Comics Debate & Discourse: How To Be a Hero By Being An Ally

[Scarlet Frost]

Conflict, struggle and tension are natural parts of human existence. People feel joy when something is achieved.

I can feel joy when I achieve being able to look upon a fuzzy bunny. I feel joy when the sun rises, something that will happen regardless of what I do or achieve.

[Jeff Brady]

Who started arguing that only complete harmony is the only solution? That's right blue collar people, better clean up that language or you cannot be socialists.

This has nothing to do with the topic. It doesn't even have anything to do with the argument. People working to have their humanity recognized by a dominant & oppressive group will not bring your Hitler/Stalin nightmares to life.

It worked for gay people.

Considering gay people are still being murdred just for being gay, and that they still don't have equal treatment under the law proves that it didn't work. It doesn't mean that was the right thing to do.

Complete harmony cannot be achieved by this species. AKA perfection.

Are you suggesting that we shouldn't try?

True, but this is a moral and historical objection, not a political one. I don't like what I feel is the down grading of the amazon's from good to bad. Might as well tell me that I didn't like and didn't finish the book Simplicius Simplicissmius because of my politics.

Morality and history are political.

[Matt A]

If you don't understand what "respectability politics" means, you could either look it up, or ask.

It worked for gay people.

A) Don't use past tense verbs while I'm still being discriminated against.

B) Respectability has nothing to do with it. Sound legal arguments do.

[GlennSimpson]

Well this has progressed into an area that is either very deep or so vague I'm not even sure who I agree with any more. So having run through the last few pages, I'll share some new thoughts.

First, for those whose preferences run towards how things have always been, who complained that no one felt empathy for THEIR feelings - I go back to what I said back in the single-digits pages - all too often these issues come down not to "wrong" or "right" but "priorities" - having a black person feel inclusion is just more important than retaining a character's traditional presentation. It doesn't matter whether suicide and drug use is involved, it's just a better world to live in. I'm sorry, but that's the case.

I never know what to think about those who want to discount the online discourse of the offended as not being valid. As if people who complained about the Batgirl cover weren't REALLY offended, they were just looking to accomplish some goal that I'm not even sure what it would be. Or that there is some tipping point where something becomes important that wasn't met here. I'd have to ask - how many black people have to tell you that having Wally West be black is going to make their life better before you will be OK with Wally West being black? 10? 20? 5000? Throw out a number... Even if a lot of those people didn't get offended till they found out other people were offended, they still have a problem with it and if enough people have a problem with it, they have a right to seek change.

I agree that minorities should lead the discussion on minorities. HOWEVER - I disagree with the notion that those minorities know enough about the mindset of the non-minorities to tell the non-minorities what they ought to be doing. Let me put it this way - back when the hot topic was "fake geek girl", I sought to help the overall movement by trying to explain the mindset of the males in question. Because as I was reading the discourse, those who were in favor of inclusion seemed to be saying a lot of incorrect things. I absolutely thoroughly agreed with the goal of inclusion. But I disagreed with the tactics and strategy. But I get roasted for even suggesting that the tactics in question were not going to work.

IMO, If Group A is trying to change Group B, and a member of Group B is willing to explain what Group B is thinking, Group A needs to listen, even if they don't like what they are hearing. Call in "whitesplaining" or "mansplaining" all you want, but it's valuable information. As I said above, it still might come down to priorities being wrong, but it's still useful to consider. And it doesn't mean that member of Group B isn't an ally. He's just trying to keep you from wasting your time going down a road that won't work.

[Mark]

This has nothing to do with the topic. It doesn't even have anything to do with the argument. People working to have their humanity recognized by a dominant & oppressive group will not bring your Hitler/Stalin nightmares to life.



Considering gay people are still being murdred just for being gay, and that they still don't have equal treatment under the law proves that it didn't work. It doesn't mean that was the right thing to do.



Are you suggesting that we shouldn't try?



Morality and history are political.

I don't agree that morality is political.

[Scarlet Frost]

I don't agree that morality is political.

Then you should probably take a look at what many Republicans are doing.

[Jeff Brady]

IMO, If Group A is trying to change Group B, and a member of Group B is willing to explain what Group B is thinking, Group A needs to listen, even if they don't like what they are hearing. Call in "whitesplaining" or "mansplaining" all you want, but it's valuable information. As I said above, it still might come down to priorities being wrong, but it's still useful to consider. And it doesn't mean that member of Group B isn't an ally. He's just trying to keep you from wasting your time going down a road that won't work.

Group B doesn't need to 'splain anything at this point. It's been 'splained over & over again for years/decades/centuries/millenia, because they've had the power. Group A has it memorized, is tired of it, and has already constructed 20 logical counterpoints for every one idea Group B made up from their fear of loss of power.

[Jeff Brady]

Then you should probably take a look at what many Republicans are doing.

That's been attempted. It didn't go well.

[GlennSimpson]

Group B doesn't need to 'splain anything at this point. It's been 'splained over & over again for years/decades/centuries/millenia, because they've had the power. Group A has it memorized, is tired of it, and has already constructed 20 logical counterpoints for every one idea Group B made up from their fear of loss of power.

Then why is it that I often see Group A suggesting tactics that will absolutely not work in progressing their agenda, given how Group B thinks?

This article that we are discussing even says "nobody is taking anything away from you" - which suggests a gross lack of understanding of how the other side thinks.

[Matt A]

Well this has progressed into an area that is either very deep or so vague I'm not even sure who I agree with any more. So having run through the last few pages, I'll share some new thoughts.

First, for those whose preferences run towards how things have always been, who complained that no one felt empathy for THEIR feelings - I go back to what I said back in the single-digits pages - all too often these issues come down not to "wrong" or "right" but "priorities" - having a black person feel inclusion is just more important than retaining a character's traditional presentation. It doesn't matter whether suicide and drug use is involved, it's just a better world to live in. I'm sorry, but that's the case.

I never know what to think about those who want to discount the online discourse of the offended as not being valid. As if people who complained about the Batgirl cover weren't REALLY offended, they were just looking to accomplish some goal that I'm not even sure what it would be. Or that there is some tipping point where something becomes important that wasn't met here. I'd have to ask - how many black people have to tell you that having Wally West be black is going to make their life better before you will be OK with Wally West being black? 10? 20? 5000? Throw out a number... Even if a lot of those people didn't get offended till they found out other people were offended, they still have a problem with it and if enough people have a problem with it, they have a right to seek change.

I agree that minorities should lead the discussion on minorities. HOWEVER - I disagree with the notion that those minorities know enough about the mindset of the non-minorities to tell the non-minorities what they ought to be doing. Let me put it this way - back when the hot topic was "fake geek girl", I sought to help the overall movement by trying to explain the mindset of the males in question. Because as I was reading the discourse, those who were in favor of inclusion seemed to be saying a lot of incorrect things. I absolutely thoroughly agreed with the goal of inclusion. But I disagreed with the tactics and strategy. But I get roasted for even suggesting that the tactics in question were not going to work.

IMO, If Group A is trying to change Group B, and a member of Group B is willing to explain what Group B is thinking, Group A needs to listen, even if they don't like what they are hearing. Call in "whitesplaining" or "mansplaining" all you want, but it's valuable information. As I said above, it still might come down to priorities being wrong, but it's still useful to consider. And it doesn't mean that member of Group B isn't an ally. He's just trying to keep you from wasting your time going down a road that won't work.

I don't know why you're assuming the oppressed Group A doesn't know what Group B is thinking. There are always going to be differences of opinion on tactical choices. (We can't plan a family reunion without arguing on methods, and we like each other!) That doesn't mean that they aren't aware of the majority mindset.

[Rene Narciso]

But is the sexuality and violence in Vertigo comics denigrating and victimizing women, in general (I know it did when Mark Millar was writing Swamp Thing, but Mark Millar never had any business writing for Vertigo anyway...). I know quite a few feminists who are sex-positive, they just don't want women to be objectified.

Wow, I took one day to answer, and there are thousands of posts.

Anyway, I agree with you. That was my point. Making superhero comics more inclusive doesn't mean to dial down the amount of sex and violence and disturbing content. Vertigo comics in general appealed to women, and managed to tell pretty dark stories.

Converselly, you can have an anti-women vibe without featuring any overt violence or sex.

[Scarlet Frost]

I'm confused as to these Group A and B are because they both sound like each other.

[Jeff Brady]

Then why is it that I often see Group A suggesting tactics that will absolutely not work in progressing their agenda, given how Group B thinks?

Desperation.

This article that we are discussing even says "nobody is taking anything away from you" - which suggests a gross lack of understanding of how the other side thinks.

Then why does everything Group B says ultimately breaks down to "don't take away my rights/toy"?

[GlennSimpson]

I don't know why you're assuming the oppressed Group A doesn't know what Group B is thinking. There are always going to be differences of opinion on tactical choices. (We can't plan a family reunion without arguing on methods, and we like each other!) That doesn't mean that they aren't aware of the majority mindset.

Because when the different opinion on tactics is suggested by the Group B person, it is often attacked, not considered.

[GlennSimpson]

Desperation.



Then why does everything Group B says ultimately breaks down to "don't take away my rights/toy"?

Given that the goal of the article seems to be to get Group B on board, I'd think it would be important to better address that point, if the author truly understood it as central to what Group B is thinking.