The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Cafe Society

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 04-20-2017, 05:11 PM
Darren Garrison Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I did think there was some variability in how legitimate the complaints were at that site (and I read quite a few).
Yes, for instance, the person who was upset that someone was wearing a shirt with an image of a facehugger on Rosie the Riveter, called management to complain about it, then became even more upset when the manager didn't gasp in horror.

Quote:
This comment is reminding me of one in particular (I should have copied it to make sure we're on the same page in terms of which one) where I thought the person complaining was overreacting a bit. From the way she described it, I understand that if she is a bit introverted she might not have enjoyed someone calling attention to her being the only female in the shop--but it really didn't sound like there was malice in what the dude said.
You mean the one where the guy made a joke about it being like the scene where Penny first walks into the comic shop on TBBT? If so, yeah, I thought that was setting the bar for "unsafe" very, very low, too. (Not to mention the posts complaining about the furniture being dirty and the shelves being disorganized making them "unsafe." I think some (not all, but some) of the complainers have social dysfunctions as bad as the poorly acting customers/employees in some of the other posts.)
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #152  
Old 04-20-2017, 07:25 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
Yes, for instance, the person who was upset that someone was wearing a shirt with an image of a facehugger on Rosie the Riveter, called management to complain about it, then became even more upset when the manager didn't gasp in horror.
Huh, I didn't see that one as an overreaction. I tend to agree with this take.
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 04-20-2017, 08:36 PM
Reluctant A. Reluctant A. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
If that was the question, the poster should have asked it. I don't try to untangle questions hidden behind aggressive sarcasm, because I've never had it lead to good discussion, especially if there's an issue like race involved.
Nope. I wasn't hiding a question "behind aggressive sarcasm." I was being sarcastic, although I would challenge the notion that I was being particularly aggressive. I just don't find the idea that "being a 'majority-race American' is a pretty key part of Superman's story" to be very compelling. I will stipulate that, the way that Superman has been portrayed for most of the character's existence could be assumed as the "All-American" archetype, and I will further stipulate that Superman being portrayed as white is a product of when the character was created. What I dispute is the notion that said trope and said whiteness is essential to the mythology of Superman itself.

Using the Origin of Superman Wikipedia entry as a starting point, I have spent parts of the past couple days reading through some of the articles it uses as citations (I'm still waiting on a copy of Superman: The Complete History to become available through my library's exchange system), and I haven't seen anything to suggest that the "All-American" trope is, in and of itself, specifically intrinsic to the mythology, such that making Superman non-white would ruin the character. If you believe otherwise, I'd like to know why?
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 04-20-2017, 08:43 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 31,835
The idea that All-America means white or rural American means white or farmer means white are all pretty much part of racist majoritarian culture.
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 04-20-2017, 09:02 PM
TYphoonSignal8 TYphoonSignal8 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightray View Post
My favorite local comic book store (before I went Marvel Unlimited mostly) is run by folks sensitive to Comic Book Guy stereotypes and how outsiders see them. Their staff is quite diverse, knowledgeable, and courteous.

The customers, however, were an argument in favor of abortion rights. They'd linger around, complaining that comics weren't like they were back when they started buying them (80s or 90s, usually), and bloviating about how the industry needs to be "fixed". Also, they'd creep on any girls - including the staff. And their bathing was a problem.
At the risk of the thread evolving into a "what's your local comic shop like?" discussion, my local comic shop is manned by generally nice guys (all white, all in their late 20s) with one slightly mad but harmless employee who publishes his own comic and heavily promotes it in store.

There are a lot of female customers nowadays - many, many more than there used to be - but as the store is in a basement in a low rent area, it attracts the odd deranged or high passer-by. The female customers do not appear to be harassed by staff. The shop nearly went out of business three years ago so I guess the owners keep a close eye on the bottom line.

The store also refreshingly pushes comics by talented and innovative writers such Hickman and Bennett, by handwritten signs in bright ink recommending the titles and giving a short synopsis. In that regard, the store isn't on the superhero bandwagon - although customers are hit by a bank of shelves filled with X-Men comics as they descend downstairs. The store has a fair selection of Asian comics, but no European comics other than Tintin and Asterix. And from the prominence (location and volume) of the stock, the shop earnestly pushes Jason Aaron's female Thor. Whether that title is the drawcard for female readers, I don't know.

So, endeavouring to steer the conversation back to the topic, I don't think the customers as a rule fit the stereotype of white middle aged guys (I do) who read about white middle aged guys in costumes with super-powers And subjectively I think the store has benefited from appealing to female readers by being both friendly to female customers and stocking female-friendly content.
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 04-20-2017, 09:59 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 31,835
Diversity in Marvel Comics

For many decades, women have consumed entertainment focused on male characters and non-white people have consumed entertainment focused on white characters. Why are white men uniquely unable to deal with stories focused on characters different from them in superficial ways?

Last edited by Acsenray; 04-20-2017 at 09:59 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 04-20-2017, 10:00 PM
Miller Miller is online now
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 41,758
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I did think there was some variability in how legitimate the complaints were at that site (and I read quite a few). This comment is reminding me of one in particular (I should have copied it to make sure we're on the same page in terms of which one) where I thought the person complaining was overreacting a bit. From the way she described it, I understand that if she is a bit introverted she might not have enjoyed someone calling attention to her being the only female in the shop--but it really didn't sound like there was malice in what the dude said. More like "whoa, we don't usually get female humans in here--cool!" Along with sort of a group self-deprecating admission that the customers there aren't exactly chick magnets.
Even if there wasn't any active malice behind it, there's still a problem with that comment, and it's summed up in your last sentence. He's making a "group self-deprecating" joke that implicitly excludes her from the group. The woman telling the story is a geek. She's on the Leonard/Raj/Howard side of the scale. But, because she's got breasts, she's automatically the Penny - the "normal," non-geeky character who exists specifically for geeks to explain things to. And, even if it's not meant in a mean way, it uses the same idea that's at the core of a lot of very real, very cruel misogyny: that women can't be "real" geeks, and that they are intruding on a space that by rights should be reserved only for men.

It's kind of like "blacks have natural rhythm," or "Jews are good with money." It may not be said with malice, but it still shows that the person ascribes to a fucked up way of thinking about people who aren't like them.

That said, putting the shop up on a list of stores that are "unsafe spaces" because a random customer was kind of an asshole is a dick move, too.
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 04-20-2017, 10:19 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
I can follow that argument a certain distance, but not when you say they are accusing her of intruding. I took it , even through the woman's own account, as more of a welcoming or celebratory comment than a complaint about intrusion. Like, "hey, a woman is voluntarily hanging out in the same space we are, so maybe we aren't such losers after all!"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
For many decades, women have consumed entertainment focused on male characters and non-white people have consumed entertainment focused on white characters. Why are white men uniquely unable to deal with stories focused on characters different from them in superficial ways?
Because we are the default, and they are the Other. Obviously.
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 04-20-2017, 11:32 PM
Miller Miller is online now
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 41,758
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I can follow that argument a certain distance, but not when you say they are accusing her of intruding.
I'm not saying that particular guy viewed her as an unwelcome invader. But his "joke" hinges on treating her as an outsider to geek culture, and that is, at the very least, really fucking annoying. It's based on the same assumptions that underlie the more obviously misogynistic, "Girls aren't allowed here," attitude, even if it's expressed in a superficially positive manner.

It's like... imagine meeting a guy with a Hispanic name and dark skin, and immediately launching into a "Welcome to our country! Let me tell you all about our American ways!" And the guy you're talking to was born in Pasadena. Even though you mean well, you're still being kind of an asshole by assuming that the guy's not American. That's basically what the dude in that anecdote was doing when he talked to that girl. Even if he was being nice about it, he was still treating her like an outsider, just because she was a girl.
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 04-20-2017, 11:45 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Interesting. Another tangent:
SPOILER:
I actually frequently do issue such "welcome" pronouncements to immigrants I run into at the store or wherever. I do understand there's some awkwardness there and a risk of seeming patronizing; but when I think about balancing that against what it must be like for them, living in a mostly white rural "heartland", I feel like the calculus comes out in favor of trying to inject some positivity into what has to be a somewhat nervewracking existence. YMMV
Reply With Quote
  #161  
Old 04-21-2017, 12:25 AM
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
You mean the one where the guy made a joke about it being like the scene where Penny first walks into the comic shop on TBBT? If so, yeah, I thought that was setting the bar for "unsafe" very, very low, too.
Why do I get the sense you're not a woman...
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 04-21-2017, 04:25 AM
Gyrate Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Huh, I didn't see that one as an overreaction. I tend to agree with this take.
Same here. Unless the company has a whole line of shirts featuring a wide range of iconic figures getting "facehugged", the selection of Rosie the Riveter looks very deliberate and intended to send a very specific message.
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 04-21-2017, 05:22 AM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
Same here. Unless the company has a whole line of shirts featuring a wide range of iconic figures getting "facehugged", the selection of Rosie the Riveter looks very deliberate and intended to send a very specific message.
Yes, "You Can't Do It!"

Good point though that there's always the possibility they "facehugger" everyone. Not too likely, however. And why would you wear this particular shirt, anyway?
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 04-21-2017, 07:01 AM
Darren Garrison Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Why do I get the sense you're not a woman...
I refuse to believe that all women would feel "unsafe" over such a mild comment. Either the woman lives in constant fear over everything, or she is using "unsafe" in a different way than I mean it, as "fear for my personal safety." Did she really think that comment was a sign that the guy might intend to rape or kill her? (Or maybe she means "unsafe" in the special snowflake sense of "be exposed to ideas that I don't agree with".)
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 04-21-2017, 07:07 AM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
How about "aggressive, hostile, misogynystic"? And what are the "ideas" here? A desire to roll back a century of progress in women's rights?
Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 04-21-2017, 07:14 AM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 31,835
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
special snowflake sense


Well that's a giveaway.
Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 04-21-2017, 07:23 AM
Darren Garrison Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
How about "aggressive, hostile, misogynystic"? And what are the "ideas" here? A desire to roll back a century of progress in women's rights?
You've got your sub-threads crossed here. That was a response related to the mention of the TBBT-related joke (which you mentioned first) not the t-shirt (as you seem to be referencing to.)
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 04-21-2017, 07:34 AM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
You've got your sub-threads crossed here. That was a response related to the mention of the TBBT-related joke (which you mentioned first) not the t-shirt (as you seem to be referencing to.)
Ohhh...okay. But didn't you dismiss the T-shirt as well?
Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 04-21-2017, 07:36 AM
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
I refuse to believe that all women would feel "unsafe" over such a mild comment. Either the woman lives in constant fear over everything, or she is using "unsafe" in a different way than I mean it, as "fear for my personal safety." Did she really think that comment was a sign that the guy might intend to rape or kill her? (Or maybe she means "unsafe" in the special snowflake sense of "be exposed to ideas that I don't agree with".)
...yes: she means it in a different way that you mean it. Its as simple as that. And not in that "special snowflake" sense either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
Well that's a giveaway.
Indeed.
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 04-21-2017, 07:57 AM
Darren Garrison Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Ohhh...okay. But didn't you dismiss the T-shirt as well?
Yes, I did. But it wasn't addressed directly in that comment. I'll stand by the opinion that someone who attempts to get someone in trouble over the t-shirt they choose to wear is a busy-body drama-monarch that needs to get a fucking life.
Reply With Quote
  #171  
Old 04-21-2017, 07:58 AM
Darren Garrison Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
Indeed.
Head over to the pit and visit the anti-SJW thread and you'll find a few posts by me there, too--it isn't like I'm trying to hide anything.
Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old 04-21-2017, 07:59 AM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
We're talking about someone working as a retail cashier, right? Not just a customer? Would it also be OK for them to have a T-shirt of Martin Luther King Junior being lynched?
Reply With Quote
  #173  
Old 04-21-2017, 08:05 AM
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 68,202
My first thought on the facehugger/Rosie shirt was that it was just geeky for the sake of being geeky. And that might have been the only thought, on the part of a person who bought the shirt. But yeah, on thinking about it some more, that can't have been the artist's only thought. There was some reason he (and yes, I'm assuming the artist was male) chose Rosie the Riveter. There are many other choices he could have made, which would have some more innocuous artistic interpretation. If you have Mr. Spock getting facehugged, then that's just a mash-up of two unrelated science fiction worlds (bonus points if you also fit in references to Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, and Doctor Who in the same image). If you have Cookie Monster getting facehugged, that's a joke, an absurd juxtaposition of the innocent and the shocking. But Rosie the Riveter? She exists pretty much entirely as a symbol of female empowerment. What message could you possibly be intending by that image, other than the horribly misogynist one?

(and yes, I'm aware that the woman in the iconic "We Can Do It" poster is not canonically Rosie the Riveter. But that name and that image are so inextricably entwined in our culture that there's no point in separating them)
Reply With Quote
  #174  
Old 04-21-2017, 09:37 AM
Some Call Me... Tim Some Call Me... Tim is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
Actually one of the very few comics I follow currently (came for the hype, stuck around for the stories/characters. It is on the lower level of "taking itself seriously.")

But for some hard numbers, issue #1 was in 24th place at 50,286 copies sold. The most recent issue was in 119th place at 19,327 copies sold. So it looks like you are right about comic buyers liking the idea.
Comics very often see a drop in sales after a #1 issue, so by itself that's not surprising. On the same list I see that the Star Lord comic was in 176th place with 12,761 copies sold. He's a white male character with more name recognition than Ms. Marvel, given the Guardians of the Galaxy movie. I don't think 'diversity' is a good blanket explanation of sales figures.

One more comment for context, at the moment DC is generally on an upswing in terms of sales and Marvel on a downswing. Some of this may just be DC improving after undoing a lot of its problematic new 52 stuff, but it's a competitive industry and one succeeding tends to take away sales from the other.

Lots of comics fail for lots of reasons. From what I've read from the set of industry commentators who would generally default to cheering for 'diversity', the recent Marvel additions were a bit of a mixed bag, mostly coming back to the core quality of writing and possibly editorial mandates. The new Wolverine and the new Thor, for example, are thought to have been introduced more organically in the stories and thus had relatively good receptions, whereas the new Iron not-a-Man abruptly appeared in the story with very little narrative preparation. The perception was that there was a sudden editorial mandate for 'diversity' for the character and that the story suffered for it.

So it appears 'diversity' is neither a kiss of death nor a panacea that cures all low sales ills. It all comes back to whether the stories are any good, which is as it should be.
Reply With Quote
  #175  
Old 04-21-2017, 09:39 AM
Darren Garrison Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
We're talking about someone working as a retail cashier, right? Not just a customer? Would it also be OK for them to have a T-shirt of Martin Luther King Junior being lynched?
Showing a real person being lynched (be it a "good guy" like MLK or a "bad guy" like Mussolini) is pretty seriously bad taste. A t-shirt featuring kick-ass space ninja white supremacist chicks fighting a muscular MLK terminator would be more cool, though.
Reply With Quote
  #176  
Old 04-21-2017, 09:47 AM
Darren Garrison Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Call Me... Tim View Post
One more comment for context, at the moment DC is generally on an upswing in terms of sales and Marvel on a downswing. Some of this may just be DC improving after undoing a lot of its problematic new 52 stuff, but it's a competitive industry and one succeeding tends to take away sales from the other.
Also possibly influenced by DC having lower prices than Marvel. (FWIW, my prime comic buying years ended around the time when prices went from 75 cents to a dollar per issue.)
Reply With Quote
  #177  
Old 04-21-2017, 02:24 PM
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
I refuse to believe that all women would feel "unsafe" over such a mild comment.
Oh, it has to be all women?
Quote:
Either the woman lives in constant fear over everything, or she is using "unsafe" in a different way than I mean it, as "fear for my personal safety." Did she really think that comment was a sign that the guy might intend to rape or kill her? (Or maybe she means "unsafe" in the special snowflake sense of "be exposed to ideas that I don't agree with".)
Or maybe some middle ground between "rape" and [sigh] "special snowflake". Crazy, I know...

Last edited by MrDibble; 04-21-2017 at 02:25 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #178  
Old 04-21-2017, 05:53 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 31,835
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post



It's like... imagine meeting a guy with a Hispanic name and dark skin, and immediately launching into a "Welcome to our country! Let me tell you all about our American ways!" And the guy you're talking to was born in Pasadena. Even though you mean well, you're still being kind of an asshole by assuming that the guy's not American. That's basically what the dude in that anecdote was doing when he talked to that girl. Even if he was being nice about it, he was still treating her like an outsider, just because she was a girl.


Something sort of like this has actually happened to me. We were driving to the beach and stopped at a farm/market in the country.

One of the other customers started telling me about how I was welcome in this country and that I shouldn't listen to bigots and stuff.

From my skin color, he assumed I was a (1) Muslim (2) immigrant (3) from the Middle East. In fact, I am an atheist-Hindu American citizen by birth whose parents are from India. So he was wrong in all counts.

Now this guy was harmless and meant well and I didn't hold any of that against him, although I made a point of letting him know where I was born, surrounded by Midwestern corn stalks.

However, it was also quite disturbing in a way, because it showed that regardless of the fact that I am and have always been an American, there are people who will always assume that I don't belong. And some of them might not be harmless slightly goofy guys mistakenly wanting to welcome an outsider.

No one will ever do that to a white person. That is the thought that rang through my head. A white guy who otherwise has a background much like mine will never be subject to that assumption. It's disturbing. It's alienating.
Reply With Quote
  #179  
Old 04-21-2017, 11:28 PM
bmoak bmoak is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by TYphoonSignal8 View Post
Thanks for this cogent summary.

But if the consequences of Seduction of the Innocent wasn't the trigger for the 1956 reintroduction, then what was?

I guess what I am trying to do is draw an analogy between Disney's (theoretical) editorial mandate for diversification, and what happened in 1956 when DC's characters were all upgraded.
Late-Arriving Comic History Nerd Alert!

-Frederic Wertham's Seduction of the Innocent's role in diminishing the comics industry has been somewhat overstated. Comics sales had been declining since the end of WWII and most publishers had been jumping from genre to genre trying to find something that would replace the massive sales of superheroes.

-Perhaps a bigger factor in the decline of comics were the Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency chaired by Senator Kefauver in 1954. They were televised and were on the front page of the New York Times and focused on crime and horror comics. (Seduction of the Innocent was also negative towards superheroes). EC Comics (and later Mad Magazine) publisher Bill Gaines volunteered to testify and was a disaster by all accounts. He reportedly took extra doses of his anxiety medicine to calm his nerves before testifying. The Comics Code was established by the industry as a direct response to these hearings.

-DC Comics was one of the publishers LEAST affected by the Code. DC was a large company that published a lot of titles in a lot of genres. However, they didn't publish crime comics and their horror titles were more in the "spooky ghost story" vein than Tales From The Crypt-style mayhem. Disney was one of two companies that didn't sign on to the Comics Code. The other was Gilbertson, publisher of Classics Illustrated, that bane of English teachers.

-DC was also the one company that didn't stop publishing superheroes, although they certainly published less than in the Golden Age. Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman were are continuously published, and thus didn't need updating. Also, Superman and Batman were featured in several other titles (Action Comics, Detective Comics, etc), and these titles had backup features. Aquaman, Green Arrow, and Martian Manhunter, among others, had lengthy runs as second bananas in the 40s and 50s

-Comic book history can be a bit superhero-centric. Yes, the first appearance of Barry Allen as the Flash in Showcase #4 in 1956 was a pivotal moment in comics history, but the science-inspired hero revival in the pages of Showcase and The Brave & The Bold (DC's other tryout title) only revived four heroes: Flash, Green Lantern, Atom, and Hawkman. And as DC was a very corporate, conservative publisher, they brought things along slowly. The new Flash debuted in 1956, but Hal Jordan as Green Lantern didn't appear until 1959, and the Atom and Hawkman had to wait until 1961. The Justice League of America, featuring the new Flash and Green Lantern and the "old" Wonder Woman, Aquaman, and Martian Manhunter, first appeared in 1960.

-Everyone remembers Showcase and The Brave & The Bold for the superhero launches, but those titles also launched quite a few non-superhero characters that went on to their own features. Challengers of the Unknown, Rip Hunter: Time Master (Now on TV!), Adam Strange, Space Ranger, The Sea Devils, Cave Carson, and Suicide Squad.
Reply With Quote
  #180  
Old 04-23-2017, 12:14 AM
Push You Down Push You Down is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
Showing a real person being lynched (be it a "good guy" like MLK or a "bad guy" like Mussolini) is pretty seriously bad taste. A t-shirt featuring kick-ass space ninja white supremacist chicks fighting a muscular MLK terminator would be more cool, though.
Politics aside..... that art is horrendous and should be nuked from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Reply With Quote
  #181  
Old 04-23-2017, 12:36 AM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Push You Down View Post
Politics aside..... that art is horrendous and should be nuked from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Agreed, and nicely tied into the theme with the facehugger.
Reply With Quote
  #182  
Old 04-23-2017, 11:31 PM
TYphoonSignal8 TYphoonSignal8 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Call Me... Tim View Post
Comics very often see a drop in sales after a #1 issue, so by itself that's not surprising. On the same list I see that the Star Lord comic was in 176th place with 12,761 copies sold. He's a white male character with more name recognition than Ms. Marvel, given the Guardians of the Galaxy movie. I don't think 'diversity' is a good blanket explanation of sales figures.

One more comment for context, at the moment DC is generally on an upswing in terms of sales and Marvel on a downswing. Some of this may just be DC improving after undoing a lot of its problematic new 52 stuff, but it's a competitive industry and one succeeding tends to take away sales from the other.

Lots of comics fail for lots of reasons. From what I've read from the set of industry commentators who would generally default to cheering for 'diversity', the recent Marvel additions were a bit of a mixed bag, mostly coming back to the core quality of writing and possibly editorial mandates. The new Wolverine and the new Thor, for example, are thought to have been introduced more organically in the stories and thus had relatively good receptions, whereas the new Iron not-a-Man abruptly appeared in the story with very little narrative preparation. The perception was that there was a sudden editorial mandate for 'diversity' for the character and that the story suffered for it.

So it appears 'diversity' is neither a kiss of death nor a panacea that cures all low sales ills. It all comes back to whether the stories are any good, which is as it should be.
The link in the OP identified the slow or heritage-respectful introductions of the new characters in Wolverine and Thor: X-23 had been around for over a decade before taking on the mantle, and Jane Foster had been in the stories from the very beginning. I keep thinking of the debacle that the introduction of Kyle Rayner in Green Lantern in the last 90s. Established and respected character suddenly goes nuts. New character gets lucky finding a Guardian in a night club alley. New character happens to be half-Hispanic and has no back story. Massive schism in readership, and very loud voices of ridicule. But when John Stewart took over the role in 1988(?) when Len Wein was writing GL, there were no real complaints because Stewart had been part of the GL mythos since 1974-ish.

So, yes, the stories should be good, but also the lead-in should be long and the characters known. James Rhodes (black) could take over the mantle of Iron Man, as the character did in the past because Rhodes has been in the Iron Man mythos for decades, but this too new, black, female character will certainly fail.
Reply With Quote
  #183  
Old Yesterday, 05:46 AM
Gyrate Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
Now this guy was harmless and meant well and I didn't hold any of that against him, although I made a point of letting him know where I was born, surrounded by Midwestern corn stalks.
Wouldn't a hospital maternity ward have been more hygienic?

Quote:
However, it was also quite disturbing in a way, because it showed that regardless of the fact that I am and have always been an American, there are people who will always assume that I don't belong. And some of them might not be harmless slightly goofy guys mistakenly wanting to welcome an outsider.

No one will ever do that to a white person. That is the thought that rang through my head. A white guy who otherwise has a background much like mine will never be subject to that assumption. It's disturbing. It's alienating.
It is. And it's true. As a white Anglophone immigrant to the UK I find that many people here (those not paying close attention to my accent) assume I'm native-born. I blend in easily so I don't set off "otherness" triggers.
Reply With Quote
  #184  
Old Yesterday, 08:16 AM
Pantastic Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reluctant A. View Post
Nope. I wasn't hiding a question "behind aggressive sarcasm."
So I was correct in not thinking that "The question is...", unlike Miller who thought there was a question behind the aggressive sarcasm.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
Actually, a black Superman or Captain America would bother me, because the traditional story for both of them has their origin in a time where being black would radically alter their 'early years' story and how they were received by the public.
Quote:
I haven't seen anything to suggest that the "All-American" trope is, in and of itself, specifically intrinsic to the mythology, such that making Superman non-white would ruin the character. If you believe otherwise, I'd like to know why?
Since I never claimed that making super-man non-white would ruin the character, I have no idea why you're pulling the "If you believe otherwise" schtick here. It's especially divorced from reality since I specifically said in my original "If they're doing a modern origin I wouldn't have a problem with it..." and clearly (as I quoted above) stated that what would bother me is switching the race without addressing the effect of that race on his reception by other people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
The idea that All-America means white or rural American means white or farmer means white are all pretty much part of racist majoritarian culture.
Which is why I think that a superman story set in a location and time with a racist majoritarian culture would either have to be different or would be obviously ignoring a major piece of the background if he 'happened' not to look like the majoritarian race.
Reply With Quote
  #185  
Old Yesterday, 12:42 PM
Push You Down Push You Down is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
At this point "What if Superman were black?" should be considered a trope since it's been done so many times now both literally and figuratively.
Reply With Quote
  #186  
Old Yesterday, 01:49 PM
BigT BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I'm cool with that, but shouldn't it work both ways? Seems like a lot of people lost their damn minds when Tilda Swinton was cast as The Ancient One.
No. Because white people are not hurting for roles in Hollywood.

There are no equivalents with the majority race and any minority race. As a white person, I have no ethnic identity associated with my race. I just don't. I literally do not ever think about the fact that I am white except in this sort of discussion.

No, you can't celebrate being white, since that has absolutely no meaning other than "I'm not a person of color." There is nothing else there. There is nothing to celebrate.

The only reason why minorities celebrate their race is because they have a shared cultural history, and they come together against the majority. We have nothing of the sort. White is just the word for "you are accepted as the default race."

It's like trying to have heterosexual pride. There's nothing there. There's no shared history to celebrate. There's no oppression to celebrate fighting. There's just nothing there but people getting jealous of minorities and wanting their own.

I can celebrate my Scottish heritage. I can celebrate Southern heritage (as long as I leave out the racism/sexism). I can celebrate the fights for people with mental disorders. I cannot celebrate that I am white, straight, or even male. There's just nothing to celebrate when you are the cultural default.

Or, to put it another way, being the default means I'm already celebrated, and thus I have no reason to celebrate myself.
Reply With Quote
  #187  
Old Yesterday, 02:02 PM
BigT BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
There is a difference between changing the race/gender/sexuality of characters and the legacies, sure. But some people want to discuss when it's okay to change a character's race.

I don't think being a main character is the limit. The issue is simply whether or not they could believably have the same story. Peter Parker? Yeah, he basically could. Bruce Wayne? Not really. You might be able to pull it off if the Waynes adopt him, but then there'd be legitimacy problems that Bruce Wayne would need to deal with--is he really their kid? If you change his parents' race, though, then the context of their shooting changes.

Superman needs to crash in a podunk town in the middle of the whiter part of America, and be adopted without anyone batting an eye. Yeah, he probably has to stay white. You change it, and Clark Kent is different. (Also, the more modern you make Superman, the less that origin works.)

I'd argue Dick Grayson could be pretty much any race, though. I don't think you can make him female, as that would make Batgirl seem weird. (You can make Robin female, as we all know.)

My point is that the line is really just "what would work with the character that's been established in the public consciousness?" Yes, that makes secondary characters easier, since they may not have established much in the public consciousness. But there are others that can be changed, too.

Of course, reality with the racial problems in Hollywood means there's no reason whitewash. The goal is more diversity, not less.
Reply With Quote
  #188  
Old Yesterday, 02:04 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
No, you can't celebrate being white, since that has absolutely no meaning other than "I'm not a person of color." There is nothing else there. There is nothing to celebrate.

The only reason why minorities celebrate their race is because they have a shared cultural history, and they come together against the majority. We have nothing of the sort. White is just the word for "you are accepted as the default race."
I just don't agree. Han Chinese can be proud of their historical civilization and its achievements. As can Egyptians. As can Arabs. As can Mayans. As can Indians (South Asians). And so can Northern Europeans, IMO.

Last edited by SlackerInc; Yesterday at 02:04 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #189  
Old Yesterday, 02:05 PM
BigT BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odesio View Post
I'm sorry I peed in your Cheerios, foolsguinea. You take this way more seriously than you should.
This is always a bad argument. It basically implies you have no counterargument.

What you are saying is that things shouldn't change since the last time you read a comic, which is just an arbitrary point.

The passion in which an argument is stated has no indication of its merit. I do not know why this dodge is so often seen as effective.
Reply With Quote
  #190  
Old Yesterday, 02:42 PM
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 68,202
SlackerInc, a person can be proud of being Scottish, or Scandinavian, or German, or French, just as much as a different person can be proud of being Han, Egyptian, Arabian, or Mayan. But I don't think there's really any legitimate "pride in being northern European", or "northern European civilization".
Reply With Quote
  #191  
Old Yesterday, 04:36 PM
Exapno Mapcase Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 28,487
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
SlackerInc, a person can be proud of being Scottish, or Scandinavian, or German, or French, just as much as a different person can be proud of being Han, Egyptian, Arabian, or Mayan. But I don't think there's really any legitimate "pride in being northern European", or "northern European civilization".
And that leads directly into being proud of your "Aryan" heritage. As so many white supremacists are. That's a road nobody should want to go down again.
Reply With Quote
  #192  
Old Yesterday, 04:53 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
SlackerInc, a person can be proud of being Scottish, or Scandinavian, or German, or French, just as much as a different person can be proud of being Han, Egyptian, Arabian, or Mayan. But I don't think there's really any legitimate "pride in being northern European", or "northern European civilization".
Why then don't you similarly caution Arabs to limit their pride to being Lebanese, Saudi, etc.?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
And that leads directly into being proud of your "Aryan" heritage. As so many white supremacists are. That's a road nobody should want to go down again.
Speaking of roads, they also liked Autobahns, and VWs. Hitler was fond of dogs. Do we have to swear off all those things too?
Reply With Quote
  #193  
Old Yesterday, 05:51 PM
Exapno Mapcase Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 28,487
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Speaking of roads, they also liked Autobahns, and VWs. Hitler was fond of dogs. Do we have to swear off all those things too?
Dogs and VWs are things. "Aryan heritage" is entirely imaginary, created for no purpose other than to denigrate and diminish others. It continues to exist today solely for those reasons. I'm comfortable with denouncing it as racist nonsense and any current supremacist practitioners as monsters.

You want to take another swing at that pitch?
Reply With Quote
  #194  
Old Yesterday, 06:08 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
I'm German, French, Irish, Welsh, English, and Swedish (plus 1/8 Native American). I have pale skin, blue eyes, and pride in my Northern European heritage. :P
Reply With Quote
  #195  
Old Yesterday, 07:04 PM
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 68,202
You don't have pride in your Northern European heritage, because you don't have a Northern European heritage. You have German heritage, and French heritage, and all the rest. Your Irish ancestors weren't eating sauerkraut, and your German ancestors weren't eating colcannon, because they were part of two different heritages.
Reply With Quote
  #196  
Old Yesterday, 07:23 PM
Odesio Odesio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
This is always a bad argument. It basically implies you have no counterargument.
I wasn't trying to make a good argument there, champ. I was responding to someone who had grown hostile for no reason I could discern. People who do that don't really deserve any good argument from me.

Quote:
What you are saying is that things shouldn't change since the last time you read a comic, which is just an arbitrary point.
We're talking about arbitrary tastes here. So, yeah. I'll cop to it being an arbitrary point.

Quote:
The passion in which an argument is stated has no indication of its merit. I do not know why this dodge is so often seen as effective.
Passion is fine. Being an asshole isn't.
Reply With Quote
  #197  
Old Yesterday, 08:26 PM
Exapno Mapcase Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 28,487
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I'm German, French, Irish, Welsh, English, and Swedish (plus 1/8 Native American). I have pale skin, blue eyes, and pride in my Northern European heritage. :P
My father was Prussian. You may now proceed to worship me.
Reply With Quote
  #198  
Old Yesterday, 08:36 PM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 23,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I'm German, French, Irish, Welsh, English, and Swedish (plus 1/8 Native American). I have pale skin, blue eyes, and pride in my Northern European heritage. :P
I'm sure it's just coincidence that you happen to believe that pale skinned, light eyed northern Europeans and Asians have superior genes for high intelligence.
Reply With Quote
  #199  
Old Yesterday, 08:51 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
You don't have pride in your Northern European heritage, because you don't have a Northern European heritage. You have German heritage, and French heritage, and all the rest. Your Irish ancestors weren't eating sauerkraut, and your German ancestors weren't eating colcannon, because they were part of two different heritages.
They are all basically Vikings. Again, how does this differ from Arabs having a heritage that stretches across several countries?
Reply With Quote
  #200  
Old Today, 08:57 AM
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 68,202
No, they all have some measure of Viking blood, but they're a lot more non-Viking than Viking, except possibly in the Swedish. And Arabs might not be the best-defined group, either, but they at least have a common language and a common religion.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.