True story – I was in Wales with a Welsh friend who said to me, “You wanna learn some Welsh?” I said yes and she replied, “Baaaah.” I said, “That’s only funny if you say it – if I said it, it would have been condescending.”
Last month, my comments about “comics being condescending” were analyzed thoroughly by readers here – and it made me think over what I really meant when I said that. What I mean is this:
When I call dorky guys who obsess over comic art of women with unrealistic body proportions but treat actual women with fear and intolerance, “Loser Fanboys,” I am *absolutely* being condescending.
On the other hand, when I make a joke about lesbian dating and u-hauls, well then that’s tiresome, but acceptable. If *you* make that joke, you are not only being tiresome, you are also being condescending.
To me, condescension is not just talking down to someone, but talking about them in a dismissive, disempowering way. Stereotyping is condescending because it renders an entire group of individuals into a homogenous series of simplistic, often insulting, characteristics.
Erica’s Simple Guide to Condescension:
1) If you are not part of an ethnicity/gender/sexual orientation and you are depicting/referring to that group of people in a way that can be simplified into less than 10 words or one comic panel, you are being condescending.
2) If you are not part of an ethnicity/gender/sexual orientation and you are depicting/referring to that group of people in a sentence that begins with “They,” you are being condescending.
3) If your main character has two adjectives in front of his/her name, you are probably going to be condescending.
This last rule might seem weird, but let me present you with two not-at-all-random examples: Tantric Stripfighter Trina and Executive Assistant Iris. The former is a Tokyopop OEL manga, while the latter is an American comic from Aspen Comics. (And, yes, I’m going to do that thing that irritates the hell out of everyone – use two examples to make a point and act like they typify an entire industry. If that is likely to enrage you and you do not enjoy being enraged, you might want to stop here. You have been warned.)
In Trina, we are introduced to a *Tantric Stripfighter,* for pity’s sake, so you just know there’ll be no racial or gender stereotypes there. In a crucial moment (not really, it’s like the only moment I actually remember from the whole volume) Trina touches the one other woman in the series and “stimulates her pleasure centers,” so, the other woman follows her like a puppy for the rest of the volume. Presumably hoping to be “stimulated” once more. Trina is from a super advanced race that has mastered all sorts of mad fighting skills and energy work and all sorts of cool stuff, but is taken completely unaware when some brainless mooks land on their planet and slaughter everyone. And she wears pasties over her nipples which somehow makes the story suitable for teens.
In Executive Assistant Iris, a submissive Asian secretary is in reality a sex ninja assassin. To make it better, she’s the product of prison-like system in which unwanted Asian girls are trained to be assassin sex ninjas. The ringleader is – of course – a fat Chinese gang boss, with a liver-spotty face who smokes cigars.
Iris has a number of “sisters”; other repressed, silently angry, abused Asian women, who nonetheless fight for the organization that mentally, emotionally (and probably physically) raped them during their childhood. Because that’s what they were trained to do.
It’s not just the exhausting racial stereotypes that make both Trina and Iris condescending – although they certainly contribute. The gender politics are so sad, that I can barely find it in myself to comment on them. And it’s not that the teams that create both these masterpieces are comprised of male writer and male artist. Because that’s, like, a given. It’s that these were published at all.
It is everyone’s fault that condescending crap like this is still on the shelves.
It is the publishers’ fault. Publishers – when you put money into a project that condescends like these do, you are saying, “We approve of this. This speaks for us. ” It can be argued that publishers only publish what sells, which is exactly why I chose these two specific series. I can pretty much *guarantee* than neither of them sold all that well, if at all. And, instead of investing in something groundbreaking, or heck, something marginally less sad, the publisher said that they approved of this utter crap. I’m all for having comic company execs walk around with signs that say, “Why yes, we ARE condescending assholes.”
It’s the fans’ fault. I’m reading Trina and I swear I sprained my eyeballs rolling them so often, what with the constipated dialogue and hole-filled “plot.” With Iris, it was my jaw that took the hit, from yawning. The plot was the same as Dark Angel, with an extra helping of racial stereotyping for flavor. Really, fans – this is OKAY for you? You like being treated like eternal, slightly slow on the uptake 12-year olds? Never once do you look at a series and say – wow, this was insulting to my intelligence and to all Asian women? Never? Why not? What is, in fact, wrong with you? Demand better – buy better – and better will be published. When you buy crap like this and say that it’s fun and I’m “just overreacting” (which I am not, I’m just overthinking – there’s a difference) you are saying that racial and gender stereotypes are okay with you – you have no interest in seeing past them. You think that portraying all women with nearly identical, unrealistic body types and no will of their own, presented crotch and breasts first even if that requires a reshaping of their anatomy, is not only okay – it’s what you want to read. Here, have a “condescending asshole” sign.
It’s the artists’ and writers’ fault. When you draw Asian women with Western body proportions, who serve a fat Chinese triad boss as a sex ninja assassin or are a master of Tantra AND Shaolin martial arts (something I object to because the energy use for these are contrary and you’d probably only make yourself sick trying to do both at once,) you are condescending. Yes, I know you are only making entertainment, not a political statement. And yes, I am very aware that male body types in comics are just as disproportionate and extreme these days. Still, perpetuating stereotypes is not cool, or cute or clever. It’s trite and exhausting. Here’s your “condescending asshole” sign. Wear it proudly.
I am also very well aware that there are gazillions of comics that don’t fall into any of these potholes – superhero comics, manga, indie comics. I’m picking at a scab, but one that’s large enough that we should address it at least once. (“I got this scar reading comics for nearly 40 years.”)
Women do read comics – I dare say I’ve been reading and collecting them longer than most of you reading this column have been alive. Women are not opposed to sex ninja stories, or women with idealized body types in comics. What we want is to not be condescended to. It’s not that hard.
Publish something worth reading, draw/write something worth reading…read something worth reading. That’s all it takes.
Now I’m wondering what you think of Barbarella.
I’m still feeling like condescending maybe isn’t quite the right word. I think that if you call loser faboys “Loser fanboys” you’re not being condescending – you’re being mean and insulting. Condescending would be if you called them “poor dears who just haven’t yet discovered the wonders of art comics” or some such.
The distinction seems somewhat important to me, since I feel like in many cases flat out being mean is a better place to start a conversation from than condescension is. Which is why I have more sympathy for straight up exploitation fodder (which is what Tantric Stripfighter and Executive Assistant Iris sound like) than I do for something like “Yes Man” or a lot of rom-coms, which really are condescending to everyone, it seems to me.
Not that I doubt you at all when you say that Tantric Stripfighter and Executive Assistant Iris are terrible and should be destroyed.
It’s pretty well-established that I am mean, but I really don’t see a distinction between “simplifying people into a disempowering label” and condescension. And based on the above, I appear to consider pointless sexual exploitation to be part and parcel of condescension. Perhaps I’m not subtle enough to parse the distinction, but when you render a woman’s body into nothing but tits and crotch, that seems condescending by my definition.
To be honest, I have no opinion of Barbarella. I have never watched it, and don’t really have any desire to. I can make a guess what my reaction would be, based on other people’s descriptions, kind of like when I read a William Gibson novel – we never need to see the thing he can’t describe because we know how people have reacted to it. ;-)
It comes down to this – this is my definition of condescension, and it covers things that other people might like to pull apart and address separately (and perhaps with some pedantry so they don’t have to deal with the actual fact that they are being hurtful to *someone*.) I don’t think it’s unreasonable to lump it together to address both the act, the cause AND the effect and admit that it’s pretty much being an asshole, whatever you call it. :-)
Cheers,
Erica
So – hang on. When I call Lolicon fans “creepy” is that “condescending” or “mean and insulting”?
(I usually get called a lot worse.)
Because I think, to be honest, either is fine with me.
Tim – If you call all of them unconditionally creepy, you are being insulting, as is your right, but if you also refer to their small secondary sexual characteristics and moldy apartments full of questionable linens, you are also being condescending. :-)
Great article Erica! For the record, I would never characterize you as “mean.” I’d say, rather, that you don’t bother with tact unless you feel it’s been earned. :)
Oh, no, Melinda, I’m mean. It’s really well-documented. If I’ve never been mean to you, it’s only because you don’t suck. lol
Ha! Fair enough.
Excellent. Thanks for clearing that up for me :P
I agree with those who are suggesting that there’s a confusion of terms, here–that is to say, that you’ve got the right worry, but the wrong name for it.
To condescend is to treat as an equal one who is not your equal–and so for example, I, knowing my superiority, might ‘charitably’ act as if I were not so vastly superior to you. Thus, to–through my words and/or deeds–to imply that I am superior to you in my very act of treating you as an equal is to condescend (in the more common, current meaning of the term); it’s ironic false modesty.
To denigrate a group of people, especially a group with which I do not identify myself, is not therefore necessarily to condescend. I can treat people as inferior–as is the case with most objectifying treatments of women, racist treatments of ethnic groups, or belittling portrayals of sexual lifestyles–without ever condescending to them: I can simply treat ‘inferiors’ as inferiors. And so Sexy Ninja SuperSluts style comics are often degrading, offensive, and purile–but are oftentimes not condescending. And meanwhile Sex and the City 2, while perhaps less degrading, offensive, and purile (I did say “perhaps”…!), is also incredibly condescending.
Speaking of overthinking things…I looked up condescension in the OED, just for kicks. Most of the definitions actually seem to suggest that the word is “positive.” “To stoop down to a lower level below you graciously…” (lots like this). “Graciously” is the interesting word there. Usually, we see condescension, I think, as someone who THINKS of themselves as “above” us, who then “(faux) graciously” treats us as “equals”–as if s/he is doing us a favor. From “our” perspective, though, we ARE that person’s equal, so their attempts to “graciously” stoop down to our level strike us as snooty. “Stop stooping”–we are likely to say…”I’m at your level (or above) already!”. Condescending is basically the act of “stooping”.
Given that definition, we have to assume that the publishers, writers, artists, etc. actually “know better” to see them as condescending. If they are giving us racist/sexist portrayals, bad art, cliched story, etc. because they think we are on a lower level than they are–and they are “stooping” to provide us with a work on “our level”–then they’re condescending. If they are just racist, sexist, and bad at their jobs–they’re not “condescending”–they’re just idiots. It kind of depends on what motives we ascribe to them. If we assume, “no one could be this dumb, racist, sexist, etc.”–then we see it as condescension. If we assume that they are what they are–then we see it as a boatload of horsecrap.
On the level of racism, sexism–the texts (or publishers, or creators) may see people of color and women as “inferior”–but unless there is the sense that they are “stooping down” to accommodate those readers or groups, it’s not really condescension–it’s just hatefulness.
Since condescension is often a mode of racism/sexism, though, there’s room for overlap. (The idea of the “noble savage” or the “wise old Negro” are condescending, because they seem to say, “See, we do see people of color as valuable and intelligent” without any sense of social/political “reality.” The perpetuators of such ideas are “stooping” to appeal/appease certain groups they consider “below” them (or to what they perceive to be a more liberal audience) –voila–condescension.–But we catch them, because clearly they don’t see “real” black people as equal (or interesting). They just pull in the bag of stereotypes to produce (what they think are) palatable representations.
I guess I could see these books as condescending on race/gender in some ways….but it’s more out of my own intellectual charity (probably I’m condescending to them!). “These people can’t possibly have such outdated notions, can they? They must think there is an audience for these ideas, so they “stoop” to provide them.” I’d rather think of them as condescending than completely ignorant…although perhaps the truth is the latter.
On the level of quality, though, I don’t really see condescension here…just incompetence
Not that I’ve read or seen either of the titles.
Done now.
Great article! :)
I agree with the points made- although the form of condescension in comics that irks me the most is condescension towards women found in comics aimed at female readers. The very lack of variety found in shoujo and josei manga contrasted with shounen and seinen manga (especially josei vs. seinen) illustrates this (among other things).
Additionally- no offense to male comics fans- but there’s also the kneejerk reaction of some hyper-defensive fanboys to female critics trashing a title that is aimed at them and presents women poorly with, “B-b-b-but this isn’t aimed at you!! You don’t have the right to criticize it!!”
@Eric B – Great comment! I’m aware that the OED’s definition is different from our current usage – and totally different from *my* use of it – but I’ll chalk it up to usage shifting faster than definition and being an American (you know we don’t speak “English” in any case).
Cheers,
Erica
Pingback: Everyone’s a Critic | A roundup of comic book reviews and thinkpieces | Robot 6 @ Comic Book Resources – Covering Comic Book News and Entertainment