Comic Book Resources

How is it strong?

It came across as: “I don’t read it, I don’t like it, I wouldn’t give money to it, so why won’t they pander to me instead of the male chauvinist pigs that read comics?”

I don’t like Wizard much, but it just seemed like pseudo-political jargon that I’ve begun to see a lot of lately in regards to gender issues in comic books.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I was just as upset at it coming from the other side (dating all the way back to Bill Jemas’ “Bad girls for Fanboys” comments), but as a male comic fan who reads mostly (but not exclusively) superhero titles, I detest the implication that I am a slavering horn-dog desperate for T&A.

I feel that there are several points to be raised about gender issues in comics, but I think that I’ve seen a lot of anti-male sentiment coming from the internet in place of a real desire to try to correct the issues. I feel that with many people, it’s an all or nothing fight, and there have been many a demand for drastic changes in order to appease their personal politics, but they themselves are content to lay broad accusations about the demographic that does buy comics that I find insulting.

Did I buy the infamous MJ statue? No, I thought it was hyper sexulaized and tacky, to say nothing of the fact that it was a statue of someone doing laundry. But I buy Spider-man, so obviously (sarcasm) I’m a fanboy living in my parent’s basement leering hungrily at the drawings of pretty ladies. (end sarcasm)

Feh, now I’ve got a good rant on. How awkward.

All I want to say is that putting down all men who buy comics is not a great way to change comics.

I made the mistake of picking up an issue of Wizard recently (for the first time in 3-4 years) thinking I was picking up a comic magazine. Instead I got Entertainment Weekly. It was 30+ pages in before I got to the first article actually ABOUT a comic book. The rest was all movie coverage that really wasn’t that interesting or in depth. The cover article (and the reason I bought the mag in the first place) about the “One More Day” story was only 3 pages in length and contained nothing of any substance or import. Just Joe Quesada and JMS talking about how ‘shocking’ it will be. *Yawn*

This is why I just stick to CBR and Newsarama for my comic news coverage…

Scott:

Did we just read the same piece?

Where was the “pseudo-political jargon”? I didn’t read any.

Where were the “broad accusations about the demographic that does buy comics”? Again, I didn’t read any.

I read some suppositions- pretty well founded ones- about Wizards editorial staff’s opinion of that demographic, and some lamentations of their lack of faith in that demographic. But I didn’t read anything in that post about male comic book fans.

Frankly, I’m amazed you managed to type your comment… your knee must have been jerking so hard you’re lucky it didn’t knock your computer over.

I’m going to break out the (non-euphemistic) hotdogs right away because, three comments deep, this fire’s gonna be HOT!!

Re:davidwynne

Well, I guess not everyone objects to being classified as the lowest common denominator.

Well, the punctuation is wrong, so there might be some miscommuication going on, but the article I read sure seems to refer to “men who have interest in comics-related things” as “the lowest common denominator”.

And that wouldn’t be offensive, how exactly?

“So they went and decided to go beyond the comics-reading community to pander to the lowest common (male) denominator everywhere so they wouldn’t have to be a magazine for everyone who reads comics.”

It’s polemical but when she writes the word “pander,” I think it’s obvious that she means that Wizard is heavy on the T&A. The post doesn’t say spandex oriented comics are just for boys. Take a deep breath.

I think that phrase is meant to reflect Wizard’s view of the comics buying public rather than the author’s. It’s a tough thing when you do these changes in narrative voice, but I’m willing to give her the benefit of the doubt.

The problem is, what I believe she means is that, when Wizard says it’s a “Men’s Magazine”, it means that, like Maxim or Stuff, it will target the lowest common denominator within men.

Unfortunately, the way she writes it, she (benefit of the doubt: inadvertantly) says, more than once, that all men are the lowest common denominator.

And when she says that it takes a lot of time and resources to get a feminist magazine off the ground? Well, that’s true, but writing it that implies that it has something to do with feminism; in fact, it takes a lot of time and resources to get *any* magazine off the ground. The problem I have with conversations about feminism is that they [the conversations] often become unneccessarily divisive because of language.

You conveniently managed to leave out the last and most pertinent sentence (or sentence fragment) of that paragraph. “Just men who have interest in comic related things.”

Like I said in my previous post, her sentence structure makes her actual meaning hard to parse, so I’m willing to concede that this may have just been poor phrasing. But keeping the quotes in context would help people draw their own conclusion.

I think the last two paragraphs of her post had some interesting points, but prior to that, it’s really nothing but complaining that in a comercial enviorment (which the poster seems to concede is) mostly made up of men, Wizard chose to market to the majority. If anything, it sounds like Wizard did the poster a favor by putting a big, “Not for female comics readers!” on their cover.

GarBut: How those Hotdogs coming? It’s almost lunchtime here.

Naw, that paragraph bugged me the most, but the whole article bothered me.

Imagine if it was about a comic book, instead of a magazine.

“I haven’t read “The Avengers” since high school, but I read that Warbird is the field leader. That book sucks.”

Dee, friends: sorry I didn’t respond right away. I was busy doing my laundry.

It really is, at best, juvenile and pointless. Basically, she’s complaining about a magazine she doesn’t read doing something she doesn’t like. It doesn’t affect her one bit. I don’t see why she felt the need to post about it and insult all male comic book readers in the process. Noice work, clanky.

Hmmm… I was going to weigh in here earlier… But I seem to kill these kind of conversations… So I waited to see how it developed…

On second thought, you guys are right and she’s wrong. Wizard is an awesome magazine. I own every issue ever published. She had no right to slander my gender by attacking that magazine.

Whoa, slow down and take a deep breath.

Wizard sucks, and she can say whatever she wants, we just don’t have to agree with her.

Sorry to be sarcastic but I just find it hilarious that anyone would act like what she’s saying about Wizard is anything other than obvious. I’m a little surprised that she’s even shocked by their new header.

Wow, you are completely misreading that, Scott. One hundred percent. She’s not calling you the lowest common denominator, she’s criticizing Wizard for targeting the LCD, instead of the normal non-pervs like the rest of us.

I don’t know why you’re including yourself with the group she’s talking about, but it’s not fair to her or yourself. You’re including yourself in a group you’re not fond of, and then getting insulted when people criticize them.

That’s just silly.

I agree…she is criticizing Wizard for targeting the LCD…

And to that; of course they do..thats apparently what people buy from, and have come to expect from, their catalog.

I don’t agree. It’s not my company. I don’t buy their books.

People don’t buy it because they publish it – they publish it because people buy it.

Their not in it for a love of the medium or some romantic notion of furthering the art form to new and innovative heights! Just like their fight organization, their in it for
the cash.

As with everything else: don’t give them your money if you
don’t like their product or politics.

Putting aside the uncertainty about who exactly she was insulting, I do agree with her on one point, the further marginalization of Wizard is probably a good thing for the comics community as a whole.

I always found it kind of embarassing that what was suposedly the flagship magazine for the comics industry seemed little more than month old “news” and boobie jokes. Calling it a “pop-culture magazine” and weakening it’s relation to comics should be a good thing, and maybe help change the stereotypical image of comic readers the general public tends to have.

I’m offended by all the drawings of muscular men with six-packed abs and broad shoulders that appear in Wizard (and comics in general).

As a man who reads comics but with extra padding around the waist and looked horrible in spandex (see picts from Halloween), it forces me to reconsider the harmful images that are being imposed upon me. I mean, Superman is already powered by our sun’s rays, why does he have to have a perfect body? Wouldn’t a flabby or slightly overweight Superman be equally bullet proof?

Good christ you people can’t read. She’s complaining that Wizard ISN’T targeting people with an interest in comic related things and is instead trying to broaden the market by including subject matter (like tits) that will attract men with little or no interest in comic related things.

If anything, it is Wizard that is insulting you, becaue they’re convinced that they can give you less comics related material and more fluff about non-comics things (tits) and that you’ll still be dumb enough to buy it.

The magazine is also saying: Hey, you’re a person who likes comics related things? Then you’ll really love some pictures of tits! It’s the magazine that’s making assumptions about you and assuming you’re the LCD, not Ragnell.

I’m offended by all the drawings of muscular men with six-packed abs and broad shoulders that appear in Wizard (and comics in general).

As a man who reads comics but with extra padding around the waist and looked horrible in spandex (see picts from Halloween), it forces me to reconsider the harmful images that are being imposed upon me. I mean, Superman is already powered by our sun’s rays, why does he have to have a perfect body? Wouldn’t a flabby or slightly overweight Superman be equally bullet proof?

And it’s exactly the same because men have been held to confining image standards for decades, and are constantly having their looks equated with their value as people.

Yep.

On an unrelated note, yeah, Sterling was quite prescient about Wizard’s predictions for Spider-Man 4, but c’mon… we all could have guessed that stuff. It’s just a shame that Wizard tried to present what everybody already knew as a feature, from the sounds of it.

Hopefully, as I said over at Sterling’s, my interview with Raimi (why, yes, I am a little excited about that) might shed some light on what direction he’s heading in, but it’s more than likely he hasn’t even decided yet.

Ah, the nerd persecution complex. You’ll never go away, will you?

On an unrelated note, yeah, Sterling was quite prescient about Wizard’s predictions for Spider-Man 4, but c’mon… we all could have guessed that stuff. It’s just a shame that Wizard tried to present what everybody already knew as a feature, from the sounds of it.

Hopefully, as I said over at Sterling’s, my interview with Raimi (why, yes, I am a little excited about that) might shed some light on what direction he’s heading in, but it’s more than likely he hasn’t even decided yet.

Well, it’s mentioned in the entry, so it’s not really unrelated, right?

But yeah, I think we all knew Wizard wouldn’t get any real info, but still, it’s quite silly to say you WILL and then come out with a piece that someone could literally have written months ago.

Make sure to drop a line when your interview with Raimi goes up, Rohan! I agree that it is unlikely you’ll get any new info, but just for the reason you give – he likely isn’t even sure HIMSELF at this point in time.

Ah, the nerd persecution complex. You’ll never go away, will you?

My girlwonder bingo card is almost filled up via the comments.

It’s one thing for WIZARD to offer half-assed (at best) info in its, for lack of a better word, ‘story’ on SPIDER-MAN 4.

It’s another thing to promote it on the cover.

Has Wizard always been like this? I just ask because I remember picking up a few issues when I was in primary school, and even back then (a solid ten years ago now) it seemed to be more about movies and TV shows than comics (except for the special issues devoted to the JLA and Heroes Return launches and stuff like that, which I thought were awesome).

@Brian: I’ll be sure to drop you a line. It’s just for a magazine over here in Australia, and the focus will mostly be on 30 Days of Night (since he produced it and it comes out here next week), but I wouldn’t even know where to start shopping the interview in America, so if any Spider-Man related stuff comes up I’ll pass it on to you guys.

“Has Wizard always been like this?”

If by “like this” you mean wallowing in prurient interest, yeah, pretty much. The “Hunk & Babe of the Month” bits in the early issues speak to that.

If you mean “shamelessly prostituting themselves for Hollywood,” no, the magazine did actually used to be about comics. Of course, then they were shamelessly prostituting themselves for Image and Valiant, so we’re right back to definition 1…

Aah… this is my first chance to check back on thi since I posted my comment.

Deesnider… I am entirely aware that it’s probably pointless trying to reason with the singer from Twisted Sister, but just for the hell of it-

The quote is: “Maybe they were just too chickenshit to risk a change, or had no faith that the male audience would be willing to read news and views without round shiny breasts next to every paragraph, or maybe they just didn’t care enough to make the effort.

So they went and decided to go beyond the comics-reading community to pander to the lowest common (male) denominator everywhere so they wouldn’t have to be a magazine for everyone who reads comics. Just men who have interest in comics-related things.”

Okay now, this is how we do this thing called reading:

“the lowest common (male) denominator” does not mean that men are the lowest common denominator, it means that she is reffering to the lowest common denominator among men. This is not a matter of interpretation, it’s a matter of basic knowledge of the English language.

“Just men who have interest in comics-related things.” Is quite clearly there as a clarifier- because of course Wizard can’t appeal to the broad lowest common (male) denominator, it can only appeal to that part of it with an interest in comic related things.

Read it again. I know it might hurt your brain a little, but do try to follow the thread…

And as for everyone saying “don’t buy it if you don’t like it, it’s not your company” and variations thereof, did you miss this bit: “Which is their prerogative. From a business sense, it’ll probably work. The less insular they are to the comics community, the better they’ll do overall. I’m not mad, though. I haven’t read them since High School. Fuck ‘em. ” ?

If I didn’t know better I’d think you were all just over-reacting because a woman dared to have an opinion… oh no, wait- that IS what I think.

Wow, David. I don’t care one way or another about the argument, but the article that inspired it certainly wasn’t written clearly enough to warrant those kinds of insults when someone misinterpreted it.

“Maybe they were just too chickenshit to risk a change, or had no faith that the male audience would be willing to read news and views without round shiny breasts next to every paragraph, or maybe they just didn’t care enough to make the effort.

So they went and decided to go beyond the comics-reading community to pander to the lowest common (male) denominator everywhere so they wouldn’t have to be a magazine for everyone who reads comics. Just men who have interest in comics-related things.”

I’m sorry, because I agree with your interpretation of that passage, but it is poorly written. That’s fine- it’s just a blog post, written by someone who reasonably expects that her audience will know what she means- but if you fall outside that audience, the meaning seems ambiguous enough to warrant confusion.

well, it seems crystal clear to me. I really don’t see how anyone could read that and not understand it, unless they were just skimming it, looking for reasons to feel insulted.

I can, however, see how someone could decide to take offence, and claim to have misinterpretted it, and then take individual words and phrases out of context to mischaracterise the article…

Something else…

Everybody does know what the term “lowest common denominator” actually means, right? That it’s a mathematical term, that when applied to people means the most basic thing that the largest group of people have in common.. (in this case, the (hetero)sexual urge)…?

That she’s not calling men low…

I think we all know what the lowest common denominator means literally, yes. But as a general rule, when one applies the term to PEOPLE, it’s insulting. That’s not limited to this particular blog post, but to many things. The Lowest Common Denominator is what things like Big Brother, N’Sync, and Hollywood pander to. And what are all of those things? Stupid, void of creativity, insulting to the intelligence, etc. Hence why “lowest common denominator” is insulting applied to people–and especially when applied to men. The male lowest common denominator would be the male who will buy or watch pretty much anything involving an attractive girl simply BECAUSE there is an attractive girl involved.

And anyway, I don’t agree that the post was perfectly clear. There’s plenty of room for doubt. And I’d be willing to let the LCD/male thing slide if it weren’t for what precedes it: “…had no faith that the male audience would be willing to read news and views without round shiny breasts next to every paragraph…” Notice she didn’t say THEIR male audience, or WIZARD’S male audience, or even TARGET male audience, just THE male audience. Reads to me like she thinks all men are pigs only interested in tits.

Well, maybe it does read that way to you Tekende, but that’s quite clearly not what it says. Bevause she’s talking about what Wizard appears to think in that sentence, not what she thinks.

And fortunately for all, the things we say are not defined by how other people choose to interpret them. After all, when I read your comment, I interpret it to mean that you are semi-literate gender bigot with self esteem issues looking for reasons to be offended… it doesn’t mean that’s what you set out to say.

To be fair, tekende, if you look at what you quoted in context, it clearly says “they” (Wizard) thought the male audience would be interested in those things. Ragnell isn’t saying all men are pigs or anything (although I can see how people would get that impression), just that Wizard seems to think the ones who read their magazine are. And, you know, from what I remember of the magazine, I wouldn’t protest too much.

“If I didn’t know better I’d think you were all just over-reacting because a woman dared to have an opinion… oh no, wait- that IS what I think.”

wow. have you ever even talked to a woman, bro?

i guess if you don’t agree with what someone else says, then you’re a bigot.

well, i’m jewish, so just be aware that if you have any trouble with my opinions, you’re an anti-semite.

Hot dogs are ready! Hot dogs are ready!

And while we’re busy doing good work explaining what is an LCD, maybe we could also try to figure out how Marvel’s ‘Decimation’ event was an annihilation, and how Marvel’s ‘Annihilation’ event is likelier to end in a decimation…

“wow. have you ever even talked to a woman, bro?

i guess if you don’t agree with what someone else says, then you’re a bigot.

well, i’m jewish, so just be aware that if you have any trouble with my opinions, you’re an anti-semite.”

My problem is that people aren’t reacting to what was said- which is that Wizard magazine is dumb and sexist- and instead just immediately labelling Ragnell’s post as man-hating vitriol, which it isn’t.

I think that when people assume they know what you mean, and respond to that and that only, without listening to what you actually have to say, on the basis of your gender (or ethnicity, sexuality or religion) then yes, that’s bigotry.

And it’d be damn difficult for me to get through life without talking to my fiancee, what with us living in the same house and everything…

I think we have responded to Wizard being dumb and sexist. Like Ragnell I haven’t bought a Wizard since high school.

mrjayberry- I’m referring to the retard parade in this comments section.

I don’t buy Wizard either, (big surprise, I’m sure) and I don’t particularly care what it does to try and salvage itself… I just get annoyed by stupid people, basically.

You know, this isn’t an either-or issue. I never said Wizard wasn’t sexist or dumb; I never defended it at all. Because that isn’t what bothers me about the post. I agree that Wizard is crap. Like most others here, I haven’t bought it since high school; the last time I bought a copy was probably seven or eight years ago.

Wizard=crap.

That being said–I can still disagree with the tone of the post while also agreeing with the main point that Wizard is dumb.

And davidwynne, are you just trolling here or what? Defend the blog post if you want, fine. But there’s really no reason to insult me while doing so. I haven’t done anything to you except mildly disagree with you. But I guess that’s enough to warrant calling me a “semi-literate gender bigot with self esteem issues looking for reasons to be offended,” huh?

This is not the way to get me to change my point of view.

No, Tekende, I’m not trolling. I post comments here quite a lot, actually, and invariably end up offending all and sundry.

I’m not trying to get you to change your point of view, I’m trying to get you to actually READ the piece before mouthing off about it. And by read, I mean properly, not just skim it looking for trigger words to rant about. Which appears, from what you wrote in your previous comment, to be what you did… and that’s the charitable interpretation. Because otherwise, you deliberately left off the first half of the sentence you quoted in order to misreprsent it.

@ davidwynne:

I think you problem is that you’re much more willing to call people names or insult them rather that debate the issue. So far, you’ve managed such gems as:

“Frankly, I’m amazed you managed to type your comment… your knee must have been jerking so hard you’re lucky it didn’t knock your computer over.”

“Okay now, this is how we do this thing called reading”

“Read it again. I know it might hurt your brain a little,”

“when I read your comment, I interpret it to mean that you are semi-literate gender bigot with self esteem issues looking for reasons to be offended”

I’d like to say, that I cannot see a reason for your venom. You have acted in a ridiculous fashion in this thread, choosing to take shots directly at the other posters rather than their opinions with a holier than thou attitude.
———————-

My problem is that people aren’t reacting to what was said- which is that Wizard magazine is dumb and sexist- and instead just immediately labelling Ragnell’s post as man-hating vitriol, which it isn’t.

No, I’m reacting to her carelessly worded paragraph which I felt was directed at the masses of comic readers without thought to her audience. I’m tired of being caught in the crossfire of thoughtless companies pumping out “bad girls for fanboys” and radical feminism set to tear down the industry painting anyone involved in it with broad strokes.

Now, I did NOT say that Ragnell was the devil, nor did I disagree with the idea that sexism exists in comics, just that the article left me feeling as if I was to blame for it, and I’m not. Comics that push the limit (tentacle-porn?) deserve to be challenged, taken to task, and their impact on the female demographic does warrant more attention from the publishers. Great. Point me to the front lines and I’m there. Just don’t blame me for their creation in the first place.

Yeah, I left it off to save space and reading time, not to misrepresent. It doesn’t change much either way if you know what’s going on in the discussion. And I did read the whole piece, at least twice.

“I post comments here quite a lot, actually, and invariably end up offending all and sundry.”

Then it might be a good idea to take a look at your methods and make some changes. I certainly would. A good place to start would be engaging in rational debate or conversation instead of just insultingly labeling everyone for your own convenience and pretending to be right as a result.

Tekende:

“Then it might be a good idea to take a look at your methods and make some changes.”

Luckily for me, life is not a popularuty contest.

And I’ve made my point quite clearly, several times, but to reiterate: you either misread the piece, or are misrepresenting it on purpose. And since you’ve had every part of it that you object to explained to you by others as well as myself, but persist in arguing, I have to assume it’s the latter.

Comics that push the limit (tentacle-porn?) deserve to be challenged, taken to task, and their impact on the female demographic does warrant more attention from the publishers. Great. Point me to the front lines and I’m there. Just don’t blame me for their creation in the first place.

Sounds like a good deal to me. It is a fairly carelessly written paragraph, if for no other reason than people who play with fire need to be extra-careful where they’re aiming it.

Otherwise…Seems like it should be the target audience who gets first crack at being embarrassed and offended by this stuff, if they want to be, and that’s not yours truly the woman. There are many more important focuses for change out there.

Davidwynne…you do realise that the more you randomly insult people, the less they’ll care about your point, right? ‘Cause if you do, and you’re still carrying on like this, then sorry, but you’re a troll.

Scott:

“Great. Point me to the front lines and I’m there. Just don’t blame me for their creation in the first place.”

For what feels like the thousandth time, no one has blamed you. You misread the piece. You can carrry on trying to blame Ragnell for that (by describing it as “carelessly worded”) if you like, but the fact that several other commenters have had no problem understanding it makes that look a bit silly, don’t you think? Not to mention that you ARE still arguing with something you now seem to admit she didn’t actually say.

I just call ‘em like I see ‘em. If you don’t want to be accused of having knee-jerk reaction, don’t have a knee-jerk reaction. And if you don’t want to be called semi-literate, don’t comment on something without reading it properly first.

KM, I see where your coming from, but I gave up sugar coating my opinions for people a long time ago. All I want is Scott and Tekende to think about what they’ve read, and what they’ve said, and to take proper responsibility for the words they type. I could patronise them by suggesting that maybe the piece wasn’t clear enough and give them the chance to back track and call it a misunderstanding… but other people already tried that, and it didn’t work. So, why not push a little, see if there’s any weight or thought behind their words? Because everything I’ve read so far just seems like misdirection, to be honest.

“the article that inspired it certainly wasn’t written clearly enough to warrant those kinds of insults when someone misinterpreted it.”

Yes it was.

And I don’t blame wynne for using strong language in dealing with folks who are fabricating strawmen and are (seemingly) intentionally misreading the piece to promote their own agendas. At the very least, it’s not going to hurst his argument. The folks he’s arguing with couldn’t read (or chose to misinterpret) the article in question; who’s to say they’ll be able to read his comments anyway.

THANK YOU

@ davidwynne

“just call ‘em like I see ‘em. If you don’t want to be accused of having knee-jerk reaction, don’t have a knee-jerk reaction. And if you don’t want to be called semi-literate, don’t comment on something without reading it properly first.”

And if you don’t want to be called a Troll, stop trolling.

@ sgt pepper

“folks who are fabricating strawmen and are (seemingly) intentionally misreading the piece to promote their own agendas.”

What agendas?

Her article left me feeling accused. I said as much. I have read excellent articles that have taken on the industry for similar behavior, but this one, the one posted here, broadly chose to say at fault were “the lowest common (male) denominator everywhere [...] men who have interest in comics-related things.”

Was that what she meant? I don’t care to hope she meant something else. That’s what she said. I took issue with her words. She wrote them, previewed them, spell-checked and published them. She was commenting on Wizard magazine, and for whatever reason, she took a paragraph to say that, in my understanding, male comic book readers are the lowest of the low.

Did she mean it to be perceived that way? I don’t care. It was, and by more than just myself. She could have typed anything she wanted to, but that is what she wrote. The best, and only defense of that comment that I’ve read here is that “she didn’t mean it that way.”

Now, and here’s my favorite part: I said I disagreed with them, and that they were accusatory. I didn’t call her:

“a bigot”
“a retard”
“semi-literate”

The person you are defending did.

“The best, and only defense of that comment that I’ve read here is that “she didn’t mean it that way.” ”

Well, that’s really all that needs to be said. If you misread it, that’s YOUR problem, Sparky.

@ Michael

My problem?

It doesn’t work like that. I didn’t misread it, SHE mis-wrote it. You can’t get away with writing just anything. She said it, regardless of what she meant.

At my school, I’ve worked hard to let the regular-education students know that calling someone a “retard” is never acceptable. It’s sad that elementary school children can understand the idea, and remove that word from public usage, but adults can not.

I’m more or less through with this debate; I think everyone involved has made their point, and everyone except one understands where everyone else is coming from. At its core, it’s not even that big a deal.

I do have to know, though, davidwynne: why are you so obsessive about this? You’re pretty much insistent that this blog post was absolutely perfect and pristine and couldn’t possibly be misinterpreted; why? Why does it matter so much that you have to resort to name-calling?

Mike Laughlin:

You’re right, actually. I should have used the word “idiot”, or something like that… unfortuantely, when I went to school, words like that were still acceptable. It’s a hard habit to braek.

Tekende:

Knee jerk reactionaries get right on my wick, sexism does too; misrepresentation and mischaracterisation for the sake of point-scoring make my blood boil, and privelidged people with persecution complexes push me over the edge. THAT’s why I haven’t let this one go.

and finally…

Scott:

“the lowest common (male) denominator everywhere […] men who have interest in comics-related things.”

is a deliberately selective quote, and you know it.

“It doesn’t work like that. I didn’t misread it, SHE mis-wrote it.”

Oh, grow the hell up. Admit you’re wrong, already. ‘Cos you know what? It DOES work like that.

And if she “mis-wrote” it, how come Rohan, Apocadaca, SgtPepper and myself all understood it fine?

This is her whole paragraph:

“So they went and decided to go beyond the comics-reading community to pander to the lowest common (male) denominator everywhere so they wouldn’t have to be a magazine for everyone who reads comics. Just men who have interest in comics-related things.”

I know you’ve read it, you’ve said so a few times. The subjects in this paragraph are:

-Wizard Magazine: “they”
-Who they pander to: “the lowest common (male) denominator everywhere”

Which she goes on to further identify as:

-”men who have interest in comics-related things.”

Thank you for noting that I deliberately selected the section I was referring to. Very astute of you. Thank you for suggesting I grow up. From someone who calls people names and has to have an elementary school employee tell him that certain words are not polite. Be proud. You’ve definitely made your mark, and I for one am very impressed with you.

and yet you still can’t correctly parse a sentence.

I am done with you, Scott. Either you are an idiot, or you have an anti-feminist axe to grind. Either way, I give up.

Just one thing: yes, it took a teacher to tell me I shouldn’t have used a specific word… and I admitted I was wrong. I’m guessing that’s not a concept you’re familiar with.

And if she “mis-wrote” it, how come Rohan, Apocadaca, SgtPepper and myself all understood it fine?

We ARE pretty smart.

You know, some people just want to be offended. I don’t know why. Maybe it’s for attention, maybe it makes them feel special, if they’re worthy of someone else’s contempt, maybe they’re just so desperate to belong to a group that they’ll join in wherever they can be a martyr.

Regardless, logic never enters the situation for them, so there’s no use in trying to debate an actual point. They just want to fight, and the best thing for you to do is just walk away.

just that the article left me feeling as if I was to blame for it, and I’m not.

Isn’t this what I said right at the beginning?

And yet, you continue to get offended.

“We ARE pretty smart.”

heh. I’m not so sure about that, at least in my case. Have you been paying attention to my spelling?

I’m still trying to figure out how anything I’ve said is sexist.

David Wynne- Thank you for stepping up to the plate regarding your word choice. I freely admit that my knee jerks something fierce when it comes to that one word.

For what it’s worth, I agree that Wizard is a publication that panders to what _they_ perceive as
the lowest common denominators for fans of mainstream American comics. It is sad that (what I assume to be) the best known and best selling magazine about comics is so embarassingly juvenile.

Well, it’s good that you’re thinking about it…

it’s not anything you’ve said specifically, though, to be honest; it’s the fact that you interpretted what I personally still consider to be a perfectly clearly written piece in a particular way, one that serves a sexist agenda. If you genuinely mis-understood the piece, then fine, I don’t think you’re sexist (at least not knowingly, anyway); however, I’m not entirely sure I believe you on that. But hey, at least you’re prepared to admit your interpretation might be wrong, so that’s good.

sorry, that last comment was for Tekende- Mike, you posted while I was typing!

I love this. You simply cannot fathom that this is not a right vs. wrong issue. We disagree over the tone of an article. One of us does not HAVE to be right. Do you get this at all? I read it one way; you read it another. Neither of us is the author, therefore neither of us definitively know what was actually intended. I am not wrong and you are not wrong. I am not right and you are not right.

If I disagree, though, I’m sexist and semi-literate, apparently. Have fun warping your reality according to whatever you think. I’m finished with this; I have no wish to deal with your attitude any longer. I think you may be the most close-minded person I’ve come across in a long time.

“You simply cannot fathom that this is not a right vs. wrong issue. We disagree over the tone of an article.”

One of us thinks that the article is insulting to men, the other one doesn’t; and either Ragnell intendined to insult men with the piece or she didn’t- so while yes, we disagree over the tone of the article, the truth is that one of us is right, and the other wrong. I love that once it becomes clear that your position is pretty weak, and getting upset that I don’t pussyfoot around you has stopped getting you sympathy from the gallery, suddenly it’s not a right vs. wrong issue. When actually you’ve accused someone else of sexism, and that’s an accusation worth debating.

And if sticking to my guns mkes me “closed minded”, then fine. Although, frankly, you know nothing about me- all you know is I haven’t let your assertion that “she thinks all men are pigs only interested in tits” go past without making you back it up. I’m open to new ideas, I’m open too alternate view points- but frankly the viewpoint that women who express opinions that might be classed as feminist are automatically man-haters is common enough that I’ve had plenty of time to experience and explore the idea, and ultimately reject it as bone-headed. Sorry I wasn’t prepared to go over it again just for your benefit…

Ah damn it, I knew I shouldn’t use html tags here…

David, nobody just randomly decided she hates men… she wrote a poorly worded paragraph that implied she thought of them as the lowest common denominator. I agree that’s not what was intended, but honestly, if you think that piece is so well written that only a sexist idiot could misinterpret it, then maybe your English isn’t so hot either.

she wrote a poorly worded paragraph that implied she thought of them as the lowest common denominator

Not really, actually. The majority of reactions I’ve seen understood it exactly as she meant it.

It’s only here that someone took it personally. And I think Michael hit it on the head when he mentioned the nerd persecution complex.

Well, it was a poorly worded sentence. Hard to argue that.

And I’ll argue “Nerd Persecution, Too.”

I did a paper for humor writing class a while back which argued that the New American Dream is to somehow be a persecuted minority. Basically, I think the “I am persecuted pity me” attitude permeates all of American culture, and possibly beyond.

Of course the teacher didn’t understand the brilliance of my forward-thinking work, and I got a “D.” Damn the man for putting me down for being brilliant!

hmmm… Okay. Was it poorly worded or not? Rohan, how would YOU have phrased that sentence?

She wanted to say that:

Wizard is trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator, specifically among males.

Now, to me, the obvious way to phrase that is: “The lowest common (male) denominator”. I CAN see how someone could get the wrong end of the stick there, but there’s nothing wrong with it in terms of grammar or punctuation. And in the context of the article- which is specifically about Wizard’s opinion of their audience- the meaning seems doubly clear- to me, at least.

Is there a better- and equally linguistically efficient- way to say it?

To re-iterate, the reason I got SO annoyed with Scott and Tekende is that they continued to argue the point even after they’d had it explained to them… which suggests to me that there is more to their stance than a simple misreading.

Nerd Persecution? Perhaps. That’d be the charitable way of looking at it though.

Hey Apocadoca- It’s nice to be on the same side in one of these bust up for once!

Good lord, is this still going on? You’d think such self-proclaimed smart people would know how to pick their battles much better…

Explained to them? You didn’t do any explaining. You called people names, flatly saying you were right.

davidwynne—because of your antagonistic wording in your posts, it leads one to think that you:

A: hate all women
B: hate all women who offer an opinion
C: hate all men who agree with women who offer an opinion
D: hate anybody who disagrees with you
E: sevral of the above
E: all of the above

Calling people names over a discussion about a column written about comic books and related things is very childish. Grow up.

That’s a fair question, David, and I’m sorry I didn’t see it sooner. The most problematic para is worded like so:

“So they went and decided to go beyond the comics-reading community to pander to the lowest common (male) denominator everywhere so they wouldn’t have to be a magazine for everyone who reads comics. Just men who have interest in comics-related things.”

Now, I’m hardly a grammar nazi when it comes to teh internets, and I think it’s sad that people are choosing to focus on the way the article was worded rather than acknowledging the clear intent of the piece and discussing it on those merits. That level of pedantry points to the stereotype of the lowest common denominator of comic book geekery, IMO. But since it is an inflammatory issue (although who knew saying ‘Wizard sucks’ could still get a reaction?) and you’ve responded to people’s confusion so strongly, I’d say that the para should have been written like this:

“So they went and decided to go beyond the comics-reading community so they wouldn’t have to be a magazine for everyone who reads comics. Just the lowest common denominator of men who have interest in comics-related things.”

This wording seems a little less inflammatory and man-hating, to me. The problem with the original wording comes from the way that in the bulk of the previous two paragraphs, Ragnell’s clearly saying that Wizard doesn’t think much of the male audience- not that she doesn’t- but then in the very last line she loses that angle and flatly says that all men with interest in comics-related things are the lowest common denominator, which clearly wasn’t her intent.

Wow. I feel dirty for having typed that.

KM- Yeah, I’m kind of surprised myself, to be honest. For me, all I can say is that isn’t eating up that much of my time really, and also that I never claimed to be smart. That was Apocadoca. And as everyone has pointed out, I said some things that people took pretty harshly- that puts the onus on me to hang around and back those words up, I think.

Scott- It was explained to you by Rohan, and by Apocadoca. Yeah, I was rude to you. You made me angry.

Alan- whatever.

…

Now that’s out of the way-

Rohan:
That wording is a bit better, I uess, but the determined fool could still interpret the last sentence as meaning that all men who are interested in comics are the lowest common denominator. Perhaps if the “of” became an “among” (or amongst)…?

Which illustrates quite well what’s wrong with this: Ragnell (and others) should not have to carefully structure every damn sentence so as not to cause offence to those who are actively looking for it. It’s not worth the time or effort. As long as a the sentence actually means what it’s meant to say, then surely that should be enough?

The fact is, if someone is looking to play the “I’m offended by that” card to shut you up, instead of actually arguing the point you’re making, then they’ll find something to be offended by whatever you say.

You’re right David, ‘amongst’ would work better there. I agree with you, though, that it’s bizarre that after 83 posts, the wording of the article has attracted so much more controversy than the content of the article, and I can only imagine Ragnell is having a good laugh about that.

As far as the actual point of the article goes, I think it would be more offensive for Wizard to advertise itself as a men’s magazine if it was the only comic-related magazine around. Luckily, there are alternatives- Comics Foundry, even The Comics Journal- for people to turn to. Wizard operates in a highly competitive commercial market, and are simply doing what their market research tells them to do. It’s not my cup of tea, and I don’t imagine it has many fans amongst the blogosphere, but as Ragnell says in her post, there are alternatives to Wizard and I’m all for them being successful in their endeavours.

It’s not up to Wizard to represent the entirety of the industry and be the flagbearer for the maturity and diversity of comics fans, it’s just up to them to sell magazines.

Oh, absolutely. I’ve always been more of a Comics International kind of guy, myself. And really, the internet has made Wizard pretty much completely obsolete, whatever audience it targets itself at.