse the darkness.
But, if you like cursing the darkness, go ahead. Just don’t be surprised if some people decide not to listen.
June 29th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
the “bingo” card makes for a funny blog post, but really isn’t a useful tool in a discussion. it’s pretty self-defeating.
June 29th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
The feminist movement in a nutshell:
They demand the right to walk topless down main street— and the authority to slap any man who looks.
Sorry folks, I would be far more sympathetic to the whole complaint from feminists about the matter if they hadn’t largely CREATED the cultural climate for this sort of thing in the first place(and weren’t heading up the effort to enlarge upon it even now), and especially if their attention wasn’t focused on the matter solely because it’s an opportunity to refresh their status as a Perpetual Victim Class.
I have little use for self-appointed Moral Watchdogs who are only outraged because the woman isn’t on top.
June 29th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
I was going to address this in my blog, but more people will probably read it here. If I understand the argument correctly, the “bingo” response is usually directed at those who just aren’t worth the effort of engaging in a more nuanced/respectful way. My argument (which I made on the original post) was that anyone who’s not worth engaging in an adult fashion isn’t worth engaging at all. They’re probably either trolls or teenage boys or both.
I probably didn’t express this clearly enough, but I think the danger (inasmuch as “danger” is the right word) of the “bingo” response isn’t in offending the target, but in offending people who are observing the debate without participating directly. It’s a bit of an inside joke, and essentially marks the debate as one between insiders (those who get the joke) and outsiders (those who are targets of the joke). It makes the pro-feminist side look like bullies. For those who are on the fence, it might be enough to tip them towards the other side by making sympathetic to the targets of the joke.
I haven’t read the bingo card explained post in a while, but I do remember agreeing with all or most of the points it made, FWIW.
June 29th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
Jeff,
I think the bottom line is if the same points are encountered all the time, maybe it’s because there isn’t an effective counter to those arguments being disseminated widely enough. It’s better to light a single candle than curse the darkness.
I tend to think that the same points are encountered all the time because, despite rational refutation of all of them, the opposition is deeply invested in believing them anyway.
And hence, why those bingo points were expanded from a black humour joke into an explanation for each point that explains *why* they are ineffective arguments, complete with further reading. Presto, edumacational!
Someone who links someone else to the bingo card may well want to hold a conversation that progresses past engaging, for the umpteenth time “but men are drawn unrealistically too!” A lot of people talking about sexism in comics are thoroughly sick of treading the same ground. If I was writing, for example, a geology blog, I don’t really want someone turning up and diverting the discussion into a refutation of the argument “Hey, but what about the theory that tectonic plate movement is lies?”
Dick,
Ah! Thank you for the clarification.
June 29th, 2007 at 11:48 pm
The bingo card is silly. It’s a mildly funny little item for a blog, but it doesn’t add any credibility to an argument. Like it or not, the fact that an argument has been heard before doesn’t make it invalid. By simply claiming “this has been discussed before so therefore it doesn’t need discussing again” is asinine.
Sorry, but THERE are situations where the arguments involved in the bingo situation are valid. For example, bad stuff happening to men. Maybe in a comic where the female lead is constantly being subjected to sexual abuse or sexually demeaning behavior, that point would be silly. For example, I don’t read Bad Girl comics, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see that stuff in there. But if someone were to complain because, say a favorite female character was killed in a story where the other casualties are male or in a way that has nothing to do with gender, it’s a valid argument.
The bingo card strives to erase context, and therefore it’s useless. And it just leads to people saying stupid things like Black Canary or other superheroines cannot be involved in trappings of the genre because they’re sexist though the context would show that all characters go through this.
June 30th, 2007 at 12:03 am
Tired,
The point isn’t “it doesn’t need discussing again”, but “this has been discussed before and *I* don’t want to discuss it again. Here, go check out this thing that explains what I mean.”
Check out, for example, the entry on “but male characters die too!”, which specifically states that most critics aren’t demanding a moratorium on female character death, but a consideration of the common tropes of its presentation. That is *not* an erasure of context.
June 30th, 2007 at 12:29 am
I have to wonder what the reaction of female romance novel readers would be if a group of men started complaining that the male characters featured in such stories were unrealistically represented and objectified.
June 30th, 2007 at 12:44 am
Well, Smax, 22% of romance novel readers in 2004 were male, and the Romance Writers of America seem to feel that this is a market opportunity, rather than an occasion for hysteria.
I haven’t found an association of male readers complaining about the depiction of men in romance novels, but are you arguing that if such a group were to complain, the validity of their argument would rest on their reception?
June 30th, 2007 at 1:09 am
No, I’m just saying that when you choose to partake of something that’s aimed at a certain audience, you shouldn’t be surprised when *gasp* the people that produce that item occasionally include elements designed to appeal to that majority audience.
I’m not saying that women shouldn’t read comics or complain about legitimate instance of sexism, but if someone can’t handle the fact that Superman occasionally saves Lois Lane, then I have to wonder why they would bother reading comics in the first place.
Feel free to mark off your BINGO card.
June 30th, 2007 at 1:18 am
Karen Healy,
Saying “here’s the link to a preprepared argument” is saying it shouldn’t be discussed again. There’s stuff in those explanations that is up for debate or may not apply in any given situation.
Every situation is unique. There are plenty of examples of sexism in comics. There is also plenty of overreaction and claims about sexism that IMO, aren’t even close to being warranted. If I had 5 cents for any time Women In Refrigerators is brought up online for anything negative happening to a woman character, I’d be a very rich man.
It’s always better to debate than to say “Hey, your argument is stupid…here’s a link to a preprepared argument to address it” Because it doesn’t fit…it does divorce context.
For example, the genre complaint. There’s a grey area there. For example, to take a subject from another entertainment venue…James Bond. James Bond is a sexist concept. It is. It’s male fantasy to the nth degree…killing, fast sports cars, and bedding women. In the previous films, they tried to address that by giving James Bond a woman partner who was just as/more capable than he was. It was a valiant effort, but that’s not the James Bond concept. Those movies sucked and the one that went back to the original trappings was one of the best reviewed movies of the year. Does this excuse everything? No. It doesn’t excuse the worst displays of sexism. But it might explain why Superman rescues Lois Lane instead of the other way around.
It’s a debate and one that should be asked without people responding by saying “Bingo!” and saying it’s already been answered. No it hasn’t. Not in every case because every case is unique.
For example, look at this explanation from the bingo site.
“She’s not real. She was created. Her no-nudity-taboo-alien-culture was created. And they were created so that there was an excuse, however flimsy, to objectify yet another female character.”
I don’t know what this is addressing specifically, but this is an example of something that isn’t really an argument that encompasses every situation, is it? I mean, if there’s a comic out from a known Bad Girls publisher that determines that the She-Devils run around with no tops and they’re all drawn like porn stars, that’s likely being done to titillate and therefore, a complaint would probably be valid. However, a story could very well have a story that the lack of American cultural taboos is NOT a part of the character’s back story and it makes sense. For example, Tarzan grew up surrounded by Apes. It makes sense that he doesn’t wear a lot of clothing. Why would he? Why is that different for female characters? If it’s not, and I guess most would say it shouldn’t be, then it’s something to be addressed in an argument and not something dismissed by a snide bingo card.
It’s all about context. Really, it is. And that’s why the bingo card is silly.
June 30th, 2007 at 2:02 am
“22% of romance novel readers in 2004 were male,”
you know, that might be pretty close to the number of females reading mainstream superhero comics. maybe more. and I’ve can’t say i’ve ever heard any men complain about how guys are depicted in those books. i’m not quite not sure what that means. but it probably means something.
June 30th, 2007 at 5:37 am
The bingo card made my day. I haven’t argued gender and comics with men since CrossGen went ch.11, but it was good to see that someone had aggregated common falacious arguments and rational, eloquent responses in one place. What it allows me to do is link someone to a better explanation of my opinions than I can give offhand, especially when I might be too angry to remember my vocabulary words.
The bingo card doubles as a game for me in my spare time and, along with the detailed responses that some people here are ignoring, an effective counter to certain common arguments. Sometimes I can give a detailed response, formalizing the opponent’s arguments, countering them with facts, pointing out inconsistencies, or else clarifying straw arguments. For time when I can’t, things like the bingo card and the feminism 101 blog are there to lend a hand.
June 30th, 2007 at 11:48 am
Nobody’s ignoring the detailed responses. What they’re saying is these detailed responses can and do not fit every situation and are set against straw-men arguments in order to make their opinion more valid. I seriously doubt most people arguing with you or any other person use the crude arguments the detailed explanations respond to.
June 30th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Smax, you cannot imagine how relieved I am to know I have your permission to discuss sexism in comics. But who are these feminists objecting to Lois Lane being rescued by Superman? I might almost suspect you of making up stupid arguments and attributing them to your opponents.
June 30th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Linking to the bingo card as a primer on sexism in comics conversations is devoid of context, as you said, but it’s also unbelievably condescending (whether or not — and usually the person is — deserving of said condescension) and far less likely to make that person educated than, say, an FAQ of common arguments and refutations constructed in another manner.
June 30th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Betty:
I’ve seen plenty of female readers complain about the “damsel in distress” syndrome in comics. I wasn’t giving you “permission” to discuss sexism in comics, I was replying to your implication that I was arguing that people shouldn’t have the right to argue minority viewpoints. I might almost suspect you of trying to put words in my mouth.
July 1st, 2007 at 1:04 am
Well, I also believe that “no response” is better than the “bingo response”. The bingo, while funny, looks like a petty, arrogant, childish way to say “Stupid! I win. Flawless Victory!” Most of the bingo responses apply to trolls, straw man, or immature persons. When you take the high road, I believe then you are a real winner. The silence means “I’m above the incorrigible attitude of such small persons, but open to real, well-thought, well-meaning diverging points of view”. And this serves a cause.
Is easy to intelligent people completely discredit a person particular stance when this person display the same inflammatory personality then her detractors.
Also, flames only kill a troll on Dungeons and Dragons. On the internet flames are the essential nutrient to a troll.
The bingo to me is a classic demonstration of the every un-PC saying “Arguing on the Internet is like the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you are still retarded.”
July 1st, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Smax, objection to a trend doesn’t mean one objects to every specific example. In fact, it’s possible to object to a trend while having no objection to //any// specific example. If you turned on the TV and there was only your favourite show, endlessly repeated, you’d probably find that an objectionable trend, eventually.
So, while I, and other feminist (and co-incidentally, female) readers, object to the dependence on the prevalence of the woman as helpless victim story, neither I, nor other feminist readers I am aware of, have any objection to the fact that “Superman occasionally saves Lois Lane,” and find it an insultingly simplistic mischaracterization of feminist objections.
July 1st, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Here’s my position:
I agree with almost every argument made by the bingo card, but I believe that posting the bingo card automatically causes you to lose all those arguments.
I consider myself a liberal, but something I can’t stand about a lot of my fellow liberals is that they labor under the delusion that “winning the argument” means “proving that you’re right,” when in point of fact, it has absolutely nothing to do with this, and absolutely everything to do with “convincing other people that you’re right.”
A lot of liberal activists have arguably proven themselves right on a number of different issues, but because they have such repellent personalities, they actually wind up presuading other people to disagree with them.
My reaction to the bingo card is much the same – even though I already agree with what it says, it’s such an off-putting tactic that I want to disagree with it, in spite of my own belief system.
July 1st, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Betty:
You call my example simplistic, yet you’re the one that wants to distill your position down to a BINGO card.
July 1st, 2007 at 6:16 pm
I love the bingo card. It’s a funny protest, and educational too. When I first saw it, it reminded me of the horrendous amount of sexism in my favourite hobby. Thanks Karen, et. al.
July 1st, 2007 at 8:22 pm
I asked this earlier, but it might’ve gotten lost in the shuffle. Why is it an entirely false assumption?
July 1st, 2007 at 8:57 pm
They may simply be stating their opinion, not giving a shit about yours (for various reasons).
Or, they aim to motivate like-minded people to act together to do something about the sexism again making persuasion/education irrelevant to their present writing.
Or they may simply be wanting to spread information/awareness while lacking the time or inclination to go over it in little steps with the ridiculously small subset of their audience that (a) is somewhat open to persuasion and (b) despite A still somehow managed to avoid the 1001 detailed explanations (nevermind actual books) and is coming to this as a blank slate.
As for the exclusion and the perceived superiority, they’d better be clear and visible. Open and unapologetic sexism and misogyny don’t deserve substantially more respect than neo-nazism and belief in a flat earth. It is wrong that there’d be an industry wide boycott if any publisher allowed racist stereotypes to the same extent almost all of them employ sexist imagery.
Of course, few cases are that clear cut, but in the mean time, whatever happened to personal responsibility regarding one’s own opinion? Anyone who wants to be taken seriously in a discussion on sexism in comics can be expected to inform themselves at least somewhat before they contribute or before they can rightly expect that their contribution be taken seriously.
July 2nd, 2007 at 2:05 am
Yes, Smax. Some people were thinking maybe comics feminism should have some other blogs, or maybe a website or two, but I said, nope, we’ve already got the bingo card, let’s not confuse the issue.
July 2nd, 2007 at 12:55 pm
“It is wrong that there’d be an industry wide boycott if any publisher allowed racist stereotypes to the same extent almost all of them employ sexist imagery.”
Racism and sexism are entirely different.
July 2nd, 2007 at 6:27 pm
Tired,
I don’t believe that markus is playing “your ism is worse than my ism” but “This vile and disgusting form of oppression would be rightly derided if it regularly appeared in comics to the extent of THAT vile and disgusting form of oppression, which is defended as “part of the medium” or “just something guys like”.
July 2nd, 2007 at 11:14 pm
Karen, I thought our agreement was that you would no longer subject yourself to this.
July 3rd, 2007 at 12:06 am
Oh, uh… look! Puppies!
July 5th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
david brothers: I’m not Karen, but in many cases its not about convincing other people: A lot of them have already made up their mind and will hold to it no matter what. Read every post in WFA to see my point, and better yet, post against the ones that are obviously anti-feminist. The arguments will be exactly the same, and will irrationally hold to them regardless of logic. There’s no winning against these people.
The point is to “energize the flock” as it were. Not to convince people, but make them speak out more.