Girls in the Treehouse

[eumelia]

Disclaimer: This Post is link heavy and a bit convoluted, apologies in advance.

In relation to my previous post.

The outrage, anger and commentary is still going on and after reading many, lots, more and today's blog posts* on the subject and I can't say if it's good or bad.
I did my part and e-mailed** the relevant people, but I have the feeling they've got a special folder especially for the letters coming from people like me and aforementioned Feminist Fangirls.

I just love, absolutely love how some people completely miss the point of anger that stems from that Mary-Jane (MJ) statue.
I mean, this is very dense if this he can write something like this:

Like it or not, superhero comics are made by and for men. That doesn’t mean that’s all they can ever be, but that’s the way it is now, and until female fans gain enough economic clout to dictate terms, they’re going to remain safely ignorable. Want to change that? Make the fucking comics and build the audience you need to affect change.

Be sure to read the *headdesk" inducing, lengthy, commentary at the bottom.

Can you feel entitlement, the patronizing tone... the absolute, oh I don't "knee-jerk outrage and reactionary herdthink... his words again, talking about the multiple posts that have appeared on the Internet (specifically WFA!) over the past few days about MJ.

I'd like to comment there, but I'm not in the habit commenting in what is obviously a hostile environemnt and I don't do anonymous commenting, so I safely link and quote on my personal LJ... ain't the Internet grand, to be able to safely say what you want, about whatever you want, with no editing what so ever.
After all, whose going to complain... a bunch of fangirls with no economical clout?

I'm inclined to say that this guy (Dirk Deppey is his name) is a little bit intimidated by the amount women commenting about MJ. I'm inclined to say that he's surprised by the fact that, gosh, we give a fuck.
But he like many before him and many that will come after, try to save face, from this obvious example of rampant sexism, but giving the very old excuse of Primitive Male Sexuality.
So the fact that the practically all entertainment industries, from the popular "Sports Illustrated" to the fringe industries of Comic Books... they are catered towards men.
He goes so far as to show that this is a universal male trait, since gay porn is much the same... catered towards the visually oriented, Primitive Male Sexuality.

Unlike this man here, I give most men the benefit of thinking they're people, and not monkeys, because men, like women, are human beings.
Which the makers of the MJ (and others) seem to think are not.
It seems that Marvel and DC are willing to treat their buyers like sex crazed Neanderthals and use female characters as fodder for their money bags.

The poor Boys have to deal with the fact that many, many Girls are entering (or already inside) the Comic Book Club Tree House and are rearranging the furniture, just a little, so that they don't have to sit on the floor or the other boys' laps.

I could go on and on.

Worry not.

I will.

Notes:
*All links are to When Fangirls Attack.
** Link to Written World.

In addition, the genocide in Darfur must be stopped.

וכמו כן, צריך לעצור את רצח העם בדרפור.

Comments

[lord-dingsi.livejournal.com]

He goes so far as to show that this is a universal male trait, since gay porn is much the same... catered towards the visually oriented, Primitive Male Sexuality. -- Unlike this man here, I give most men the benefit of thinking they're people, and not monkeys, because men, like women, are human beings.

This myth of the raw, primitive, can't-help-ourselves male sexuality is a pet peeve of mine. And, honestly, I don't understand why there aren't more men objecting to it. Men aren't machines -- not even "sex machines" -- and yet, their sexual appetite is usually portrayed as something unsophisticated, violent, and as simple as switching a lever. "Look, boobs!" = instant desire to fuck, brain stops functioning*. It also ties into the victim-blaming and similar attitudes towards rape, because horny men are like an unstoppable force of nature or something and you can't expect them to not think with their dicks, therefore it's the womens' fault for wearing a short skirt. Just great.

* But being men, they probably never used their higher brain functions anyway! Hurr hurr. </sarcasm>

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

*nods*
I agree, that's why reading this guy pissed me off so much, I'm like, okay, it's fine that you think you're and idiot why, throw a blanket statement over an entire industry and 50% of the population!

It's things like this that drive me nuts.

[williamgeorge.livejournal.com]

To be fair, Dirk wasn't talking about 50% of the population. He was talking about that tiny percentage of men that make up the majority of superhero comic shoppers.

Marvel and DC keep putting out fanboy wank material because it's wanking fanboys that buy the most of it. Simple economics.

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

To be fair, he was using the comic book industry to throw a blanket statement over mankind, but I see your point.

Thing is, that material and in particular statues and busts are things that the general public and not just fanboys/girls can see. And with the popularity that comic book heroes have gained in the past five years and more due to the movies which generally open the industry to more outsiders, you'd think they'd care a little bit more about the cheescakery and demeaning posture of MJ doing the laundry, just as an example.

[gregusa.livejournal.com]

You'd think they would, but they don't. DC and Marvel DO NOT care about non-fanboys at all. They only care about the bottom line. They only care about what sells. And the only people they care about selling to is their already well-trained fanbase. Everyone else can go to hell. Appease the shareholder - serve the fanboy. It doesn't mean it's right. It's just the way it is. Doesn't mean it's not worth trying to change.

I took Dirk's point to be "why try to make them change when it would be easier to start up somewhere else". Which makes sense. I've written off DC or Marvel ever doing anything with my favorite characters they own that I'll be interested in reading. And I hate that. But I've moved on. There are tons of great comics of all kinds out there. More enough to fill up my available time with reading material. I don't have time to worry about comics I quit liking.

Huh?

[(Anonymous)]

I'm sorry, but I can't follow your logic here. You seem to have had a knee-jerk reaction to Dirk's post and are just attacking him via name-calling (and making unwarranted assumptions) without specifically dealing with any of the issues he raises. If you're going to try to attack him, there are better ways to do so: http://dickhatesyourblog.blogspot.com/2007/05/jerry-falwell-is-playing-air-hockey.html

Re: Huh?

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

There's no name calling or attacking anywhere in this post.
I disagree with what he's saying and am saying why.
It's my prerogative, it's my LJ after all.

Re: Huh?

[(Anonymous)]

Yep, it's your prerogative, your "LJ", blah, blah...but that doesn't change the fact that you still haven't added anything insightful to the discourse on this subject, as the above anonymous poster has pointed out, whereas Dirk actually has. It's blogs like yours that make me hate blogs!

Re: Huh?

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

There are two ways a person can go when they see something they dislike, they can either ignore it or say something about it.
I'm glad you're willing to open up an intelligent dialouge about how much you hate blogs like mine.
How about you open a blog of your own and say so.

Re: Huh?

[brownbetty]

Are you seriously trying to pretend you're a completely different anonymous poster? Awesome! It's like "the lurkers support me in emails," only funnier.

[blogner.livejournal.com]

Not quite knee-jerk, but it seems like you might have missed some of his points. For example, he pointed out that male comic fans were not representative of the general male population, and he even explained why he thought so.

I tend to agree with what he was saying, by and large. There would be no supply if not for the demand.

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

The people who demand are no longer the fanboys, they are not even the fangirls.

The majority of people going to see Spiderman 3 aren't the hardcore comic book fans and those who enjoyed it may want more of it and the best way to get more of that is in the form of comic books.

People, potential readers, more revenue for the companies, will dismiss the industries because of statues like mary-Jane, because those are put on display, like covers, and those are what attract people.

[blogner.livejournal.com]

Therein lies one example of why you and Mr. Deppey are in disagreement. Your position seems to be that women don't read comics due to the content, whereas Deppey seems to say that the content of comics is what it is partly due to the fact that relatively few women read them. It's not the same argument, really.

Today, he linked to a statue that was far more sexually suggestive than the Mary Jane statue, and it was of a Manga character. Many people arguing a similar position to yours on other journals recently have listed Manga titles as being more female-friendly, yet his example proves this is not the case, at least in a general sense.

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

No, my position is that the excuse of "boys will be boys" (which is what he's basically saying) doesn't cut it anymore, because lots of girls and women read comic books.
If the industry is looking for more consumers that MJ statue isn't the way to get them.
Mr. Deppey seems to think, from what I read, that the consumers (like me, for instance) should just accept what the industries give.
Why should I? I'm the one buying their stuff, why shouldn't I tell them that I find it offensive and anti-thesis to the character?
And when I read the view of a person I disagree with, why shouldn't I be able to write about it. He did. We disagree. And we will probably not agree on this issue no matter how much we hash it out.

Yes, I saw the statue. I don't read Manga, I don't like the art of Manga nor do I generally enjoy the story lines found in many of the genres in Manga, I have friends who've tried to get me to read Manga just as I've tried to get them to read American Comic Books.
Different people.
*shurg*
Different taste.

I tend to not talk about what I don't know, which is Manga and Animea, and stick to what I know or what I want to know about.

[blogner.livejournal.com]

I don't recall suggesting you shouldn't comment. I merely pointed out that your arguments are similar but significantly different.

I do not agree with your view that Deppey is taking a "boys will be boys, so accept it" position. I think you're mistaking his view which seems to be fairly common in these discussions, and yet is key to progressive debate.

He's not condoning the state of things, he's speaking conditionally in economic terms. The companies make what they make because they sell. It's the people BUYING those products that you should be more concerned with. They're voting with their dollars. If they don't want it, they don't buy it. Well THEORETICALLY, since I'm discovering that quite a few comics fans keep buying titles they don't like or are offended by for some reason I haven't yet figured out.

And not to criticize you specifically, but I'd rather see more of this energy directed towards finding and bringing to light those comics creators who are "getting it right" vis-a-vis female-friendly comics. Seems like they could use the props.

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I apologize. I took what you were saying a little personally.

I think his premise of the economic is incorrect. I like Spiderman and X-Men, why should I go "make" something of my own when something I like is already there.
And in any event the content of specific comic books isn't what this particular issue is about, but the fact that the MJ statue is demeaning and offensive.
As I've said the statue is far more accessible than a comic book issue.
A statue is a thing that has no speech bubble to diffuse the sexist look. Many times the writing saves the comic book.
The statue shows the character as she (supposedly is), now what would someone who doesn't know Mary-Jane from my elbow want to read about her in the comic book if her character is sold that way.
Speaking in economic terms, in the long run they may lose new buyers and thus lose money.
That's the way I see it.

[blogner.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it is pretty offensive. I'm more bugged by the fact that NOBODY could stand like that. That's just bad design, and I find that equally offensive. ;)

I have a few webcomics that might seem offesnive, but I'm sort of going for that.

[brownbetty]

…so his argument is that male comic book fans are, basically, stupider than the general male comic population? I guess that's a reasonable argument to make, but a darn odd one.

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

He did say that men were monkeys after all.

[brownbetty]

er, looking at my comment, strike that second "comic." I can't type. *facepalm*

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

BTW, I've read you via WFA! many times but never commented because I'm several time zones away and always feel it's redundant to comment.

Is it okay if I friend you?

[brownbetty]

Sure, I always take it as a compliment. Just be aware that in addition to feministy things, I also do fanfic-y things, and I understand that's not to everyone's taste.

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

I don't mind fic, I like fanfic :)

HI i fopikolijok

[(Anonymous)]

Hi

I like it a lot! It very impressive. Good work. Thanks!


Bye