My, What a Lovely Straw Man

[mamadeb]

If he only had a brain.

This came up in the latest post from WFA.

Those awful, evil, manhating feminists have been claiming that women are injured more often than men comic books. (Actually, one commenter seems to claim that we not only don't care if white male heroes are injured, we *like* it. We're also hypocrits because we don't want women to be hurt but also don't want them to be out of danger.)

So this brave, swimming against the tide poster has taken the Women in Refrigerators list (this in itself is not a problem - no need to reinvent the wheel, after all) and for almost every woman on that list, he found several men who had similar injuries (or injuries he judged to be similar) and from that he deduced that more men are injured than women and so the feminists should have no complaints.

And, yes, he claims this is just a rough draft that's been sitting around his computer for years and he just now decided to get it off his computer by posting it (um. Yeah.), but there are several problems with this.

The question isn't have more women than men been injured in absolute numbers. Of course more men have been hurt, damaged, wounded, and killed in comics. There are more of them. The question is proportion. We need to know the absolute numbers of male characters and of female characters. We need to know the numbers of injured male characters and injured female characters. And we need to know the ratio of injury for both.

(We also need to define injury, of course, or the number will be 100% and none of this will mean anything.)

Until then, it's just a lovely straw man.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

The first quiestion we need to ask is, "why are there so many deaths and pointless injuires at all in comics?" Because it's gotten really bad of late.

[mamadeb.livejournal.com]

Well, superheroing and villaining ARE dangerous jobs, so you'd expect some - even a lot - of injuries, but yeah, the death count has been very high in the past twenty or so years.

[ratcreature]

I haven't read that list, but I seriously doubt the examples are going to be equal, except maybe on the physical part of the injury (and even then, I think that far less male characters have been raped than female ones). I mean, male heroes just don't get hurt or killed as often to merely provide a female hero with angst. I'd be suprised if there was a female hero with as many tragically dead boyfriends as Daredevil's dead girlfriends for example.

[mamadeb.livejournal.com]

Matthew Murdoch is the Job of the comic book universe - I'm surprised Milla's lasted *this* long.

Yes - most of the male types have been injured in combat,usually against overwhelming odds. Women - well, in the hands of a good writer that will happen (Black Canary's legs were broken in an extended battle - and we got to see her fight despite them; Hippolyta died quite heroically during Worlds At War), but often they're sacrificed to someone else's plotline. Like Jade.

As for rape victims - there's convincing argument that whatever else happened to Dinah in Longbow Hunters, it wasn't rape. On the other hand, Joker was quite happy to add insult to injury. The only male rape victim that comes to my mind was Apollo - and he's gay, which adds an entirely different level to things.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

I remember thinking that moment between Nightwing and Tarantula on the roof was kind of interesting that way--but I remember on the DC boards many people were saying it was not rape at all.

But in general, totally agree on the "being sacrificed for someone else's angst" idea usually being the female love interest, which has a long history in literature. If you represent all that is good in the hero's life, you're toast.

[mamadeb.livejournal.com]

I'd forgotten about that one.

I considered that rape. Dick was in no place to consent - he was in shock over allowing her to kill Blockbuster.

Green Arrow isn't injured to advance Dinah's plotline.

Also. At one point, that list compared Barbara Gordon to Bruce and her father's injuries.

Except Bruce is swinging from the rooftops again, and Jim's back at the job. She's still in her wheelchair. I like Oracle as she is, of course, but that doesn't change that they're on their feet and she's not.

[thatcrazycajun.livejournal.com]

I had a problem with that too, insofar as my experience has been that people who are crippled by spinal injuries generally DON'T get up and walk again, ever (cf. Chris Reeve). For Batman to be on his feet again after what Bane did to him would seem to fly in the face of even the little we laypeople know about such matters (compared to actual MDs), especially since Babs Gordon is still chairbound.

[mamadeb.livejournal.com]

It's funny - until I read that list, I had not connected the two, but now...yeah. Bruce comes back. Barbara doesn't.

[cursed-unicorn.livejournal.com]

It is something to think about, isn't it? With all the science and the magic in the DCU, all the capabilities that can even bring people back from the dead (multiple) times, there's no way for Barbara to walk again. Her backstory emphasises how women are there to be acted upon in comics, rather than active in their own right; if Barbara were ever to get out of the wheelchair, it'd probably be because of some outside help or resource and not her own direct power. Then you have Batman, who manages by sheer force of will or however they explained it. He is the actor, not the acted upon, which contrasts very strongly with Barbara's status. In my opinion, anyway.

[mechanicaljewel.livejournal.com]

The only thing that may keep Barbara Gordon from walking again is DC's desire to have a physically handicapped hero. I mean, how many paralyzed people are portrayed in popular culture? OK, that may just be a cop-out, but it's still a win in many ways. After all, we tend to think of diversity in terms of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. but nobody ever seems to think about the physically disabled, who also happen to want representation.

Also, Alan Moore is pissed off enough at DC without undoing a major change he made to the DCU.

How many dead girlfriends does DD have?

[madthinker12357.livejournal.com]

I know Karen and Electra died, but Electra is alive again. The Black Widow and Mila are still very much alive.

Electra's origin concerned the death of her father. The Black Widow's origin revolved around how her husband was kidnapped and threatened with death and then he was later killed but then resurrected (sort of) and killed again (sort of) 2 more times. She then got involved in Hawkeye, who we know died (but got better.) Actually, now that I think of it, she was killed too, but got better.

Wonder Woman's Steve Trevor has been killed more than once and is dead now. Her pal Tim Trench is also dead. Trevor Barnes, also dead and still dead, so are you surprised?

And Donna's husband and son were killed. The new Wonder Girl's boyfriend, Connor, is dead. The Golden Age's Black Canary's husband was killed. The Silver Age Black Canary had her father's death as part of her origin and her later boy friend, Green Arrow, died at least once (but he got better.) Of course, some of these deaths weren't done to create angst in the female character, but many were, and like their male counterparts, the longer the character has been around, the more likely they are to have dead love interests dead around them.

Re: How many dead girlfriends does DD have?

[ratcreature]

Well, Heather Glenn and Glorianna O'Breen are both dead too.

Re: How many dead girlfriends does DD have?

[madthinker12357.livejournal.com]

Ah, I’d forgotten about them, so you are correct that DD has quite a few dead women in his past. But doesn’t the fact that people site Daredevil so frequently suggest that he is an aberration? He doesn’t represent the norm, does he? I mean if we look at other men in the Marvel Universe, we don’t find nearly as many dead women in their pasts do we? I know the Hulk has at least 3, but I’m not sure I’m aware of any other characters with multiples like that, and I think there are several guys who don’t have any, e.g. Mr. Fantastic, Black Bolt, the Thing, Ant-Man (any of them, I think), Thor, Captain America (maybe?), Justice, the Beast, etc. Does Iron Man have any dead girlfriends in his past? I know he has a lot of women in his past, but I’m not sure any of them are dead.

Anyway, while I don’t want to dismiss the critique out of hand, I’m not sure that using Daredevil as an example is fair when he seems way outside the norm, especially when there have been so many male deaths in Daredevil too. His father, Stick, Stone, Claw, Shaft, Richard Fisk (a.k.a. the Rose), the White Tiger, Electra’s father, Echo’s father, Sammy Silke, etc. And characters like Foggy and Ben Urich were horribly stabbed. There aren’t a lot of characters that escape tragedy in Daredevil’s life, so I’m not sure we can see the deaths of the women in Daredevil as being reflective of the state of women in comics unless we are also going to say that Daredevil’s multiple male deaths and noir-ish life and death tragedies are indicative of comics in general too.

[kid-lit-fan.livejournal.com]

It's not just proportion of injuries to extant heroes/villains of either gender, it's how they're presented; I don't have a comprehensive list, even in my head, but I'm willing to bet that women are more likely to be tied up in body-revealing ways, more likely to have their antagonists getting MUCH too close and more likely to be subjected to innuendo, even in "all ages" stuff.

In a different genre, James Bond gets tortured once a movie, but it rarely involves him being naked.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

I only recently saw "Casino Royale" and I enjoyed the way it really seemed to be the Woman's Bond in some ways, in that there were a couple of explicit turnarounds in how that sort of thing worked.

Of course, in the end it was the girl who died for Bond angst, but it's still Bond.

[monkeycommando.livejournal.com]

You know, for a hackneyed trope, I thought that element in CR played pretty well, because her overall angst and motivation was much more gripping than was his.

One of those examples where the creator handles the idea well, but its been tainted by all the previous lame occurences. (Live Free or Die Hard's kidnapped daughter is another).

[mamadeb.livejournal.com]

Maybe that's why I don't like 007 flicks.

[otherdeb.livejournal.com]

Well, other than my jokingly reminding you that the straw man in the Wizard of Oz is the one who actually did have brains (which is why I hate using the particular simile you did), I always enjoy seeing you use the scalpel of logic to dismantle a specious argument. Thank you for brightening uyp my day.

[mamadeb.livejournal.com]

Yes. The Scarecrow had intelligence. This particular straw man lacks a brain - that's the problem.

And thank you!

[rubynye.livejournal.com]

Well said. tigerbright thought you might need my commiseration, but I think you have the arguments all covered. *cheers you on*

[mamadeb.livejournal.com]

Thank you!

You know, he might have had a convincing argument - if he'd just crunched the numbers.

[thatcrazycajun.livejournal.com]

Are you sure you're not being unreasonable? Or am I misreading that you insist the man come up with absolute numbers of ALL male and ALL female characters ever created in order to have a valid argument? I seriously doubt even the folks at DC and Marvel could answer that question with absolute accuracy even about their own characters. And that doesn't even touch the ones created by "second-tier" companies (Dark Horse, Image, Gold Key, First etc.). I don't know if that kind of a number would even be achievable at this point; maybe two or three decades ago, but certainly not now.

[mamadeb.livejournal.com]

Yes, you do have a point.

But it is possible to at least do a rough estimate on both, and that would have been a lot more convincing than just a list of names.

[(Anonymous)]

"But it is possible to at least do a rough estimate on both, and that would have been a lot more convincing than just a list of names."

But that's not what WiR did (which was the source material for his post).

I don't know about you, but hasn't the "burden of proof" always been on the back of the accuser? You know, that whole "innocent until proven guilty" claptrap, that no one ever really believes, much less follows up on actually doing, as they rush to a judgment, based more on personal emotion, than on rational facts? If it is so important to feminists that the numbers be as accurate as possible, shouldn't they be the ones to do the work to prove their case?

Given that the WiR list is little more than a "list of names" itself, yet it is heralded as some kind of irrefutable evidence of some grand conspiracy against women (both real and fictional) within comics, his post was very much equal in what it gave to counter it (and did so quite well).

This whole idea of providing "rough estimates on each gender" is just a way of side-stepping the fact that the WiR list is hardly conclusive of anything, save that female characters are killed/mutilated/injured/depowered, just like male characters are in superhero fiction.

Personally, I can understand why either side of the debate would hesitate to try to find conclusive numbers. Because, without knowing what the result would be ahead of time, both sides know the results could come out against their own personal belief on the matter. If he had done a more conclusive estimate and it shown that men are by and large the more maligned of the genders, would you have accepted that as fact? Or would you have belittled his efforts, much as you did right here? Would the fact he was able to show men have it done more often to them statistically have made you re-evaluate your personal feminist viewpoint on the treatment of (fictional) women in comics? Or would you have just said it was another example of how men are trying to stamp out the feminist cause of equality?

You come off as so smug in your cloak of self-righteousness, yet you know you are hardly the fair-minded crusader you try to come off as. Issues like this have been around for as long as mankind has walked the earth and will be here until the last one takes their final step. Each side is resolute in the belief they are right and the other is wrong. There is no room for moderation, no room for adjustment, no room for compromise. One must be right, which means the other MUST be wrong. Anything that ever alludes to any other possible outcome... well, we see how you handle such things right here. And it's displays like this which is why the issues never get addressed.

Good show. Keep up the good work. The cause is lucky to have you.

[mamadeb.livejournal.com]

But that's not what WiR did (which was the source material for his post).

This is true. I'd be happier if they'd had a rough estimate of female characters compared with a rough estimate of female characters injured for whatever reasons. Also, it would be illustrative to provide numbers (however rough) of women injured to further a male plotline as opposed to furthering their own - Jade being killed to further Kyle vs. Hippolyta dying because of her own heroism, for example.

My quibble wasn't with the WiR list - this was the first I'd seen of it. My quibble was that in a genre with many, many more male characters, it doesn't make sense to say "See! Look at how many more men are injured than women. Therefore, your argument is meaningless!"

The WiR is, "See how many women are injured." Period. It would be stronger, as I said, with some statistical analysis. But most arguments would be.

As for the rest of what you said - you can read into my words what you wish. You can also read in the comments that I know that the numbers could come out against me. And I'm willing to accept that if it comes out that way.

I honestly feel that if you go by injuries and deaths without worrying about metaissues, you'd probably come out with equal percentages - both approaching 100%.

Now, the numbers of them recoverings - I'd like to know that, too.

[(Anonymous)]

"My quibble wasn't with the WiR list - this was the first I'd seen of it. My quibble was that in a genre with many, many more male characters, it doesn't make sense to say 'See! Look at how many more men are injured than women. Therefore, your argument is meaningless!'"

I understand that. But you were holding up HIS list to a higher standard than the WiR list. And the WiR list is often touted as some sort of viable proof of how inhuman treatment of female cgharacters in superhero comics shows everything from a vast male conspiracy to degrade women, to the fact that all male comic writers are misogynists. Given that, seeing you belittle HIS list and not WiR (which is the same thing) certainly put your words in a light that is less than flattering to you.

And I didn't see him as saying that any argument is meaningless, just that the WiR list, when put into perspective by a male list of the same type, doesn't really prove any of the claims so many others hold the list up as proof of.

"I honestly feel that if you go by injuries and deaths without worrying about metaissues, you'd probably come out with equal percentages - both approaching 100%."

I'd agree with this on the whole. I mean, virtually every hero (male or female), especially ones of note and popularity, have been injured/depowered/killed/brutalized and one point or another in their career. It's the neature of the beast in superhero fiction that the leads and their close supporting characters suffer such things. It's were most of the drama is supposed to come from.

Personally, I think the only thing that needs to be addressed is having more female lead characters. If there were more of them, it might prove out how equal they are in the maiming and torturing department. Of course, since female led series also are usually among the worst selling for more publishers, they are quite hesitant to want to do more of them (and from a business standpoint, it's a very valid reason).

So, what we need is to get more women making the works that might appeal to women more. Because, let's face it, any male writer, no matter how gifted, is mostly just guessing at what a woman would like to read. Abnd when in doubt, they will default to the male viewpoint, because, well, that's the viewpoint they know personally. It's not meant as a slight to women, despite how so many seem to think it is.

So, more female creators, making more female lead characters, would probably solve a lot of these issues, which is something I've believed for a long time. The problem is the female fans who expect certain publishers, who own certain characters they like, to cater the work more towards them. That's not going to happen. Brand and character loyalty have been one of the biggest banes to comics growth for quite some time. Female readers do themselves no favors indulging in it themselves, when they want issues like this addressed. Seek out good work from whoever puts it out. If there's one thing I've learned in my 20 years of reading comics, it's that when a publisher makes something sell, every other one will attempt to copy it to cash-in for themselves.

If you want better stories for female characters, with them getting more lead roles, then you need to seek out book that do that now, which you also can enjoy, and help make them successful so other will want to emulate it.

It's not as easy as firing up your blog and writing a list of female characters who've been killed and injured, but it will go a much longer way to getting your point heard and a real change to occur.

[mamadeb.livejournal.com]

You're not actually reading what I'm saying, are you?

I was commenting on madthink12357's blog post. He used WiR as a starting point, and I was commenting (okay, ranting) on the fact that he took a list of injured female characters and seemed to claim that since he could name more male injured character, the list was worthless. I'm not quibbling with the facts of either list, although I do think - as I have said - both could have used more numbers.

The list also discusses the nature of the injuries, which is something my other commentors have picked up upon, but I'm mostly interested in the numbers. I like numbers.

As for the rest of your post - oh, my.

How do I address this?

You say this.

Of course, since female led series also are usually among the worst selling for more publishers, they are quite hesitant to want to do more of them (and from a business standpoint, it's a very valid reason).

Then you say this:

So, what we need is to get more women making the works that might appeal to women more. Because, let's face it, any male writer, no matter how gifted, is mostly just guessing at what a woman would like to read. Abnd when in doubt, they will default to the male viewpoint, because, well, that's the viewpoint they know personally. It's not meant as a slight to women, despite how so many seem to think it is.

But publishers (for, as you said, good business reasons) will not pay for works that appeal to women because it won't sell. This puts us in rather a bind. Also, you're assuming that the sort of comics that appeal to women won't appeal to men.

Do you really think that men won't read comics where the female characters are whole characters instead of male appendages? Is Birds of Prey selling that badly? I hadn't heard.

And given Amazon Attacks and the upcoming GA/BC wedding issues (neither of which I personally like, you understand), it's clear that DC, at least, is trying to attract a female audience. I think it's doing so badly, but points for trying.

I do seek out books with good women writers and good roles for women. I also look for good male writers and well-written men. And good art. I'm not a one-issue person. I also write the occasional blog post, and sometimes I rant. I can multi-task that way.

[(Anonymous)]

"He used WiR as a starting point, and I was commenting (okay, ranting)"

See, that's what I was getting at. You were ranting on him for doing his list, yet did not do so for WiR, which is exactly the same thing (just on the opposite side of the gender line).

I've you talking with him in these comments and have seen you admit to not having looked at WiR before you posted about his list. So, I guess that I can forgive your "mean-spiritedness" in having ranted on only one side of the point. I hope, though, at some point, you will give as good a rant to the WiR list and those who try to espouse it as something meaningful. Fair is fair, after all. :)

"But publishers (for, as you said, good business reasons) will not pay for works that appeal to women because it won't sell. This puts us in rather a bind. Also, you're assuming that the sort of comics that appeal to women won't appeal to men."

Not at all. I know that a series like the ones we've been talking about could appeal to male readers, as well as female ones. Of course, histroy seems to suggest otherwise, what with books like The Cat and Shanna the She-Devil (the 70's version, not the recent remake by Frank Cho). Spider-Girl and Manhunter have seen the axe of cancellation swing at them how many times?

Of course, I don't see the bind you do. Yes, the MAJOR publishers will not do so, because of poor perfromance of past and current ones. That's why I said that female readers must SEEK OUT series that do this already and, provided they enjoy the work, do all they can to help make it successful (in a finanical sense). Once the major publishers see that, they will then seek to emulate it and cash-in. The problem has been the stedfast brand/character loyalty I see so many female fans hanging onto. Once they let go of that, then you can begin to change the fact female series have been such poor sellers in the past.

"And given Amazon Attacks and the upcoming GA/BC wedding issues (neither of which I personally like, you understand), it's clear that DC, at least, is trying to attract a female audience. I think it's doing so badly, but points for trying."

But see, you make the case. You say it does it badly. So, women won't want to read it or stick with it. That only hurts the cause, the next time someone complains about there not being enough female leads is series.

Again, I don't say to support bad work you don't like. That would be stupid and solve nothing. But female readers need to give up the ghost of fannish entitlement to certain characters and brand names. They have to look for what they like, not tell something they hate to change (espeically when the publisher being told to do so, can show figures of how poorly female lead series sell and get plenty of cash from the fans who are buying the work). This business is run on taking something that catches on and running it into the ground. If you want more female leads in comics, you have to help make some of them successful. Just don't expect them to come from the major publishers. You have to try out other folks stuff and make one of THEM a success. then the "big boys" will come around to where the money is flowing.

"I do seek out books with good women writers and good roles for women. I also look for good male writers and well-written men. And good art. I'm not a one-issue person."

That's great and all. But, in this case, ONE person can't make a difference. If YOU do it, that's fine. But it isn't enough. You need to have many more female readers doing it. But, from what I've seen, they are too busy blaming men for poor treatment of female characters or looking for the next cover or statue that they can find that pisses them off to rant about. All the while, they ignore a vast amount of the publishers out there, focusing on only the "Big Two" almost exclusively, and nothing ever seems to change.

This cycle must be broken and only female readers can do it. They need to decide what matters more: Getting issues addressed and working for a real and lasting change, or ranting and raving on something they hate and having nothing change.

[mamadeb.livejournal.com]

As I've repeatedly said, WiR is a DIFFERENT thing than madthinker12357's post. WiR is a *list* of the women who have been injured in comics. It's a long list. It's a very long list. I have said, also repeatedly, it would be stronger if we knew the ratio of women in general to women injured, but it doesn't take away from the fact that it's a list. But it's still a long list.

This list has been used, apparently, by many people to prove that women have been mistreated in comics. Okay.

madthinker12357 also used this list for his purposes. He used it to show that the list of men who have been injured is far longer. I took issue with this, not because he was being inaccurate, but because such a comparison is meaningless when the list of men in comics is also far longer. I'm not quibbling with either list. I'm only quibbling with the lack of statistical analysis. We were both rather arch in our posts.

As for the rest - in the comment I responded to, you said (btw, who are you?) that I'd spend my time better searching out the stories I want to read instead of writing blog posts, in order to empower women. When I said that I did, you said that one person can't change anything.

You really can't have it both ways.

I do believe that comics can and have been written to appeal to both men and women - I think all they need are good, well-rounded characterization for both male and female characters and decent plots that make sense in that universe and for those characters. I've seen it done.

The cycle must be broken, indeed. One way is to let it be known that all readers are needed - that male readers should also refuse to read exploitive stories where the women serve no purpose but as foils for men.

I'd make a point about men and entitlement, but for all I know, you're a woman.

I am entitled, btw. I am entitled to good stories with good characterization and art. Just as any other reader is. I think that the way women are often treated in my preferred reading, the superhero comics, is poor characterization, and I believe that making them stronger will only make the comics themselves better. This is for all of us, not just the women.

[batyatoon]

As <lj user="ratcreature" says, it's not about who gets injured. It's about who gets injured as part of their own story and who gets injured to provide story for somebody else.

[mamadeb.livejournal.com]

Oh, yes. I agree with that. I'd love to know (roughly) how many of those women were injured solely on their own account and not because of a male character or to advance a male plot line.

[batyatoon]

Of course, being imperiled/abducted/injured/killed to advance someone else's story isn't limited to women -- it happens to kid sidekicks and to best friends and family members. Hell, it happens to Robin (in various incarnations) all the frickin' time.

I also think that just crunching the numbers runs the risk of ignoring important differences in how the storyline is handled. I'm looking at a recent guest appearance by Zatanna in one of the Batman titles (Detective, I think), and at what happens -- and while strictly speaking it could fall within the Women In Refrigerators definitions, I don't see it that way at all.

as the author of that...

[madthinker12357.livejournal.com]

... I have to wonder, did you make the same comment when you saw WiR? Did you say, "This is just a strawman" when you saw it since you didn't know how many female and male characters there are? Did you ask if Gail had a brain?

Also please note that I made a couple other points with it. For instance, being kidnapped and losing one's powers are essentially universal to all comic characters.

Re: as the author of that...

[mamadeb.livejournal.com]

Welcome to my livejournal. Thank you for showing more courage than I did.

I didn't see that list when it first came out, so I'm not sure what my reaction would be, and I certainly do think that I would prefer hard numbers along with a list of names. Honestly, my first sighting was on your blog.

However, Gael wasn't making comparisons in this list. She was just *making a list*. Do I think she should have? Yes - a comparison of all women characters vs. women characters injured would have been something both interesting and useful.

My basic problem with your argument is that there are simply *more* male characters than female characters, and so any comparison between the two needs to be adjusted for that fact. This was not done. And if you're only dealing with the fact that they *are* injured or killed, then the percentage injured among both approaches 100%, and both your list and Gael's become useless. Superheroes and villains have dangerous jobs. Having relationships with superheroes and villains is also dangerous.

To make it work properly, meta would have to be factored in, and that's very subjective.

Re: as the author of that...

[madthinker12357.livejournal.com]

My basic problem with your argument is that there are simply *more* male characters than female characters, and so any comparison between the two needs to be adjusted for that fact. This was not done.

While I didn’t count all female and all male characters to see who many male characters I’d need to name to have the percentages match, I did make a point of naming far more male characters than there were female characters. I’m not convinced that there really are so very more male than female characters in comics. Certainly, there are more men, but are there more than 3 or 4 times as many men as women in comics? There are at least a few groups out now that have more female members than male.

And as I said earlier, I’m not trying to say that men are treated rougher than women. I’m saying that I’m not convinced that the WiR list makes a real case that women are treated rougher than men.

And if you're only dealing with the fact that they *are* injured or killed, then the percentage injured among both approaches 100%, and both your list and Gael's become useless. Superheroes and villains have dangerous jobs. Having relationships with superheroes and villains is also dangerous.

Which is something I tried to point out with my post. Things like kidnapped, tortured, and lost powers are almost universal traits to comic characters. Killed is less so, but it is worth noting that several of the characters in Gail’s list are alive again so if we include all the male characters who have been killed but are alive again, well, we more closer to being universal again.

However, Gael wasn't making comparisons in this list. She was just *making a list*. Do I think she should have? Yes - a comparison of all women characters vs. women characters injured would have been something both interesting and useful.

Right. What I said was this:

"I think you’ll get my point that it is not enough to show that women are harmed in comics, you have to show that men aren’t to the same degree in order for there to be some kind of sexism or poor treatment of female characters. I haven’t seen convincing evidence of that."

But the WiR site is referenced to a lot, a whole lot, as if it was showing something about the treatment of women. Gail doesn't say what she thinks is the cause of all this stuff happening to women, but she does suggest that it is different for women than it is for men without actually looking at what happens to men.

You can learn more about WiR here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_refrigerators

And follow the links too if you like.

BTW, thank you for saying I have courage (like the lion), but I do have a brain too.

Re: as the author of that...

[mamadeb.livejournal.com]

Just to pick nits here - I said the staw man didn't have a brain, but I can see how you'd take it differently.

And another thing!

[madthinker12357.livejournal.com]

And, yes, he claims this is just a rough draft that's been sitting around his computer for years and he just now decided to get it off his computer by posting it (um. Yeah.),

Actually, what I said was that I wanted to get it off of my work computer. I do not like having personal files on my work computer, but most of the time I have to work on blog stuff happens during my lunch and my break from work. By putting this on my blog, I could delete the file from my computer at work and still change the list while I’m at my job by accessing my blog and editing it, which I’ve done several times since posting it. That’s not so very nefarious, is it?

So this brave, swimming against the tide poster has taken the Women in Refrigerators list (this in itself is not a problem - no need to reinvent the wheel, after all) and for almost every woman on that list, he found several men who had similar injuries (or injuries he judged to be similar) and from that he deduced that more men are injured than women and so the feminists should have no complaints.

No, I didn’t deduce that. What I said was only that I was UNCONVINCED that women are killed or treated worse than men. That's not the same as saying that men are treated worse. Personally, I think women and men are about equally likely to die or get tortured or kidnapped or have their powers removed or whatever. But I'm not sure of that. I'm not sure we have a good idea of who (if anyone) is or isn't treated worse. My post says that WiR doesn't prove anything because, as you said, it doesn't compare actual percentages of characters of the different genders and what has happened to them. It just makes a list of bad things that have happened to women, but it's often treated as if the list makes some statement about how women are treated differently than men. My list just makes the point that we should be unconvinced.

And I didn't make any awful, evil, manhating feminists claims. I am a feminist.

By framing my post as something that it wasn’t, then knocking down what I didn’t say, doesn’t that make your post the straw man?

Re: And another thing!

[mamadeb.livejournal.com]

If I have something on my work computer I'd rather not be there, but isn't ready/appropriate for other eyes, I have a number of ways to get it off without posting it publicly.

Gael's list said, "Look how many women are injured" without the necessary (to me) comparison of how many women there are in general. Your list said, "But look how many *more* men are" without the necessary, to me, comparison of numbers of men vs. numbers of women. So it read as, "This argument is false because women aren't injured in the same numbers as men." If I read it incorrectly, I apologize.

I was also responding to the tone in the comments, which were pretty much, "Those evil feminists who don't care if white men are injured." Yeah, that's a joke, but it's a rather nasty one, and one you didn't take any issue against.

And I do admit to being arch about it in the title. I'm capable of making nasty jokes, too.