The topic of the month in the online comics community seems to be comics journalism, and before everyone loses interest I wanted to take this opportunity to ask a favor of anyone who has the opportunity to interview a comic book industry professional for a news source.
Please, please, if you bring up the topic of women in comics, do it right.
It is getting to the point that I wince whenever I see the subject of feminism broached in a mainstream interview. With very few exceptions, the interviewer vaguely mentions recent issues (”There’s an ongoing trend of feminist comic book criticism” or “the fan outrage directed at the treatment of women in comics” or “the tendency of certain fans to go after anything that even remotely resembles misogyny” or some other generalization) to show that they are in touch with fandom. The interviewee then repeats the strawman of their choice (”Well, anyone who’s actually seen my art knows I draw strong women,” or “some of these fans are just looking for something to be angry about” or “..fat ugly girls…” or “I did ask the artist for a breast reduction” or “I was actually trying to draw attention to the issue…” or “I have daughters, how can I be a misogynist” or whatever else they can come up with) and more often than not the actual complaint never gets addressed. We, the readers, have no way of knowing if the industry professional is even aware of the complaint, or if they are just making assumptions based on a quick glance at the reports or if someone is telling them vague generalizations about how excitable women are over little things. We don’t know!
I understand that the interviewer wants to maintain a good working relationship, but a poor response to a feminist complaint can make things much worse than they are for the professional. It does everyone a major disservice. The interviewer gains no actual status for having addressed the issue, because the interviewer did not actually address the issue. The interviewee’s reputation goes down a notch because now in addition to the original issue, the interviewee is now assumed to be clueless and has possibly offended and even larger number of people with an uninformed answer. The feminists are even further incensed because the actual problem was never addressed, an actual apology was never delivered, and they have been mischaracterized as a flock of raging harpies who frenzy at the drop of a hat. This in addition to any new foot-in-mouth syndrome that may develop within the interview.
It would be much better for everyone involved if the interviewer would take the time to look up some of the actual complaints (not posts and messages about the complaints, many times these are misrepresentations. Find the actual complaint — most are not hard to find, check the major feminist comic fanblogs, When Fangirls Attack, the Girl-Wonder.org forums) about the matter, read through them, and summarize them in the question. You don’t need to even agree with them, just present them objectively. Address specific issues. Quote some of the more thoughtful and/or clever posts, and use names when you quote–there’s no need to present the complaints as coming from some faceless mob. Since most industry news sources are online, it should be easy to link back to the post in question so that everyone can see what’s being discussed.
I know, especially in the well-established websites, a lot of the feminist criticisms towards the industry are viewed with disdain. But let’s be serious here. You guys are information sources. Editorializing is all well and good in the proper place, but if you want to honestly tap into the conversation about women in comics, if you want to truly give the industry a chance to win over some of the audience, you must get rid of the overt bias and dismissal you may have for subject. You can’t half-ass this because you don’t take it seriously. A lot of people do, and the best thing you can do for your organization is show yourselves as honest and in-tune with the audience, and the best thing you can do for industry insiders is let them actually hear and address the matter. Anything less is worse than never bringing up the matter at all.
When the matter is treated with respect the journalists look good for doing their homework, the professionals get a chance to answer the critics (rather than some shadowy rumor) and present themselves in an honest manner (there’s still the opportunity for foot-in-mouth syndrome, but better to get that over something you really think than a poorly thought out reaction to a complaint that was never made), and the feminists find their complaints heard, acknowledged, and understood by people in the industry at least once, even if the reaction is a disagreement. Everybody wins.
And we get to have rational, thoughtful discussion. Fans can be mollified. Boycotts can be prevented. Writers and artists can be taught. We can have better stories and less professional/fan fighting. We just need enough people in the right position who are willing to go out of their way and make sure the real problem gets addressed.
Forget this investigative journalist meme that’s going around. Any fanblogger can draw conclusions and check on a few facts. What any fanblogger can’t do is talk to the Editor-in-Chief of Marvel or DC. The community doesn’t need people who can play detective. The community needs people who can conduct an interview objectively.
October 19th, 2007 at 11:08 am
Good piece, but I think it would have been much stronger if you’d cited & linked to a couple actual examples of what you’re talking about, like maybe this recent interview on the main Newsarama site. (I assume that’s one of the interviews you had in mind, so it seems strange that you didn’t just link to it to show a concrete case of lazy interviewing.)
October 19th, 2007 at 11:49 am
“What any fanblogger can’t do is talk to the Editor-in-Chief of Marvel or DC.”
While it’s true not everybody can get a phone or in-person interview, I seem to recall Quesada’s pretty good about answering emails from anybody. I sent him some questions maybe a year or two ago and got a response in fairly short order (well, short considering how much email the guy must have to wade through).
I don’t know if that’s still how it is, and I don’t know if Didio is similar, but it’s probably worth a shot — not just in hopes of getting answers, but also as a way of letting them know there’s interest in discussing these issues beyond a few people complaining on message boards.
October 19th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
I wish people wouldn’t use “strawman” in these discussions. With that one word you invalidate everything the person and said and/or call the misogynist. To a degree it’s almost like a Republican saying someone hates American if they disagree with them. If the argument is so bogus, then why not lay out why you think it is bogus?
There are only so many things someone can say if you say they are XY or Z. If you call a black man racist, he might say ” but I’m black” etc. Does that automatically make it a straw argument?
Anyway….
Nice article.
October 19th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Nobody likes to be grilled on why they’re misogynists. Particularly when they’re not. Personally, I think there was a chance to strike a real blow for feminism in women’s comics, but the chance was squandered long ago. People have cried wolf way too many times, and as a result, people are sick and tired of having to deal with the fringe, so they are not going to deal with the moderates. Such is the way of the world…the people who shout the loudest ultimately cause those who might be sympathetic to their cause to shut their ears. As a result, creators and fans that enjoy those creators are not going to respond to any questions about feminism in a non-defensive manner. That’s the world that’s been created for them.
October 19th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
TTG, I think you’re envisioning a reporter going too far the other way. Lisa’s post asks that interviewers “just present them objectively. Address specific issues. Quote some of the more thoughtful and/or clever posts, and use names when you quote”.
And I’m not sick of reading or hearing about it. The new GA/BC interview with Winick on the mainsite puts the same crink in my brain that it would have a year ago.
October 20th, 2007 at 9:13 am
Kwaku:
I think you’re misunderstanding the context of the word “strawman”.
Someone saying “I’m not misogynist because I have daughters” is a crappy argument, but not necessarily a strawman argument. (Crappy because it doesn’t acknowledge how much of this sort of thing is unconsciously programmed into us by society. I know I have, as a woman, expressed misogynistic tendancies too. And if *I* am not excused for mine, then Bendis sure as heck isn’t excused for any that HE arguably expressed.)
A strawman argument is instead is a technique used to trivialize your opponent by equating their argument to something irrational.
Look at it like this, two guys are in the bar arguing sports teams. One likes the Yankees. One likes the Sox.
One might say “The Yankees are doing great this year! Look at so-and-so’s batting average! I think they’re doing better than the Sox.”
The other COULD say “No, the Sox are doing better this year because of this, this and this.” Then you have a disagreement and interesting argument.
But say, instead of saying that, the second guy suddenly says “So you’re saying the Sox suck? So you’re saying I’m stupid for liking them? All of you Yankees fans are judgmental unreasonable bastards!”
THAT would be a strawman argument. The first guy never said anything of the sort. The second guy either genuinely misunderstood (which does happen) or he’s purposefully exaggerating the first guy’s comment to make it into a moral victory for himself. Now he doesn’t NEED to establish fact to prove anything, because the argument he SAYS that the other guy is using is so clearly idiotic.
Strawmen are traditionally effigies, burned in ritual in lieu of a real person, likewise a strawman argument is one used in lieu of the real one, because the real one is too complicated to have such an easy counter. It’s disrespectful, pointless, and ultimately doesn’t prove anything because that was NOT the original argument.
October 20th, 2007 at 9:21 am
John — That’s an interesting example. Thank you.
Kiwaku — I use the term strawman because a strawman is when someone creates an imaginary extreme that they can argue against and give the impression of being the reasonable one without actually engaging their critics.
Yes, there are many other logical fallacies bounded up in the answers, but it all comes down to the distortion of the original complaint.
“I have daughters, I’m not a misogynist” replaced a “I feel this cover implies sexual violence because of the look of abject terror on her face, the phallic weapon of the villain and the way her outfit is zipped down to the navel” complaint with “You just personally attacked me and called me a woman-hater! I can’t be, because I have daughters!” Special pleading, on top of a strawman.
“The people who complain about this stuff tend to be fat ugly girls who can’t pull them off” specifically ignores “women do not bend at mid-thigh, arch their backs to that degree, have the ability to fight in spiked heels without breaking tiny ankles, and have boobs bigger than their heads” criticisms in favor of “why do they all look like supermodels?” because it made it easier to make a personal attack. Personal attack on top of a strawman.
I used strawman because I’m addressing the strawman tendency in this post. There’ll be time to address other logical fallacies once the actual arguments manage to make their way to the professionals.
October 20th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
“TTG, I think you’re envisioning a reporter going too far the other way. Lisa’s post asks that interviewers “just present them objectively. Address specific issues. Quote some of the more thoughtful and/or clever posts, and use names when you quote”
I’m not saying there isn’t validity in the original post. What I’m saying is because of the way people seem to think finding sexism in comics is just as much of a hobby as reading comics, comics professionals are generally going to be on the defensive on this issue. I can’t blame them at all for that stance based on the hysteria that surrounds these sexist issues. Sure, probably the majority of people concerned are moderates that simply roll their eyes about sexism and wish that would change. Unfortunately, their is a vocal minority that seem to think metaphorical pitchforks and angry mobs are the best ways to get things done. As a result, I can see interviewers shying away from the topic. Look at the slings these comic creators have to take on a daily basis for writing comic books, for god’s sakes. I can see not wanting to tick them off by bringing up issues in a movement that has recently been co-opted by people who enjoy the crusade rather than the end result.
“And I’m not sick of reading or hearing about it. The new GA/BC interview with Winick on the mainsite puts the same crink in my brain that it would have a year ago.”
I look at that interview and see exactly the problem. Winick stated the person who died was originally going to be Black Canary and they switched it to Green Arrow. I’m not defending his writing..not my cup of tea. But people were going nuts because HE THOUGHT of killing Black Canary. That’s not rational criticism and I can see why creators like Winick would say “Screw you, I’m not misogynistic” whenever a like topic comes up. It’s just like the NRA. The people in that organization are probably mostly moderate. The fact that the extreme people in charge hold rallies just a few days after Columbine make me disregard everything they say, however. Same with PETA. Moderation would have done a great service to this debate. Now people are getting tired of it. You might not be, but look at the sentiment as this comes up now. The times they are a changing.
October 20th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
“The people who complain about this stuff tend to be fat ugly girls who can’t pull them off” specifically ignores “women do not bend at mid-thigh, arch their backs to that degree, have the ability to fight in spiked heels without breaking tiny ankles, and have boobs bigger than their heads” criticisms in favor of “why do they all look like supermodels?” because it made it easier to make a personal attack. Personal attack on top of a strawman.”
Can you show the comic creators who have said the above? Because this sounds like an ACTUAL strawman.
October 20th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
I think I just got schooled.
Thanks for clearing that up.
October 20th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
TTG — Try a quick search on “Misty Lee” and “podcast” for the whole sordid story.
October 20th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
I did and found that Misty Lee had said on a podcast that she had read on internet forums (from fans and not pros) that ugly, fat girls are the ones complaining. She said she doesn’t necessarily agree with that, but said people who are secure in their sexuality probably do not mind the physiques of comic book women.
The person who led the charge against Misty Lee retracted her comments because Misty clearly did not say what had been ascribed to her. While what she was saying was inarticulately phrased and can be misread, she at no point called critics ugly, fat chicks.
That makes a bit more sense. I had a hard time believing a professional would say “ugly, fat chicks” in response to a complaint.
October 20th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
You don’t think “I read somewhere that ugly, fat girls are complaining about this” isn’t a strawman argument?
It’s a passive aggressive form of saying “this is what I think, but I don’t have the guts to attribute it to me, so I’m mentioning these faceless sources.”
And that retraction? If you’re talking about the one on Occasional Superheroine’s blog, she was one of those who spoke on the subject, but hardly the only one. And I’d point out that if you go back a few entries, she had actually spoken out in defense of Lee before her retraction.
Quite a LOT of people heard that podcast and did not interpret it nearly so favorably.
Here’s some places that briefly address it, and provide links to notable reactions.
October 21st, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Not that I’m defending the beating or anything, but seriously, when has Bendis ever written heroes of either gender as anything but ineffectual, chatty, and flat out unheroic? Based on that alone, I’m sure he genuinely didn’t see this as sexist.
October 21st, 2007 at 7:19 pm
From the interview:
NRAMA: But reading it at first, honestly, I was somewhat reluctant to see what fans were saying. There does seem to be a segment of fandom that’s looking to go after anything that remotely looks like a misogynistic act, and here is a guy beating a female character unconscious in what’s not even a fair fight. But – obviously, there’s some ill feeling towards you about the scene, but I’ve yet to spot the pictures of little bald dolls being burned in effigy…
Hmm. Doesn’t read the internet much, does this Mr. Brady?
But the real weak aspect of this kind of this kind of ingratiating question is that it’s mainly a set up for the interviewee to pat himself or herself on the back. Which Bendis does in his response.
I don’t expect Brady to lash out at Bendis. That’s not an interviewer’s job, either. But to ask a leading series of questions and to avoid the reality that Bendis is getting raked over the coals… it’s almost like Brady is trying to shield him from reality.
In fairness, maybe this interview took place during the early reaction before the ball really got rolling. But given the softball nature of it all, the praise cunningly worded as “questions,” the only thing missing from this interview is Brady giving Bendis a footrub and offering a tray of lemonade and snack cakes.
October 21st, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Oh, I overlooked this gem, where Brady actually tries to help Bendis answer the questions:
NRAMA: And to cap that it wasn’t sexual, The Hood explained why he was going to do what he did beforehand…
Wow. That’s some nice pre-emptive work there, Mr. Brady. That’s the actual point where even the pretense of objectivity from the early going is thrown out the window and replaced with fawning bootlickery.
October 22nd, 2007 at 1:24 am
I sincerely doubt Newsarama is going to seriously have a contentious interview with one of comics most powerful issues anymore than I’m going to read an interview with Michael Bay in Entertainment Tonight that starts off with “Why do all your movies suck?”
October 25th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Great blog! Thanks. I recently had breast reduction surgery and by accident I stumbled upon http://www.thepatientsadvantage.com. I used them when looking for a surgeon.
What I liked the most was that my profile remained anynomyous until I was ready to decide what to do. I received replies from four surgeons that met all the things I was looking for. I liked having that complete control without the sales pressure that some of these places can be known for.
If you are going to go down the cosmetic surgery road…better to be safe than sorry. Check them out.