comicsAlliance: the Witch Hunt

[Double 0]

I never said anything about the character of anyone involved.

Yeah, you did. When you throw terms like "bandwagon", that is an attack on their character. It's outright saying that the people involved are following instead of thinking for themselves.

And that's avoiding the whole can of worms that is "PC". There's no gray zone to that one; you are calling those involved, oversensitive, "controlling", and "oppressive", as if they are trying to force their views unto others. You even added forced to further reinforce that.

"Buying goodwill" is outright saying that they are being exploitative and opportunistic instead of providing support and a bigger platform for a situation they feel needs it.

[cranger]

Yeah, you did.

Might want to check again as I never said any of that. Although the OPs choice of words might have been poor, I personally find it pretty hard to get a point across on topics like this when I have to worry about what people will infer from every word I use instead of focusing on the point I am trying to make beyond those word choices.

[Arundel Armor Hunter]

Coke

How is it different than your use of "trending social campaign" or the OP's "bandwagon" or "forced attempt to seem overly PC and buy goodwill"?

These are not dismissive, or by their nature insulting and attacking character?

People jump on the bandwagon on the PC bandwagon for lots of reasons. The primary reason the american left does it is because it has so little power and chance to influence things. But boy they can feel though when they can shame someone to apologize for something stupid he said or resign over something he did in the past that was mainstream when he did it.

[t hedge coke]

Coke


People jump on the bandwagon on the PC bandwagon for lots of reasons. The primary reason the american left does it is because it has so little power and chance to influence things. But boy they can feel though when they can shame someone to apologize for something stupid he said or resign over something he did in the past that was mainstream when he did it.

So... that's how it's "Not dismissive, or by [its] nature insulting and attacking character"? Seeing as how that's the question you quoted, I assume you're replying. But, I'm not seeing a lot in your post that isn't remarkably dismissive, insulting, and an attack on character.

You have a link to the Comics Alliance article where they at all try to make someone ashamed and make them apologize for something they said years ago? The Comics Alliance article where they try to get someone to resign?

And if this PC bandwagon has so little power, why so worked up about it? (And, if you say it five times, does it appear in the room, like Candyman or Bloody Mary?)

[Arundel Armor Hunter]

I was commenting on a general trend in the public sphere.

But, I'm not seeing a lot in your post that isn't remarkably dismissive, insulting, and an attack on character.

You might feel that way but it's a fairly natural reaction what goes on the public sphere right now from certain political groups. I would not fall prey to it but it's understandable.

And if this PC bandwagon has so little power, why so worked up about it?

It has power because of unique historical circumstances.

[Conch22]

It's not a witch hunt if the thing you're calling out actually exists.

So if Maleficent was real, Salem would've been justified?

[Conch22]

As I've said, some of Comicsalliances examples on their site are accurate.
Examples where they aren't, by either inferring too much or twisting something completely non sexist or misogynistic out of context, helps to needlessly enforce the idea female victimhood and, to me, does a disservice to the cause they are trying to champion.
Attacking the various forms of disrespect towards women in the media is thankfully politically correct.

The frequency of this on the site and examples where it does not apply make it appear mandated/ forced, which might lead one to apply the term overly PC when describing it.

And if its poor etiquette to start this type of thread, then I would apologize. Seemed within the rules and regs. of the boards.
And I have repeatedly pointed out these problems on comicsalliances Facebook page, but was interested what the input would be here

[Psycho]

I agree completely, there is a witch hunt for sexism in comics, and especially a witchhunt on sexuality. Or more specifically anything appealing to male sexuality, or people who are attracted to females in general. And in general a bit of "rage culture", where people are looking for the next thing to be outraged by. Everyone is entitled to their views and it's all subjective and personal, but I do strongly disagree with a lot of what I read, and do find it unfortunate.

The outrage at a simple PG-13 sex scene between Batman and Catwoman in that #1 issue of her book still baffles me. There was nothing wrong with it, and nobody would blink if it was a scene on your average TV show. Some just look at something that features women in a situation that could be considered sexy, or dressed in a way that looks sexy, and they automatically are outraged. But there's nothing inherently wrong with it, and it's quite natural, a lot more natural than the wonton violence and mayhem in comics. Not that I mind that either, I can separate fantasy from reality, but to me sexuality and sexy costumes should be even less controversial than the violence which gets virtually no controversy from fans.

I think the crux of it is that sexuality does not equal sexism, and a character having aspects that appeal to the sexuality of the reader is no more wrong and bigoted than a romance novel.

Another bit is the "violence against women" thing you often see, people complain when there is violence against female characters. But there is violence against all characters in the genre, it's action fiction. If we have equality which I'd like, it wouldn't matter whether the character is male or female in the violent scenes. And if we want more female protagonists (I do), we need to expect they'll be put through mayhem and misery like most comic protagonists. And of course keeping in mind that these fictional depictions have no inherent connection to real life tragedy, so just phrasing it like it's relevant to real life violence against women feels very odd.

I'm all about diversity and equality, and I'm also against the shaming and vilifying of sexuality, so long story short I agree there is a bit of witch hunt happening. Not to say there isn't ever anything potentially offensive in comics, though that's subjective. But I'd say it's a witch hunt personally because most often I find it's things that aren't sexist or offensive that are wrongly maligned, in my opinion.

Anything as simple as a character showing some skin gets an incendiary news article so often in comics, to me that's just straightforward misguided shaming of sexuality. And is wrong.

[ed2962]

List of Greg Horn covers, recent article by them, about half the examples are very exaggerated and the response to the Elektra/ Scarlett poster seems completely unjustified. Other half of the examples, right on the money.

Comment adding misogyny to a misogyny free scene from a series: Arrow review.
It was for one of the 3 episodes at the end of season 2, a van Oliver, Diggle & Felicity are in is knocked over. She was the only one knocked out and the reviewer called sexism, saying "women, am i right fellas" , completely ignoring her hacking skills being Instrumental to the teams fight against deathstroke or her pep talking Oliver out of not giving up.
The previous episode she looked sad at the funeral of one of her closest friends mother & this writer took this as a sign that she's not empowered.

3 separate examples of many.

Hmm...The Greg Horn article is from three years ago. And if you admit that they had a point on at least half of the illustrations, then maybe it's not such a witch hunt.

As for the Arrow review, the whole tone of the reviews is a goofy mocking attitude. I don't think the writer was trying to point out actual misogyny, as much as make fun of cheesy or sometimes inconsistent writing. i gotta admit that I stopped watching the show...


Having said that, it's well known that former editor Laura Hudson had serious problems with women in the nu52 launch. And maybe a couple of writers are coming from a maybe liberal point of view. I get that some fans might be, "oh so-and-so's on their soapbox again." BUT conservatives are known to rant as well. It's not just a liberal trait. AND I'll add it's not hard to find conservatives that feel women are sometimes exploited in the media.

[Conch22]

Hmm...The Greg Horn article is from three years ago. And if you admit that they had a point on at least half of the illustrations, then maybe it's not such a witch hunt.

As for the Arrow review, the whole tone of the reviews is a goofy mocking attitude. I don't think the writer was trying to point out actual misogyny, as much as make fun of cheesy or sometimes inconsistent writing. i gotta admit that I stopped watching the show...


Having said that, it's well known that former editor Laura Hudson had serious problems with women in the nu52 launch. And maybe a couple of writers are coming from a maybe liberal point of view. I get that some fans might be, "oh so-and-so's on their soapbox again." BUT conservatives are known to rant as well. It's not just a liberal trait. AND I'll add it's not hard to find conservatives that feel women are sometimes exploited in the media.

Very good points. They reposted the Greg Horn article through their Facebook page so I thought it was recent.
And I referenced the Arrow reviews because I felt they were the most appropriate example.

But by the same token, a recent article about DoFP stated that in X3 Jean Grey took a backseat to make room for "Manpain".
I was taken aback by this given I'd used the X films, on another site, as a positive representation of women in sci-fi/ fantasy entertainment. For X3, I stated that Jean Grey, in that film, is an example of what happens when an empowered woman is used by 2 men with anachronistic worldviews. I saw it as a cautionary tale against using women (or anybody for that matter), they saw it as serving an anti-feminist agenda. Eye of the Beholder, I guess. Mystique being the focus of DoFP and the 3 present women other than her being action stars for the movie or instrumental to the plot as well as (SPOILER) the most powerful woman in the series making a comeback are the positive representations I took from it concerning female empowerment.
The writer disliked the movie (his opinion) & cited female representation as a primary reason ( still far better representation than in the Avengers, as he mentioned being spoiled by Marvel studio movies for context).

[Psycho]

And maybe a couple of writers are coming from a maybe liberal point of view. I get that some fans might be, "oh so-and-so's on their soapbox again." BUT conservatives are known to rant as well. It's not just a liberal trait. AND I'll add it's not hard to find conservatives that feel women are sometimes exploited in the media.

We can't really apply opinions on the sex appeal and portrayal of illustrated characters in comics to US politics. They aren't really related. I'm as liberal/progressive as you can get, and my "liberal point of view" is not very similar to those of these articles. Though I guess boiling down opinions to two sides just never fits, be it liberal/conservative or male/female. Wanting conservatively dressed characters sounds well conservative to me, not in the leaning left or right sense, but in the definition of the word.

Speaking of censorship, the mods aren't posting my comments on the article. At least the forum will allow more than one side of a discussion. Somebody who says Psylocke looked like a "ninja-hooker" gets theirs posted. What a joke. And by the way, shaming and scorn towards sex workers is a much more real problem than a comic character in a tight leotard. And Kelly said to me that I should be glad my comment wasn't posted because "it makes me look stupid". So she insults people she disagrees with. It was a slightly abbreviated version of my first forum post, I personally don't think it's stupid. Anyways, not a big fan.

And what’s wrong exactly with the picture of Rogue selected in the bottom right corner? Is just being busty and showing cleavage supposed to be inherently bad, self explanatory? Does this apply to real people too, or just illustrations? What makes one real body type more offensive than another? Why are busty women being shamed for no reason? The broken back pose ones I get. These articles often just find a picture of a busty character in art and post it like it's evident that it's wrong. But that in itself to me is wrong.



Maybe they'd like Rogue to be censored like Jennifer Love Hewitt famously was there. It's messed up when people's bodies are considered taboo, nothing on Earth is more natural. The suits said her body was too obscene to be in their advertisement, so they digitally made her more PC. Which is a pretty horrific concept. And it's the mentality these articles are suggesting.

And on the discussion of when it makes sense to show skin, to me it's also offputting that people only accept sex appeal from characters such as Emma Frost. A "normal" woman could never choose to show cleavage? They have to be a deliberately sexual femme fatale to dress that way, and of course also implying how people dress defines them? This is all a pretty bad message to me, anyone should be able to dress any way, including showing skin if they want to, and the concept that there's something wrong with that is not exactly universal.

[Jonah Weiland]

Honestly not crazy about this discussion. ComicsAlliance does a lot of good work and I have friends over there, too. I don't always agree with them, but I don't agree with the basis for this thread at all ("Witchhunt" is a strong accusation, especially considering the real sexism and misogyny that does exist in the industry), the generalizations made and don't like where some appear to want to take this thread.