There is a kind of dichotomy inherent in any civil rights movement. On the one hand, it's generally felt that the minority should be given every opportunity to succeed in competition with the majority. On the other hand, it only seems fair that the minority should be given compensatory advantage to level the playing field with the majority.
Both philosophies are absolutely necessary. On the one side, our minority -- let's call them Quiznos -- must be given the chance to prove their sandwiches are just as tasty as Subway's sandwiches. They have to be allowed to advertise. They have to be allowed to enter submarine sandwich competitions and be rated by noted sub sandwich experts. Subway -- who want to retain their advantage, of course -- can't be allowed to prevent Quiznos from full access to the field. On the other side, Quiznos (being in the minority) toasts their sandwiches to give them that extra "oomph." They advertise heavily that their sandwiches are toasted, and they make the point that toasted sandwiches are better. They use toasting to set themselves apart from Subway, build their brand identity around toasting, and in general seek to use the toasted sandwich to compensate for Subway's greater brand recognition and market position.
(Please note the "creepy Quiznos talking baby who wants to eat sub sandwiches despite not having teeth and barely being able to tolerate mashed food" commercials versus the "how exactly did Jared manage to remain in the public consciousness this long -- all I did was eat some sandwiches as part of a weight loss plan that happened to work" commercials debate is beyond the scope of this essay.)
Now, in recent weeks Subway has also started offering toasted sandwiches. This proves that Quiznos was on to something. However, some feel that Subway should be keeping their nose out of the toasted sub business. They're already the vast majority -- both in terms of the public consciousness and in terms of number of stores -- and they're positioned to crush competitors simply by adopting their business methods and special hooks. Let Quiznos have their toasted subs, already.
The issue becomes contentious at this point. Subway acknowledges (at least publicly) that their competitors have every right to compete in the marketplace. However, they don't have a patent on putting food into an oven and Subway has to have the right to adapt to the times and serve their customers. Quiznos acknowledges (at least publicly) that their competitors have traditionally innovated and adapted to changing times However, toasting Subway's subs infringes on the unique trade dress that Quiznos has built and unfairly stacks competition against them.* At this stage, the debate becomes ugly, and extremists on either side start saying things that the sandwich-eating public really wishes they wouldn't.
On the other side of things, some well-minded communities begin setting things up to "prop up" Quiznos in their neighborhoods. They get zoning boards and Chambers of Commerce in small towns to approve a Quiznos franchise coming in, but block other national fast food chains. They give Quiznos a wide open field in their towns, without Subway to interfere, and therefore give them every possible chance to succeed. So, if you get a hankering for a submarine sandwich, you go to Quiznos. And hey, that's fair, right? I mean, sure, Subway isn't around, but there are still sandwiches to be eaten and Subway will hardly miss this one small town?
Of course, to people outside the sandwich business, this seems somehow... wrong. It looks less like it's giving Quiznos a chance to succeed and more like it's saying Quiznos can't succeed. Creating an island where Quiznos is allowed to flourish free of the majority is perfectly good for that one Quiznos, but perhaps not as good for Quiznos's overall business plan; it implies Subway is so dominant that they have to be intentionally blocked from competition lest they overwhelm Quiznos.
And of course, there are those customers who, when they learn that Subway was blocked, refuse to step foot in any Quiznos ever again. Some of them are pissed off in general. Some like Subway and they're mad it was blocked from coming into their town. Some figure that if Quiznos needs that kind of leg up, it's probably not all that good in the first place. And some feel guilty over Subway's dominance and avoid the whole thing.
In other words, the dichotomy becomes subverted. Rather than allowing Quiznos to succeed, the system restricts Subway instead. Subway adopts the advantages Quiznos used, and are hampered as a result. And in the end, Quiznos gets more business, but loses ground to Subway. And nothing actually changes.
Which is probably why I have some problem with Girlamatic.
Girlamatic is one of the various Joey Manley-owned and operated, subscriber based websites. You know, the ones we used to call the "Modern Tales Family of Websites" and which now I think we're supposed to... um... well, something or other to do with WebComicsNation, or... um... well, yeah. Anyway, Girlamatic has a great reputation and some of the absolute best webcartoonists on the web today writing and drawing for it.
And yet, I find myself... well... not reading those webcomics. I don't have a policy against it. I actually subscribe to Girlamatic. I have tremendous respect for Girlamatic's editor, Lea Hernandez. And some of the webcartoonists I like the most are associated with Girlamatic. Hell, Shaenon Garrity, whose strip Narbonic got my highest award for humor comics last year, writes Li'l Mell, which is about one of my favorite Narbonic characters. I should be all over this thing.
But I'm not, because... well, because I'm a man.
Before the Great Modern Tales Family Crash of 2005, Girlamatic had the following on their front page:
Girlamatic.com features webcomics (mostly) by women, (mostly) for women. It's not about busting anybody's, um, balls, though. It's about good webcomics. If you like good webcomics, you'll like girlamatic.com. And girlamatic.com will like you!
It's worth noting I take the above at its word. Girlamatic really didn't want to exclude men, either from writing or drawing comics or from coming and reading the comics on the site. They weren't zoning to keep Subway out, so much as they were celebrating what Quiznos was. And they were seeking to provide a place on the web where women might find comics that appeal to them -- and it would be cool if guys did too.
And yet, I always felt like... well... like Girlamatic's comics weren't for me. Like I'd be caught out and forced to march out of town if I read them. It's not that I've ever been told I can't... it's like I feel like I'd be intruding if I did.
It's not the fault of Hernandez or anyone at Girlamatic. It's endemic to the nature of a specific group's entertainment site. I also don't watch Black Entertainment Television or Lifetime. It's not because there's nothing on those channels I might like -- I honestly don't know if there is or not, because I never look at them in the first place. I'm a WASP male, through and through, and spending time in the places set up for minorities to express themselves for themselves and others in their minority group by their definitions seem to exclude me.
There's a little liberal guilt thrown in as well, which honestly is screwed up six ways from Sunday. Because I'm a liberal, and honestly believe in feminism, in giving women every chance to succeed, and in creating advantageous positions to level a playing field too long canted towards men, a site like Girlamatic makes me feel guilty. It's not that I wouldn't love Quiznos's delicious sandwiches -- it's that as a Subway customer I feel somehow responsible for creating the conditions that led to Quiznos needing to keep Subway out of town. Perhaps I don't deserve to eat at Quiznos. It's not for me.
Does this all sound ridiculous? Perhaps. But we're not discussing logical responses. We're discussing the emotional reactions of a guy solidly in the majority when confronted with something (mostly) by a minority (mostly) for a minority. A ton of baggage gets unearthed by the mere existence of Girlamatic, and I have subconscious reactions that gets in the way of my just enjoying Girlamatic.
So I don't. When I go looking for something new to read, I check out PVComics, or Keenspot, or Graphic Smash, or Modern Tales. It's not a conscious decision. I just never think to go to Girlamatic. And as a result, Girlamatic strips don't end up on my part of Websnark or in my Comixpedia column -- which is a disservice to Girlamatic, I know this. I acknowledge this. But it's just the way things are.
I don't offer a solution, or even a suggestion, here. The fault is in me, not in Girlamatic. And yet, I'm pretty sure I'm not the only (male) webcomics reader out there who feels this way. Ping Teo, in her recent Comixpedia Soapbox, says she thinks Women in Webcomics shouldn't be an issue in the first place. I can't speak to that. However, I think that a collective like Girlamatic makes it an issue... without necessarily doing any favors either for the people involved, or for women as a whole.
* Please note -- this is just an example. I have no clue how Quiznos has reacted to toasted Subway subs. Seriously, though. That talking baby is creepy.
Eric Alfred Burns is a staff columnist for Comixpedia. He is the creator of Websnark and the writer of Gossamer Commons.
About: Eric Burns is the founder and half of Websnark, and the writer of Gossamer Commons. His latest project is The Adventures of Brigadier General John Stark. Burns has also written for Steve Jackson Games, Decipher Games, and was a co-author of the ENnie nominated Sidewinder: Wild West Adventures for Citizen Games. He is listed as a "Contributing Author" for the Gold ENnie award winning Sidewinder: Recoiled, but one shouldn''t read too much into that.
And yet, I'm pretty sure I'm not the only (male) webcomics reader out there who feels this way.
Secondly, I shall now throw in a confusing food analogy I used somewhere else to make my point.
Here is the difference between labelling a line-up as "(Mostly) For Vegetarians" and "Containing No Animal Products".
"For Vegetarians" says: "Vegetarians! I am for you!".
"Containing No Animal Products" says: "I don't have anything made from animals in Me!" and leaves it at that, giving the choice of whether it's suitable for the consumer to the consumer who may be vegetarian or omnivorous.
In short, one makes a presumption about the consumer while the other sticks to just describing the product.
I am for describing the product and leaving the consumer alone. The reason: A person who eats meat would still go for the no-meat option, but in labelling something as "for vegetarians", the meat-eater automatically feels excluded psychologically. The second description is therefore every bit, (if not more) accurate as the first and less hostile and presumptious to the consumer.
Actual product is awesome. Pity about the packaging.
And yet, I always felt like... well... like Girlamatic's comics weren't for me. Like I'd be caught out and forced to march out of town if I read them. It's not that I've ever been told I can't... it's like I feel like I'd be intruding if I did.
...made me chuckle because, on some days, that's exactly what it's like to be a woman surrounded by an intensely masculine world.
However, I think that a collective like Girlamatic makes it an issue... without necessarily doing any favors either for the people involved, or for women as a whole.
I dunno. Does the existence of GraphicSmash make an issue about "action readers" versus "non-action readers"? Does it imply that "action comics" are disadvantaged or discriminated against at other sites, that they need to band together in order to survive? Does anyone think that, by declaring themselves to be a site for "action comics", they're trying to "stick it to the man"? Does it imply that all "action fans" have similar tastes, that everyone who likes swashbuckling period adventure must also like gritty superhero drama, or superhero comedy, or wombats? I don't feel that it does. All it seems to do is say, "Here are some pretty good action comics. If you like action comics, you might like these comics. If you don't like action comics, well, you might still like these comics, they're pretty good". It's possible that a fan of romantic drama or quirky slice-of-life comedy might stumble upon the site, get turned off by the "action" label, leave, and end up missing out on some comics they might otherwise have liked. Why should this be considered a disadvantage to the creators or to the site? "Action" is the market they chose, and they seem to be doing okay with just "action fans" and readers who don't have any hangups about the "action" label.
There's a bit more going on in the Quizno's/Subway war you may not have heard about. First, note that Subway used to sell Pepsi products. Quizno's sold Coca-Cola products.
In 2003 when Subway started losing customers to Quizno's, Coca-Cola approached Subway with a deal. They offered to buy a toasting oven for every single Subway store, if Subway would switch to selling Coke. Subway agreed -- who wouldn't?
This, of course, got Quizno's angry at Coke. So Quizno's has now switched to Pepsi.
The moral? All of this -- the menu options, the advertising war, the community support shenanigans, all of it are just moves in a chess game played by extremely powerful and unbelievably greedy men and corporations. That doesn't apply directly to Girlamatic and Modern Tales, but it does illustrate that we really have no idea why the organizers of those websites set up the restrictions and climate they have.
So don't examine your motivations and feelings about these games, because if you truly understood them all your head would probably explode. Be who you are and don't be guilty about it. If that means eating at Subway or avoiding Girlamatic, so be it. If you're destined in life to be a pawn (and 99.999% of us are, let's not have any illusions) might as well be a proud and happy pawn, and patronize those things that you genuinely think you enjoy. :)
Eric, have you read all the damn comics on Girlamatic? Do you have any idea what you're missing out on? You seem mighty conflicted on the whole issue, and Shaenon has pointed out that your ARE a subscriber. The whole Subway/Quiznos thing was a poor analogy that just made your argument all the more poorer, and more like some wierd kind of coverup to hide the confessional.
If a man's a real man, they won't give a crap about squirming a bit about reading a pro-girl website. You shouldn't care so much about what others think, and just DO IT. If anything, noticing those subsconcious reactions is a good thing, realizing that you have that baggage is good. It helps you get over it.
Likewise Girls--- just because something is girl-oriented in some fashion, it doesn't automatically mean that you'll be seen as weaker for reading it. The posts I read on Eric's blog kind of creeped me out, some from men and some from women- if these are the reactions a comic site with a majority of women on it gets, clearly there is something wrong.
If it was a site with majority males, would a woman be posting like this? I find it disturbing that there's a doublestandard- more gender crossover for male-oriented fandoms, while ever mildy female-oriented ones experience less gender crossover due to isses like those you expressed.
People, read the comics themselves, then critique them, and leave the whole gender baggage thing where it belongs- in the TRASH. Theres girls and boy cartoonists on the site for a reason- so it isn't some exclusionary thing. It's about INCLUDING. Why call it Girlamatic? Well, it's kind of cathcy, and again, celebration :) It's like one of our cartoonists, Matt, said recently- "No boy wants to hang out with girls, because girls have cooties. But
men know the magic secret that cooties are actually AWESOME"
Eric, read the damn comics and learn to get over this issue, then write an article that actually critique the Comics, for good or bad, rather then some wishy washy editorial. Let the comics speak for themselves. We're not making it an issue, we're celebrating it, we're celebrating being just a little bit different, and are saying yes, you could, and should, be part of the fun. I've noticed that GAM is rarely covered on Comixpedia, and if it's because of these reasons, then that's a shame.
"If a man's a real man, they won't give a crap about squirming a bit about reading a pro-girl website."
That's the second person to go down that path. It honestly misses the point.
Want me to be unequivocal? Fine.
Girlamatic says they're by women, for women. With, admittedly, "mostly" thrown in there. Fine. To me, that says I'm not invited, and I don't go where I'm not invited.
"Eric, read the damn comics and learn to get over this issue, then write an article that actually critique the Comics, for good or bad, rather then some wishy washy editorial."
You know what?
No.
Said editorial wasn't about the comics. It was about the presentation of them. And honestly, you've convinced me it's a bad idea to go anywhere near them now. It's no win for me now.
I'm all for celebration. What I was trying to tell you -- and clearly failing at -- was celebrating in exclusionary terms may hurt you more than it helps. I'm comfortable enough with my masculinity to read 'girl comics.' I'm not rude enough to go where I'm not wanted, though.
And I'm also comfortable enough with my masculinity to treat challenges to it -- and dares -- as sure signs I don't want to be involved.
First Ping Teo says that women in webcomics are not an issue. Then Eric Burns says he won't read comics because they're marketed as 'for women.' So women-centric and women-friendly comics makes a prominent web reviewer incomfortable. There's inherent sexism here, and that damn straight makes 'women in webcomics' an issue.
Burns is saying two things: he's saying that a) the comics are good, and b) he won't read them because they're on a site 'for women.' So he's judging the comics not on individual merit, but on their group branding (Why? Because he thinks that all comics made to appeal to women are the same? because women creators are alien to his realm of experience?). He's admitted that this is a gut reaction. It sure is: the traditional male horror of all things feminine. So horrible, apparently, that not even journalistc integrity can cause him to surmount it.
He's writing for Comixpedia, so he has a responsibility to at least explore what's on the site and see how that matches the branding. If this article had appeared on his websnark blog, then I wouldn't have cared, personally, because a blog's a blog- a repository of personal thoughts. But this kind of personal '"ew, girls!"' atitude should have no place on a site ostensibly for news and criticism.
I have a comic on Girlamatic. It's called Sevenplains. I ask male and female readers to come over to our site, preview our comics. If you don't like them, fine. But you might. Like Ping Teo says, try to step out of your comfort zone every once in awhile, you pussies.
And Quiznos is less popular than subways because it costs more. Average sandwich is $6 in my area. Same thing in Subways is $4. GAM subscriptions cost the same as Burns's favorites Moderntales and Graphicsmash. So there.
No mean kids are going to barge into your house to snatch it away, saying "It's for girls SILLY!!!", if you try to read it.
There are plenty of reasons for not wanting to read some comics. It could be that you don't find them appealing at first glance, or that you don't have the time, or any number of other perfectly legitimate reasons. But what you seem to be implying here is that you won't read the comics of a number of creators who you'd otherwise be delighted to read because... the text on the website hurts your feelings, I guess. It just seems a little strange.
You're right that it's not "for" you. And that's okay, right? I mean, not everything has to be "for" people similar to you. Not everything has to be "for" everyone in order to be good or enjoyable. Most girls learn at a young age to accept that a lot of entertainment is created with someone other than them in mind.
I think if Graphic Smash had marketed itself as "Comics for Action Fans by Action Fans!" I would have had an issue with THAT because it was making a presumption on the part of the readers and the creators. And despite doing a Mystery/Action/Adventure comic, I don't exactly consider myself an Action fan. I'm more of a Mystery/Adventure person. *shifty eyes* (Don't fire me, T!)
But instead GS stuck to "A collection of the best action webcomics of the 21st century" or something like that (Or at least I think that was what it used to be, somebody check that for me) which isn't quite the same thing.
The difference is that it doesn't try to tell the audience whether it was for them or not. (Suitable for Action/Adventure Fans) Instead it told the audience about the comics themselves. It 'celebrates' the content that might interest the target market. (i.e. Contains Action/Adventure!)
And I think it's just that slight wording angle that makes all the difference in the world, really.
It's the kinda like difference between saying "Check this out! You will like this!" (which really annoys me if the person in question is someone who doesn't know fut about me) and "Check this out! It's [A] about [B] and I think it's pretty good!"
Er...I really think you're missing Eric's point entirely. Lay off. I don't think he's saying at all that he won't read them because OMG! They're girly! Eww! Cooties! or anything of the sort. Nowhere did he say that he doesn't like comics by women. (As a matter of fact, I know he reads mine, and last time I checked, I was female.) Eric's not telling anybody to get barefoot, pregnant, and go make him a sandwich. Let's all just caaaaalm down.
I think he's trying to make a very mature, and very well-crafted point that when you market things FOR a group, people outside that group--who want, really badly, to support that group, who feel a certain amount of inherent guilt about the way that group has been treated--don't know if they're welcome or not. And feel a little weird about getting involved.
For example, I'm a white chick. I don't attend Indian pow-wows. I think they're probably really cool, and the odds are good that I would be welcome if I was polite and respectful and all that, but...well...they're for another culture, and I don't know how they'd feel about mine showing up. Does this mean that I hate Native Americans? Am I sitting here going "Ew, indians!" Hell no! But I can't shake the feeling that the people who the pow-wows are for might not be comfortable with me there, and since I have enormous respect for said cultures, and feel a measure of guilt for the way my culture rode roughshod over theirs, the last thing I'd want to do is make people feel like bugs under glass, or have anyone think I'm trying to McDonaldize their culture, or any of the other things that I'd get worried they'd think.
Is this an ideal solution? Hell no! But it's the way it IS. At the end of the day, I'm so paralyzed with fear of giving offense to a persecuted minority that I just stay away from things that are supposed to be FOR said minority, so that there's no chance I'll give offense. And then I feel guilty about THAT because it's assuming that said minority isn't tough enough to take the stuff that everybody else can, but I'm only trying to do the right thing, and shit, it's all so confusing, I think I need some aspirin.
Do ya see the difference between "I'm human and I feel bad and I don't know if I'd do the right thing and I don't want to risk hurting anybody's feelings and I don't even know if that's the right way to feel about it at all, but maybe there isn't a right way, and I'm just muddling through as best I can" and "Custer should have wiped out the bastards when he had the chance?" Because to my mind, there's a big difference between the two, just as there's a big difference between what Eric said, and "Ew! Girls!"
Yeah, I'm with ya on this one. It's like the difference between candy sweetened with nutrasweet, and candy "for diabetics." I'd eat the first one, but it wouldn't even occur to me to try the second, because...well...that's for somebody else! It says so on the label! I mean, they might be the exact same thing under the wrapper, but I've been told that the one is for somebody specifically other than me.
Well, even if it's not exactly the sort of coverage an editor dreams of, thanks, Eric, for writing about GirlAMatic.com. I don't agree with you, (I always thought GAM's design was pretty generic), BUT it's always helpful to have another point of view. The fact that there IS more than one POV about GAM tells me we're doing something, we're making an impact, and that's all good.
Nothing is ever going to please everyone, and GAM is no exception. I built what I wanted to read, I picked the name. FYI, the "we're not out to bust anyone's balls" line has been gone forever, and "(mostly) by women" has been gone for some time, too.
We have a brand-new slogan guaranteed to become the lynchpin of many articles to come. Or not.
I gots an award-winning subscription webcomics site to run.
And a nap. Man, I need a NAP.
Thanks again, Eric, for provoking thought and discussion. I hope the curious will come by, see GAM for themselves, and decide how they feel about it.
P.S.: Speaking as an editor here, try making an analogy in three paragraphs or less next time. I love Quizno's (because they don't have insta-soggyTM breads), but come on, fully half your article was about sandwhiches. You made me hungry.
*sigh* That was the point of my column, really. Learning to understand contexts and how they apply.
A) If you're talking about print comics in the real world, then if there is a bias inherent (and I have been convinced by many accounts what I have seen that it does appear exist to some level) then I can see why people would need to come together to counteract this kind of discrimination.
B) But in WEBcomics, I have yet to see a webcomics hosting site that allowed sign-ups based on gender. Keenspace does not. Drunk Duck does not. As far as I know none of them do. All creators have equal opportunity to start a webcomic as long as they have a comic to start.
C) I have also not heard of 'professional' webcomic sites where the comics were selected based on the gender of the creator or where the gender of a creator gave them a better chance to be picked over another creator of the same standard but different gender... except for maybe GAM. I don't know about Keenspot, but I'm pretty sure that my comic was extended an invitation because of the nature of its content, and NOT because I was female and T Campbell wanted to up the balance of female creators in GS. And I give you my word that IF one day I should find out that the reason my comic was chosen for the fact I have two ovaries and NOT because it was a mystery/action/adventure comic that the editor liked, then that will also be the day I hand in my resignation.
D) That's why I don't see the point to this kind of counter-action in WEBcomics. Yes, women had to fight for the vote and equal rights in real life. Yes, some editors apparently won't take work from females because they're afraid male readers won't read them because they're done by a girl. *rolls eyes*
The question to ask here is: Is this attitude widespread and prevalent in webcomics? Would T Campbell be less likely to take a comic because it's done by a female and 'action-adventure readers don't want to read comics done by a girl'? Would the Fab Four be less likely to Spot a comic because it's done by a girl? Are only male readers allowed to vote on Buzzcomix?
No. Not that I'm aware of.
That's why I don't think it should be an issue. Women's rights may be a major issue in real life. I should know. I grew up in a backwater town where my being female alone meant a free licence for any man to harass me on the street. I've had remarks like 'why should girls take technology classes? Girls shouldn't need to know about computers' and 'girls don't play computer games' and 'girls should grow up to be good housewives for a man and bear children' and "girls shouldn't work or have careers after marriage" constantly harped at me.
As you can tell, I did not agree with this. For things like this I will campaign for women's rights tooth and nail.
Does this justify that I drag this emotional gender baggage into another area in my life (webcomics) where other males already treat me as equals just because as a female, I have been treated shoddily elsewhere in real life?
NO.
Like that other guy Andre said: Leave the gender-baggage in the trash where it belongs.
That's why I don't think women in webcomics is an issue. That's why I don't see the point in affirmative action against a problem that doesn't seem to be present in webcomics.
Because for every action there is a reaction. And if there first action doesn't appear to be there, everyone will be wondering "What are you reacting against?".
It's the crying of "Wolf!" where the wolves don't run. And if the wolves don't run there, the spectator is left wondering "There are no wolves here. There's only you and me. Who are you calling wolf?!"
As another Girlamatic artist, I wanted to weigh in on the opposite side of the issue from most of the comments so far.
I agree with most of what Eric said.
I agree that the way we present ourselves tends to be, not necessarily exclusionary to men, but certainly off-putting, in the same way that a pinup of a big-breasted half-nude chick over the comics aisle might be off-putting to women. It is hypocritical for us to call attention to the one situation while ignoring and defending the other.
Girlamatic has a strong, solid line-up of comics and artists, including Eisner nominee Raina Telgemeir. My own series, Kismet, is a sci-fi space opera with a readership about evenly split between men and women. I think our comics speak well for themselves. BUT ... they will never be able to speak to our audience if they never make it to our audience.
And, if we are alienating half our potential audience by the way we present ourselves, I think this represents a serious PR problem on our part -- something that we should consider and address, not dismiss out of hand. Further, I don't think jumping down the throat of anyone who brings this to our attention is going to help our cause at all. So far in this thread, I have seen unprofessional behavior by other Girlamatickers that is personally embarrassing and, frankly, very frustrating to me. You can disagree with someone in a polite and professional way. You can make your point without shouting and calling names. Insulting people who represent opposing points of view makes all of us look bad.
I have to admit that i avoided Girlamatic for a while because of that "for woman etc" tagline. A friend sent me the link to the site a while ago and recommended one of the comics. I clicked on the link took one look at that "comics by woman etc" tagline and left I am a woman and to be honest i found it offensive that the site felt it needed to brand it's self like that. honestly i don't care if the comics i read are created by men, women or hamsters as long as they're good.
I did go back weeks later, when a friend [who is male] recomended another comic on the site, and this time i actually read all the comics on the site. I liked some, hated others, and was indifferent to a few and for me that's the way it should have been the first time. I should have been allowed to judge the comics as comics but having that tagline basicly said to me i must judge these comics differently then i would other comics.
the only analogy i can think of to illustrate my point is Gay vs straight [dont everyone freak out just yet read the rest!] I have alot of gay friends and alot of straight friends. I go to both straight bars and gay bars. I don't care which, i feel comfortable in either but i have taken straight friends to bars that say above the door they are a "gay bar but straight friendly". Regardless of this statment most of my straight friends don't feel comfortable in the gay bar. They are in no way homopobic, they just feel like they are intruding in a world that is not there for them, no matter how good a night they have, they always feel like there's a wall there and they never relax fully as they are afraid of accidently saying something "wrong". The same goes for my gay friends going to straight bars, of course there is no law saying that they can't, there's no alarm going to start ringing when they walk in the door, but they too feel like they just can't relax.
Maybe this is an extreme example but that's how i see girlamatic, no, there is nothing stopping men from reading the comics, they dont ask for a DNA sample when you subscribe to check your chromosomes, but by branding the site as they did it creates the segregation. Men can feel intimidated to give an honest opinion of a comic for fear of getting the "your a man you don't understand". I'm not saying anyone on girlamatic would say this but that doesn't mean the implication of it isnt there. I can say that i don't like all the comics on the site but then i feel like i should say i like them all because its for women and i'm a woman and we need to support each other blah blah
There's a difference in being a site for a "genre" and being a site for an "minority"
i don't know if i made any sense but thats my two cents.
But you might. Like Ping Teo says, try to step out of your comfort zone every once in awhile, you pussies.
*blinks* For a moment there I though you meant my column, then I realised you were probably talking about this hotspot.
I stand by what I said. I do not think it is an issue. (repeat of other comment here. I'm lazy and short on time)
1) In WEBcomics, I have yet to see a webcomics hosting site that allowed sign-ups based on gender. Keenspace does not. Drunk Duck does not. As far as I know none of them do. All creators have equal opportunity to start a webcomic as long as they have a comic to start.
2) I have also not heard of 'professional' webcomic sites where the comics were selected based on the gender of the creator or where the gender of a creator gave them a better chance to be picked over another creator of the same standard but different gender... except for maybe GAM. I don't know about Keenspot, but I'm pretty sure that my comic was extended an invitation because of the nature of its content, and NOT because I was female and T Campbell wanted to up the balance of female creators in GS. And I give you my word that IF one day I should find out that the reason my comic was chosen for the fact I have two ovaries and NOT because it was a mystery/action/adventure comic that the editor liked, then that will also be the day I hand in my resignation.
3) That's why I don't see the point to this kind of counter-action in WEBcomics. Yes, women had to fight for the vote and equal rights in real life. Yes, some editors apparently won't take work from females because they're afraid male readers won't read them because they're done by a girl. *rolls eyes*
4) The question to ask here is: Is this attitude widespread and prevalent in webcomics? Would T Campbell be less likely to take a comic because it's done by a female and 'action-adventure readers don't want to read comics done by a girl'? Would the Fab Four be less likely to Spot a comic because it's done by a girl? Are only male readers allowed to vote on Buzzcomix?
No. Not that I'm aware of.
Eric himself clearly stated he has no problems, nor does he feel uncomfortable reading comics by girls, or comics that are female friendly. His already stated it was the way it was presented that was the problem.
Personally, I don't feel very confident in reading stuff marketed as "for females" either. Because I don't believe in a generalised female genre, and chances are, I won't see eye-to-eye (and thus identify with) with the tastes of someone who brands something like that.
If so many people have voiced discomfort (including several females, I might add) with the presentation, maybe, just maybe there really could be a problem there.
Girlamatic was started around the same time as Serializer.net and Adventurestrip.com. All three Modern Tales spin-off sites were explicitly targetted to one degree or another. Serializer was highbrow, Adventurestrips was old-fashioned adventure, and Girlamatic was LeaCentric. I'm not sure the exact sales figures, but Girlamatic was signifigantly more successful than Adventurestrips, and roughly on a par with Serializer.
Target marketing risks turning away some readers, but can also benefit by attracting new readers. Lifetime Television, for instance, is a very successful network, and there are many other examples of successful target marketing to women.;
Comics is an area where target marketing to women has great potential, because comics have traditionally been marketted predominantly to young males. I'm not sure if Girlamatic is the ideal means to open the floodgates of that market; readers seem to react better to code words than they do to explicit labeling. But I have no doubt that the basic idea of the site is very practical.
BTW, Girlamatic has been so successful artistically that it's astounding to hear that any conscientious webcomics fan would avoid the site. This is where Dicebox and The Stiff are published, after all!
I gotta admit, Burns makes a good point about marketing. I think that an increasing number of men enjoy work marketed to women and take it at face value- like male fans of shoujo. Male fans of Estrigious. The whole throng of male cartoonists who are redefining cute- James Kochalka, Tom Hart, Kazu and the Flight people, the entire contingent of cartoonists in the Bay Area (haha, just joking) and of course, the guys of GAM. I think there's a larger crossover audience than Burns implies, esecially in the anime and manga fandoms. These male fans, I assume, are drawn to the atitude and tone of the aforementioned works. I would not want to see these potential fans feel unwelcome simply because they're not considered a primary audience.
GAM would definitely benefit more by promoting this atitude- cuteness, fun, sass, playfulness with assertiveness, emotional youth (NOT CHILDISHNESS), emphasizing character interaction versus plot complexity, a conscious attempt at avoiding mysogyny, community- than trying to define an audence of mostly women. I think it's these characteristics, more than gender of readership or creator, that define GAM's comics.
These are the same qualities I tried to promote in the 'shoujo Manga anthology,' and which women like myself look for in comics.
And as for sandwiches... Why have neither Subway nor Quiznos offered paninis, the hottest sandwich trend since vegemite?
"the text on the website hurts your feelings, I guess. It just seems a little strange."
What's wrong with that logic? A website conveys itself in a particular way, and you find unattractive, and you'd rather not read the content. And that's wrong because...?
Ultimately, the reason I avoid Girlamatic like the plauge is that I see so many of the people involved acting like you have insulted the entire female race if you dare (dare!) to even suggest you're not comfortable with the ideas behind the site. It's downright stupid sometimes, and I'd never get away with acting like that if someone said they didn't like my comic. It's sort of like the cause outweighs the comics on that site, and you're just not allowed to question, lest you be attacked by its various members. I don't bother anymore, and I expect to have tomatos thrown at me now...
Oh, don't get me wrong. I think you're probably right about this. There are areas where x minority has been oppressed and that can bleed into other areas, but webcomics doesn't seem to be one of them. That's a good thing and maybe looking too hard at it could screw it up. But andrael's analogy seems flawed to the point of uselessness to me so I said so.
Has anyone else wondered about the "Under the Matress Comics" ad on the sidebar? It's sort of at odds with the subject matter, no?
Or is this what we get when the playing field is level?
I have no argument for someone who feels GAM's not for them--perhaps it's not. But is an essay discussing it that's bracketed by an ad you wouldn't want someone to see over your shoulder any better?
Has anyone else wondered about the "Under the Matress Comics" ad on the sidebar? It's sort of at odds with the subject matter, no?
Actually I was wondering when someone was going to comment on that.
Personally I think that ad is rather in poor taste. Definitely off-putting to anyone who isn't attracted to females with improbable bustlines. A perfect example of the kind of advertising I hate (making a presumption on the viewer instead of describing the product itself.) In this case they assumed the readers HAD to be male, even though females are known to read erotica as well. *rolls eyes* Their loss. I highly doubt I'd feel compelled to click it or buy any of their stuff.
Or is this what we get when the playing field is level?
Ok, you lost me here. I'm not sure what you're trying to say... Do you mean sexually oriented ads only occur on a level playing field?
Those are ads for some sort of adult comics, not for Comixpedia itself. I don't think Comixpedia has ever made it point to market itself as a webzine for any gender. It's a level playing field, If I'm not mistaken anyone else is every bit as free to put up ads for tampon humour or slash comics or whatever else that might be off-putting to men.
I have no argument for someone who feels GAM's not for them--perhaps it's not.
I don't think the problem is that people automatically feel GAM's not for them. I think the problem is that the way it's marketed makes them feel it's not for them.
I mean, look at that "Under the Matress" ad as an example. The way it's presented automatically makes any woman (unless they're attracted to women) feel like whatever those guys are selling, it's not for them.
Which may not be necessarily be true. On closer inspection that ad seems to advertise adult/mature comics, and I'm some women read erotica too.
Same thing with the inverse. If you present something as for a specific target group, the other groups that aren't addressed automatically feel it's not for them, regardless of whether it really is.
And then with that "Under the Matress" ad as an example again. I'll wager not every guy who sees that ad is going to be impressed either. In fact I suspect a few of them are going to be insulted by the insinuation that they're sad enough to lust after some fictional female with badly porportioned boobs just because they're men.
The same for females who are presented with 'comics for girls' just because they're 'girls'
On one hand one could argue because stuff like "Under the Matress" exist, then the inverse should too. Fair enough. But if people are allowed to be put-off by ads like that without having to be labelled 'insecure, jealous, females' then surely fairness dictates everyone else should be free to be put-off by anything else without automatically be labelled as 'insecure, threatened, [insert gender here]'.
(Not saying that anyone here has actually said such things, but this is an example here)
But is an essay discussing it that's bracketed by an ad you wouldn't want someone to see over your shoulder any better?
I'd put it in the same league as the GirlAMatic forum, which if I recall correctly, is bracketed by ads that occasionally feature full-frontal nudity (and many of them of women) in them. I wouldn't blame GAM for the ads, or would I think any less of their comics/readers just because they frequent a forum where some ad next to them seems to be at odds with their policy of a 'female-friendly' environment. After all, they don't control those ads.
Similarly Eric and Comixpedia aren't the same entities. I wouldn't blame Eric of being a hypocrite for ads that he doesn't control, and which at the time of the writing of his article, he probably didn't know they were going to be bracketed next to anyway.
Eric, I apologize the the "Man" stuff, I admit I was overly sensitive, and flew off the handle, although it was mostly because I found a lot of what you said somewhat shocking. It's an issue I've never really had myself as a male, and I have often felt welcome and comfortable in many similar situations as you found yourself in when you wrote this. I've taken several courses in women's literature and an Art History seminar oriented in feminism, and I never really felt exiled or out of place in them. Mabye it's just my upbringing, or my personality, I'm not sure. I just couldn't really concieve someone feeling this way about something as simple as a webcomics site. As an English student, I was simultaenously confused by your poor use of metaphor, which took up more then 1/2 the article [you have to admit, it went on to long, and was quite vague, somewhat hard to connect the analogy to... essays should be concise and to the point, even if they deal with personal issues ]. It was very one sided, and could of used more indepth discussion about the feelings you felt as a result of "Gam's exisitence". The lack of research was somethingelse I felt you should of looked into more- as in reading the comics, which is something that would of helped your arguement, using them to help support your concept [ie- "Some of these comics are ones men might enjoy a lot, and would benefit from a less-political/socially-fueled marketing technique" etc].
I admit I should of had more tack, and presented my response in a more clarified, less personal manner. Sorry if I caused any offense, and I hope you continue to explore this issue. I'm choosing to leave the post as is, as what's said is said and done, and will try to express things more positively in future postings related to your articles.
It's clear that Girlamatic has raised some issues. So it pisses people off that it's marketed to women. fair enough. It even pisses people off that the site's women contributors have complained, because it makes 'women look bad'? Hello? Just because we refute an article we're suddenly Nazi Feminists? Why isn't anyone giving Sequential Tart the same shit? You see any male reviewers over there? -If you even read Sequential Tart. Oh, but it's a woman reviewers/writers-only site. Woops, I guess Eric Burns isn't welcome there either.
Don't read it. Your loss. That said, Girlamatic is not going to back down on the woman issue.
In fact, I will do everything in my (limited) power to make Girlamatic CHANGE ITS COLOR TO NEON PINK AND MAKES ROSES AS ITS LOGO and have a huge VENUS sign on the homepage, just to let people know where we stand.
The sandwish analogy is a pretty bad parallel to the point you're trying to make. Shouldn't you be making comparisons with other minority groups that are being marketed to? This still reads more as a rant than an article.
I suppose. It just seems to me, it would be one thing if he said "I don't really know anything about these comics, but I got a look at the site and it didn't give me a good impression so I don't feel like reading them." But this seems to be more like, "These comics seem pretty good and I think I would probably enjoy them, except the text on the website says it's not for me so I won't." Text that isn't even actually on the site anymore.
Not to mention that he says he has a subscription. Why subscribe to something you don't want to or plan to read? You can't use webcomics to line your birdcage or impress guests by leaving it on your coffee table. I just find it strange. If I was already shelling out the money for them anyway, I would probably check out some of the comics while I was at it. Or else cancel my subscription.
And the only time I ever read Maxim is when I go to the hair salon.
Comments
Re: Feeding Snarky by Eric Burns
First things first:
And yet, I'm pretty sure I'm not the only
(male)webcomics reader out there who feels this way.Secondly, I shall now throw in a confusing food analogy I used somewhere else to make my point.
Here is the difference between labelling a line-up as "(Mostly) For Vegetarians" and "Containing No Animal Products".
"For Vegetarians" says: "Vegetarians! I am for you!".
"Containing No Animal Products" says: "I don't have anything made from animals in Me!" and leaves it at that, giving the choice of whether it's suitable for the consumer to the consumer who may be vegetarian or omnivorous.
In short, one makes a presumption about the consumer while the other sticks to just describing the product.
I am for describing the product and leaving the consumer alone. The reason: A person who eats meat would still go for the no-meat option, but in labelling something as "for vegetarians", the meat-eater automatically feels excluded psychologically. The second description is therefore every bit, (if not more) accurate as the first and less hostile and presumptious to the consumer.
Actual product is awesome. Pity about the packaging.
It's also 4 am and I need to sleep. Wheeee...
Re: Feeding Snarky by Eric Burns
Because I suck, I blew it. The link I put in to Ping's article (found here got missed, and I repeated the Penny Arcade Twisp and Catsby link instead.
I suck. Please fix?
Re: Feeding Snarky by Eric Burns
Fixed the link, Eric.
Btw, this bit:
...made me chuckle because, on some days, that's exactly what it's like to be a woman surrounded by an intensely masculine world.
Kelly J. Cooper
Comixpedia Features Editor
Re: Feeding Snarky by Eric Burns
Thank you, Kelly J. Cooper. Thank you.
-Lisa Jonté
___________________________
Artist, Writer, Flibbertigibbet, Editor
http://www.Girlamatic.com
Re: Feeding Snarky by Eric Burns
However, I think that a collective like Girlamatic makes it an issue... without necessarily doing any favors either for the people involved, or for women as a whole.
I dunno. Does the existence of GraphicSmash make an issue about "action readers" versus "non-action readers"? Does it imply that "action comics" are disadvantaged or discriminated against at other sites, that they need to band together in order to survive? Does anyone think that, by declaring themselves to be a site for "action comics", they're trying to "stick it to the man"? Does it imply that all "action fans" have similar tastes, that everyone who likes swashbuckling period adventure must also like gritty superhero drama, or superhero comedy, or wombats? I don't feel that it does. All it seems to do is say, "Here are some pretty good action comics. If you like action comics, you might like these comics. If you don't like action comics, well, you might still like these comics, they're pretty good". It's possible that a fan of romantic drama or quirky slice-of-life comedy might stumble upon the site, get turned off by the "action" label, leave, and end up missing out on some comics they might otherwise have liked. Why should this be considered a disadvantage to the creators or to the site? "Action" is the market they chose, and they seem to be doing okay with just "action fans" and readers who don't have any hangups about the "action" label.
Sorry about all the quotation marks.
___
Re: Feeding Snarky by Eric Burns
There's a bit more going on in the Quizno's/Subway war you may not have heard about. First, note that Subway used to sell Pepsi products. Quizno's sold Coca-Cola products.
In 2003 when Subway started losing customers to Quizno's, Coca-Cola approached Subway with a deal. They offered to buy a toasting oven for every single Subway store, if Subway would switch to selling Coke. Subway agreed -- who wouldn't?
This, of course, got Quizno's angry at Coke. So Quizno's has now switched to Pepsi.
The moral? All of this -- the menu options, the advertising war, the community support shenanigans, all of it are just moves in a chess game played by extremely powerful and unbelievably greedy men and corporations. That doesn't apply directly to Girlamatic and Modern Tales, but it does illustrate that we really have no idea why the organizers of those websites set up the restrictions and climate they have.
So don't examine your motivations and feelings about these games, because if you truly understood them all your head would probably explode. Be who you are and don't be guilty about it. If that means eating at Subway or avoiding Girlamatic, so be it. If you're destined in life to be a pawn (and 99.999% of us are, let's not have any illusions) might as well be a proud and happy pawn, and patronize those things that you genuinely think you enjoy. :)
 ...
Re: Feeding Snarky by Eric Burns
Eric, have you read all the damn comics on Girlamatic? Do you have any idea what you're missing out on? You seem mighty conflicted on the whole issue, and Shaenon has pointed out that your ARE a subscriber. The whole Subway/Quiznos thing was a poor analogy that just made your argument all the more poorer, and more like some wierd kind of coverup to hide the confessional.
If a man's a real man, they won't give a crap about squirming a bit about reading a pro-girl website. You shouldn't care so much about what others think, and just DO IT. If anything, noticing those subsconcious reactions is a good thing, realizing that you have that baggage is good. It helps you get over it.
Likewise Girls--- just because something is girl-oriented in some fashion, it doesn't automatically mean that you'll be seen as weaker for reading it. The posts I read on Eric's blog kind of creeped me out, some from men and some from women- if these are the reactions a comic site with a majority of women on it gets, clearly there is something wrong.
If it was a site with majority males, would a woman be posting like this? I find it disturbing that there's a doublestandard- more gender crossover for male-oriented fandoms, while ever mildy female-oriented ones experience less gender crossover due to isses like those you expressed.
People, read the comics themselves, then critique them, and leave the whole gender baggage thing where it belongs- in the TRASH. Theres girls and boy cartoonists on the site for a reason- so it isn't some exclusionary thing. It's about INCLUDING. Why call it Girlamatic? Well, it's kind of cathcy, and again, celebration :) It's like one of our cartoonists, Matt, said recently- "No boy wants to hang out with girls, because girls have cooties. But
men know the magic secret that cooties are actually AWESOME"
Eric, read the damn comics and learn to get over this issue, then write an article that actually critique the Comics, for good or bad, rather then some wishy washy editorial. Let the comics speak for themselves. We're not making it an issue, we're celebrating it, we're celebrating being just a little bit different, and are saying yes, you could, and should, be part of the fun. I've noticed that GAM is rarely covered on Comixpedia, and if it's because of these reasons, then that's a shame.
Re: Feeding Snarky by Eric Burns
"If a man's a real man, they won't give a crap about squirming a bit about reading a pro-girl website."
That's the second person to go down that path. It honestly misses the point.
Want me to be unequivocal? Fine.
Girlamatic says they're by women, for women. With, admittedly, "mostly" thrown in there. Fine. To me, that says I'm not invited, and I don't go where I'm not invited.
"Eric, read the damn comics and learn to get over this issue, then write an article that actually critique the Comics, for good or bad, rather then some wishy washy editorial."
You know what?
No.
Said editorial wasn't about the comics. It was about the presentation of them. And honestly, you've convinced me it's a bad idea to go anywhere near them now. It's no win for me now.
I'm all for celebration. What I was trying to tell you -- and clearly failing at -- was celebrating in exclusionary terms may hurt you more than it helps. I'm comfortable enough with my masculinity to read 'girl comics.' I'm not rude enough to go where I'm not wanted, though.
And I'm also comfortable enough with my masculinity to treat challenges to it -- and dares -- as sure signs I don't want to be involved.
Re: Feeding Snarky by Eric Burns
First Ping Teo says that women in webcomics are not an issue. Then Eric Burns says he won't read comics because they're marketed as 'for women.' So women-centric and women-friendly comics makes a prominent web reviewer incomfortable. There's inherent sexism here, and that damn straight makes 'women in webcomics' an issue.
Burns is saying two things: he's saying that a) the comics are good, and b) he won't read them because they're on a site 'for women.' So he's judging the comics not on individual merit, but on their group branding (Why? Because he thinks that all comics made to appeal to women are the same? because women creators are alien to his realm of experience?). He's admitted that this is a gut reaction. It sure is: the traditional male horror of all things feminine. So horrible, apparently, that not even journalistc integrity can cause him to surmount it.
He's writing for Comixpedia, so he has a responsibility to at least explore what's on the site and see how that matches the branding. If this article had appeared on his websnark blog, then I wouldn't have cared, personally, because a blog's a blog- a repository of personal thoughts. But this kind of personal '"ew, girls!"' atitude should have no place on a site ostensibly for news and criticism.
I have a comic on Girlamatic. It's called Sevenplains. I ask male and female readers to come over to our site, preview our comics. If you don't like them, fine. But you might. Like Ping Teo says, try to step out of your comfort zone every once in awhile, you pussies.
And Quiznos is less popular than subways because it costs more. Average sandwich is $6 in my area. Same thing in Subways is $4. GAM subscriptions cost the same as Burns's favorites Moderntales and Graphicsmash. So there.
Um, it's Girlamatic, not Trix.
No mean kids are going to barge into your house to snatch it away, saying "It's for girls SILLY!!!", if you try to read it.
There are plenty of reasons for not wanting to read some comics. It could be that you don't find them appealing at first glance, or that you don't have the time, or any number of other perfectly legitimate reasons. But what you seem to be implying here is that you won't read the comics of a number of creators who you'd otherwise be delighted to read because... the text on the website hurts your feelings, I guess. It just seems a little strange.
You're right that it's not "for" you. And that's okay, right? I mean, not everything has to be "for" people similar to you. Not everything has to be "for" everyone in order to be good or enjoyable. Most girls learn at a young age to accept that a lot of entertainment is created with someone other than them in mind.
___
Re: Feeding Snarky by Eric Burns
I think if Graphic Smash had marketed itself as "Comics for Action Fans by Action Fans!" I would have had an issue with THAT because it was making a presumption on the part of the readers and the creators. And despite doing a Mystery/Action/Adventure comic, I don't exactly consider myself an Action fan. I'm more of a Mystery/Adventure person. *shifty eyes* (Don't fire me, T!)
But instead GS stuck to "A collection of the best action webcomics of the 21st century" or something like that (Or at least I think that was what it used to be, somebody check that for me) which isn't quite the same thing.
The difference is that it doesn't try to tell the audience whether it was for them or not. (Suitable for Action/Adventure Fans) Instead it told the audience about the comics themselves. It 'celebrates' the content that might interest the target market. (i.e. Contains Action/Adventure!)
And I think it's just that slight wording angle that makes all the difference in the world, really.
It's the kinda like difference between saying "Check this out! You will like this!" (which really annoys me if the person in question is someone who doesn't know fut about me) and "Check this out! It's [A] about [B] and I think it's pretty good!"
Re: Feeding Snarky by Eric Burns
Where your analogy fails for me is that action fans have never had to move to the back of the bus, or lobby for the vote.
Paul Gadzikowski, paul@arthurkingoftimeandspace.com
Arthur, King of Time and Space New cartoons daily
Re: Feeding Snarky by Eric Burns
Er...I really think you're missing Eric's point entirely. Lay off. I don't think he's saying at all that he won't read them because OMG! They're girly! Eww! Cooties! or anything of the sort. Nowhere did he say that he doesn't like comics by women. (As a matter of fact, I know he reads mine, and last time I checked, I was female.) Eric's not telling anybody to get barefoot, pregnant, and go make him a sandwich. Let's all just caaaaalm down.
I think he's trying to make a very mature, and very well-crafted point that when you market things FOR a group, people outside that group--who want, really badly, to support that group, who feel a certain amount of inherent guilt about the way that group has been treated--don't know if they're welcome or not. And feel a little weird about getting involved.
For example, I'm a white chick. I don't attend Indian pow-wows. I think they're probably really cool, and the odds are good that I would be welcome if I was polite and respectful and all that, but...well...they're for another culture, and I don't know how they'd feel about mine showing up. Does this mean that I hate Native Americans? Am I sitting here going "Ew, indians!" Hell no! But I can't shake the feeling that the people who the pow-wows are for might not be comfortable with me there, and since I have enormous respect for said cultures, and feel a measure of guilt for the way my culture rode roughshod over theirs, the last thing I'd want to do is make people feel like bugs under glass, or have anyone think I'm trying to McDonaldize their culture, or any of the other things that I'd get worried they'd think.
Is this an ideal solution? Hell no! But it's the way it IS. At the end of the day, I'm so paralyzed with fear of giving offense to a persecuted minority that I just stay away from things that are supposed to be FOR said minority, so that there's no chance I'll give offense. And then I feel guilty about THAT because it's assuming that said minority isn't tough enough to take the stuff that everybody else can, but I'm only trying to do the right thing, and shit, it's all so confusing, I think I need some aspirin.
Do ya see the difference between "I'm human and I feel bad and I don't know if I'd do the right thing and I don't want to risk hurting anybody's feelings and I don't even know if that's the right way to feel about it at all, but maybe there isn't a right way, and I'm just muddling through as best I can" and "Custer should have wiped out the bastards when he had the chance?" Because to my mind, there's a big difference between the two, just as there's a big difference between what Eric said, and "Ew! Girls!"
Re: Feeding Snarky by Eric Burns
Yeah, I'm with ya on this one. It's like the difference between candy sweetened with nutrasweet, and candy "for diabetics." I'd eat the first one, but it wouldn't even occur to me to try the second, because...well...that's for somebody else! It says so on the label! I mean, they might be the exact same thing under the wrapper, but I've been told that the one is for somebody specifically other than me.
Re: Feeding Snarky by Eric Burns
Well, even if it's not exactly the sort of coverage an editor dreams of, thanks, Eric, for writing about GirlAMatic.com. I don't agree with you, (I always thought GAM's design was pretty generic), BUT it's always helpful to have another point of view. The fact that there IS more than one POV about GAM tells me we're doing something, we're making an impact, and that's all good.
Nothing is ever going to please everyone, and GAM is no exception. I built what I wanted to read, I picked the name. FYI, the "we're not out to bust anyone's balls" line has been gone forever, and "(mostly) by women" has been gone for some time, too.
We have a brand-new slogan guaranteed to become the lynchpin of many articles to come. Or not.
I could probably spend about an hour going, "Ha! Wrong! Wrongo MacMistakey!", but to go on more violates Rule! Number! Three! of "How to be a Happy Nerd", (http://listencomics.blogspot.com/2005/04/how-to-be-happy-nerd.html), and that is my Holy Writ.
I gots an award-winning subscription webcomics site to run.
And a nap. Man, I need a NAP.
Thanks again, Eric, for provoking thought and discussion. I hope the curious will come by, see GAM for themselves, and decide how they feel about it.
P.S.: Speaking as an editor here, try making an analogy in three paragraphs or less next time. I love Quizno's (because they don't have insta-soggyTM breads), but come on, fully half your article was about sandwhiches. You made me hungry.
Re: Feeding Snarky by Eric Burns
*sigh* That was the point of my column, really. Learning to understand contexts and how they apply.
A) If you're talking about print comics in the real world, then if there is a bias inherent (and I have been convinced by many accounts what I have seen that it does appear exist to some level) then I can see why people would need to come together to counteract this kind of discrimination.
B) But in WEBcomics, I have yet to see a webcomics hosting site that allowed sign-ups based on gender. Keenspace does not. Drunk Duck does not. As far as I know none of them do. All creators have equal opportunity to start a webcomic as long as they have a comic to start.
C) I have also not heard of 'professional' webcomic sites where the comics were selected based on the gender of the creator or where the gender of a creator gave them a better chance to be picked over another creator of the same standard but different gender... except for maybe GAM. I don't know about Keenspot, but I'm pretty sure that my comic was extended an invitation because of the nature of its content, and NOT because I was female and T Campbell wanted to up the balance of female creators in GS. And I give you my word that IF one day I should find out that the reason my comic was chosen for the fact I have two ovaries and NOT because it was a mystery/action/adventure comic that the editor liked, then that will also be the day I hand in my resignation.
D) That's why I don't see the point to this kind of counter-action in WEBcomics. Yes, women had to fight for the vote and equal rights in real life. Yes, some editors apparently won't take work from females because they're afraid male readers won't read them because they're done by a girl. *rolls eyes*
The question to ask here is: Is this attitude widespread and prevalent in webcomics? Would T Campbell be less likely to take a comic because it's done by a female and 'action-adventure readers don't want to read comics done by a girl'? Would the Fab Four be less likely to Spot a comic because it's done by a girl? Are only male readers allowed to vote on Buzzcomix?
No. Not that I'm aware of.
That's why I don't think it should be an issue. Women's rights may be a major issue in real life. I should know. I grew up in a backwater town where my being female alone meant a free licence for any man to harass me on the street. I've had remarks like 'why should girls take technology classes? Girls shouldn't need to know about computers' and 'girls don't play computer games' and 'girls should grow up to be good housewives for a man and bear children' and "girls shouldn't work or have careers after marriage" constantly harped at me.
As you can tell, I did not agree with this. For things like this I will campaign for women's rights tooth and nail.
Does this justify that I drag this emotional gender baggage into another area in my life (webcomics) where other males already treat me as equals just because as a female, I have been treated shoddily elsewhere in real life?
NO.
Like that other guy Andre said: Leave the gender-baggage in the trash where it belongs.
That's why I don't think women in webcomics is an issue. That's why I don't see the point in affirmative action against a problem that doesn't seem to be present in webcomics.
Because for every action there is a reaction. And if there first action doesn't appear to be there, everyone will be wondering "What are you reacting against?".
It's the crying of "Wolf!" where the wolves don't run. And if the wolves don't run there, the spectator is left wondering "There are no wolves here. There's only you and me. Who are you calling wolf?!"
Re: Feeding Snarky by Eric Burns
As another Girlamatic artist, I wanted to weigh in on the opposite side of the issue from most of the comments so far.
I agree with most of what Eric said.
I agree that the way we present ourselves tends to be, not necessarily exclusionary to men, but certainly off-putting, in the same way that a pinup of a big-breasted half-nude chick over the comics aisle might be off-putting to women. It is hypocritical for us to call attention to the one situation while ignoring and defending the other.
Girlamatic has a strong, solid line-up of comics and artists, including Eisner nominee Raina Telgemeir. My own series, Kismet, is a sci-fi space opera with a readership about evenly split between men and women. I think our comics speak well for themselves. BUT ... they will never be able to speak to our audience if they never make it to our audience.
And, if we are alienating half our potential audience by the way we present ourselves, I think this represents a serious PR problem on our part -- something that we should consider and address, not dismiss out of hand. Further, I don't think jumping down the throat of anyone who brings this to our attention is going to help our cause at all. So far in this thread, I have seen unprofessional behavior by other Girlamatickers that is personally embarrassing and, frankly, very frustrating to me. You can disagree with someone in a polite and professional way. You can make your point without shouting and calling names. Insulting people who represent opposing points of view makes all of us look bad.
Re: Feeding Snarky by Eric Burns
I have to admit that i avoided Girlamatic for a while because of that "for woman etc" tagline. A friend sent me the link to the site a while ago and recommended one of the comics. I clicked on the link took one look at that "comics by woman etc" tagline and left I am a woman and to be honest i found it offensive that the site felt it needed to brand it's self like that. honestly i don't care if the comics i read are created by men, women or hamsters as long as they're good.
I did go back weeks later, when a friend [who is male] recomended another comic on the site, and this time i actually read all the comics on the site. I liked some, hated others, and was indifferent to a few and for me that's the way it should have been the first time. I should have been allowed to judge the comics as comics but having that tagline basicly said to me i must judge these comics differently then i would other comics.
the only analogy i can think of to illustrate my point is Gay vs straight [dont everyone freak out just yet read the rest!] I have alot of gay friends and alot of straight friends. I go to both straight bars and gay bars. I don't care which, i feel comfortable in either but i have taken straight friends to bars that say above the door they are a "gay bar but straight friendly". Regardless of this statment most of my straight friends don't feel comfortable in the gay bar. They are in no way homopobic, they just feel like they are intruding in a world that is not there for them, no matter how good a night they have, they always feel like there's a wall there and they never relax fully as they are afraid of accidently saying something "wrong". The same goes for my gay friends going to straight bars, of course there is no law saying that they can't, there's no alarm going to start ringing when they walk in the door, but they too feel like they just can't relax.
Maybe this is an extreme example but that's how i see girlamatic, no, there is nothing stopping men from reading the comics, they dont ask for a DNA sample when you subscribe to check your chromosomes, but by branding the site as they did it creates the segregation. Men can feel intimidated to give an honest opinion of a comic for fear of getting the "your a man you don't understand". I'm not saying anyone on girlamatic would say this but that doesn't mean the implication of it isnt there. I can say that i don't like all the comics on the site but then i feel like i should say i like them all because its for women and i'm a woman and we need to support each other blah blah
There's a difference in being a site for a "genre" and being a site for an "minority"
i don't know if i made any sense but thats my two cents.
Re: Feeding Snarky by Eric Burns
*blinks* For a moment there I though you meant my column, then I realised you were probably talking about this hotspot.
I stand by what I said. I do not think it is an issue. (repeat of other comment here. I'm lazy and short on time)
1) In WEBcomics, I have yet to see a webcomics hosting site that allowed sign-ups based on gender. Keenspace does not. Drunk Duck does not. As far as I know none of them do. All creators have equal opportunity to start a webcomic as long as they have a comic to start.
2) I have also not heard of 'professional' webcomic sites where the comics were selected based on the gender of the creator or where the gender of a creator gave them a better chance to be picked over another creator of the same standard but different gender... except for maybe GAM. I don't know about Keenspot, but I'm pretty sure that my comic was extended an invitation because of the nature of its content, and NOT because I was female and T Campbell wanted to up the balance of female creators in GS. And I give you my word that IF one day I should find out that the reason my comic was chosen for the fact I have two ovaries and NOT because it was a mystery/action/adventure comic that the editor liked, then that will also be the day I hand in my resignation.
3) That's why I don't see the point to this kind of counter-action in WEBcomics. Yes, women had to fight for the vote and equal rights in real life. Yes, some editors apparently won't take work from females because they're afraid male readers won't read them because they're done by a girl. *rolls eyes*
4) The question to ask here is: Is this attitude widespread and prevalent in webcomics? Would T Campbell be less likely to take a comic because it's done by a female and 'action-adventure readers don't want to read comics done by a girl'? Would the Fab Four be less likely to Spot a comic because it's done by a girl? Are only male readers allowed to vote on Buzzcomix?
No. Not that I'm aware of.
Eric himself clearly stated he has no problems, nor does he feel uncomfortable reading comics by girls, or comics that are female friendly. His already stated it was the way it was presented that was the problem.
Personally, I don't feel very confident in reading stuff marketed as "for females" either. Because I don't believe in a generalised female genre, and chances are, I won't see eye-to-eye (and thus identify with) with the tastes of someone who brands something like that.
If so many people have voiced discomfort (including several females, I might add) with the presentation, maybe, just maybe there really could be a problem there.
Re: Feeding Snarky by Eric Burns
Girlamatic was started around the same time as Serializer.net and Adventurestrip.com. All three Modern Tales spin-off sites were explicitly targetted to one degree or another. Serializer was highbrow, Adventurestrips was old-fashioned adventure, and Girlamatic was LeaCentric. I'm not sure the exact sales figures, but Girlamatic was signifigantly more successful than Adventurestrips, and roughly on a par with Serializer.
Target marketing risks turning away some readers, but can also benefit by attracting new readers. Lifetime Television, for instance, is a very successful network, and there are many other examples of successful target marketing to women.;
Comics is an area where target marketing to women has great potential, because comics have traditionally been marketted predominantly to young males. I'm not sure if Girlamatic is the ideal means to open the floodgates of that market; readers seem to react better to code words than they do to explicit labeling. But I have no doubt that the basic idea of the site is very practical.
BTW, Girlamatic has been so successful artistically that it's astounding to hear that any conscientious webcomics fan would avoid the site. This is where Dicebox and The Stiff are published, after all!
Re: Feeding Snarky by Eric Burns
I gotta admit, Burns makes a good point about marketing. I think that an increasing number of men enjoy work marketed to women and take it at face value- like male fans of shoujo. Male fans of Estrigious. The whole throng of male cartoonists who are redefining cute- James Kochalka, Tom Hart, Kazu and the Flight people, the entire contingent of cartoonists in the Bay Area (haha, just joking) and of course, the guys of GAM. I think there's a larger crossover audience than Burns implies, esecially in the anime and manga fandoms. These male fans, I assume, are drawn to the atitude and tone of the aforementioned works. I would not want to see these potential fans feel unwelcome simply because they're not considered a primary audience.
GAM would definitely benefit more by promoting this atitude- cuteness, fun, sass, playfulness with assertiveness, emotional youth (NOT CHILDISHNESS), emphasizing character interaction versus plot complexity, a conscious attempt at avoiding mysogyny, community- than trying to define an audence of mostly women. I think it's these characteristics, more than gender of readership or creator, that define GAM's comics.
These are the same qualities I tried to promote in the 'shoujo Manga anthology,' and which women like myself look for in comics.
And as for sandwiches... Why have neither Subway nor Quiznos offered paninis, the hottest sandwich trend since vegemite?
Re: Um, it's Girlamatic, not Trix.
"the text on the website hurts your feelings, I guess. It just seems a little strange."
What's wrong with that logic? A website conveys itself in a particular way, and you find unattractive, and you'd rather not read the content. And that's wrong because...?
I use the same reasons to not read Maxim.
Re: Feeding Snarky by Eric Burns
Ultimately, the reason I avoid Girlamatic like the plauge is that I see so many of the people involved acting like you have insulted the entire female race if you dare (dare!) to even suggest you're not comfortable with the ideas behind the site. It's downright stupid sometimes, and I'd never get away with acting like that if someone said they didn't like my comic. It's sort of like the cause outweighs the comics on that site, and you're just not allowed to question, lest you be attacked by its various members. I don't bother anymore, and I expect to have tomatos thrown at me now...
Re: Feeding Snarky by Eric Burns
Oh, don't get me wrong. I think you're probably right about this. There are areas where x minority has been oppressed and that can bleed into other areas, but webcomics doesn't seem to be one of them. That's a good thing and maybe looking too hard at it could screw it up. But andrael's analogy seems flawed to the point of uselessness to me so I said so.
Paul Gadzikowski, paul@arthurkingoftimeandspace.com
Arthur, King of Time and Space New cartoons daily
Re: Feeding Snarky by Eric Burns
Okay, I want to ask a question:
Has anyone else wondered about the "Under the Matress Comics" ad on the sidebar? It's sort of at odds with the subject matter, no?
Or is this what we get when the playing field is level?
I have no argument for someone who feels GAM's not for them--perhaps it's not. But is an essay discussing it that's bracketed by an ad you wouldn't want someone to see over your shoulder any better?
Re: Feeding Snarky by Eric Burns
Has anyone else wondered about the "Under the Matress Comics" ad on the sidebar? It's sort of at odds with the subject matter, no?
Actually I was wondering when someone was going to comment on that.
Personally I think that ad is rather in poor taste. Definitely off-putting to anyone who isn't attracted to females with improbable bustlines. A perfect example of the kind of advertising I hate (making a presumption on the viewer instead of describing the product itself.) In this case they assumed the readers HAD to be male, even though females are known to read erotica as well. *rolls eyes* Their loss. I highly doubt I'd feel compelled to click it or buy any of their stuff.
Ok, you lost me here. I'm not sure what you're trying to say... Do you mean sexually oriented ads only occur on a level playing field?
Those are ads for some sort of adult comics, not for Comixpedia itself. I don't think Comixpedia has ever made it point to market itself as a webzine for any gender. It's a level playing field, If I'm not mistaken anyone else is every bit as free to put up ads for tampon humour or slash comics or whatever else that might be off-putting to men.
I don't think the problem is that people automatically feel GAM's not for them. I think the problem is that the way it's marketed makes them feel it's not for them.
I mean, look at that "Under the Matress" ad as an example. The way it's presented automatically makes any woman (unless they're attracted to women) feel like whatever those guys are selling, it's not for them.
Which may not be necessarily be true. On closer inspection that ad seems to advertise adult/mature comics, and I'm some women read erotica too.
Same thing with the inverse. If you present something as for a specific target group, the other groups that aren't addressed automatically feel it's not for them, regardless of whether it really is.
And then with that "Under the Matress" ad as an example again. I'll wager not every guy who sees that ad is going to be impressed either. In fact I suspect a few of them are going to be insulted by the insinuation that they're sad enough to lust after some fictional female with badly porportioned boobs just because they're men.
The same for females who are presented with 'comics for girls' just because they're 'girls'
On one hand one could argue because stuff like "Under the Matress" exist, then the inverse should too. Fair enough. But if people are allowed to be put-off by ads like that without having to be labelled 'insecure, jealous, females' then surely fairness dictates everyone else should be free to be put-off by anything else without automatically be labelled as 'insecure, threatened, [insert gender here]'.
(Not saying that anyone here has actually said such things, but this is an example here)
I'd put it in the same league as the GirlAMatic forum, which if I recall correctly, is bracketed by ads that occasionally feature full-frontal nudity (and many of them of women) in them. I wouldn't blame GAM for the ads, or would I think any less of their comics/readers just because they frequent a forum where some ad next to them seems to be at odds with their policy of a 'female-friendly' environment. After all, they don't control those ads.
Similarly Eric and Comixpedia aren't the same entities. I wouldn't blame Eric of being a hypocrite for ads that he doesn't control, and which at the time of the writing of his article, he probably didn't know they were going to be bracketed next to anyway.
To do so would be to stab oneself in the foot.
Re: Feeding Snarky by Eric Burns
Eric, I apologize the the "Man" stuff, I admit I was overly sensitive, and flew off the handle, although it was mostly because I found a lot of what you said somewhat shocking. It's an issue I've never really had myself as a male, and I have often felt welcome and comfortable in many similar situations as you found yourself in when you wrote this. I've taken several courses in women's literature and an Art History seminar oriented in feminism, and I never really felt exiled or out of place in them. Mabye it's just my upbringing, or my personality, I'm not sure. I just couldn't really concieve someone feeling this way about something as simple as a webcomics site. As an English student, I was simultaenously confused by your poor use of metaphor, which took up more then 1/2 the article [you have to admit, it went on to long, and was quite vague, somewhat hard to connect the analogy to... essays should be concise and to the point, even if they deal with personal issues ]. It was very one sided, and could of used more indepth discussion about the feelings you felt as a result of "Gam's exisitence". The lack of research was somethingelse I felt you should of looked into more- as in reading the comics, which is something that would of helped your arguement, using them to help support your concept [ie- "Some of these comics are ones men might enjoy a lot, and would benefit from a less-political/socially-fueled marketing technique" etc].
I admit I should of had more tack, and presented my response in a more clarified, less personal manner. Sorry if I caused any offense, and I hope you continue to explore this issue. I'm choosing to leave the post as is, as what's said is said and done, and will try to express things more positively in future postings related to your articles.
Re: Feeding Snarky by Eric Burns
It's clear that Girlamatic has raised some issues. So it pisses people off that it's marketed to women. fair enough. It even pisses people off that the site's women contributors have complained, because it makes 'women look bad'? Hello? Just because we refute an article we're suddenly Nazi Feminists? Why isn't anyone giving Sequential Tart the same shit? You see any male reviewers over there? -If you even read Sequential Tart. Oh, but it's a woman reviewers/writers-only site. Woops, I guess Eric Burns isn't welcome there either.
Don't read it. Your loss. That said, Girlamatic is not going to back down on the woman issue.
In fact, I will do everything in my (limited) power to make Girlamatic CHANGE ITS COLOR TO NEON PINK AND MAKES ROSES AS ITS LOGO and have a huge VENUS sign on the homepage, just to let people know where we stand.
Re: Feeding Snarky by Eric Burns
The sandwish analogy is a pretty bad parallel to the point you're trying to make. Shouldn't you be making comparisons with other minority groups that are being marketed to? This still reads more as a rant than an article.
Re: Um, it's Girlamatic, not Trix.
I suppose. It just seems to me, it would be one thing if he said "I don't really know anything about these comics, but I got a look at the site and it didn't give me a good impression so I don't feel like reading them." But this seems to be more like, "These comics seem pretty good and I think I would probably enjoy them, except the text on the website says it's not for me so I won't." Text that isn't even actually on the site anymore.
Not to mention that he says he has a subscription. Why subscribe to something you don't want to or plan to read? You can't use webcomics to line your birdcage or impress guests by leaving it on your coffee table. I just find it strange. If I was already shelling out the money for them anyway, I would probably check out some of the comics while I was at it. Or else cancel my subscription.
And the only time I ever read Maxim is when I go to the hair salon.
___
