But man, it sure bites that yet another comic starring a female character has gotten the axe.
Now it's She-Hulk's turn.
SHE-HULK #38
Written by PETER DAVID
Penciled by STEVE SCOTT
Cover by DAVID WILLIAMS
SHE-HULK R.I.P.!
She's been savage. She's been sensational. She's been an avenger. She's been a lawyer. She's been a bounty-hunter. But there's one thing She-Hulk has always been, in all of her many series... cancelled. But it hasn't stopped her yet! In this oversized final issue, Peter David brings his run on the Jade Giantess to a close... but can Jen use her last remaining pages to save her friends from a truly mammoth threat? Catch her now, before someone turns her red!
48 PGS./Rated T+ ...$3.99
Why must there always be a She-Hulk comic or an Atom comic or any of these 2nd or 3rd tier characters that don't sustain a regular series? I'd be more interested in a 6 issue mini than an ongoing series, and if it's done well, it would sell more trades.
I really enjoyed this book under Slott but under PD I was underwhelmed (and I'm a huge fan of his). I didn't like the bounty hunter angle, or Jazinda, or that he dropped both the awesome take on 616 that the book had and ran off her supporting cast en masse - all off panel I might add. The one-shot explanation almost a year into his run was too little too late.
He seemed to usher in change just to have change, which I can understand from a creator perspective but that doesn't make for good story-telling. PD can write funny and witty and poignant all at the same time (the one-hot I mentioned was right on the mark) but the first and second were in short supply and the third even less so. I did like where things started to go the past two issues but now it's moot.
Here's hoping that we see more of She-Hulk and her amazing friends sometime soon.
My reaction when PAD took over was initially the same as David's above -- I'd liked Slott's run immensely but dropped the title after PAD's first two issues struck me as lackluster at best. I tried it again about 4 issues later & found that a lot of the rough edges had been smoothed over, & for the last 6 months or so it's been a particular favorite.
Oh, well -- the hits just keep on coming. My pull list is lightening almost by the day -- BIRDS OF PREY, BLUE BEETLE, LOSH (though apparently some iteration is coming back with the revived ADVENTURE), MANHUNTER, now SHE-HULK.
*sigh* I guess I can't really blame the big companies: Sales are what they are, If the mouth-breathers out there keep voting with their wallets & perpetuating Big Events & Greg Land swipe jobs, so be it. Screw those idiots, though.
I think in general it's harder to make an action adventure story with a woman main character similar to how it's harder to sell a romance novel or movie with a man as the main character.
In the case of the female action hero, most men who like action adventure for the escapist fantasy elements will have a hard time imagining themselves as the female protaganist, and female readers and viewers are less interested in action adventure. Females on average don't fantasize about kicking scores of ass as much as they fantasize about romance.
A male romance main character would not interest a female reader or viewer as much as a female character because it would be harder to relate to his POV or fantasize about themselves as the male character the way they can with a female character. And male viewers and readers generally don't find much interest in the romance genre in general.
Oh dear. T. is generalizing again. Don't poke the bear, T.! (And, just to fall on my sword, I tend to agree with you. But still - are you insane, man?!?!?)
Good point, Greg! Just to be safe let me add the following disclaimer: I have NO problem with action-adventure books spotlighting female characters. I'm all for them. I'm just saying they will always be a tougher sell, just like romance novels headlined by men will always be a tougher sell.
Eh, She-Hulk lost my interest about an issue or two into Slott's relaunch, when he started concentrating more on telling stories about his own run and the stories that Shulky had been written poorly in (the Austen, "sex with Juggernaut" thing), and PAD wasn't able to make it any more interesting, really.
It's a shame, Slott's run started off with a ton of potential, but devolved into nerdery.
With the wholesale slaughter of female led titles, even Wonder Woman better dig in its heels and start fighting for readers. Because seemingly the big 2 have NO patience, and especially no marketing savy, with female led titles.
I hope this "RIP" business doesn't mean that they're following the current idiotic notion that when a character's book goes under they need to be killed, depowered or otherwise neutralized in some moronic attempt to completely unnecessarily tie up supposed "loose ends" rather than just let them wander off into limbo to be either revived or replaced (whatever the case may be) when the time is right.
What's the harm in just having a character wandering out there somewhere in your company's universe with their status undetermined? Just ignore them until you want to use them. If the next guy wants to replace them with someone new, let him do the dirty work.
As far as T's argument goes, I never really felt the need for that kind of direct-line identification in order to enjoy a book, but maybe that's not typical, I don't really know. I'll miss all the recently cancelled female-protagonist titles.
I agree with Michael, stealthwise. Slott didn't tell stories about his own run; that was ALL Peter David, all the time. Relaunching the book entirely when Slott left was the worst decision PD could make. It's really quite a testament to PD's fanbase that he was able to sustain his run for this long.
Dan Slott on She-Hulk was brilliant, arguably the best take on the character ever. It'd be like Brubaker leaving Daredevil, and Frank Miller coming back to (obviously) just make humorous observations and references to his work. There'd be the whole "ZOMG MILLER IS BACK ON DD" for maybe six months, then they'd realize he's pulling a Claremont while living in the past, and abandon... which is what happened to PD. Had he brought a real interest to playing in the sandbox that Slott set up (and I, for one, believe that PD could have told some magnificent stories in that sandbox!), this title would still be going strong.
I actually *just* dropped this from my pull (as well as... Blue Beetle. As I go, so goes comics.) It was budgetary more than anything, but it was a lot easier to make the decision now than under the Slott era. I generally like PAD--I consider myself a fan--but for some reason what should have been a natural fit (humor, Hulk-related experience, a tendency to linger at the fringes of the Marvel Universe) never really clicked, either in terms of storytelling or with an audience. I do think the "bounty hunter" direction was a mistake, but I think that had more to do with the circumstances of the creative shift more than anything (apparently PAD had no idea where Slott was leaving the character in his final issue). It seems a shame to end it now, though, when the bounty hunter arc seemed to be running its course and she was on her way to being repatriated as a superhero (or at least that's the direction it's been going).
I think this is more of a bloodletting of comedy and light-hearted books than books with female leads. Comedy books generally have a hard time surviving when the market is unhealthy, and I think everyone here would agree that the current market can't possibly be healthy. All that really puts asses in seats anymore is big huge event arcs with top-tier creators. Even Whedon's Buffy comics fit pretty neatly into that little box, in their own way.
My problem isn't with T's generalisations rather than the fact that he seems to think that they are set in stone. Perhaps the reason that men have a hard time identifing with female leads (which is a statement I don't necessarily agree with) is merely because they aren't used to doing so. Never forget that art doesn't just reflect culture, it also defines it. The lack of female leads could cause the failure of identification, rather than the other way around. And merely because things are a certain way now doesn't mean that they always will be that way.
Yeah, I'm not saying that I'm 100 percent sure that if we did a exhaustive psychological study we might not find out that T's theorem has some merit, but going from personal experience, I can relate to female characters as easily as I can relate to characters who are black, rich, attractive, teenaged, super-powered, trained in the martial arts, nonhuman ... heck, if I only read books where I could swap myself in for the lead, I be stuck with the "loser" subgenre of autobiographical indy comics.
I know the most obvious response is that I may not actually be any of those things, but wouldn't I like to imagine myself as rich, attractive, skilled and powerful? Sure, but play any online role-playing game and tell me there aren't plenty of men who don't mind imagining themselves as women.
Dropped this after those first couple of David issues referenced above - the GLK&H stuff was my favourite part of the book, and David dropping everything wholesale (although I understand he did some cleanup after that) lost my interest very quickly.
The series lasted longer than I thought it would've given I certainly wasn't the only one with that reaction (and I'll admit Slott had dialed back his better work in favour of the goofball continuity cleanup stuff in the second volume, which made no sense), but I suppose getting tied so closely to Civil War and Secret Invasion helped keep it afloat.
Lynxara,
Under Peter David, She-Hulk wasn't a comedy title anymore. It was a pretty straight-up road trip/buddy story... Although the scene when she has a one-night-stand with Herc is fun...
I've said before that I feel sorry for PAD having She-Hulk dumped on him, because there was just no way he could continue in the same vein as Slott... But it really became a "generic comic". Sure it's had some good moments, but nothing amazing...
When Slott was writing it, it was usually one of the first three comics I read that month. Under Peter David, it's slid right down the list... Not quite last, but heading that way...
Mind you at least I read it before the I force myself to read the mess that is the current incarnation of Checkmate...
I'm glad Checkmate got cancelled... It needs Rucka back onboard to work.
I'm sad Peter David couldn't find a unique angle on She-Hulk... He could have equally Slott with a different approach - He certainly has the potential to... maybe he was just overstretched, working on too many titles?
Was the book in cancellation numbers when Slott was writing it? Eh, it probably was. The goodwill generated by Slott's run led me to buy a few issues of PAD's. Then I dropped it because PAD's a jerk.
There's a huge difference between T's generalization here which is about the psychology and purchasing practice of an audience and saying that all feminists are ugly women who can't get laid.
Always sorry to see a book with a female character cancelled, but I just didn't enjoy Peter David's take on the character. With the price of comics what they are, I just can't afford to subsidize a series I'm not enjoying. David's a good writer -- here's hoping he gets another project to replace this one soon, and that it's more to my taste (Revival of Soulsearchers and Company, anyone?).
I can understand why David didn't want to just be continuing Slott's stuff. Marvel had just dropped on huge, fairly complicated legal issue into the Marvel Universe and was completely unwilling to look at the actual consequences of it.
(Really, why didn't they have a storyline somewhere of the legal challenges to the Superhero Registration Act and the complications it would impose? Oh yeah, because it was inconsistently portrayed even by just the writer who created it.)
If you can't talk about the elephant in the room you might as well get out of the room. Unfortunately David didn't really find an interesting place to take the book.
I think I would have been fine with a change of focus, but instead he just cut off the law angle completely- Jen was disbarred, the supporting cast vanished into the ether, and in some ways it was basically a reboot of the series.
I really hope this means that slott can now put she-hulk on his mighty avengers team. it would be so worth the cancellation if slott were writing her again and returning her to prominence.
I never said that either. When did I mention anything about their ability to get laid?
I said that the women who make the biggest deal about objectification are the ugly feminists, which is not the same as all feminists. Never said anything about their ability to get laid. I don't know why you feel the need to keep throwing in "can't get laid" when trying to repeat what I said. I have no idea how often they get laid, but even an ugly woman can usually find someone to have sex with her so I'm sure they can get action.
And if you think all feminists are against objectification, then you only know a narrow segment of feminism. There are all types of feminists. There is "sex positive" feminism which rose up against the "objectification" and anti-porn feminists like Andrea Dworkin back in the 70s.
It's been around since the 70s and a feminist porn star named Annie Sprinkle is one of its biggest proponents. Suicide Girls is related to this school of feminism. In a watered down way Sex and the City and the L Word are related to this school of feminism too.
There are plenty of feminist camps that take issue with the feminists who constantly cry "objectification." It's hardly the consensus you try to say it is. I don't mind disagreement but don't misrepresent what I said.
T., you did say that. Those exact words. It ruined an otherwise great argument you put forward.
I feel a bit guilt right now. Pretty much my entire list of books I'd add if only I had the money or if a few of the ones I buy now got canceled just got the axe. Blue Beetle, Nightwing, Birds of Prey, and now She-Hulk. Though I'm sure Nightwing and BoP will be back, and I have a sneaking suspicion that Marc Andeyko will be writing BoP when it comes back, and I'll be jumping on board for that.
Where did I say that all feminists are ugly or that they can't get laid? I said nothing about their ability to get laid, which is why I can't understand why Sgt. Pepper feels the need to keep adding "can't get laid" each time he misquotes me.
Did you guys really have to get him started on this? T.'s long since made it clear he has no idea how "objectification" isn't the same as "sex appeal" or "liking sex", and is mostly interested in trolling threads and making people pay attention to him. He has no real interest in discussing feminism aside from doing so to reaffirm his right to traditional male privileges, including and especially ones that preclude a woman's right to be treated as an equal human being.
Now the thread from here on out is going to be nothing but repetitions of his 4chan-caliber assessments of the women's movement and female psychology if anyone dares to bring it up or try to argue with him.I really can't bear reading this shit, it's all the woman-hating ugliness of the comics community being shoved right in my face. The thread is basically ruined.
Actually, all future discussion of gender on this site is basically ruined until T. shuts up and goes away. Whenever the subject comes up, it turns into T. shouting down all opposing voices by repeating the same stupid, offensive shit over and over again.
I think arguing with T. about this only gives him an excuse to believe he's carrying around a "valid competing point of view", instead of a load of contemptible horse manure. Like it matters if he didn't say anything about "getting laid", like there's some purity of argument there which that misprision paints in an unfairly harsh light...give me a break. "Heavens, I didn't say that!" Well, what you did say smells just as bad, so who cares?
Actually, all future discussion of gender on this site is basically ruined until T. shuts up and goes away. Whenever the subject comes up, it turns into T. shouting down all opposing voices by repeating the same stupid, offensive shit over and over again.
I love how I have used no personal insults, told no one to shut up, made no attacks, haven't sworn at anyone no matter how people hurl invective at me and even ask for me to ignored or banned, yet somehow I'M shouting down all opposing voices? Really?
Fourthworlder, that comment of yours a little ways back would have worked much better as an insult if it had been phrased as "your mother's" rather than "your" period.
Also, T's citing of Annie Sprinkle, sex positive feminists and feminist porn is laughably irrelevant as far as what he's protesting being accused of.
Also, T’s citing of Annie Sprinkle, sex positive feminists and feminist porn is laughably irrelevant as far as what he’s protesting being accused of.
As reading comprehension appears to be a major problem with my critics, I'll explain the relevance. Someone in this thread claimed all feminists, every last one, hate objectification. I proved otherwise. Clear enough for you?
I'll avoid the political issues and insults and will just respond to T.'s first post.
Can we even classify the superhero genre as male-oriented action-adventure?
How can we do that when the soap opera elements have grown so much since the 1960s and have become every bit as important as the fights? The most successful superhero franchises are defined by those elements. People are almost more interested in Peter and MJ's relationship than in his fights with Octopus or Venom, and the Spider movies reflect that in a big way. The last two TV shows about Superman are romance-oriented (or at least relationship-oriented).
Not related to the discussion, but I also would like to say that only because most fans of adventure stories are male, it doesn't follow that most males like adventure stories. Same with females and romance.
So, I would avoid drawing any easy conclusions from books cancelled. The only provable fact is that Marvel and DC have only a dozen (at best) characters and concepts each that are cancellation-proof. All the rest are up in the air. It's She-Hulk, but it could as well be Nova. Superhero fans usually don't embrace new concepts, more out of nostalgia than any conscious sexism, and the old concepts have mostly been created in a time when the heroes were almost all male.
The question T. for me is how many feminists would claim Annie Sprinkles as being representative for their cause? Some might possibly comsider giving golden showers on video as an act of empowerment, I guess, but I'm pretty sure that a decided majority would describe the porn industry as one of the societal factors that make the world worse for women and set the cause of feminism back.
The question T. for me is how many feminists would claim Annie Sprinkles as being representative for their cause?
Probably around the same amount as claim Betty Friedan, NOW and the rest of the "objectification extremists as being representative of their cause, those guys are simply the most vocal minority. Radical NOW feminists are no more representative of a female consensus than Annie Sprinkly and her crowd are. There's a whole range of feminists in between, which is where I think most feminists lie. Not as embracing of porn as Annie Sprinkle and her crowd, but not as stringent and quick to shout objectification as Betty Friedan and her crowd either. I'd say Sex and the City and Suicide Girls and Stripper pole aerobics classes are the new face of sex-positive feminism, for better of for worse.
Oh, you agree with T., do you Funky? You think his arguments are solid, you think my rejection of them is high-handed? You think I'm just another guy on the Internet who feels the need to weigh in on things he doesn't really know anything about, hasn't studied in any depth or detail, hasn't troubled to research? You think all I've said to T. is "nyah nyah", because that's all I can say?
Maybe you'd like to bring yourself up to speed a little. Go ahead, I'll wait.
Just let me know when you're done responding to your own posts...
I'm sure one time you'll post three or four in a row and there will actually end up being some content in there...
Just a tip though, if you want to argue what T. said in another thread, go to that thread and have the argument - T, who I regularly disagree with, made an unrelated observation here - one may, including publishers seem to work off of, and sales figures tend to indicate - and it gets related back to a throw away comment he oddly decided to defend in another thread.
Argue what he said in this thread, in this thread, and argue what he said in that thread, in that thread.
And by argue, I mean put forth an argument as to why he is wrong, or why you think he is wrong, rather than jumping up and down going 'You're wrong, YOU ARE SO WRONG, Jesus H Christ - How wrong are you?'.
That's not arguing, or proving/disproving anything.
It's just being a git who wants the attention you are claiming others are trying for.
Transparently a misrepresentation of everything I've said.
However, to respond anyway: thank you for your "tip", Funky, but I won't be following it. Also, it is not my intention to argue with T. on this thread, merely to point out that he's not an authority on the topic of feminist issues where he seems to present himself as one. So if my style of "arguing" is bugging you, I'm sorry but there's nothing I can do about that, because I'm not arguing at all. Furthermore, I never asked you to believe I was. So believe it or don't, that's up to you, but if you anticipate arguing with me about whether or not I'm arguing with T., or arguing properly or correctly, or in some other way that satisfies or doesn't satisfy your standards about what an argument is...well, it's not going to happen.
I may still answer you if you take some sort of position on T.'s claims. Warning: if you agree with him I may call you a "git", though.
Oooo, do me next, as Stewie would say.
What's MY cliche?
Profile me, somebody.
I think it's natural that a site with a cast of regular commenters like this will carry conversations and themes from one thread to the next. Show me a site where that doesn't happen.
And T. you'll NEVER convince me that Sex and the City and its ilk has anything to do with "sex-positive feminism," or with ANTHING remotely positive at all, for that matter. Stripper pole aerobics as a new face of feminism? Annie Sprinkles? Seriously? I'm SO curious to ask about your history of relationships...
A man doing period on face jokes doesn't need someone to point out his flaws, his doing fine on his own....
And T. you’ll NEVER convince me that Sex and the City and its ilk has anything to do with “sex-positive feminism,†or with ANTHING remotely positive at all, for that matter. Stripper pole aerobics as a new face of feminism? Annie Sprinkles? Seriously? I’m SO curious to ask about your history of relationships…
Don't ever read a women's magazine then... or any of the countless articles about 'the new wave of feminism'.
T really is just parroting what has been written by others - google any of those things you listed and disagree with - and I'm not saying you are wrong to do so - and add the word 'feminism' to it, and you'll find articles and such written about how it is feminism in action, so it's a bit odd everyone's jumping up and down on him.
Hey, he's the one who showed up with the bloody snout.
And I think the majority of women's magazines are mind control shit bombs designed to screw up young women's minds just like Maxim and Manswers etc screw up the boys.
If you want to read something about the issues I'd start with The Beauty Myth.
Curious as to what Funky's point is, exactly. "Hey, if you think that, don't read Cosmo...! Not that I agree with T., but you've got to admit it's a very commonplace view! Hey, so what's everybody getting so excited about...?"
And now that you mention it, it is odd that people are jumping up and down on T. for (your word) "parroting" shit he's read someplace else! I mean, don't people have the right to parrot shit they've read someplace else without other people calling them on whether it's true or false?!
And I think the majority of women’s magazines are mind control shit bombs designed to screw up young women’s minds just like Maxim and Manswers etc screw up the boys.
Oh shit yeah they are, but they are ran by women, and those women would consider themselves feminists, or neo-feminists or some such, and they say this sort of shit and try make it positive for women, and then other bored journalists or uni students desperate for something to write about lend them legitimacy by talking about 'the new feminism' or 'feminism in the 21st century'...
Like any political or social movement, once it's lost it's initial steam, and the original feminist movement has, it starts to drift in all sorts of different directions. It may not be the one's we want, or the original feminists wanted, but that's how it goes.
Which is just my way of saying, T is just applying a label he's heard bandied about, rightly or wrongly, possible unchallenged, and everyone's jumping on him like he's the one thing holding women back.
I also think his comments in the Watchmen posts comment section have very little relation to do with his comments here.
(I also think it's hard to read the original post that set everyone off in the Watchmen section as anything but a flippant remark, one he possibly only continued to justify due to the amount of people calling him out and getting all smug over their keyboards).
You can all jump up and down on him about his comments on which gender prefers which sort of hero, but sales figures tend to back it up, and publishers definitely take it into account.
Ahhhh, maybe I’m being too mean.
Or egotistical - never crossed your mind my life isn't devoted to answering your comments, and might well have just logged off and gone and done something else?
Sorry sport, but your posts don't quite pack the punch you assume they do.
It's so painfully obvious that Funky's here just to bullshit and to take swipes at me, isn't it? His analysis of feminism as "yeah, whoa, feminism...I mean whaddaya gonna do, am I right?" doesn't exactly mark him out as a guy with his finger on the pulse, issue-wise, and his insistence that it's so important to get back to T.'s comment about sales figures kind of makes him look like, oh what's the word, an idiot. I mean what is it that he really wants to talk about, eh? What's his point?
I would say that like any (or at least most?) political or social movement, feminism has been co-opted and ultimately twisted by those outside it who are essentially opposed to its cause, and/or have a malevolent social agenda of their own. So by the early 1990s feminism was defined by Madonna and her ilk. Dressing up like little hookers became praised as assertiveness and grrrl power, and women were largely conditioned to belive that they were now socially equal with equal rights so long as they fit a certain body type and spent a certain amount each month on beauty products, cosmetic surgery, and designer clothes.
And it sucks.
And like I said previously, T.'s comments in the watchmen thread will of course affect how he's preceived here when another feminist-related discussion occurs.
How could it not, Mr. greenjerusalem? Honestly, imagine if we were discussing the sales of Luke Cage and somebody wrote about lousy niggers not selling (and T's prior comment about ugly feminists was almost as offensive), and then would not retract the statement. And then a week or two later on a new thread about Samual Jackson playing Nick Fury this same guy started talking about blacks again, without using the slur. Should others not remember what he said and still hold him to account?
And yet there are many who consider themselves feminists who think it's great, and therefore, T isn't being as outrageous as many seem to want him to be.
And like I said previously, T.’s comments in the watchmen thread will of course affect how he’s preceived here when another feminist-related discussion occurs.
He never made a comment about feminism here, until people started bringing up his comments in an old thread - and it really got started when he seemed to have misread what a poster was saying.
There hasn't really been a feminist discussion here - someone mentioned how T's comments here are seperate from his previous comments, he disagreed with the phrasing he had said ina previous thread, and then a whole bunch of people started piling on him.
It's not a discussion, it's closer to verbal bullying.
Should others not remember what he said and still hold him to account?
If the two relate - his views on feminism in no way relate to a generalisation, which can't easily be ruled out.
Otherwise, it's just people bringing up an old argument because they want to argue more.
And also, when you're first post in the thread is about blood on a face being blood from menstruation, you really shouldn't be holding others views on feminism in contempt - you're comment was not only crass, but much more likely to cause offense than T's views, even the one 'The only women who really complain about objectification of women are the ugly feminists who can’t use sexuality to sell themselves'.
Neither is true, but I still wouldn't throw a rock when standing in a glass house.
It’s so painfully obvious that Funky’s here just to bullshit and to take swipes at me, isn’t it?
Sorry champ, but your posts don’t quite pack the punch you assume they do.
Pretty sure it's just us chickens here, Fourthworlder...
Some articles about the "new wave of feminism" are comparable to some other articles about the "new faces of unionism", whose point is basically that unions are obsolete because management now cares more about the well-being of their workers than the union bosses do -- which is perhaps a valid perspective (I don't say it is, and I don't say it isn't), but it's hard to classify it as a pro-union one, and indeed the audience for such articles is usually the members of the managerial class themselves. So too, articles about the new wave of feminism are often regressive -- but it's always struck me as a stretch to go to the most reactionary of the gender-politics activists and claim them as evidence of diversity in what's basically a progressive movement! The real trick here is that "feminism" is a term so hotly-contested that it's possible for <anti-feminist thinkers to re-brand themselves as "new" feminists, and put up arguments for them being taken as such...
But what gives the game away is that they re-brand themselves not just as "new" but as "moderate" -- just as though "one" were the most moderate number on the number line because it's the closest to zero. So, feminists who are for as little social change as possible, this surely counts as an extreme view even if you grant that it's within the scope of the term "feminism", instead of outside it and opposed to it. Sarah Palin wouldn't be a "moderate" if she were located in the world of feminism, she would be a marginalized whacko, somewhere towards the bitter end of (what would have to be) a long, long, LONG tail on the Bell curve.
All of which says nothing about what T. claimed to have proved, of course, but then I wasn't responding to him here, just to the idea that all articles about "new waves" are all evidence of the same thing. Because any kind of textual analysis reveals at least some of them to be wolves in sheep's clothing, inevitably. And that's not "diversity".
And that was more than I ever intended to write on this, actually, but oh well.
All right, it appears necessary, so - - SORRY about the period joke. Indeed it was certainly offensive, I knew it was when I said it, and it definitely was a deliberate reaction not just to his new avatar pic (you DO see it on your screen, right?) but to his earlier thread comments and his, uh, bloody-mindedness in refusing to retract his obnoxious statement. Did I over-react? Did I cross the line? Not sure, honestly I probably will say more over the top stuff if provoked (and sometimes even if not), but sure, I'm a sport, and I'll apologize to Funky if it really offended Funky.
If you knew who I was and what I do you'd know that the crass joke certainly didn't reflect my views on feminism. It reflected my view on T. And the blood on his face. And OK, probably ten years of South Park had some sort of influence.
Not sure, honestly I probably will say more over the top stuff if provoked (and sometimes even if not), but sure, I’m a sport, and I’ll apologize to Funky if it really offended Funky.
I'm not offended, just pointing out that what you have said is as bad, if not worse, than anything T has said, and as such, you don't have this imagined moral high ground over him.
.
If you knew who I was and what I do you’d know that the crass joke certainly didn’t reflect my views on feminism. It reflected my view on T. And the blood on his face. And OK, probably ten years of South Park had some sort of influence.
But if we are to accept the fact that you're posts don't reflect you're views on feminism, then why can't you accept T's protestations of the same?
And honestly, read what he has said in THIS thread.
It's nothing like you guys are acting like he said,
Sigh........ A flippant joke is not the same to me as a definitive statement. Is it to you? As I said, I was reacting to his past comment and his refusal to retract it, it's really not necessary for you to point me again to this thread. Nobody's over on the old thread, there's been no comments there for weeks. The conversation moved here.
Hell nobody's here but us three now and it's getting a little tedious.
But if a future post along the lines of "I Agree That It's More About Low Sales Than Menstruation" should come up, and I rush in with a comment, I think it would be fair game for you to refer back to this thread and my joke.
Which of course I will be able to say that I have fully accounted for and even apologized for.
Like a man, dammit, like a man.
Oh crap, that sounded rather sexist.......here, let me apologize...
That metric's off: if anyone considered that what Fourthworlder said was more offensive than T.'s point of view, I'd consider that they were overreacting pretty dramatically.
And for myself, I'd consider it quite a bit less offensive, in fact.
Also, I don't recall Fourthworlder claiming any "moral high ground" over T. -- don't recall him ever using or referencing this term. He's said T.'s wrong, not that he is better than T. I see the imputation that he has claimed to be morally "better" as an attempt to shame him out of his position -- a dirty tactic, since there is nothing shameful about his position, and no reason at all apparent to me, that he should recede from it for reasons of propriety. He can object to T.'s remarks. It's a free country.
T. has also said that these are his views, and I question whether anyone else has the right to take his own words out of his own mouth.
I have carefully reviewed what T.'s said on this thread, and am happy to stand by my responses to them. I don't know what anyone thinks I am "acting like" he said, because this has not been revealed -- what is it, one wonders, that he did not say, that I am allegedly responding to as if he did? Unless that question were answered, the objection could have no force -- it's just smoke.
It seems to me that Funky is trying to shut people up, on bogus pretences.
If he is...then that is bullshit.
Now, I'm just here to point out T.'s not an authority on feminism. I am not here to point out that Funky isn't an authority on feminism, because I don't think he's making much in the way of concrete statements about feminism, the content of T.'s remarks, or even the content of my remarks. But I find his attempted browbeating of Fourthworlder pretty disgusting, so I'm saying so.
Comics Should Be Good accepts review copies. Anything sent to us will (for better or for worse) end up reviewed on the blog. See where to send the review copies.
84 Comments
Beta Ray Steve
November 18, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Why must there always be a She-Hulk comic or an Atom comic or any of these 2nd or 3rd tier characters that don't sustain a regular series? I'd be more interested in a 6 issue mini than an ongoing series, and if it's done well, it would sell more trades.
Ian A.
November 18, 2008 at 3:28 pm
38 issues of anything is none too shabby in today's market.
And, when you include Dan Slott's first volume, it's 50. That's pretty remarkable.
You think they'll replace book with a Lady Liberators series?
Andrew Collins
November 18, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Wow, I was surprised to see She-Hulkie on the hit list. Then again, I had dropped it myself some months ago.
I've had three of my favorites dropped in the last week with Manhunter, Blue Beetle, and Birds Of Prey, so my pull list is feeling some hits too...
David
November 18, 2008 at 3:38 pm
I really enjoyed this book under Slott but under PD I was underwhelmed (and I'm a huge fan of his). I didn't like the bounty hunter angle, or Jazinda, or that he dropped both the awesome take on 616 that the book had and ran off her supporting cast en masse - all off panel I might add. The one-shot explanation almost a year into his run was too little too late.
He seemed to usher in change just to have change, which I can understand from a creator perspective but that doesn't make for good story-telling. PD can write funny and witty and poignant all at the same time (the one-hot I mentioned was right on the mark) but the first and second were in short supply and the third even less so. I did like where things started to go the past two issues but now it's moot.
Here's hoping that we see more of She-Hulk and her amazing friends sometime soon.
Dan Bailey
November 18, 2008 at 4:00 pm
My reaction when PAD took over was initially the same as David's above -- I'd liked Slott's run immensely but dropped the title after PAD's first two issues struck me as lackluster at best. I tried it again about 4 issues later & found that a lot of the rough edges had been smoothed over, & for the last 6 months or so it's been a particular favorite.
Oh, well -- the hits just keep on coming. My pull list is lightening almost by the day -- BIRDS OF PREY, BLUE BEETLE, LOSH (though apparently some iteration is coming back with the revived ADVENTURE), MANHUNTER, now SHE-HULK.
*sigh* I guess I can't really blame the big companies: Sales are what they are, If the mouth-breathers out there keep voting with their wallets & perpetuating Big Events & Greg Land swipe jobs, so be it. Screw those idiots, though.
Ryan
November 18, 2008 at 4:06 pm
I'd sooner read a Lady Liberators series with the newest incarnation. Maybe have a rotating member to fill Sue Storm's spot when she's unavailable?
T.
November 18, 2008 at 4:29 pm
I think in general it's harder to make an action adventure story with a woman main character similar to how it's harder to sell a romance novel or movie with a man as the main character.
In the case of the female action hero, most men who like action adventure for the escapist fantasy elements will have a hard time imagining themselves as the female protaganist, and female readers and viewers are less interested in action adventure. Females on average don't fantasize about kicking scores of ass as much as they fantasize about romance.
A male romance main character would not interest a female reader or viewer as much as a female character because it would be harder to relate to his POV or fantasize about themselves as the male character the way they can with a female character. And male viewers and readers generally don't find much interest in the romance genre in general.
Sam
November 18, 2008 at 4:38 pm
SHE-HULK R.I.P.? That's a little weird considering Marvel is always crowing about leading the pack. Is it the title of the story or just the solicit.?
Greg Burgas
November 18, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Oh dear. T. is generalizing again. Don't poke the bear, T.! (And, just to fall on my sword, I tend to agree with you. But still - are you insane, man?!?!?)
Sucks about She-Hulk. Good for my wallet, though.
Anthony Strand
November 18, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Sam - It says "in this oversized final issue" in the solicitation copy.
T.
November 18, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Good point, Greg! Just to be safe let me add the following disclaimer: I have NO problem with action-adventure books spotlighting female characters. I'm all for them. I'm just saying they will always be a tougher sell, just like romance novels headlined by men will always be a tougher sell.
Chris
November 18, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Oh, no, Shulkie! T_T
Michael
November 18, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Oh, for... will you people STOP canceling all the good books!
Sam
November 18, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Yeah, I know. I was referring to Batman R.I.P. If the title of this story is based on that, I think it's slightly weird.
stealthwise
November 18, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Eh, She-Hulk lost my interest about an issue or two into Slott's relaunch, when he started concentrating more on telling stories about his own run and the stories that Shulky had been written poorly in (the Austen, "sex with Juggernaut" thing), and PAD wasn't able to make it any more interesting, really.
It's a shame, Slott's run started off with a ton of potential, but devolved into nerdery.
Michael
November 18, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Wait, continuing plot threads is "telling stories about your own run" now?
Spiffy
November 18, 2008 at 6:39 pm
All I can say is...
With the wholesale slaughter of female led titles, even Wonder Woman better dig in its heels and start fighting for readers. Because seemingly the big 2 have NO patience, and especially no marketing savy, with female led titles.
Jack Norris
November 18, 2008 at 7:20 pm
I hope this "RIP" business doesn't mean that they're following the current idiotic notion that when a character's book goes under they need to be killed, depowered or otherwise neutralized in some moronic attempt to completely unnecessarily tie up supposed "loose ends" rather than just let them wander off into limbo to be either revived or replaced (whatever the case may be) when the time is right.
What's the harm in just having a character wandering out there somewhere in your company's universe with their status undetermined? Just ignore them until you want to use them. If the next guy wants to replace them with someone new, let him do the dirty work.
As far as T's argument goes, I never really felt the need for that kind of direct-line identification in order to enjoy a book, but maybe that's not typical, I don't really know. I'll miss all the recently cancelled female-protagonist titles.
Craig
November 18, 2008 at 7:46 pm
I agree with Michael, stealthwise. Slott didn't tell stories about his own run; that was ALL Peter David, all the time. Relaunching the book entirely when Slott left was the worst decision PD could make. It's really quite a testament to PD's fanbase that he was able to sustain his run for this long.
Dan Slott on She-Hulk was brilliant, arguably the best take on the character ever. It'd be like Brubaker leaving Daredevil, and Frank Miller coming back to (obviously) just make humorous observations and references to his work. There'd be the whole "ZOMG MILLER IS BACK ON DD" for maybe six months, then they'd realize he's pulling a Claremont while living in the past, and abandon... which is what happened to PD. Had he brought a real interest to playing in the sandbox that Slott set up (and I, for one, believe that PD could have told some magnificent stories in that sandbox!), this title would still be going strong.
Michael
November 18, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Please don't agree with me, Craig. Especially when you don't agree with me.
Captain Qwert Jr
November 18, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Under PAD, she became a moppy, obnoxious character, with a tremendous sense of entitlement.
How are we supposed to like someone who reflects comics fans so closely?
Birmy
November 18, 2008 at 8:32 pm
I actually *just* dropped this from my pull (as well as... Blue Beetle. As I go, so goes comics.) It was budgetary more than anything, but it was a lot easier to make the decision now than under the Slott era. I generally like PAD--I consider myself a fan--but for some reason what should have been a natural fit (humor, Hulk-related experience, a tendency to linger at the fringes of the Marvel Universe) never really clicked, either in terms of storytelling or with an audience. I do think the "bounty hunter" direction was a mistake, but I think that had more to do with the circumstances of the creative shift more than anything (apparently PAD had no idea where Slott was leaving the character in his final issue). It seems a shame to end it now, though, when the bounty hunter arc seemed to be running its course and she was on her way to being repatriated as a superhero (or at least that's the direction it's been going).
Lynxara
November 18, 2008 at 9:40 pm
I think this is more of a bloodletting of comedy and light-hearted books than books with female leads. Comedy books generally have a hard time surviving when the market is unhealthy, and I think everyone here would agree that the current market can't possibly be healthy. All that really puts asses in seats anymore is big huge event arcs with top-tier creators. Even Whedon's Buffy comics fit pretty neatly into that little box, in their own way.
Ted
November 18, 2008 at 11:32 pm
My problem isn't with T's generalisations rather than the fact that he seems to think that they are set in stone. Perhaps the reason that men have a hard time identifing with female leads (which is a statement I don't necessarily agree with) is merely because they aren't used to doing so. Never forget that art doesn't just reflect culture, it also defines it. The lack of female leads could cause the failure of identification, rather than the other way around. And merely because things are a certain way now doesn't mean that they always will be that way.
ZZZ
November 19, 2008 at 12:56 am
Yeah, I'm not saying that I'm 100 percent sure that if we did a exhaustive psychological study we might not find out that T's theorem has some merit, but going from personal experience, I can relate to female characters as easily as I can relate to characters who are black, rich, attractive, teenaged, super-powered, trained in the martial arts, nonhuman ... heck, if I only read books where I could swap myself in for the lead, I be stuck with the "loser" subgenre of autobiographical indy comics.
I know the most obvious response is that I may not actually be any of those things, but wouldn't I like to imagine myself as rich, attractive, skilled and powerful? Sure, but play any online role-playing game and tell me there aren't plenty of men who don't mind imagining themselves as women.
Craig
November 19, 2008 at 5:29 am
Sorry Michael, I read your comment as being contradictory to that of stealthwise. I'll never misinterpret your snarky one-liners again.
Stephen
November 19, 2008 at 6:26 am
Dropped this after those first couple of David issues referenced above - the GLK&H stuff was my favourite part of the book, and David dropping everything wholesale (although I understand he did some cleanup after that) lost my interest very quickly.
The series lasted longer than I thought it would've given I certainly wasn't the only one with that reaction (and I'll admit Slott had dialed back his better work in favour of the goofball continuity cleanup stuff in the second volume, which made no sense), but I suppose getting tied so closely to Civil War and Secret Invasion helped keep it afloat.
Blackjak
November 19, 2008 at 6:27 am
Lynxara,
Under Peter David, She-Hulk wasn't a comedy title anymore. It was a pretty straight-up road trip/buddy story... Although the scene when she has a one-night-stand with Herc is fun...
I've said before that I feel sorry for PAD having She-Hulk dumped on him, because there was just no way he could continue in the same vein as Slott... But it really became a "generic comic". Sure it's had some good moments, but nothing amazing...
When Slott was writing it, it was usually one of the first three comics I read that month. Under Peter David, it's slid right down the list... Not quite last, but heading that way...
Mind you at least I read it before the I force myself to read the mess that is the current incarnation of Checkmate...
I'm glad Checkmate got cancelled... It needs Rucka back onboard to work.
I'm sad Peter David couldn't find a unique angle on She-Hulk... He could have equally Slott with a different approach - He certainly has the potential to... maybe he was just overstretched, working on too many titles?
Grapeweasel
November 19, 2008 at 6:54 am
I buy too many comics.
Marvel published too many comics.
It's nice that they're trying to save me from myself by trimming a few titles.
Stephen
November 19, 2008 at 8:43 am
"I’m glad Checkmate got cancelled… It needs Rucka back onboard to work."
Which the most recent Final Crisis tie-in proved quite conclusively, since it didn't skip a beat from the old Rucka issues.
On the other hand, can we REALLY prove anything via something written by Bruce Jones?
sgt pepper
November 19, 2008 at 10:43 am
Was the book in cancellation numbers when Slott was writing it? Eh, it probably was. The goodwill generated by Slott's run led me to buy a few issues of PAD's. Then I dropped it because PAD's a jerk.
There's a huge difference between T's generalization here which is about the psychology and purchasing practice of an audience and saying that all feminists are ugly women who can't get laid.
T.
November 19, 2008 at 10:48 am
I NEVER said that.
Jeff Albertson
November 19, 2008 at 11:31 am
Always sorry to see a book with a female character cancelled, but I just didn't enjoy Peter David's take on the character. With the price of comics what they are, I just can't afford to subsidize a series I'm not enjoying. David's a good writer -- here's hoping he gets another project to replace this one soon, and that it's more to my taste (Revival of Soulsearchers and Company, anyone?).
Random Stranger
November 19, 2008 at 6:26 pm
I can understand why David didn't want to just be continuing Slott's stuff. Marvel had just dropped on huge, fairly complicated legal issue into the Marvel Universe and was completely unwilling to look at the actual consequences of it.
(Really, why didn't they have a storyline somewhere of the legal challenges to the Superhero Registration Act and the complications it would impose? Oh yeah, because it was inconsistently portrayed even by just the writer who created it.)
If you can't talk about the elephant in the room you might as well get out of the room. Unfortunately David didn't really find an interesting place to take the book.
fourthworlder
November 19, 2008 at 8:38 pm
T, do you have any photo you could use instead from when you're NOT having your period?
Evan Waters
November 19, 2008 at 10:28 pm
I think I would have been fine with a change of focus, but instead he just cut off the law angle completely- Jen was disbarred, the supporting cast vanished into the ether, and in some ways it was basically a reboot of the series.
Thaw
November 19, 2008 at 10:29 pm
I really hope this means that slott can now put she-hulk on his mighty avengers team. it would be so worth the cancellation if slott were writing her again and returning her to prominence.
sgt pepper
November 20, 2008 at 10:45 am
OK. Then you said that all feminists who frown upon the objectification of women (isn't that all feminists?) are ugly women who can't get laid.
T.
November 20, 2008 at 11:21 am
I never said that either. When did I mention anything about their ability to get laid?
I said that the women who make the biggest deal about objectification are the ugly feminists, which is not the same as all feminists. Never said anything about their ability to get laid. I don't know why you feel the need to keep throwing in "can't get laid" when trying to repeat what I said. I have no idea how often they get laid, but even an ugly woman can usually find someone to have sex with her so I'm sure they can get action.
And if you think all feminists are against objectification, then you only know a narrow segment of feminism. There are all types of feminists. There is "sex positive" feminism which rose up against the "objectification" and anti-porn feminists like Andrea Dworkin back in the 70s.
Here's a history of it and a discussion of feminist porn:
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/07/23/feminist-porn-sex-consent-and-getting-off/
Modern state of it:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200401/ai_n9369255
It's been around since the 70s and a feminist porn star named Annie Sprinkle is one of its biggest proponents. Suicide Girls is related to this school of feminism. In a watered down way Sex and the City and the L Word are related to this school of feminism too.
There are plenty of feminist camps that take issue with the feminists who constantly cry "objectification." It's hardly the consensus you try to say it is. I don't mind disagreement but don't misrepresent what I said.
Dalarsco
November 20, 2008 at 11:32 am
T., you did say that. Those exact words. It ruined an otherwise great argument you put forward.
I feel a bit guilt right now. Pretty much my entire list of books I'd add if only I had the money or if a few of the ones I buy now got canceled just got the axe. Blue Beetle, Nightwing, Birds of Prey, and now She-Hulk. Though I'm sure Nightwing and BoP will be back, and I have a sneaking suspicion that Marc Andeyko will be writing BoP when it comes back, and I'll be jumping on board for that.
T.
November 20, 2008 at 11:44 am
No I didn't. Here's the link:
http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2008/11/11/new-watchmen-posters/#comments
Where did I say that all feminists are ugly or that they can't get laid? I said nothing about their ability to get laid, which is why I can't understand why Sgt. Pepper feels the need to keep adding "can't get laid" each time he misquotes me.
Lynxara
November 20, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Oh, for fuck's sake...
Did you guys really have to get him started on this? T.'s long since made it clear he has no idea how "objectification" isn't the same as "sex appeal" or "liking sex", and is mostly interested in trolling threads and making people pay attention to him. He has no real interest in discussing feminism aside from doing so to reaffirm his right to traditional male privileges, including and especially ones that preclude a woman's right to be treated as an equal human being.
Now the thread from here on out is going to be nothing but repetitions of his 4chan-caliber assessments of the women's movement and female psychology if anyone dares to bring it up or try to argue with him.I really can't bear reading this shit, it's all the woman-hating ugliness of the comics community being shoved right in my face. The thread is basically ruined.
Actually, all future discussion of gender on this site is basically ruined until T. shuts up and goes away. Whenever the subject comes up, it turns into T. shouting down all opposing voices by repeating the same stupid, offensive shit over and over again.
plok
November 20, 2008 at 3:33 pm
I think arguing with T. about this only gives him an excuse to believe he's carrying around a "valid competing point of view", instead of a load of contemptible horse manure. Like it matters if he didn't say anything about "getting laid", like there's some purity of argument there which that misprision paints in an unfairly harsh light...give me a break. "Heavens, I didn't say that!" Well, what you did say smells just as bad, so who cares?
Distinction without a difference.
Bah.
T.
November 20, 2008 at 5:14 pm
I love how I have used no personal insults, told no one to shut up, made no attacks, haven't sworn at anyone no matter how people hurl invective at me and even ask for me to ignored or banned, yet somehow I'M shouting down all opposing voices? Really?
fourthworlder
November 20, 2008 at 11:04 pm
Could you at least wipe your stupid bloody face?
fourthworlder
November 20, 2008 at 11:07 pm
No I did not call you stupid.
I did not.
No I didn't. I specifically said "stupid bloody face."
That is not the same as calling you stupid.
It's not.
It is not.
No matter how wretchedly stupid you are I am not actually calling you stupid.
I am not, and can readily provide a link to prove it.
Jack Norris
November 21, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Fourthworlder, that comment of yours a little ways back would have worked much better as an insult if it had been phrased as "your mother's" rather than "your" period.
Also, T's citing of Annie Sprinkle, sex positive feminists and feminist porn is laughably irrelevant as far as what he's protesting being accused of.
fourthworlder
November 21, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Nah, then it might sound like I was suggesting he actually liked women... (budda-buh-tish!)
And, THAT's probably enough T.-bashing in this thread, from me at least.
Long as he washes his face.
T.
November 23, 2008 at 2:54 pm
As reading comprehension appears to be a major problem with my critics, I'll explain the relevance. Someone in this thread claimed all feminists, every last one, hate objectification. I proved otherwise. Clear enough for you?
Rene
November 23, 2008 at 5:58 pm
I'll avoid the political issues and insults and will just respond to T.'s first post.
Can we even classify the superhero genre as male-oriented action-adventure?
How can we do that when the soap opera elements have grown so much since the 1960s and have become every bit as important as the fights? The most successful superhero franchises are defined by those elements. People are almost more interested in Peter and MJ's relationship than in his fights with Octopus or Venom, and the Spider movies reflect that in a big way. The last two TV shows about Superman are romance-oriented (or at least relationship-oriented).
Not related to the discussion, but I also would like to say that only because most fans of adventure stories are male, it doesn't follow that most males like adventure stories. Same with females and romance.
So, I would avoid drawing any easy conclusions from books cancelled. The only provable fact is that Marvel and DC have only a dozen (at best) characters and concepts each that are cancellation-proof. All the rest are up in the air. It's She-Hulk, but it could as well be Nova. Superhero fans usually don't embrace new concepts, more out of nostalgia than any conscious sexism, and the old concepts have mostly been created in a time when the heroes were almost all male.
plok
November 24, 2008 at 1:14 am
How's this for clear: T.'s proved nothing.
fourthworlder
November 24, 2008 at 8:10 pm
The question T. for me is how many feminists would claim Annie Sprinkles as being representative for their cause? Some might possibly comsider giving golden showers on video as an act of empowerment, I guess, but I'm pretty sure that a decided majority would describe the porn industry as one of the societal factors that make the world worse for women and set the cause of feminism back.
fourthworlder
November 24, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Should read consider instead of comsider, unless it was a Freudian thing.
T.
November 25, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Probably around the same amount as claim Betty Friedan, NOW and the rest of the "objectification extremists as being representative of their cause, those guys are simply the most vocal minority. Radical NOW feminists are no more representative of a female consensus than Annie Sprinkly and her crowd are. There's a whole range of feminists in between, which is where I think most feminists lie. Not as embracing of porn as Annie Sprinkle and her crowd, but not as stringent and quick to shout objectification as Betty Friedan and her crowd either. I'd say Sex and the City and Suicide Girls and Stripper pole aerobics classes are the new face of sex-positive feminism, for better of for worse.
plok
November 25, 2008 at 6:04 pm
T. is not an authority on these things. He's pretending to expertise he doesn't have.
plok
November 25, 2008 at 6:08 pm
He's full of it.
MarkAndrew
November 25, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Mark Millar Post! Mark Millar Post!
plok
November 25, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Tonight or tomorrow, I think.
FunkyGreenJerusalem
November 25, 2008 at 8:17 pm
And you've not actually argued what he said, just chimed in dancing around what he said, making a lot of noise without saying a thing.
Nice to see everyone's fallen into their cliché in this thread.
(To the point of me berating people for nonsense!)
plok
November 25, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Oh, you agree with T., do you Funky? You think his arguments are solid, you think my rejection of them is high-handed? You think I'm just another guy on the Internet who feels the need to weigh in on things he doesn't really know anything about, hasn't studied in any depth or detail, hasn't troubled to research? You think all I've said to T. is "nyah nyah", because that's all I can say?
Maybe you'd like to bring yourself up to speed a little. Go ahead, I'll wait.
plok
November 25, 2008 at 9:11 pm
And maybe when you're done you'd care to favour us with your opinion about whether T. has indeed proved what he thinks he has.
Boy, I can't wait to hear this.
FunkyGreenJerusalem
November 25, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Just let me know when you're done responding to your own posts...
I'm sure one time you'll post three or four in a row and there will actually end up being some content in there...
Just a tip though, if you want to argue what T. said in another thread, go to that thread and have the argument - T, who I regularly disagree with, made an unrelated observation here - one may, including publishers seem to work off of, and sales figures tend to indicate - and it gets related back to a throw away comment he oddly decided to defend in another thread.
Argue what he said in this thread, in this thread, and argue what he said in that thread, in that thread.
And by argue, I mean put forth an argument as to why he is wrong, or why you think he is wrong, rather than jumping up and down going 'You're wrong, YOU ARE SO WRONG, Jesus H Christ - How wrong are you?'.
That's not arguing, or proving/disproving anything.
It's just being a git who wants the attention you are claiming others are trying for.
plok
November 25, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Transparently a misrepresentation of everything I've said.
However, to respond anyway: thank you for your "tip", Funky, but I won't be following it. Also, it is not my intention to argue with T. on this thread, merely to point out that he's not an authority on the topic of feminist issues where he seems to present himself as one. So if my style of "arguing" is bugging you, I'm sorry but there's nothing I can do about that, because I'm not arguing at all. Furthermore, I never asked you to believe I was. So believe it or don't, that's up to you, but if you anticipate arguing with me about whether or not I'm arguing with T., or arguing properly or correctly, or in some other way that satisfies or doesn't satisfy your standards about what an argument is...well, it's not going to happen.
I may still answer you if you take some sort of position on T.'s claims. Warning: if you agree with him I may call you a "git", though.
fourthworlder
November 25, 2008 at 11:43 pm
Oooo, do me next, as Stewie would say.
What's MY cliche?
Profile me, somebody.
I think it's natural that a site with a cast of regular commenters like this will carry conversations and themes from one thread to the next. Show me a site where that doesn't happen.
And T. you'll NEVER convince me that Sex and the City and its ilk has anything to do with "sex-positive feminism," or with ANTHING remotely positive at all, for that matter. Stripper pole aerobics as a new face of feminism? Annie Sprinkles? Seriously? I'm SO curious to ask about your history of relationships...
FunkyGreenJerusalem
November 25, 2008 at 11:59 pm
A man doing period on face jokes doesn't need someone to point out his flaws, his doing fine on his own....
Don't ever read a women's magazine then... or any of the countless articles about 'the new wave of feminism'.
T really is just parroting what has been written by others - google any of those things you listed and disagree with - and I'm not saying you are wrong to do so - and add the word 'feminism' to it, and you'll find articles and such written about how it is feminism in action, so it's a bit odd everyone's jumping up and down on him.
fourthworlder
November 26, 2008 at 12:24 am
Hey, he's the one who showed up with the bloody snout.
And I think the majority of women's magazines are mind control shit bombs designed to screw up young women's minds just like Maxim and Manswers etc screw up the boys.
If you want to read something about the issues I'd start with The Beauty Myth.
fourthworlder
November 26, 2008 at 12:28 am
And so, you're saying that "doing period on face jokes" is my thing??
Ow.. stings....
plok
November 26, 2008 at 5:41 am
Curious as to what Funky's point is, exactly. "Hey, if you think that, don't read Cosmo...! Not that I agree with T., but you've got to admit it's a very commonplace view! Hey, so what's everybody getting so excited about...?"
Dance, Funky, dance.
plok
November 26, 2008 at 5:56 am
And now that you mention it, it is odd that people are jumping up and down on T. for (your word) "parroting" shit he's read someplace else! I mean, don't people have the right to parrot shit they've read someplace else without other people calling them on whether it's true or false?!
plok
November 26, 2008 at 6:07 am
Oops, guess I'm not finished responding to my own posts yet! Hey, wonder if you put 'em all together you might find some content in there? Ya think?
Me, I wonder what Funky thinks. Does he agree with T.? Or not?
Simple question.
Wonder if there's even an answer to it!
plok
November 26, 2008 at 6:32 am
Ahhhh, maybe I'm being too mean.
FunkyGreenJerusalem
November 26, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Oh shit yeah they are, but they are ran by women, and those women would consider themselves feminists, or neo-feminists or some such, and they say this sort of shit and try make it positive for women, and then other bored journalists or uni students desperate for something to write about lend them legitimacy by talking about 'the new feminism' or 'feminism in the 21st century'...
Like any political or social movement, once it's lost it's initial steam, and the original feminist movement has, it starts to drift in all sorts of different directions. It may not be the one's we want, or the original feminists wanted, but that's how it goes.
Which is just my way of saying, T is just applying a label he's heard bandied about, rightly or wrongly, possible unchallenged, and everyone's jumping on him like he's the one thing holding women back.
I also think his comments in the Watchmen posts comment section have very little relation to do with his comments here.
(I also think it's hard to read the original post that set everyone off in the Watchmen section as anything but a flippant remark, one he possibly only continued to justify due to the amount of people calling him out and getting all smug over their keyboards).
You can all jump up and down on him about his comments on which gender prefers which sort of hero, but sales figures tend to back it up, and publishers definitely take it into account.
Or egotistical - never crossed your mind my life isn't devoted to answering your comments, and might well have just logged off and gone and done something else?
Sorry sport, but your posts don't quite pack the punch you assume they do.
plok
November 26, 2008 at 5:51 pm
It's so painfully obvious that Funky's here just to bullshit and to take swipes at me, isn't it? His analysis of feminism as "yeah, whoa, feminism...I mean whaddaya gonna do, am I right?" doesn't exactly mark him out as a guy with his finger on the pulse, issue-wise, and his insistence that it's so important to get back to T.'s comment about sales figures kind of makes him look like, oh what's the word, an idiot. I mean what is it that he really wants to talk about, eh? What's his point?
Suddenly I don't feel like I've been mean at all.
fourthworlder
November 26, 2008 at 8:30 pm
I would say that like any (or at least most?) political or social movement, feminism has been co-opted and ultimately twisted by those outside it who are essentially opposed to its cause, and/or have a malevolent social agenda of their own. So by the early 1990s feminism was defined by Madonna and her ilk. Dressing up like little hookers became praised as assertiveness and grrrl power, and women were largely conditioned to belive that they were now socially equal with equal rights so long as they fit a certain body type and spent a certain amount each month on beauty products, cosmetic surgery, and designer clothes.
And it sucks.
And like I said previously, T.'s comments in the watchmen thread will of course affect how he's preceived here when another feminist-related discussion occurs.
How could it not, Mr. greenjerusalem? Honestly, imagine if we were discussing the sales of Luke Cage and somebody wrote about lousy niggers not selling (and T's prior comment about ugly feminists was almost as offensive), and then would not retract the statement. And then a week or two later on a new thread about Samual Jackson playing Nick Fury this same guy started talking about blacks again, without using the slur. Should others not remember what he said and still hold him to account?
fourthworlder
November 26, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Sorry if the n-bomb in there offended anybody.
FunkyGreenJerusalem
November 26, 2008 at 9:38 pm
And yet there are many who consider themselves feminists who think it's great, and therefore, T isn't being as outrageous as many seem to want him to be.
He never made a comment about feminism here, until people started bringing up his comments in an old thread - and it really got started when he seemed to have misread what a poster was saying.
There hasn't really been a feminist discussion here - someone mentioned how T's comments here are seperate from his previous comments, he disagreed with the phrasing he had said ina previous thread, and then a whole bunch of people started piling on him.
It's not a discussion, it's closer to verbal bullying.
If the two relate - his views on feminism in no way relate to a generalisation, which can't easily be ruled out.
Otherwise, it's just people bringing up an old argument because they want to argue more.
And also, when you're first post in the thread is about blood on a face being blood from menstruation, you really shouldn't be holding others views on feminism in contempt - you're comment was not only crass, but much more likely to cause offense than T's views, even the one 'The only women who really complain about objectification of women are the ugly feminists who can’t use sexuality to sell themselves'.
Neither is true, but I still wouldn't throw a rock when standing in a glass house.
Sorry champ, but your posts don’t quite pack the punch you assume they do.
plok
November 26, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Pretty sure it's just us chickens here, Fourthworlder...
Some articles about the "new wave of feminism" are comparable to some other articles about the "new faces of unionism", whose point is basically that unions are obsolete because management now cares more about the well-being of their workers than the union bosses do -- which is perhaps a valid perspective (I don't say it is, and I don't say it isn't), but it's hard to classify it as a pro-union one, and indeed the audience for such articles is usually the members of the managerial class themselves. So too, articles about the new wave of feminism are often regressive -- but it's always struck me as a stretch to go to the most reactionary of the gender-politics activists and claim them as evidence of diversity in what's basically a progressive movement! The real trick here is that "feminism" is a term so hotly-contested that it's possible for <anti-feminist thinkers to re-brand themselves as "new" feminists, and put up arguments for them being taken as such...
But what gives the game away is that they re-brand themselves not just as "new" but as "moderate" -- just as though "one" were the most moderate number on the number line because it's the closest to zero. So, feminists who are for as little social change as possible, this surely counts as an extreme view even if you grant that it's within the scope of the term "feminism", instead of outside it and opposed to it. Sarah Palin wouldn't be a "moderate" if she were located in the world of feminism, she would be a marginalized whacko, somewhere towards the bitter end of (what would have to be) a long, long, LONG tail on the Bell curve.
All of which says nothing about what T. claimed to have proved, of course, but then I wasn't responding to him here, just to the idea that all articles about "new waves" are all evidence of the same thing. Because any kind of textual analysis reveals at least some of them to be wolves in sheep's clothing, inevitably. And that's not "diversity".
And that was more than I ever intended to write on this, actually, but oh well.
I may be done.
plok
November 26, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Oh, except yay, Funky's back.
You know, you said that "pack the punch" blah blah blah thing before. Whatever, "champ", "sport", "scout"...
Yawn. By all means do go on "putting it all in perspective".
fourthworlder
November 26, 2008 at 10:32 pm
All right, it appears necessary, so - - SORRY about the period joke. Indeed it was certainly offensive, I knew it was when I said it, and it definitely was a deliberate reaction not just to his new avatar pic (you DO see it on your screen, right?) but to his earlier thread comments and his, uh, bloody-mindedness in refusing to retract his obnoxious statement. Did I over-react? Did I cross the line? Not sure, honestly I probably will say more over the top stuff if provoked (and sometimes even if not), but sure, I'm a sport, and I'll apologize to Funky if it really offended Funky.
If you knew who I was and what I do you'd know that the crass joke certainly didn't reflect my views on feminism. It reflected my view on T. And the blood on his face. And OK, probably ten years of South Park had some sort of influence.
plok
November 26, 2008 at 10:45 pm
I doubt he was actually offended.
FunkyGreenJerusalem
November 26, 2008 at 10:49 pm
I'm not offended, just pointing out that what you have said is as bad, if not worse, than anything T has said, and as such, you don't have this imagined moral high ground over him.
But if we are to accept the fact that you're posts don't reflect you're views on feminism, then why can't you accept T's protestations of the same?
And honestly, read what he has said in THIS thread.
It's nothing like you guys are acting like he said,
fourthworlder
November 26, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Sigh........ A flippant joke is not the same to me as a definitive statement. Is it to you? As I said, I was reacting to his past comment and his refusal to retract it, it's really not necessary for you to point me again to this thread. Nobody's over on the old thread, there's been no comments there for weeks. The conversation moved here.
Hell nobody's here but us three now and it's getting a little tedious.
But if a future post along the lines of "I Agree That It's More About Low Sales Than Menstruation" should come up, and I rush in with a comment, I think it would be fair game for you to refer back to this thread and my joke.
Which of course I will be able to say that I have fully accounted for and even apologized for.
Like a man, dammit, like a man.
Oh crap, that sounded rather sexist.......here, let me apologize...
plok
November 26, 2008 at 11:27 pm
That metric's off: if anyone considered that what Fourthworlder said was more offensive than T.'s point of view, I'd consider that they were overreacting pretty dramatically.
And for myself, I'd consider it quite a bit less offensive, in fact.
Also, I don't recall Fourthworlder claiming any "moral high ground" over T. -- don't recall him ever using or referencing this term. He's said T.'s wrong, not that he is better than T. I see the imputation that he has claimed to be morally "better" as an attempt to shame him out of his position -- a dirty tactic, since there is nothing shameful about his position, and no reason at all apparent to me, that he should recede from it for reasons of propriety. He can object to T.'s remarks. It's a free country.
T. has also said that these are his views, and I question whether anyone else has the right to take his own words out of his own mouth.
I have carefully reviewed what T.'s said on this thread, and am happy to stand by my responses to them. I don't know what anyone thinks I am "acting like" he said, because this has not been revealed -- what is it, one wonders, that he did not say, that I am allegedly responding to as if he did? Unless that question were answered, the objection could have no force -- it's just smoke.
It seems to me that Funky is trying to shut people up, on bogus pretences.
If he is...then that is bullshit.
Now, I'm just here to point out T.'s not an authority on feminism. I am not here to point out that Funky isn't an authority on feminism, because I don't think he's making much in the way of concrete statements about feminism, the content of T.'s remarks, or even the content of my remarks. But I find his attempted browbeating of Fourthworlder pretty disgusting, so I'm saying so.
And that's what I've got to say.
Brian Cronin
November 26, 2008 at 11:32 pm
This went past embarrassing about 40 posts ago.
So I'm ending it.