I want to focus on one remark made by Kelly Thompson in the essay “No, It’s Not Equal,” regarding the inequitable objectification of male and female characters in superhero comics:
“If women, like men, were rendered like gymnasts, swimmers, runners, boxers, tennis pros, and body builders, you’d see far fewer objections, because that would make things quite balanced.”
I believe Ms. Thompson is entirely truthful insofar as she speaks for herself, saying that she herself would not complain if athletic heroines became the new standard. However, I don’t believe she can speak for the entirety of female fans, either those who are current comics-fans or those who hypothetically might check out superhero comics if they weren’t so sexist. At least I think that’s the self-interest rationale being given for why superhero-creators—or at least the more debauched ones– should clean up their act. By the terms of the argument presented by Thompson, there would seem to be no self-interest in those creators cleaning up their superheroes unless they thought they were going to sell superheroes to the “much wider audience” Thompson mentions at the conclusion of the essay.
However, as far as the remark applies to the entire hypothetical female audience for superheroes, it reminds me of an old Peanuts Sunday strip. The perpetually dirty Pigpen looks on longingly as Violet hugs Snoopy. “I wish someone would hug me like that,” he laments. “Maybe someone would, Pig Pen,” rejoins Violet, “if you cleaned up and on clean clothes.” Pig Pen runs home, showers, and dresses in his best suit-clothes. He rushes back and presents himself to Violet. Violet’s reply is classic Schultz:
“I said ‘MAYBE.’”
Pig Pen, after a brief chagrined look at the audience, goes back to slopping his way through the nearest dirty puddle.
To put the matter more bluntly, it’s possible a few other fans, real or potential, might be impressed by the proliferation of Athletic Female Body-Types, as opposed to those of “porn stars” (Thompson’s phrase). But I believe that the proliferation of AFBT, if it happened, would be no less condemned than the “porn star” type by most female readers.
I can’t prove my prediction any more than Thompson can, of course. But it’s long been my observation that many women resent any icon of feminine desirability, “porn star” body or not. I’ve witnessed a couple of women cavil at the charms of 1960s icon Emma Peel, and if any feminine icon had a less “porn star” body than Diana Rigg, I don’t know who it would be.
Further, although movies remain American culture’s most celebrated entertainment, I’ve yet to see much evidence that a significant female audience embraces female icons who are particularly “athletic” looking. In the last ten years one of the few profitable action-heroine franchises was the reinvented Charlie’s Angels, which presented its female stars with a full-fledged “porn star” aesthetic, but in a jokey enough tone that female audiences could tolerate it.
Television proves a somewhat different matter, as icons like Xena and Buffy the Vampire Slayer have garnered a healthy female audience, in large part because the serial nature of their programs allows for a great deal of characterization. Both characters migrated to comics, but the Xena comic, drawn emulating the relatively athletic build of Lucy Lawless, died. The Buffy comic, whose central character is neither especially athletic nor salacious in the “porn-star” manner, continues to this day.
All of these diverse facts indicate that no generalization, be it Thompson’s or mine, seems adequate to predict how some elusive “big female audience” might hypothetically embrace superhero comic books. I’ve noted in this essay that I believe superhero comics, like many other adventure-oriented genres, are likely to always have a dominant appeal for male audiences. That doesn’t mean that no creators should ever seek to improve the representation of women in the superhero genre in keeping with their own ethical lights. However, no one should pretend that this in itself is going to either (1) reduce the amount of protest over perceived objectification, or (2) result in superhero people garnering a greater readership and therefore making more money. If said reformers want to make such attempts, they should do it because they feel it’s right, not because it makes them more money or smooths troubled waters.
Though this essay is not the place for a sustained examination of male and female dynamics in their chosen modes of entertainment, I will suggest that it’s a constant that the majority of males will always want to see females on display, while the majority of females will always condemn said display, no matter how “athletically” a given female is portrayed. This is not to say that females are more inherently insecure than males. It should go without saying that men have their own catalogue of insecurities, and some writers critical of superheroes have been known to consider the very idea of the superhero as a “negative compensation.” Yet the fact remains that “masculinism” makes fewer inroads in popular entertainment than feminism. Thus few men begrudge the display of “himbos” like Jacob and Edward in the female-directed Twilight series, but a lot of women begrudge the display of women who supposedly have “porn-star” bodies—even when, as I showed in Part 1, they’re closer to Emma Peel than to Jenna Jameson.
RSS feed for Gene Phillips
Your deepest point is at the end: “I will suggest that it’s a constant that the majority of males will always want to see females on display, while the majority of females will always condemn said display.” I agree with the first half of that sentence, but I do not think “the majority of females” ever have raised such an objection.
The first half of the sentence is a really important point to make: as I once said, “men like to look at pretty girls.” This has profound implications, and it’s important to say in any such conversation. Men and women think differently, and to pretend otherwise is to perpetuate some very bad and damaging thinking.
But the second part of that sentence is a big problem for me, because I don’t think women often object to this, even in the West. I used to feel they did — but then I remembered that I was at one of the most liberal colleges in the nation and it wasn’t remotely representative.
This combined with the Lucy (from Peanuts) analogy makes it seem like you feel oppressed by all these objecting (nagging?) women, who can never be pleased. I don’t think you wanted to come off that way, Gene. But there’s a personal edge to that Lucy example — which, in fairness, is often the case when men or women write about this subject.
The goal shouldn’t simply be to stop complaints. Anyone who only cares about getting complaints to stop is an immoral person, or at least someone who shouldn’t get anywhere near art. No, the goal should be to identify where complaints are valid and formulate a reasoned, moral response.
The problem, as I see it, isn’t that men like random, scantily-clad women thrown into their super-hero entertainment. Nor that this sells. I think we’d all be aided if the fanboys defending the super-hero status quo said, “Yeah, it’s for men. Duh.” Then, if women (or men!) objected on those terms, this wouldn’t be such a problem — these are stories by men for men, and no one would be denying that.
I don’t hear people complaining about Jim Balent’s comics, for example, because they know what they’re getting there.
The problem is that we don’t like to think of super-hero comics in this way — and comics used to be a lot more diverse. We hear complaints (largely from men) about why women aren’t reading comics, yet the silliest super-hero stories (largely male power fantasies) are common (which you’re right to point out, elsewhere, may appeal more to male readers). And then these male-oriented stories are then filled with images of women that look (increasingly over the decades) be taken from porn shots (only with scant clothing added). There’s very little for females here — or indeed for even the more “female” aspects of a healthy male psyche.
Obviously, a big-breasted female super-hero is, on its own, no more likely to attract female readers than Barbarella, and to pretend otherwise (which you’re not doing) is only to demonstrate what a male clubhouse comics have become. No one should presume that what we need is more Barb Wire. What we need is better comics, and better comics have stories, whether with male concerns or not, that understand women as real people with real psychological space — and most super-hero comics can’t even accomplish this when it comes to male characters.
It’s not entirely fair to equivocate between body types for the purpose of drawing parallels. Because (as you rightly point out) men and women are wired differently: men and women are aroused differently, and male and female brains are generally concerned about different things when it comes to love and sex. (This isn’t theory; it’s backed by every bit of non-theory-based research done in the last 50 years.)
So to find a parallel, consider if every comic had an over-the-top love plot, where girl protagonists had to choose between a copia of wealthy hunks, with many of them being of the romantic bad boy type.
Now, imagine that these transparently silly stories accounted for 90% of all comics.
Then imagine if some men, wanting to like comics, raised objections to this state of affairs… and were told that the current female-dominated audience didn’t respond commercially in cases where the scenario was reversed and a male protagonist had to choose between various wealthy girls.
I’m generalizing, obviously, about what appeals to men and women, and the reality is far more complex. But I trust I’m getting my point across: what you’re saying here is fine, as far as it goes. And men ought to be saying that yes, they like looking at these women. And men shouldn’t allow the discussion to be an attack upon this male tendency — and I understand why some men feel this way, especially in America.
But making this the sole subject is missing the point: that we ought not to want this entire medium to be nearly this male-focused — nor even so narrow in its definition of what counts as “male-focused.” That the medium has become miopic, even in its attempts to be more girl-friendly, should certainly be apparent to all. And the fact that comics is so male-dominated — and so narrowly so — shouldn’t be used as an excuse for it continuing to be so.
So yeah, we can argue about male and female depictions endlessly. But the problem isn’t scantily-clad, unrealistic drawings of women. It’s that this is presented as general fare, when in fact it’s very narrow and limited in its appeals, despite dominating an entire artistic medium.
Just my two cents, which I’m willing to concede may be missing the point entirely.
How does “far fewer objections” translate to “the entirety of female fans”
Really?
Kelly said:
“How does “far fewer objections” translate to “the entirety of female fans”
Really?”
Point noted, but my point is that I really don’t believe one would see “far fewer objections” if hyper-sexualization were somehow swept away.
Here’s a summation of the 1970s reaction to the teleseries CHARLIE’S ANGELS, who certainly were not “hyper-sexualized” after the fashion of horny-guy superhero comics:
“While viewers couldn’t get enough of the three beautiful women, critics and feminists chewed it to pieces. Goldberg’s idea to “inject some really stunning beauty into the genre” of crime shows was not appreciated by raging feminists. They accused CHARLIE’S ANGELS of setting women back one hundred years and were appalled by all the titillation and suggestiveness of Charlie’s double entendres. One angry feminist saw the show as “a version of the pimp and his girls. Charlie dispatches his streetwise Angels to use their sexual wiles on the world while he reaps the profits!”
From this site:
http://angelsforever06.tripod.com/id12.html
If that was your point, then that is the point you should have made in your piece, rather than extrapolating wildly about something I didn’t actually say. I can’t honestly think of a weaker position to take in refuting another column than by misquoting the source material.
Regarding a 40+ year old critique of a television show on before I was even born…I cannot even believe you’re using the old as dirt argument that women are basically a hive vagina and that all our opinions are the same. If one feminist once hated something, then surely we all must? WHAT?
Yes, I am DEFINITELY responsible and honor bound to agree with what some other feminists said before I was born. /sarcasm
And this nicely brings us back to the exact point of why I would never say something like “the entirety of female fans” and instead said “far fewer objections.” There are always going to be women who like things like…Tarot. And that’s their right. I make no effort to speak for all women, I speak for me. And I definitely stand by what I actually said and feel “far fewer objections” is accurate.
Kelly said:
“If that was your point, then that is the point you should have made in your piece, rather than extrapolating wildly about something I didn’t actually say.”
The only reason I said “point noted” is because it is true that you didn’t say the words “entirety of female fans.” However, by claiming that the Big Two would get “far fewer complaints” implies to me that you think that a majority of those fans who do complain would agree with your take on a more “reasonable” depiction of feminine bodies. If you didn’t mean to imply a majority, why say “far fewer?”
So no, not that “wild” an extrapolation.
“If one feminist once hated something, then surely we all must?”
No, you’re reading my words backward. Precisely because I think many different female viewers/readers respond negatively to many different forms of female sexualization– not just hyper-sexualization– I think that the companies would still get complaints from people (not exclusively women, to be sure) fretting about how the Black Widow was going to set a bad example for juveniles, even if she never showed any more flesh than Emma Peel. That’s the relevance of the “Charlie’s Angel” example, not to state that all women think alike.
I do think that if you solved or even lessened many of the problems I talk about in my article and created more equality between these portrayals of men and women in their visual depictions in modern comics that you would take care of the majority of the complaints you currently see from female readers.
That does not mean all complaints and that also does not mean all examples of objectification would disappear.
We’re clearly never going to agree Mr. Phillips, but I’ll reiterate that I think it’s incredibly bad form to write an entire piece about about another columnist’s work and begin with “I want to focus on one remark…” and then take the quote and change it to a completely different meaning so that you can argue it.
Argue the actual quote, by all means, but your argument here has fallen apart before you’ve even begun because you’re being highly disingenuous from about what the original piece even attempts to say.
Nope. Just as you misinterpreted the Charlie’s Angels quote, you’re harping on the “entirety of female fans” quote because it was not an exact quote of what you said. But I never said that it was. I said that you could only speak for yourself, not for the entirety of female fans– which is what you *are* doing by representing the hypothetical reaction of the majority of them.
The only thing I regret about the statement is that it was less clear than I would have liked.
I can’t recall if Alison Bechdel said this, but I think it was her, that her greatest influences as a comic creator were not the traditional ones, but instead, female creators. It had me thinking, “Why is that?” But you know, it’s pretty clear. As you (Gene) point out: “…it’s a constant that the majority of males will always want to see females on display…” And the comics industry has largely catered to this audience and train of thought.
“I believe that the proliferation of AFBT, if it happened, would be no less condemned than the “porn star” type by most female readers.” There’s a part of me that thinks maybe this is right. It’s the part of me that looks at certain titles headlined by a female creator and title character, and yet, it flags well-behind the other titles. But then I think to myself… isn’t this just a token effort in the grand scheme of things in a field that is known to be dominated (for generations) by men whose use of women is often less than flattering? So, it makes me wonder if women are choosing to avoid superhero territory in favor of the indies, by and large, because it can often prove to be a sort of ‘hostile work environment’?
To wrap up, I’ll just point to Julian’s second to last paragraph as it pretty well sums my thoughts up far more cogently than I can. :)
I’m worried that anybody would think that the current female look in comics is ‘what most men want to look at’.
I agree that yes, changing the body-types won’t necessarily mean that more women will read comics (the problems go deeper than that, but this would be a step in the right direction). What I’D strongly argue however, is that more MEN would read comics if the female body-types were expanded, purely because our own highly diverse preferences would finally be catered to. I’d like to look at pretty women in my escapist fiction too, and superhero comics seem to only want to show women of the one type right now.
The problem reveals more about the stunted sense of sexuality of a certain group of comic-illustrating and comic-reading public than it does about equality. The lack of imagination on show is far more staggering than the rampant sexism.
That’s an excellent point, Mladen.
To which I’d only add that, if it’s porn-star looks and poses one’s in the market for, super-hero stories are (presumably) at best a poor substitute. It would seem better, at least to my judgment, to try to tell stories about interesting and diverse people in interesting and diverse situations… like any other artistic medium.
I feel like I’ve been largely chased out of mainstream comics, not by sexism or body typing, but by the underlying narrowing of focus and lack of imagination. The range of stories and characters on display feels extremely limited to me. They feel very cultish to me right now, not at all interested in speaking to the general public.
And I’d like to think my own response demonstrates that, while fans who like current depictions of women are fine to do so (a point on which Thompson and Phillips agree), the underlying refusal to question basic assumptions of the kind of stories and characters is alienating male readers too.
On the CBR Black Widow thread I mentioned elsewhere, the general consensus seemed to be that a fair number of creators would draw the Widow with plunging cleavage or heels just to grab the attention of readers, but that such depictions were not quite the standard in current Marvel comics.
So is it as much of a standard overall? I confess that I don’t know, as I’m not following a lot of comics, Marvels or otherwise. But it certainly seems to me that hyper-sexualization is not the only sort of sexual depiction that garners outraged commentary.
Considering that the aforementioned LOVE AND ROCKETS is one of the best comics to feature a variety of body types for males and females, and it isn’t a big seller, I’m not very sanguine about the potential of diverse body types to attract a large male readership, though I concede that the hyper-sexualization won’t either.
In the wake of Julian’s fairly perfect and all-encompassing response, I can only nod in admiration and add a few minor thoughts of my own.
You are absolutely right that an argument based on hypothetical masses that will flock to superhero comics if the problem at hand is solved is inherently flawed, Gene. Thompson doesn’t actually make that argument, but I’ve definitely seen it pulled out in discussions of sexism, discussions of revamping characters, discussions of whether DC dicked over Alan Moore, etc. It is, as you say, essentially speculation. The prime reasons to make superhero comics more inclusive have to be that it’s morally sounder and the comics are better that way. Which conveniently are the case.
I have to take issue with your assertion that “Few men begrudge the display of ‘himbos’ like Jacob and Edward in the female-directed Twilight series, but a lot of women begrudge the display of women who supposedly have ‘porn-star’ bodies.” Dudes ridiculing Edward and Jacob for being hot is practically as big a phenomenon as the movies themselves. The Schumacher Batman nipples traumatized virtually an entire generation of superhero fanboys. Men get just as touchy about the sexy stuff when shoe’s switched feet. If anything it’s more prevalent, and it’d be even more so if dudes had more opportunities get bent out of shape about shapely dudes. Imagine if the entertainment industry went “Okay, these movies sold big. From now on all vampires and werewolves are gonna be sexy teen boys who constantly talk about their feelings. Let’s get Justin Beiber on the phone and see if he wants to star in a Blade reboot.” Fellas would not be happy.
Also, c’mon. “Supposedly have ‘porn-star’ bodies”? “Supposedly”? Take a look at this year’s comics. And to take Mladen’s point a bit further, I’ve seen more diverse body-types among actual porn stars than among mainstream comic ladies.)
And I wracked my brain for a pointed and clever way to work the derivation of Emma Peel’s name into the discussion, but nothing came up. Ah well.
Colin said:
‘Men get just as touchy about the sexy stuff when shoe’s switched feet. If anything it’s more prevalent, and it’d be even more so if dudes had more opportunities get bent out of shape about shapely dudes. Imagine if the entertainment industry went “Okay, these movies sold big. From now on all vampires and werewolves are gonna be sexy teen boys who constantly talk about their feelings. Let’s get Justin Beiber on the phone and see if he wants to star in a Blade reboot.” Fellas would not be happy.’
But would they mount whole organizations, as feminists did with WAP back in the day, to protest a wave of Justin Bieber movies?
The full sentence I wrote was:
‘but a lot of women begrudge the display of women who supposedly have “porn-star” bodies’
There’s no question that some female characters in comics are depicted with such bodies, but I don’t think every “body” that (say) Thompson criticizes meets her criteria for the “porn-star” aesthetic. Here’s her quote defining that aesthetic:
“Porn star and model body types suggest beauty, sex, and frequently, submissiveness”
Later, she goes down a list of ten “marquee” superheroines and finds that only Batgirl remains covered up like the male heroes, though she admittedly wears heels:
“Of those ten women, only one has been consistently covered up the way her male counterparts are – Batgirl. The rest have been (or are being) subjected to a series of costumes that are quite frankly, bizarre.”
Do the majority of these characters show some skin? Yes. But does showing skin equate with a “porn star” aesthetic? A forthcoming essay of mine will look at two versions of the Black Widow in terms of the “objectification” argument, but just as a quickie I’ll note that I don’t think Thompson proved her case with respect to three other heroines: Ms. Marvel, Storm, and the Invisible Girl, and I’d like to see if regular readers of those titles find the women as uncompromisingly compromised as Thompson did.
“Do the majority of these characters show some skin? Yes. But does showing skin equate with a “porn star” aesthetic?”
You’ll note that she doesn’t refer to porn stars in the Clothing section, but rather in the Body Type and Posing sections. If you’re going to repeatedly accuse Thompson of being imprecise, you should make sure to keep your arguments on point. (Actually, I’m kind of kicking myself for not catching this earlier, we could’ve probably saved a lot of time on the Black Widow exchange if I’d noticed.) But honestly, this is just yet another side point that I’m arguing. Your comparison of the don’t-care-for-sexed-up-superheroines crowd to the WAP kind of drives home the width of the gulf between our starting premises. Almost like an Inuit and a Hawaiian arguing about the weather. It’s kind of amazing that we’ve found any common ground at all.
Also:
“and if any feminine icon had a less “porn star” body than Diana Rigg, I don’t know who it would be”
Jennifer Lawrence?
“Further, although movies remain American culture’s most celebrated entertainment, I’ve yet to see much evidence that a significant female audience embraces female icons who are particularly “athletic” looking.”
Jennifer Lawrence?
“In the last ten years one of the few profitable action-heroine franchises was the reinvented Charlie’s Angels, which presented its female stars with a full-fledged “porn star” aesthetic, but in a jokey enough tone that female audiences could tolerate it.”
1. I don’t know that you can blame Hollywood’s disinclination to make female starring action movies or its inclination to put sexualize women whenever possible on audiences.
2. Jennifer Lawrence?
The name sounds familiar but I can’t place the body.
If “Body Type” and “Posing” are just different manifestations of objectification, I don’t see any relevance to separating their etiology. Thompson stated that women were being made to look submissive by their lack of feminine musculature, not just how they posed.
Julius said:
‘I agree with the first half of that sentence, but I do not think “the majority of females” ever have raised such an objection.’
While not every female protest turns into a WAP event, I do think that it’s become the custom for “the majority of females” to complain about the depiction of women in fictional stories, sometimes with sound judgment, sometimes not so much. At times maybe it’s not meant as a general condemnation of the male of the species, but more of a playful jab, like Luba of LOVE AND ROCKETS saying something like, “Actually I prefer [men] this way. If they had brains we’d have to take them seriously.” That’s a line from a fictional character written by a man, but it’s a benign version of said custom.
“No, the goal should be to identify where complaints are valid and formulate a reasoned, moral response.”
Agreed, though we may disagree as to how to judge which complaints are valid.
“I don’t hear people complaining about Jim Balent’s comics, for example, because they know what they’re getting there.”
I found this remark by googling “Jim Balent” & “sexualization:”
“Many women, myself included, find the kind of hyper-sexualized, distorted, anatomically impossible drawings of women that Jim Balent specializes in to be offensive and juvenile outside of porn. The perception that that’s all the medium offers is probably the #1 reason more women don’t read comics, and in many cases, don’t want their children reading them either. I do a lot of comics advocacy work, and I hear that cited over, and over, and over again.”
To be continued…
The LOVE AND ROCKETS quote is a good example of something that wouldn’t be acceptable in reverse. Even in fiction, if such statements are not presented in a way that criticizes such a statement at all. I’m not a big LOVE AND ROCKETS fan, personally. I respect what it’s doing, but it’s not for me. And it’s content to tell me so.
Julius said:
“What we need is better comics, and better comics have stories, whether with male concerns or not, that understand women as real people with real psychological space — and most super-hero comics can’t even accomplish this when it comes to male characters.”
I’m not opposed to ‘better comics,’ though obviously my definition of them will be different from yours or anyone else’s. One key difficulty is that of marketing: many comics-fans consider, say, LOVE AND ROCKETS to possess “real psychological space,” but it still hovers on the fringe of the established literary world. I confess I have no idea how one can persuade the average non-comics reader that the effort of getting into the Los Bros world– which is not inconsiderable– is worth that effort.
“Then imagine if some men, wanting to like comics, raised objections to this state of affairs… and were told that the current female-dominated audience didn’t respond commercially in cases where the scenario was reversed and a male protagonist had to choose between various wealthy girls.”
I could actually see that scenario unwinding within the current subgenre of the ‘paranormal romance,’ which seems to have taken a definite presence within the romance genre– which last I checked, is still the best-selling genre within the ranks of U.S. paperback fiction.
Anyone else find it hilarious that the only time women appear on this site is when either someone is writing a rebuttal to a woman’s article, or when they post in the comments of male-written articles?
It’s hard to take any commentary on this site pertaining to gender seriously when it’s clearly just as much a boy’s club as most other places in geekdom. For a site supposedly dedicated to comics as an art form, this site is truly disappointingly conservative.
Sam,
Sorry to hear that we’ve been disappointing to you. Truly. We’ve had a female presence on Sequart over the years, but unfortunately not so much in the new iteration of the site.
We are not a boys’ club. That really hurts both to be accused of and to have to type. Obviously, that is your opinion, which we hope to change.
In fact, just this past weekend, we had a woman say yes to coming aboard to write for our site. Please stick around.
Best,
Mike Phillips
Editor-in-Chief
Sequart.org
P.S. By the way, Gene’s opinions do not reflect those of Sequart.org.
Sam,
I agree that it’d be great to hear some other voices, and I’m excited by Mike’s news another (female) writer is coming on board. But I’m hesitant to discount the comments sections, as those female contributors have added some valuable points for everyone to consider. Taking this thread as an example, I think Kelly’s challenge to Gene (and let’s just go ahead and extend it to each of us) to go back and reread the original source carefully is a great one! How many times do we argue the impression we have over the actual words being used? (I see it all the time with my students) I’m also thinking of Sam Reveley’s analysis of Craig Thompson’s Habibi–a really nice overview of the +/- of a non-mainstream work from an author whose popularity both sides of the gender line.
I also think Colin’s article that came out today (although written by a male) does address (in part) the greater concerns of comics as a boys’ club in general. Should be an interesting few days in the Sequart comments sections to say the least…
I want to chime in here to echo what Mike’s said. Sam, you are right that we need more of a female presence on the site. The need to make sure women are represented is something we’ve talked about and taken seriously through all the years Sequart has been in operation. This commitment isn’t simply a numbers game for us, and it doesn’t come from a concern for PR. Rather, we understand that diversity and the multiple perspectives and experiences it brings is intrinsically intellectually valuable. It improves everyone’s thoughts. And we also want this diversity to better represent the full spectrum of comics criticism.
As Mike said, we intend to do better on this score. But you’re right to criticize, and you are right that, despite our concerns and intentions, we have failed in this regard, especially recently. For that, I’m sorry.
About Sequart being “disappointingly conservative,” please let me be transparent and complete in my response.
I’m Sequart’s head honcho. Anyone who knows me personally (or follows my Twitter) knows I’m unapologetically a pretty flaming liberal (especially in the current political climate). But I have always maintained that Sequart is a big tent, where all views on comics are welcome, and that’s very important to me. The study of the medium is what Sequart’s about, not advancing my own opinions. And I assume that others understand that no Sequart writer’s views — including my own, when I’m acting as writer and not in my capacity as publisher (as I am here) — represent the opinion of Sequart itself. I’ll feel free — as a writer — to express myself occasionally in the comments, but I’m loathe to censor based on personally disagreeing with what’s said.
Maybe this means I err too much on the side of toleration, or that I over-compensate and give opinions with which I don’t agree the benefit of the doubt. That’s certainly been something I’ve struggled with, not only personally but when I taught college. When one is bracketing one’s biases to be fair, the tuning of that mechanism is important, because one can err too little (and impose one’s biases) or too much (and end up giving special consideration to those one’s biased against).
Another potential problem of mine is that the “big tent” philosophy I’ve articulated tends to be exercised on a case-by-case basis, rather than site-wide. In other words, Sequart’s concern for diversity hasn’t been based as much on creating some artificial balance, such as between conservative and liberal pieces, as tolerating both when they’re submitted. Perhaps this stems from my experience teaching, where one deals with the students one is given and the papers as they come in. But whatever its origin, this approach can lead at times to the appearance of a conservative boy’s club, where this is precisely not the intention, nor the policy that produced it. But of course, I understand that all the underlying philosophies and good intentions in the world arguably don’t matter, if the effect is that of a conservative boy’s club.
I’m not certain that’s really the effect, though I of course welcome your disagreement and rebuttal. In Sequart’s defense, at least when it comes to politics (though not gender), I might point out that my own work on Miracleman routinely examines power dynamics, including politics and the super- hero, from a pretty radical perspective — so much so that I’m surprised it hasn’t gotten some angry criticism. And I don’t think anyone’s accused Colin Smith, on Tuesdays, of being a defender of the conservative boy’s club. I’ve also often remarked how our comments sections (while often sparse) do tend to thoughtful debate — as well as to liberal positions — in a way I’ve not seen on other comics sites.
Finally, let me just say that I’m sorry you think and feel this way, Sam, both about gender and what you perceive as Sequart’s overall conservative climate. Of course, I’m also sorry for what we’ve done to create this impression. I accept your criticism as valid, and I agree with it about gender, though it hurts me to have to say so. I hope you take my explanations — and my admissions of potential weaknesses or failures on my part — not as excuses but rather as an indication of how seriously we take this matter and how willing we are to be transparent and frank about it.
Thank you for your comment. We shall endeavor to fail better.
Oh goodness, I didn’t realize until I went back and read my initial comment today just how monstrously unfair I was to all of you. I really, truly do apologize. Regardless of any validity to my criticism, the way I put it was just totally over the top. I can only blame sleep deprivation, coupled with frustration over the almost weekly occurrences these days of masses of male geeks ganging up on some female geek to criticize, insult, and silence her.
None of that is an excuse, though.
I’m still trying to sort through the suddenly much vaster and more tangled situation, so I’ll be in touch, and following things as I progress. Let me just say again that I’m sorry for being so ridiculous about this. I actually hadn’t even remembered clearly how harsh I was, and definitely groaned aloud something similar to “Oh god what have I done…” when I went back and reviewed things. My frustration with things as a whole shouldn’t have gotten in the way of my enjoyment of this site, particularly since I do, in fact, really enjoy a good number of the articles here.
I do not think you were ridiculous. Unfiltered, yes. But I stand by the fact that it was completely valid. Input is good. Unfiltered input isn’t necessarily bad.
But you’re incredibly offer these second thoughts. And of course I understand the frustration of “make geeks ganging up on some female geek to criticize, insult, and silence her.”
Honestly, I took no offense and just wanted to explain. And I do not want people to feel this way upon reading Sequart! Tired or not!