|
|
Post by Beth on Mar 2, 2013 16:19:43 GMT -5
Why do we need a 'women in comics' panel in this day and age? was one of the questions posed at the start of the Women in Comics panel at the Cardiff Comic Expo this weekend. I was really interested in this panel, and it was very thought-provoking though I didn't necessarily agree with everything that was said. I was live-tweeting as it went along, which I've gotten into the habit of doing at conferences, so I've pasted my tweets below. I'd be really interested in hearing what other people think about the tweets, or about why we still need women in comics panels in the 21st century. I'd also be interested in hearing Suze's response to some of these questions in the Q&A tomorrow. Panellists: Stacey, Small Press Big Mouth podcaster; Lizzie Boyle founder of Disconnected Press; Jess Bradley, artist; & Lousie Hoe illustrator.Q: Why are we still having 'women in comics' panels in this day and age? Jess hasn't had a bad experience. Lizzie neither. Small press environment is very supportive as everyone's in it together. Is it when it goes into the mainstream there are problems? Genre spilt is more of a problem than the gender split. Women writing WWI comic is seen as a surprising cos that's 'not what women write'. What's the responsibility of the editor to showcase women in comics? Lost Boys anthology was all boys so editor had to find female artists for the next one. How does that deal with issue of finding the best work though? Female comic artists don't seem to frequent main forums where some editors find the emerging artists. How to engage with new female artists? Q: Is large scale media&what they put into the press more of the problem? Is a discrepancy in no. women working in main stream&presentation. If press looked into diversity of comics they'd see there's more interesting stuff being done by women & it's being done in different ways. Louise wouldn't want to be involved in a comic that's [deliberately made up of] all women she sees that as being more sexist. Only time Stacey felt like a girl was whe she a put on the DC panel at Bristol out of a 'misguided lovliness'. People (men) trying to help can actually do more harm. What does it take for women working in small presses/new to comics to 'storm the citadels' and work for the big publishers? Persistence, being self aware, knowing how you come across. Doing conventions, take feedback, work hard. Same tips as if you were a man. Be professional and meet deadlines. Whether they're paid projects or not you have to meet deadlines. Editors talk to each other. Be wary of social networks! Don't slag people off on Twitter. Some recent awards tweets blew up and resulted in a New Statesman piece. [Which can be found here, with a follow-up blog by Paul Duffield here. Louise doesn't make a fuss because she doesn't think there's a fuss to make. Stacey says a sense of humour is important. Q: Do you find women creators objectify men as much as men do women in comics? Stacey: not as much as we'd like! How *can* you objectify men in comics? Louise draws pretty boys and mentions yaoi. Men draw perfect women but also draw perfect men. Is that an objectification? Is it important for the character to look that way? If pneumatic breasts are a plot point and save the day, fine. If not the shouldn't be there. Also: publishers stay with the same things that people like and if it sells then they'll keep on producing that. Change takes time. To bring in normal looking people in big publishers is slow. 'Put one in&see if anyone notices' & gradually it changes. Safer to follow social change rather than be proactive and stick it into a comic that people pay £3 a week for. Q: Is there much of a political agenda for women creators? Depends on the creator. There's no message in Jess' work. If you sit down with an agenda the comic'll be crap. It'll be preachy and that's not what comics are for. Comics are fun. Interesting panel but there was a fair bit I didn't actually agree with. Comics might change if women get into mainstream but [my question is] will women get there without comics changing? |
|
Rhi
Cat People
every story tells a picture, don't it
Posts: 68 
|
Post by Rhi on Mar 2, 2013 16:30:54 GMT -5
I saw some of your tweets on this and I was really surprised at what was said. 'I haven't had a bad experience' totally means no one ever has? jeeeeeez. I mean, we can just look at the percentages in mainstream comics, and at how much Gail Simone's been jerked around, especially of late in DiDio's DC, and I think that's at least equal anecdotal evidence the other way.
On the last point, personally, I think many comics by women and minority creators have a subconscious political agenda regardless. imho, a deliberate political agenda can still make a damn good comic:
e.g. Static Shock, Watchmen, Transmetropolitan, much of Gail Simone's work, The Maxx, V for Vendetta, Manhunter (the Kate Spencer version), a good chunk of indie and webcomics, our very own dear MSCSI...etc. ad nauseam.
I wish they could say 'if you sit down with an agenda the comic'll be crap' to Dwayne McDuffie's face just so I could see his response, may he rest in peace.
|
|
sophie_ali
Cat People
Twinkle Twinkle Little Bat, How I Wonder What You're At
Posts: 129
|
Post by sophie_ali on Mar 2, 2013 18:22:23 GMT -5
Some really interesting points, very thought provoking.
The bit about whether drawing perfect woman and men is objectification was interesting. I think the objectification of men is sometimes overlooked, though I suppose that's because it's not as overt as the objectification of women.
I once owned a 'how to draw' book that suggested when drawing men or women, you should exaggerate bodily features (e.g. men= very muscular, woman=very curvy). I think such advice can certainly descend into objectified drawings and thus into sexism.
In my own drawings, sometimes I do feel under pressure to draw women sexualised. One of the things I liked when doing my fan-art for MSCSI (this is not self-promotion by the way!), is that I didn't feel under pressure to draw Cat very sexual unlike say when I'm drawing someone like Wonder Woman
If anyone reads Fables here, there's an interesting comment made by one of the characters in Volume 18 (Fables: Super team). The character of Ozma (female) is dressed up in a very stereotypical female superhero costume and the dialogue is as follows:
Ozma: 'It's awful gaudy, but I have to confess I sort of like it'
'Pinochio: How can you not? It's wicked cool! A bit retro but we're traditional people'
Ozma: 'But is it functional?'
I thought that was quite interesting in relation to the way female super-hero are dressed. Particularly because dress is such a key marker of identity.
Also I don't think having a political agenda in a comic means it is boring. I think it can give it another dimension, making it come across a lot deeper, than simply being a 'comic' (like say, the Beano or the Dandy- though they too have their own agendas but I suppose they're a bit more covert).
|
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Mar 2, 2013 18:27:36 GMT -5
Yeah that's one of the issues I had with it. I'm happy that these women haven't had bad experiences - that's definitely a good thing because no one wants to find people having bad experiences doing something they love. But it definitely doesn't mean that no one else has. And they did go to pains to point out that they were just talking about it from an indie/small press point of view and things are markedly different with the big guys, and I get that to some extent you can only talk about your experiences, but to my mind women are still treated very unequally in lots of areas - comics being a big one - and that needs addressing. I'm glad that women like this are getting on with their work and working hard at what they do, but my experience in academia (and in my day job, tbh) has suggested that we have to work much harder to be given the same recognition and I think that's true of comics and needs to be recognised as such. I agree that a lot of comics have a political agenda - subconscious or otherwise - and I think that can be one of the good things about them (depending to some extent on the politics being expressed!). Early Superman and Batman comics - as Will has noted - were tied up in patriotism and political expression. And some of my favourite comics definitely have a political agenda, which doesn't detract at all from the experience of reading it. Though I've just skimmed it, this seems quite interesting: www.huffingtonpost.com/bryan-young/politics-in-comic-books_b_113654.html ETA: Sorry, Sophie - just saw your reply! I did think the objectification of men thing was an interesting point, but it's also one that's been raised so many times by people giving an excuse for why women are portrayed in the way that they are. In one sense I think it is possible to objectify men, in the sense of seeing them as an object to be drooled over or whatever, but then if you look at women's history as literal objects (dowries being paid, having no rights, being seen as man' property, etc.) objectifiying women in comics, or on TV, or in adverts, becomes much more problematic than objectifying men is. I think a lot of it comes down to power - men have traditionally had it while women haven't, and portraying women in comics as having huge breasts, a tiny waist and fighting crime in ridiculous heels is yet another way to express that power. It says this isn't a person, it's something to lust after, and that's definitely problematic. (And sorry for the rant!) I'm glad you don't feel like you have to sexualise Cat in your fanart  And I'm glad we have a comic like MSCSI where women can be who they are without needing to conform to some idealised version of what a woman should be. I haven't read that far in Fables yet but it is an interesting exchange. It's not wrong by any means for women to enjoy dressing up in skimpy clothes or high heels or whatever, but when it's not functional? Well there's a problem. (I'm looking forward to seeing Cat's superhero costume! I can't imagine that being high heels and skimpy skirts *g*) |
|
sophie_ali
Cat People
Twinkle Twinkle Little Bat, How I Wonder What You're At
Posts: 129
|
Post by sophie_ali on Mar 3, 2013 9:38:02 GMT -5
Beth, you made a really good point about the power balance. It makes it almost more problematic when women are objectified because not only are they portrayed as objects but that objectification removes power from the subject which as you stated historically has been very problematic for women- a sort of double oppression?
Also say to portray a man topless versus portraying a woman topless has very different results because a women's breasts are seen as more sexual than a man's pectoral muscles. Quite clearly although both may have been objectified in the same way (i.e appearing topless) the results and influence this has are quite different as the woman then becomes a sex object rather than just an object.
Although, as you stated, there is the problem of women drooling over men and turning them into sex objects as well. I think there are just more obvious examples with women and as you said its more problematic because women have had a really long history of being powerless. Not that it makes it right to then objectify men, but the power struggles do complicate how men and woman are being portrayed or how they should be portrayed.
In relation to the Fables volume I mentioned, it's a really good one as it draws on a lot of comic/superhero tropes which makes for interesting analysis.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Mar 3, 2013 14:34:28 GMT -5
Yes, the idea of the objectification of women being a double oppression makes a lot of sense actually.
I wonder if women are seen as sex objects more often than men. I guess in some ways they are - they seem to be used more often than men in adverts, comics, etc. as sex objects.
I'm definitely going to have to catch up with Fables. I think I've got the first five trade paperbacks at the moment.
|
|
sophie_ali
Cat People
Twinkle Twinkle Little Bat, How I Wonder What You're At
Posts: 129
|
Post by sophie_ali on Mar 4, 2013 11:36:19 GMT -5
I think you're right in that there are more overt examples of women being portrayed as sex objects (e.g Page 3 of tabloids and those sorts of magazine) whereas male objectification is a lot more subtle.
Also its interesting that its only been in the last couple of hundred years that women have been able to have a voice that speaks out against that kind of objectification. That's probably one of the biggest problems of objectification in that it removes power from the subject and turns them into an object.
I suppose that's what is so good about MSCSI as it returns power to the object and turns it back into a subject.
Have men been objectified to the extent that women have? I was reading an interesting example that was looking at how men are stereotyped as either 'wild man' or 'wimp' which was thought provoking.
The comment about whether all female panels are sexist or not was interesting. I suppose in an ideal world we shouldn't have to have an all woman's comic panel because gender shouldn't matter (of course sadly we don't live in an ideal word by any stretch of the imagination!). Therefore is there a danger with these panels of them being a token gesture rather than a genuine attempt to include previously excluded/marginalized voices?
|
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Mar 5, 2013 15:39:29 GMT -5
Definitely. I'm really looking forward to seeing how it pans out in the next issues as well.
That is interesting. Have you got a link to it? I guess it goes back to debates around what masculinity is and how it's portrayed. I think the female equivalents of that would be interesting to look at. I don't think women are portrayed as wild women like it's a good thing. I think it goes back to the virgin/whore dichotomy again, which is still in a lot of places when it comes to the representation of women.
In an ideal world gender wouldn't matter, and that's what the panellists seemed to be hinting at - work should be judged on its merits alone and not on the gender of the creator - but like you said we're nowhere near living in such an ideal world.
Whether panels like these are a token gesture rather than a genuine attempt to include previously excluded/marginalized voices is an interesting question. I guess they're a bit of both? Though does it depend on whether something happens as a result of them (they lead to action) or is the fact that we're having them enough? (If that made sense!)
|
|
sophie_ali
Cat People
Twinkle Twinkle Little Bat, How I Wonder What You're At
Posts: 129
|
Post by sophie_ali on Mar 5, 2013 16:13:20 GMT -5
These are the details are the journal article: Peberdy. D. (2010). 'From Wimp to Wildmen: Bi-Polar Masculinity and the Paradoxical Performances of Tom Cruises'. Men and Masculinities. 13(2). pp231-254. Available from: jmm.sagepub.com/content/13/2/231. It uses Tom Cruise as a case study but can be applied to gender more generally. Eco-Feminism is interesting for looking at the portrayal of women as 'wild' in that it highlights how women are closely linked with nature because of child-birth, their 'time of the month' and traditionally taking care of the sick. In this sense they can be linked with nature in a very nurturing way (i.e. Mother Nature) or in a more chaotic way in the distinction between women/nature and men/culture because their bodies are seen as more chaotic (this theory works well if you apply it to Mary Douglas' ideas on pollution) The virgin/whore dichotomy is interesting. Do you have think that there is a male equivalent for that? I do agree with you about practical action being a way of determining whether women's panels are a token gesture of not. Equality seems to be a really overused/misused term, it's so easy to be committed to equality in theory but not come though in practise. What do you think equality would look like in the comic book industry? (having more women or just not being judged on gender but rather on merits of work as you stated before?) A token gesture could open up the way for genuine engagement as at least women would be included (if not for the 'right' reasons per se) but there is a potential danger for genuine engagement in theory to slip back to being a token gesture in practise. How genuine are genuine engagements with the marginalized? |
|
Rhi
Cat People
every story tells a picture, don't it
Posts: 68
|
Post by Rhi on Mar 5, 2013 18:46:58 GMT -5
On the topic of objectification--the original male gaze concept in Laura Mulvey's in Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema comes to mind. In my opinion, it's as applicable in comics as it is in film theory due to the dominant body of creators and perceived audience in the mainstream part of the genre being male and often heterosexual. I'd argue that despite deliberate attempts by indie creators to deconstruct these tropes, indie comics can still be seriously impacted by the trends and styles and themes in the mainstream.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Mar 7, 2013 3:21:50 GMT -5
Thanks for that Sophie - I'll take a look. It might come in useful for my thesis as well as this discussion!
The eco-feminism arguments are interesting, and I'll admit I know very little about eco-feminism, but do you think there's a danger of them continuing the idea that women=nature, men=technology that seems quite prevalent in some parts of the media? I worry that approach still creates a binary between men and women in ways that the 'wild man/wimp'binary perhaps doesn't. Women as nurturing and caring is an argument that gets used a lot in essentialism, I think, with women being more suited to 'feminine' roles like nurse, teacher, etc. because of their fundamental nature, leaving men to go off and do the ímportant' stuff. The idea of women as chaotic - especially when linked to the menstrual cycle - also brings to mind the old arguments about women as hysterics and controlled by their emotions and hormones in ways that men aren't. I can certainly see the validity of trying to reclaim that idea - and like I said I don't know enough about eco-feminism - but I don't know if it works. What do you think?
In all honesty I'm not sure. I want to say I don't think there is - how often are men considered studs while women are considered slags - but I couldn't say for definite. Off the top of my head I haven't come across anything, but that's not to say it isn't out there.
These questions are really making me think! I don't know. I think 'true' equality would be judging work on its own merits but I don't think we can get to that point until we have more women in the industry. So I guess the answer would be both? I think equality in the comic book industry is reliant - as with most things - on equality in the arts, and equality in work, and more broadly again in society. Without attitudes changing and girls being given more opportunities to get involved in the comics industry - and that means a change in the way that women are depicted in comics as well as the opportunities for women creators - I don't think we're going to be anywhere near a point where work can be judged on its merits alone. But like you said, attempts to get more women into the industry can be seen as tokenism or as just not needed, and that needs to change as well.
Another good question! My day job is working for the civil service and so there's a lot of talk about equality and trying to engage with marginalised voices. There's a lot of trying to put it into practice as well, but I think for a lot of people - especially those who have been marginalised - those efforts seem more about tokenism rather than a genuine attempt at engagement. Things like women in comics panel can seem like an attempt at tokenism because I don't know how much they actually engender changes in the wder society. Would something like DC or Marvel running women-only recruitment or training opportunities be more of a genuine attempt than just having women talking about being in comics at a con?
Rhi, I think you're right about Mulvey's concept of the male gaze. It would be possible to argue that she meant it to apply only to a specific kind of cinema, but it's been used for film more widely as well as TV and I'm 99% sure I've seen it used in academic work on comics too. (An aside - I'm currently writing about the male gaze in The X-Files and I'm looking at the male gaze in comics as well as in adapting books to film and how/if the gaze can be applied to fiction or at least adaptations of fiction too, so I may have more to say about this later!)
Can you think of any specific examples of indie comics being impacted by the trends, styles, etc. of the mainstream even when creators deliberately try to deconstruct them? Either specific examples or more broad ones.
|
|
sophie_ali
Cat People
Twinkle Twinkle Little Bat, How I Wonder What You're At
Posts: 129
|
Post by sophie_ali on Mar 7, 2013 15:42:19 GMT -5
I think there is potential merit in trying to link women with nature, if we go with the idea that nature is powerful. But then there are problems when culture tries to 'tame' nature which isn't a path many feminists would want to go down.
Though the history of associating women with nature is an interesting concept to analyze. They also raise a question that if women are so closely linked to nature, if we start treating the environment better would that lead to better treatment of women?
With the application of the virgin/whore dichotomy to men, maybe it is the opposite for men in that a man who keeps his virginity for a long time is societal considered to be a 'wimp' but a promiscuous man is seen to be a 'stud'. This seems to be the opposite for women maybe, any comments?
Of course there is the crass term 'man-whore' for a promiscuous man but that has negative female connotations in the use of the term 'whore' so it seems negative terms denoting promiscuous men only exist in relation to negative terms about female promiscuity.
I think doing something more than just having women talk at panels would seem to be more of a genuine commitment to equality.
Interestingly I'm doing a module on inter-religious dialogue at the moment which is all about trying to engage the marginalized/Other and an interesting idea came up about engagement.
It suggested there needs to be a move from tolerance to acceptance to hospitality:
Tolerance: is like saying 'I'll put up with you but not genuinely or deeply engage with you' (this would link to the idea we've been discussing of tokenism and it only gets you so far in genuine engagement)
Acceptance: is starting to have more of a genuine engagement with the Other/marginalized.
Hospitality: is having a radical openness to the Other/marginalized to the point of making them part of ones own kinship group but still letting them retain their own identities/voice (i.e this is not assimilation)- this would seem to encourage a genuine engagement with previously marginalized voices that is more than a token gesture
Obviously this is easy to say in theory more than in practise and it involves applying an idea outside of its original discipline but maybe this could be a potential way of evaluating women's role in the comic industry and trying to discern what is tokenism and what is genuine engagement. What do you think?
I also agree with you that changes need to happen on a societal level and then cascade down into individual institutions to have a major effect. But I think it will be interesting to see what grass-roots movement such as MSCSI will have on society- evaluating the top-down vs. bottom-up approach to women's portrayal/role in comics. Which is more effective do you think?
|
|
Rhi
Cat People
every story tells a picture, don't it
Posts: 68
|
Post by Rhi on Mar 7, 2013 17:06:00 GMT -5
That's a really interesting idea, Beth, with regards to the male gaze in the written word. I hadn't really thought about it--it's definitely there, but pinning it down into something quantifiable might be tricky! Can you think of any specific examples of indie comics being impacted by the trends, styles, etc. of the mainstream even when creators deliberately try to deconstruct them? Either specific examples or more broad ones. I've got a couple, though this is sort of unarticulated brainspew as I've had a really hard day. Please forgive! - Gender: Oh god, Alan Moore. All the Alan Moore. Like...even when it's a deconstruction, even when the POV character is female, there's totally something just not quite...right. Sort of on display, for public consumption, if that makes any sense--see what I mean about not quantifiable. - Race: I think Frank Miller started strong with Martha Washington (though it has some problematic aspects), but ended up falling into the Magical Negro trope by the end. We'll avoid going into the rest of Frank Miller right now coughsincitycough. - Sexuality: Much as I love Y the Last Man, it did sort of play into Oh Boy Hawt Lesbians Going At It even as it tried to deconstruct it. And Garth Ennis's work and The Walking Dead use violence and emotional trauma purely for shock value. While I'd argue Ennis is trying to deconstruct the issue, at least in say, Preacher, I think he's given up on that lately and just tried to be as nasty as he can for the hell of it. Sophie--I'd argue that a movement needs both top-down and bottom-up action to be successful in the long run. Trickledown politics is never enough, but grassroots action needs somewhere to link into for alliance, be able to influence areas of leadership. Memetics has shown, however, that grassroots movement can have a larger impact than attempts to start at the top, so perhaps it's more vital, at least in this day and age? I don't know, it's an Epic Question! ETA: I forgot to add that I'm personally not keen on the idea of linking nature to a gendered worldview. Ecofeminism is interesting, but the problem is that only certain aspects of nature end up being connected to the concept of 'woman', e.g. growth and balance and birth/nurturing. People, including some ecofeminists, tend to forget that nature's a right PITA as well, brutal and messy, which is frustrating. Or they smooth over the brutal and messy parts by saying it's 'natural'. I may be thinking Sheri Tepper here, SF fans. |
|
sophie_ali
Cat People
Twinkle Twinkle Little Bat, How I Wonder What You're At
Posts: 129
|
Post by sophie_ali on Mar 8, 2013 14:58:27 GMT -5
I agree with you Rhi. about the large affect grassroots can have and your application of meme theory here is really quite interesting. Do you think it's possible the Cat might become a meme? I think that would be very interesting to watch and see the influence of MSCSI and analyze it though memetics
Grassroots can have a big influence because individuals changed by the bottom-up approach then go out into society and theoretically can change it if enough individuals hold the same opinions. A sort of trickle up approach. I suppose what would be most effective is having top-down and bottom-up approaches meet together in the 'no man's land' or that middle space where individual and society become slightly blurred. How could we combine such approaches?
Is this a potential problem that top-down and bottom-up approaches never quite meet face to face? Is there a no man's land out there that is still a barrier to genuine engagement? Maybe this 'no man's land' is the site of genuine engagement but we haven't quite managed to reach it yet and this is where problems occur because we might potentially mistake dialogue for double monologuing?
|
|
And I'm glad we have a comic like MSCSI where women can be who they are without needing to conform to some idealised version of what a woman should be. I haven't read that far in Fables yet but it is an interesting exchange. It's not wrong by any means for women to enjoy dressing up in skimpy clothes or high heels or whatever, but when it's not functional? Well there's a problem. (I'm looking forward to seeing Cat's superhero costume! I can't imagine that being high heels and skimpy skirts *g*)