The point is to “energize the flock” as it were. Not to convince people, but make them speak out more.

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”.

Racism and sexism are entirely different.

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.

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.

I asked this earlier, but it might’ve gotten lost in the shuffle. Why is it an entirely false assumption?

You call my example simplistic, yet you’re the one that wants to distill your position down to a BINGO card.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.