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

[Scarlet Frost]

I don't think they are trying to get either's attention. I think both are looking for things from the major comic publishers and don't really care much about what the other group thinks, to be completely honest. I think both "groups" are completely understandable in their feelings and motives.

Personally I just think it's a much better course of action for people to support the comics they like and that represents their ideals and what entertains them, and to not support what they don't like and what offends them. That way at least a market can be created to cater to both needs. But most people would rather read Superman and Batman and then argue over how they should be portrayed.

You would think that but there's a good portion of comic book readers who are masochists. Also, if the people that decide to change the character because they want to appeal to a broader market, there are those that complain because they feel they are owed something and that would be to keep the character the way it is because anything else is pandering to those who are real fans because they weren't there all along.

It's a mindset of people unwilling to adapt tell others to do that because they were there before them.

[the4thpip]

Stick to discussing the topic, not each other's motivations.

I usually agree with that, but it's harder with this subject than usually when the topic includes why different groups of people don't communicate well, and the same patterns that the thread is about happen on this very thread.

Very hard to ignore the elephant in the room, you know?

[Mark]

No, but I'm seeing Republicans trying to make having a certain set of morals as a political statement.

I see that from democrats too.

[Mark]

You would think that but there's a good portion of comic book readers who are masochists. Also, if the people that decide to change the character because they want to appeal to a broader market, there are those that complain because they feel they are owed something and that would be to keep the character the way it is because anything else is pandering to those who are real fans because they weren't there all along.

It's a mindset of people unwilling to adapt tell others to do that because they were there before them.

Or maybe they just don't like the direction of the character.

[Shawn Hopkins]

If the inside dope you're eager to provide the author from your position as a white male is something like "white males are afraid you'll take their toys away and they interpret calls for more diversity as a personal attack," I'm pretty sure she knows that. That's why she says they aren't taking the toys away and it's not a personal attack in the article. Now, obviously about half the people in this thread don't believe her, but I'm not sure what she could do to convince them.

[Mark]

I'm not eager to provide the author with anything, just offering my opinion after I read her article. My opinion is that if you don't like the direction of a story or character that doesn't mean you're against diversity, empowering minorities or invested in keeping the white power structure intact: it just means you don't like the character and the direction of the story and the automatic accusation that you are against all of that merely serves to make you more angry. It's an accusation against which there is no defense, once it's made then in the eyes of the accuser it's true and nothing that you can say will have any affect after that. It might actually be true for some, but not for all.

[Shawn Hopkins]

I'm not eager to provide the author with anything, just offering my opinion after I read her article. My opinion is that if you don't like the direction of a story or character that doesn't mean you're against diversity, empowering minorities or invested in keeping the white power structure intact: it just means you don't like the character and the direction of the story and the automatic accusation that you are against all of that merely serves to make you more angry. It's an accusation against which there is no defense, once it's made then in the eyes of the accuser it's true and nothing that you can say will have any affect after that. It might actually be true for some, but not for all.

You keep making this all about you. It's not about you. If by some coincidence you legitimately happen to hold several reactionary and resistant to change positions, but for non-reactionary reasons, then you shouldn't see it as an attack on you. Your issues are part of a completely different conversation.

[Justice]

The only thing that allows or does not allow the Panther to succeed is the market.

That's exactly the point being made. A film starring a superhero of a singular minority can always have its success limited in a nation like America where the majority is 63.7% of the population and not one minority exceeds 17% of the population.

LBJ is a liberal holy cow.

I'm confused, what does him being liberal have to do with Selma not being well received by certain groups for the reasons stated? Besides, liberal and racist aren't mutually exclusive terms. President Johnson frequently used the N-word and I don't mean negro. He once referred to Asians as "hordes of barbaric yellow dwarves."

Two major opponents of Selma were historian Julian Zelizer, author of “The Fierce Urgency of Now: Lyndon Johnson, Congress, and the Battle for the Great Society," and historian Mark Updegrove, director of the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library and Museum. It wasn't a coincidence that both men financially benefit from the image of LBJ being some great Civil Rights hero. In fact, the words "the fierce urgency of now" weren't spoken by LBJ, but rather MLK, showing the extent of how Johnson's advocates have appropriated a great deal of King's legacy. In Selma, Ava DuVernay snatched it back.

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.

The other side, is that majority or the minority? Because based on the statement from Casey Gilly, it sounds rather clear that minorities are aware how the majority thinks.

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

Can you please elaborate on what tactics aren't being considered?

[7thangel]

a hit dog will holler

[Scarlet Frost]

Or maybe they just don't like the direction of the character.

There's not liking the direction of a character and then there's people who take the change personally which is something that people get confused about.

[Scarlet Frost]

I see that from democrats too.

Yes, so morality can be and is often political. I'm not trying to create a line, I'm trying to show you that every decision has some kind of politicizing to it whether it has a personal acknowledgement or not.

[Scarlet Frost]

I'm not eager to provide the author with anything, just offering my opinion after I read her article. My opinion is that if you don't like the direction of a story or character that doesn't mean you're against diversity, empowering minorities or invested in keeping the white power structure intact: it just means you don't like the character and the direction of the story and the automatic accusation that you are against all of that merely serves to make you more angry. It's an accusation against which there is no defense, once it's made then in the eyes of the accuser it's true and nothing that you can say will have any affect after that. It might actually be true for some, but not for all.

It's just that too many of the arguments/discussions want to make it a race to who can drop the mic the fastest.

[liminal_lad]

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.

I haven't gotten to the end of the thread yet, but I agree with this. NO ONE fully understands how a group thinks, even its own members. It's really conceited and unrealistic to assume that because Group A "lives under the dominant cultural hegemony of Group B" that that means they understand their opinions as well or even better than someone who is actually a member of Group B. An outside perspective can be enlightening, but no one understands someone's lived reality better than the people who experience it daily.

[Kieran_Frost]

Why is one opinion more important than the other here? Aren't they all "just" opinions?

Well, I am glad you asked.
Isolation and loneliness are very destructive and powerful things.
Escapist literature that has a somewhat fair representation of minorities isn't gonna take a way a kid's loneliness, but it may make it easier to bear and definitely tell him or her that there is nothing wrong with them.
I am 44 damn years old now. Which means I was in my early twenties when Northstar and Element Lad came out, when Shrinking Violet and Lightning Lass became a couple and their brother Lightning Lord actually stopped being evil once he allowed himself to have a boyfriend. I had already done the heavy lifting all by myself, had survived the depression and isolation and suicidal thoughts. I knew I was gay at 13 or 14 so luckily the movie "My Beautiful Laundrette" was just around the corner, but in my favorite field of the arts, in comic books, people like me did not exist. And if it was hinted an with a character, they were usually murderers and sadists.

And we're talking about literally centuries of entertainment with no or no fair representation of minorities.
So that is what one side of the discussion is driven by: The desire to stop kids from becoming depressed, suicidal, addicted to drugs.
The other side wants to keep their entertainment the way it has been in their lifetime as much as possible.
If you think both "opinions" are equally valid, I can't help you.

And if you say "both sides get nasty" - which side has more of a right to be impatient and angry?

The whole post was wonderful; but I wanted to highlight my favourite parts. I wish more were allies, I really do. And I don't know how to explain to them what it feels like to be excluded. Straight white men make up the majority (in numbers) of exactly 0 countries in the Western world. Yet entertainment has straight white men in nearly every form; and what's more they are vastly more often than not THE LEAD. When straight white men stop being 80% of all TV shows, films, computer games and comics; we'll still be vastly catering to them. When they start being only 60% of leads in all films, TV shows, computer games and comics then they'll still be catered to. We are not remotely close to that yet (that 60% where they are STILL DISPROPORTIONATELY FEATURED); right now all minorities seem to get to share 20% of all "other" characters from the straight white male leads.

And yet... even with all minorities covering only 20%, is there support, by and large? Are the straight white men who make up 50% no-where in the world, but take up 80% of all media even understanding? That's the part that I don't understand/ Sure you don't like it when Straight White Man number 1,000,057 is replaced in one form of media by a minority, because all characters have fans. All characters are appreciated (by and large). so I get why on each occasion someone would be less than happy. But don't those straight white men understand (that due to privilege) there is still 1,000,056 other characters "like them" they can enjoy? Doesn't the fact ALL LGBT people now get this one character to enjoy in this show; where as the straight, white, men have guaranteed several straight, white, male characters to choose from, to see themselves in... I just don't understand how this is a concept so alien to so many?

I think what the article explores, but doesn't flat out say: Why is it so hard to be an ally? All discussions, across all media, from the female Ghostbusters to FalconCap or any other time a minority takes one role of any importance seems to take so much heat; when frankly they are still an anomaly taken across the wide spectrum. The greatest part of privilege, is you can afford to lose a large chunk of what you have AND YET STILL dominate the majority. You can afford to be both magnanimous and an ally, all in one go. And it costs you merely 100 of your 1,000,057 straight while male roles across media. The real question should be: why shouldn't someone be an ally? What possible reason do they have to NOT fight for the representation and inclusion of those so often completely ignored?

Read the past few pages of this thread.
I really tried. I tried to make empathy easy.
But when it becomes so painfully evident that it is in vain, I don't even mean it in a snarky way that there is no point in discussing it. There literally is no point. And those guys will never, ever become allies through an internet discussion. Maybe if something big happens in real life, but they've more than demonstrated that words will not reach them.

I appreciated your efforts, but it's sadly a battle (in this case) we can't win.

[DevilsGambit]

So people who like reading historical fiction before the enlightenment want to be dictators? Applies to GOT fans also.

I don't think it works exactly like that. How many people actually read books about hitler? I'd rather be Jon Snow than Geofrey.