icon_uk: (Default)
icon_uk ([personal profile] icon_uk) wrote in [community profile] scans_daily2012-02-19 09:31 pm

Paul Cornell is looking for gender parity at Con panels...

From Paul Cornell's website



"Okay, so this was something I came up with yesterday, and it's mad, and is, frankly, a rod for my own back, but what the hell, it's going to make this coming year a lot more interesting.

I think there should be gender parity on every panel at every convention. I'm after 50/50, all the time. I want that in place as an expectation, as a rule. Now, to make that happen, what really should be done is a ground-up examination of society, huge changes at the heart of things which would automatically lead to women being equally represented everywhere, not just on convention panels. Well, we've all wanted that and worked for that for decades, especially those of us in fandom, and it just hasn't happened. So, this year, I've decided that I'm going to approach this problem via the only moral unit I'm in charge of: me. I'm going to approach this problem from the other end. And this approach is going to be very much that of a blunt instrument.

If I'm on, at any convention this year, a panel that doesn't have a 50/50 gender split (I'll settle for two out of five), I'll hop off that panel, and find a woman to take my place.
"

There's more text at the website, but I'm impressed by his initiative.

So, thoughts people? :)


For legality, the cover to Demon Knights 7 by Mike Choi, which includes a rather impressive outfit for the Questing Queen, a little action-figure-y perhaps, but given my Saint Seiya tastes, that's not really a problem for me! :)


ext_406366: (Default)

[identity profile] peur-evol.blogspot.com 2012-02-19 10:41 pm (UTC)(link)
The whole comics industry is nowhere near a "50/50" split.
I think he's going to be walking off of a lot of panels.
Good idea but a but a bad way to do it.
Instead of walking off, why not just address the issue in whatever panel he's in?

[personal profile] gerardotejada 2012-02-20 01:07 am (UTC)(link)
He is would not be talking for them but about them, ehm, is complicated but still. He can adress the issue.

I support the idea but is a bad strategy, It doesnt hurt thou. I know most writers leave "outside" the fan comunity, is the main reason they cant see the problem, Morrison admited he "didnt know It mattered".

Congratulations to Cornell for making noise, I bet he knows how ugly things can get.

PD: a good strategy would be, I dont know, Women enter for free? On second thoughts I live in the other end of the world, I dont know how Big Cons work.

[personal profile] madlaughter 2012-02-19 10:59 pm (UTC)(link)
I support equality and would not be against more women in the industry. But every panel, every convention? Lets say this were applied to the Amazing Spiderman panel. Between the director, writers, Spidey, Gwen, Lizard, Aunt May/Uncle Ben, George Stacy (probably the 6 most important characters), that's 7 men, 2 women. Do you just bring women who play extras onto the panel? Tell Martin Sheen and Andrew Garfield to not bother showing up?

There's a good chance that other women worked on the production, but those 9 people at the top are the 9 people that anyone standing in line for 6 hours want to see.

On the flip side, if I were at a panel for AMC's the killing, a show staffed largely by female writers, I wouldn't expect them to shoehorn in men just to make it equal.

[personal profile] darkknightjrk 2012-02-21 03:25 am (UTC)(link)
That is a good point--if the disparity is that bad, perhaps a good baby step is that he won't do a panel if there isn't going to be any women at all, and he would recommend a good woman creator to take his place.
milleniumrex: (Default)

[personal profile] milleniumrex 2012-02-19 11:27 pm (UTC)(link)
Definition of putting the cart before the horse. You can't get a 50-50 split at panels if the industry doesn't even have a 75-25 split. Especially when it comes to corporate superhero comics.

I respect and appreciate what he's going for, but all this is going to do is deprive fans of the chance to ask one of the best writers of female characters in comics some questions.
milleniumrex: (Default)

[personal profile] milleniumrex 2012-02-19 11:47 pm (UTC)(link)
Not if they're irrelevant to the panel.

Paul Cornell would be attending Dark and Edge Panels to talk about Demon Knights and Stormwatch (although not for long about the latter). Putting Amy Reeder Hadley, Ann Nocenti, Nicola Scott, Gail Simone, or Amanda Conner on the panel when they don't have anything to do with those sub-lines doesn't make sense.

And as much as I'd love to see Diane Nelson on some of these panels, big executives don't usually make it out to the cons.

Now of course, the solution to this issue is to get more female creators on the books. There's a ton of great indie creators out there who I'd love to see on DC books. But Cornell's plan doesn't really seem to have practical implications if there aren't women there to fill his role at this panels.

(I don't know if he attends other panels, like Dr. Who ones where there might be women creators who should be on the panel).
milleniumrex: (Default)

[personal profile] milleniumrex 2012-02-19 11:59 pm (UTC)(link)
Cool, thanks.

[personal profile] nightauditguy 2012-02-19 11:33 pm (UTC)(link)
Etrigan thinking: ~That's what I get for asking to motorboat her~
lieut_kettch: (Default)

[personal profile] lieut_kettch 2012-02-20 04:20 pm (UTC)(link)
But motorboats haven't been invented yet.

[personal profile] darkknightjrk 2012-02-21 03:27 am (UTC)(link)
That does raise a good question--because I have to imagine that act was around well before the motorboat existed--what did they call motorboating back then?

[identity profile] djt2445.livejournal.com 2012-02-21 07:02 pm (UTC)(link)
Paddleboating?

[personal profile] donnblake 2012-02-20 12:08 am (UTC)(link)
I get where he's coming from, but this really seems an odd way to go about it if it's meant to be anything but a pure attention grabbing stunt. It's about the different ideas of equality of opportunity and equality of results.

That is to say, the difference between saying, "It should be just as easy for a woman to get a job in the comic book industry as it is for an equally qualified man," (the qualifications here being, let's say, the ability to reliably produce quality work on a regular schedule), and saying, "Comic book companies should hire people based on their gender so as to maintain an equal ratio of men-to-women."

No, that's not quite right. Cornell isn't suggesting that anyone lose their job or not get one based on their gender. It's just the idea that gender should be the overriding concern when selecting someone for just about anything besides sex-partner or genetic donor or somesuch that strikes me as just as problematic as the issue it's trying to address.

On the other hand, I get that maybe something like this is intended to be a step towards a more equality of opportunity model for the industry. It's hard to just go and change the male-centric setup of the industry over night, and this is a rule that COULD be implemented, or even if not, something that Cornell himself could continue doing.
valtyr: (Emma fight the void)

[personal profile] valtyr 2012-02-20 12:43 am (UTC)(link)
It's just the idea that gender should be the overriding concern when selecting someone for just about anything besides sex-partner or genetic donor or somesuch that strikes me as just as problematic as the issue it's trying to address.

No, it's not. That's nonsense. Trying to get more women into comics, discussing comics, and onto panels is absolutely not the same as the industry's regular exclusion of them. Any more than scholarships targeting minorities is as problematic as the lack of access to education for those minorities. When addressing systemic gender imbalances, you have to be concerned with gender. How else can you address it?

Some countries have done a similar thing with corporate boards. It's amazing how, when they had to, they could find qualified women.

[personal profile] donnblake 2012-02-20 01:18 am (UTC)(link)
You're right, and that was poorly worded on my part. But I still think that the overriding concern should be who is most qualified to speak on any given panel.

Yes, right now the comic-book industry is male dominated which means that many panels will probably have more qualified men than women (put 25 of Group A into a room with one of Group B and there's a decent chance than one of the Group Aers will have as much or more experience than the Group Ber in any given field), and yes it's a problem that the industry is male dominated, but I don't see how establishing quotas at conventions is supposed to fix that.
valtyr: (Chicken)

[personal profile] valtyr 2012-02-20 01:34 am (UTC)(link)
It depends on how you decide 'most qualified', doesn't it? Numerous factors come into play when choosing panellists - in-depth knowledge of the topic, direct experience of the topic, current relation to the topic (ie are you currently working on it), availability, whether the con can afford to get you there, does the panellist bring a new or original perspective to the topic, are they a skilled debater, are they funny, do they ask penetrating questions, can they chair a panel effectively. You seem to be assuming first that it's easy to rank people in order of their qualification, and second that the makeup of panels purely reflects the makeup of the industry.

To digress slightly, many orchestras now do blind auditions - those auditioning do not speak, they enter, play and leave concealed from the panel judging them. Orchestras that do this rapidly start selecting on a more gender-equal basis, when previously they disproportionately selected men. Was this deliberate? Well, probably not, or they wouldn't have gone to the effort of introducing blind auditioning in the first place. More likely, they had subconscious bias that led them to prefer men's playing. And it's entirely possible this kind of bias comes into play when selecting panellists. A gender quota is one way of overcoming this subconscious bias.

How will it help? Well, the visible involvement of women can interest other women and encourage participation, for starters. They can also get men accustomed to seeing women involved. Getting the 'oh God! a girl!' reaction can be very off-putting. Being on panels is also a way to meet and talk to industry professionals, and get your viewpoint out to a wider audience. The industry is sorely lacking in female perspectives.

[personal profile] donnblake 2012-02-20 01:42 am (UTC)(link)
You're raising a lot of points I hadn't considered, and I'll concede that Cornell's suggested rule is worth trying. Let me ask a question though- if we hypothesize a world where gender inequality doesn't play a role in the comic book industry (note: I am NOT, repeat NOT claiming that that world currently exists) would the rule still be worthwhile?
valtyr: (medusa oils)

[personal profile] valtyr 2012-02-20 01:46 am (UTC)(link)
No, I don't think the rule would be worthwhile in that case. In a world with true gender equality, panels would sometimes be all or majority male, but they would also sometimes be all or majority female. In a truly gender equality world, there would be significantly less - perhaps nothing - for which a female perspective would be more useful than a male perspective, and vice versa.

[personal profile] gerardotejada 2012-02-20 01:29 am (UTC)(link)
Both of you are right (Im playing the mom here)

It is nonsense if look at It only at the political level, you dont do things only to be PC, is Beyond that. Dont look It as bussiness, thats the focus that somepeople do and It annoys me.

Curiously a woman creator should be pushed far beyond any male creator, you dont hire woman just for gender equality, yo do It because women are different and can deliver a different aproach to comics, in fact many companies expect this plus.

For example it should be easier for a woman to write female characters, that doesnt mean that a man cant write female characters but a woman has advantage.

Having higher expectation for women means you HAVE to search for them and you just cant sit and wait the next Gail Simone go throught the door.

The fact that both genders are completly equals is a mistake from feminist theory (the term is out dated in academy work, I call myself into gender studies not "feminism") Men and Woman are different and that is good thing.

Hell, english is not my first lenguage I have the half of my spanish vocabulary to explain this, well anyway no one here would understand my academyology
valtyr: (Black Bolt)

[personal profile] valtyr 2012-02-20 01:37 am (UTC)(link)
The fact that both genders are completly equals is a mistake from feminist theory (the term is out dated in academy work, I call myself into gender studies not "feminism") Men and Woman are different and that is good thing.

Prove it. Don't worry about the 'academyology', I'll try and follow along.

[personal profile] gerardotejada 2012-02-20 02:06 am (UTC)(link)
I would try, the vastly updated structuralism Theory, from the Polysistems to the Actor Network displays deep interst in relationships rather than focusing on individual parts. Relationships are determined by difference, everything is related.

The pieces on Gender relationships are both sexes, their interaction determines their genders and the function of that genders. While some theory focused on how in the XIX century men opressed woman the field I work tries to determine how women fought back, both cultural despiction and historic research lead us to think women seek a way to empower herself through the same tactics men used to exclude them. While women were often closed inside the house they adquire an authority over House problems and issues. Etc

This different roles are asigned soccially but the posibilities are determined by the canvas/world that is segmented into signs (this actually camed from Linguistic Formalism). In this case biology, from the way the brain works to sexual biology (hormones. Menstruation, etc.) is a difference that is used to arrange a structure/system.

A woman has a different aproach to things that would only get a meaning in the structure/system (is sometimes called ideology or power relationship) here we can see "femenine" caracterisations can be positive or negative.

Short: the diference on the sexes doesnt mean gender caracterisation, the antropological unit is Bio Psico Social. Biology is an important part, dont trow It away.

Biology can also be used in the power play to make a binary oposotion or a dicotomy that give one of the two powr ober the other, It doesnt have ro be this way. Is not the difference but the way It is played.
valtyr: (Steve rain)

[personal profile] valtyr 2012-02-20 02:36 am (UTC)(link)
Yes, you've just stated your theory in more detail. You haven't supported it. Specific citations, please, with emphasis on how exactly you distinguish between nature/nurture, and accounting for confirmation bias.

Please cite the "pieces on Gender relationships" you're referencing.

While some theory focused on how in the XIX century men opressed woman the field I work tries to determine how women fought back, both cultural despiction and historic research lead us to think women seek a way to empower herself through the same tactics men used to exclude them. While women were often closed inside the house they adquire an authority over House problems and issues. Etc

This has nothing to do with the biology of gender or sex.

This different roles are asigned soccially but the posibilities are determined by the canvas/world that is segmented into signs (this actually camed from Linguistic Formalism). In this case biology, from the way the brain works to sexual biology (hormones. Menstruation, etc.) is a difference that is used to arrange a structure/system.

Why are you talking about literary criticism to prove assertions about biology?

A woman has a different aproach to things that would only get a meaning in the structure/system (is sometimes called ideology or power relationship) here we can see "femenine" caracterisations can be positive or negative.

But why are you maintaining the difference is based in biology rather than culture? Do you have any evidence to support this?

the diference on the sexes

You're asserting this difference. You have yet to prove it, or indeed provide any evidence for it.

Biology is an important part

You're asserting this. You have yet to prove it.

[personal profile] gerardotejada 2012-02-20 03:17 am (UTC)(link)
pieces on gender relationships are the factors that mark the difference, the key on social science is understanding the concept of system/structure. The primary marks are material, the things that make you distinguish between man and woman.

The example was kind of wrong, but is has to do with implications of power relationships based on gender, I wanted to point out that even in a bad situation difference can be a good thing. I need people clear their minds about difference as a way of opressio only.

I was using examples from linguistic and a little of social science to point that our understanding about the field lead us to see how biology extends/proyects into other realms.

Difference is not only based on biology, that would deny the facy that tere are IdentityS and no Identity. I was trying to point that biological difference only adquires his value (femenin-bad masculine-good) on the structure system.

The difference on the sexes is proved in the biology difference between men and woman, at this point you should have realised how this is not the same as gender. There are differences in genders as well (otherwise we would talk about a singular gender)

Biology is important, if you are hungry if you are not, if you miss a leg etc. It afects you. Neglecting biology is something gender studies want to end.

Psycology anf Phsyquiatry have united their efforts while at the same time remaining independent.

Multidisiplinary studies has showed us that many things we adress about women are cultural yet there is an obvious way the both sexes uses the brain that differs and that have an impact on gender.

Short: Different Brain ---> Different Mind
Inteligence dont have gender as my teacher says. If you can kill a dragon with a Sword you can Kill It with an Axe, as long as you are good enough
valtyr: (Mine)

[personal profile] valtyr 2012-02-20 03:25 am (UTC)(link)
You're making all sorts of claims about how differing biology affects many different areas. This is not at issue. You have yet to prove that the biology does differ.

The difference on the sexes is proved in the biology difference between men and woman, at this point you should have realised how this is not the same as gender.

I'm entirely aware of that. I'm not sure why you would think I'm not.

yet there is an obvious way the both sexes uses the brain that differs and that have an impact on gender.

First of all, please cite studies proving this. Second of all, explain how it is proven that this is due to innate difference rather than cultural differences.

Male and female babies are treated differently from birth - there are multiple studies proving that adults treat babies differently based on their perceived sex. How, then, can you prove that behavioural differences are a result of nature rather than nurture?

[personal profile] gerardotejada 2012-02-20 03:59 am (UTC)(link)
Im not going to search papers for you, It would took me too long to search in my room, there is google but you can do that yourself.

I think you are looking sexual difference too much superficially/genitallia-oriented instead of the genetic aproach.

I guess some one could do a study to search if cultural differences have biological implications.

I dont want to be rude but I think your arguments are politically driven instead of honest intelectual inquiry, you lead me to think that because you put words in my mouth.

I NEVER SAID BIOLOGY WAS THE ONLY THING, please read My posts well because your lack of understanding is really pissing me off.

Also I am wondering if you are reading me at all.
valtyr: (Nightcrawler)

[personal profile] valtyr 2012-02-20 04:08 am (UTC)(link)
Im not going to search papers for you, It would took me too long to search in my room, there is google but you can do that yourself.

I could, but why would I search to prove your point? Back up your own point.

I think you are looking sexual difference too much superficially/genitallia-oriented instead of the genetic aproach.

I haven't mentioned genitalia at all, so I have no idea why you'd think that.

I dont want to be rude but I think your arguments are politically driven instead of honest intelectual inquiry, you lead me to think that because you put words in my mouth.

In case you hadn't realised, broad statements about gender differences have significant political implications.

I NEVER SAID BIOLOGY WAS THE ONLY THING, please read My posts well because your lack of understanding is really pissing me off.

You said: The difference on the sexes is proved in the biology difference between men and woman. You have not proved this, and when challenged you refuse to prove it. It doesn't matter whether you said it was the only thing. You said it; prove it. If you can't back it up, maybe you shouldn't say it.

I understand you are making statements you cannot support, and getting angry when this is pointed out.
(deleted comment)
valtyr: (Emma Blue)

[personal profile] valtyr 2012-02-20 04:20 am (UTC)(link)
Genitalia oriented is when assertions on sex are only based in superficial caracteristic not taking care the whole biology.


And where have I done this?

The difference in the sexual area, men and woman are different sexes.

You're saying the sexes are different because men and women are different sexes? That's circular reasoning.

What are you citing that thirty-three year old paper to prove? Please be specific.


[personal profile] gerardotejada 2012-02-20 04:20 am (UTC)(link)
Genitalia oriented is when assertions on sex are only based in superficial caracteristic not taking care the whole biology.

The difference in the sexual area, men and woman are different sexes.

Im getting angry because you dont lisent/read

This is good:
http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1980-05376-001

I havent read these:
http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v5/n9/abs/nrn1494.html
http://www.nature.com/?file=/neuro/journal/v3/n4/full/nn0400_404.html
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=6562304

A friend read this one:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B005BR1KTM

Please grow up
valtyr: (Steve rain)

[personal profile] valtyr 2012-02-20 04:23 am (UTC)(link)
I'm sorry, you're citing things you haven't read to support your argument?

[personal profile] gerardotejada 2012-02-20 04:48 am (UTC)(link)
I dont need to read It, I just jump into the end of the texts. I trust the people didnt make any mistakes and I have no degree in neurology so I didnt read It all.


Here is the link my friedn send me, I dont find It to be good but my friend is really into feminism and she liked the idea Of the boxes and wires.
http://tobey100.hubpages.com/hub/Mens-Brains-Womens-Brains

I guess I cant force you to change your belifs, I ve tried with arguments, theory, papers. I know you dont read my coments because I said like three times biology wasnt the only variable and you seemed to dont have noticed It.

The train of thought that appears to me is that you are not trying to see my point or to follow my arguments. Im not really angry anymore because I see I just cant reach you in any way. Good night and Goodbye
valtyr: (americat)

[personal profile] valtyr 2012-02-20 04:57 am (UTC)(link)
Yes, you do need to read something before you cite it. I don't know where you studied, but I'm horrified.

That link you give there is garbage. It's some random person talking about how they think men and women are different. You might as well cite Cosmopolitan.

I guess I cant force you to change your belifs, I ve tried with arguments, theory, papers.

No, you've said 'I believe this! You should Google it to see I'm right! Here are some papers I haven't read that might agree with me! You're obviously bitter and lacking in understanding!' You have no clue what you're talking about, and no idea how to support an argument, and you don't even know what constitutes a reliable source.

I know you dont read my coments because I said like three times biology wasnt the only variable and you seemed to dont have noticed It.

In this comment I quoted and directly addressed the point you say I haven't read.

Im not really angry anymore

Ah, so while accusing me of being bitter and telling me I needed to calm down... you were angry?

[personal profile] gerardotejada 2012-02-20 05:20 am (UTC)(link)
Thi is It, Im very proud of my shcool, I trow that article as an easter egg, obviosly you couldnt handle the serious ones or you dont have a student acount to acces some one. There you had the abstracts.

I know what Im talking about, you on the other hand are not talking about nothing but guessing.

I verify the articles not just "might" agree with me but that they did.

I told you you were pissing me off, I tried to be calmed, It took an effort, yet you insist to go after the adhominem.

I dont know whats your problem, you fail to elaborate your arguments, you dont have any theory or example, you are not interested in my arguments yet you said you would try to understand.

Maybe you read but you dont understand, anyway. I still dont know if you understand the difference between gender and sexes, I argue that sex has an impact (among other variables) on gender and that impact must not be overlooked

valtyr: (Steve d'oh)

[personal profile] valtyr 2012-02-20 05:32 am (UTC)(link)
Thi is It, Im very proud of my shcool, I trow that article as an easter egg, obviosly you couldnt handle the serious ones or you dont have a student acount to acces some one. There you had the abstracts

If your school is a good one, it should have taught you that you need to read papers before citing them. Feel free to check that with your professors.

obviosly you couldnt handle the serious ones

These would be the ones you haven't read?

I know what Im talking about, you on the other hand are not talking about nothing but guessing.

No, you don't. If you knew what you were talking about you'd be able to support it. I haven't guessed anything - I've asked you to support your statements. You're unable to do it.

yet you insist to go after the adhominem.

No, I haven't. I have at no point said that any of your personal qualities render your arguments invalid, which is what ad hominem is.

I dont know whats your problem, you fail to elaborate your arguments, you dont have any theory or example, you are not interested in my arguments yet you said you would try to understand.

I haven't made any arguments, that's why. I'm asking you to support your argument, and you are unable to provide any evidence.

I argue that sex has an impact (among other variables) on gender and that impact must not be overlooked

Riiiight, what I asked you to support originally was: The fact that both genders are completly equals is a mistake from feminist theory (the term is out dated in academy work, I call myself into gender studies not "feminism") Men and Woman are different and that is good thing.. How has that become: sex has an impact (among other variables) on gender? These goalposts have shifted so far they're cricket stumps.

[personal profile] gerardotejada 2012-02-20 06:50 am (UTC)(link)
Yeah is funny, I should have followed my own advice, I just drink glass of cool water now I see what you were asking.

Yeah I should read them all, It was foolish I made a mistake and lost It. You can excuse me right? We all make mistakes.

Since the beginig I was a little inconex to say the least. I should have been able to suport my argument well, yet I didnt.

Lets try once again. The first article was about how sex refers to the sexual body and Gender to the cultural caracterisation. Diferent sexes exist because of the nature of sexual reproduction, man and woman are marked by a single cromosome that determines this difference Right?

Well It happens that researches in neurology have found that the extension of the sex difference extends to the way the brain functions. Brain works different for both sexes.

"Continuous visuospatial navigation in familiar and unfamiliar environments is a requirement of daily life." to study this function scientist relized experiments with navegations through 3d Mazes. They observed brain regions that were activated exclusively by the male or by the female group of test subjects.

Woman and Men brains are different, with this I think the main point is partially covered.

When I implied that both genders werent completly equals I made two mistakes, I said Genders when I should have said sexes and I forgot what equals meaned. Sex equality is out of the question, I shold have said they are not "the same".

There are many branches of feminism, before "The Second Sex" there were other works that said the "woman" was a despicable condition into were some subjects were throw by discrimination against their bodies. The fact that the existence of "something" femenine was taken as something that came from men not something someone could own.

Modern femisim tried to adress the difference as a source of identity, correct me If Im wrong
Society has Male as the standard, so there were XVIII century intelectuals that thought "Woman" was just a deviation of the standard. So equality then was that the woman was more like men (the standard). This old view still exist on society as people we should not care about gender when hiring people etc. Based in a false equivalence that set subconsiously the fact that there is a standard (that has been made modeled as a male) sexism is made by failing to recognise the woman.

How does biology fits in this? By showing the differences of ways of thinking, different biology goes to form a diferent cognitive aproach, that brings diversity. Ultimately both sexes work different but that is not what defines gender, We can agree that most women have basic treats like having breast or having her menstrual cycle, gender interact with biology in how subjects interact with their bodies.

Other evidence that men and women are different can be found in the hypothalamus that differs from men to woman and Is thought is related also to sexual orientation. Brain atrophy also vary, men have more problems with brain atrophy while aging than women.

The issue of the biological body and how you adress that body is a comon trope on some writers, the phrase "writing with the body" is comonly found in the work of feminists like Julia Kristeva. The body is a part of the equation followed by the culture that determines how a body can be adressed, both things are featured on the so called "women's writing" thats It the political/cultural implications of biology.

Thats what I can say without bringing quotes and stuff, hey I bet you write some nonsense in your essays some times so forgive me If I got tangled on an internet site
valtyr: (my little captain)

[personal profile] valtyr 2012-02-20 07:12 am (UTC)(link)
These things happen, let's move on. As you say, we all make mistakes.

Diferent sexes exist because of the nature of sexual reproduction, man and woman are marked by a single cromosome that determines this difference Right?

Well, not always. XX male syndrome, for instance, and there are several other variants on the typical chromosome/sex arrangement. Not to mention intersexed persons.

Based in a false equivalence that set subconsiously the fact that there is a standard (that has been made modeled as a male) sexism is made by failing to recognise the woman.

Yes, I see your point that femaleness has been characterised as weakness and deviation from the male 'norm'. However, your point seems to be that we should acknowledge femaleness and maleness as valuable, but different. Would it not be more appropriate to recognise that the behaviours we see as 'male' and the behaviours we see as 'female' both have value, and can be performed by either gender?

As an example - if sexism has girls playing with dolls, and boys with trucks, and old ideas of equality gave the girls trucks, you seem to be proposing we should go back to giving girls dolls. But wouldn't it be better to give both girls and boys trucks and dolls?

different biology goes to form a diferent cognitive aproach,

But you see, you seem to be assuming that different biology comes first, rather than cultural conditions affecting biological development. Look at something as simple as stereotype threat for the pervasive effect of culture on the mind.

[personal profile] gerardotejada 2012-02-20 06:50 pm (UTC)(link)
Yes now we understand.

Look it at this way, our bodies are canvas that are colonized by discourses. Imagine une piece of bronze and one piece of silver, from both you can make the same sculpture but the aproach of the artist would be different in order to confront the material.

Material objects come first, but they appear to our consiousness in a diferent way. Both sexes became "genders" only into an Structure, but the sexes can form thousand and more genders. Is the dinamic between both sexes that create the genders, and when that dinamic is fixed and closed the the Femaleness and Maleness appears, that is the "Idealism" of gender that came from the material causes but dont identify whit them.

The aproach of a woman and a men in the same subject, (trucks dolls, wathever) is different without meaning that that difference should be caged into a single oposition of gender. The material dinamic Man/Woman have endless posibilities that spawned different genders across history, what we understand about male or female gender hs changed.

The material difference Men/Woman is basic to diversity.
Many corporation do the exercise of mix men and womam, the team work dinamic and aproach to the subject is different. Even if a full male or female team coukd do the same job executive preffers this way of working.

In the end giving a boy a truck and a girl a doll would erase the girl/truck and boy/doll. I mean we have to stop looking at the basi doll/truck but see the interaction of four elements girltruck boytruck girldoll boydoll.

Culture is imprinted in our bodies, but our bodies themself are capable of beign imprinted.

Difference between man and woman offer a lot of possibilities, by default a stereotype limits this posibilities of diversity by stablish rigid relationships on a static structure and erradicates a lot of variables that add to the different relationships.

As you see the stereotipe girl-doll boy-truck fool us into thinking there are just 2 elements and late I show how There can be 4 pieces. Now we can expand by saying that children playing with dolls and truck is also a old western stereotype, children can also play with animals, computers, etc.

Culture builds over this material conditions, culture can mold the material they have but without the material they have nothing to mold.

Saying that I argue that bodies matter, biology matters, in a way that even if everything remained the same my biological circumstances change who Am I.

This as oposed tho the "idealistic" view that my body is a smple container
valtyr: (Steve What?)

[personal profile] valtyr 2012-02-20 04:29 am (UTC)(link)
And your final link is to a novel called The Deerflat Chronicles, about a small town with colourful residents? How is that relevant?

[personal profile] donnblake 2012-02-20 01:46 am (UTC)(link)
People are different, and while it may be some of those differences are broadly traceable along gender lines I'm skeptical that A) there aren't large bodies of exceptions to even those, and B) that there aren't an enormous number of differences that have nothing to do with gender.

[personal profile] gerardotejada 2012-02-20 02:42 am (UTC)(link)
Difference is key to understand identity, If you want to claim women have any kind of Identity you need to focus on Women differences.

Your view adress a post modern question about individuality, identity can betraced as someting fragmentary, but that represent Itself on the circumstances. The large exeptions are nothing but an extension of the difference into another set of differences (polysistems theory).

Gender and Sex is NOT The same thing, your sex modifies your aproximation of gender. A woman's brain and social reponse differs from a man, there is studies.

In my case the expresion of women writers differs even in the same stream of literature, Isabel Allende has been criticied for beign a rip off of García Marques, but after a close reading many little differences appear at how she writtes are related to many femenine and feminst writers not just from the Boom but from the post-Boom as well.

The cliché thing to do is tk watch the lingüistic aproximations to the body (biological) that makes the writers, etc,

Biological differences extend or find a way into psychology and society. They arent the only ones but trust me, sex matters.

What doesnt exist is one way to represent them, so women identityS. Gender studies must determine what sex "pieces" go to form what gender "piece". The other way also applyes, much gender "pieces" comes from diferent societies.

Anyways, we must not play to be blind. I have a theory much if this comes from the MLuther King vs Malcom X, society accepted the "kinder" views in order to avoid conflict and in times distorted It to eliminate difference, Malcom X was harsh but wise, an Identity must be pursuited by searching our differences, his mistake was to argue about some ideal one identity and not identityS

For a comic book representation of the last see the original Kirby run of the X Men
greenmask: (Default)

MOD NOTE

[personal profile] greenmask 2012-02-20 12:38 pm (UTC)(link)
This thread is under discussion by the mod team

But for now, please avoid stating your opinion as individual-by-individual fact.

You're free to believe whatever you like about gender similarities or differences, but this is not the place to proclaim about it. If you need to use these opinions in an argument, be specific and go on a case-by-case basis.

Thank you.
salinea: Deadpool has a fucking horned hat on and is ready to kick gum and chew ass. Errr, moderate s_d. (mod hat)

Mod note: First Warning

[personal profile] salinea 2012-02-20 05:39 pm (UTC)(link)
Hello [personal profile] gerardotejada, we would like you to remember that [community profile] scans_daily is a feminist community, and would like to sincerely urge you to read our rules with attention. Your behaviour in these threads has been problematic in several ways:

- In this comment, when you say how people should proceed when they call out sexism. It is not up to you to tell people how they should react to sexism, especially when it touches them deeply. Women are entitled to call out the oppression they are victim of, and to frame their feeling about how it touches them how they wish.

- In this comment when you criticise [personal profile] valtyr's tone and tell her "please rest and answer my post when you are more calmed". Tone policing and telling women to calm down when discussing sexism are behaviours associated with derailing and dismissing that themselves play into sexism (women as overemotional). It's also very condescending and disrespectful. Valtyr is not a child and she can assess her emotional state and whether or not she can take part in the discussion without your say. For those reasons, those sort of comments are not tolerated in this community.

- In this comment you said "I trow that article as an easter egg, obviosly you couldnt handle the serious ones or you dont have a student acount to acces some one."
Justifying your behaviour by "you couldn't handle the serious ones" is frankly unacceptable. It is extremely patronizing and very presumptuous. I don't believe you know for a fact what valtyr's academic background is nor what she can handle. Besides, using your academic background in a discussion in order to give more prop your point as more authoritative isn't encouraged: this is a community for people with different backgrounds, but bigotry is something that affects everyone, so we encourage people to explain things in laymen's terms as much as possible. You are welcome to refer to academic studies and link to them, but don't use it to shut down or dismiss other people's point too easily. Also throwing anything as an Easter egg in a discussion is fairly disingenuous.

For all these reasons combined we are delivering you your FIRST OFFICIAL WARNING. Please note that if you receive two further warnings you will lose the ability to post on this community.

[personal profile] donnblake 2012-02-20 01:35 am (UTC)(link)
Sorry for the double post, but I'm having a hard time articulating myself on this issue. It's also, I recognize, an issue of power. I think we're aiming at a similar point- to continue the example you gave, you're saying that minorities shouldn't lack access to education, and I'm saying that access to education shouldn't be dependent on whether or not one is a minority. Of course, though, right now it does, and specifically in the sense that belonging to a minority can limit one's access. So that's the problem that needs to be addressed. There's probably an element of privilege in the problem I'm having making that connection.

On the other hand, I'm not sure that your example fully applies here. Cornell isn't saying, "Give more women access to the panels," he's saying "Have exactly half of the panels be made up by women," the difference being that, if we accept that there's a maximum practical size for a panel, then that's specifically limiting the number of men, and thus excluding people on the basis of gender.
valtyr: (Kelda)

[personal profile] valtyr 2012-02-20 01:41 am (UTC)(link)
Cornell isn't saying, "Give more women access to the panels,"

People have been saying that for a while, for very little effect.

the difference being that, if we accept that there's a maximum practical size for a panel, then that's specifically limiting the number of men, and thus excluding people on the basis of gender.

Right now, women are being excluded on the basis of gender, aren't they? If Paul Cornell were in a position to dictate the make-up of all panels, and he dictated a 50/50 split, then... how would that be unfair to men? Your position seems to be that equality is unfair to men.

[personal profile] donnblake 2012-02-20 01:53 am (UTC)(link)
Right now, you and I largely talking to each other, and because of my double post, we're doing it in two separate sub-threads (is that the term I'm looking for?) I hope you don't mind if I answer both this and your other recent post in the same post.

(Your other post, for the ease of anyone else reading along)

[No, I don't think the rule would be worthwhile in that case. In a world with true gender equality, panels would sometimes be all or majority male, but they would also sometimes be all or majority female. In a truly gender equality world, there would be significantly less - perhaps nothing - for which a female perspective would be more useful than a male perspective, and vice versa.]

I think that excluding anyone based on their gender is unfair. But I'm coming to see what I think is the more important issue, which is that if we were to grossly oversimplify matters and give fairness a numerical value, the rule could be argued to be removing two or three fairness units from the category Fairness Towards Men, and adding several dozen to the category Fairness Towards Women, for an overall increase in the Fairness for all involved. Does that make sense?
valtyr: (Jen she-hulk chinhand)

[personal profile] valtyr 2012-02-20 02:05 am (UTC)(link)
That's fine :)

Mm. Loosely. Okay, look at it like this, with comic artists. I'll list four male artists in declining order of quality, and then four female, ditto. (These listings are subjective, yada yada.)

Comic artists:

Jim Cheung
Bryan Hitch
Greg Land
90s Liefield

and

Amanda Connor
Sana Takeda
(I actually can't think of any regular female comic artists who are bad - which is telling in itself - so I'll make some up.)
Jane Doe
Annabelle Kay

DC wishes to employ six artists. They use SEXISM. It's super effective! They employ Jim Cheung, Bryan Hitch, Greg Land, Amanda Connor, and Sana Takeda.

DC get told they have a QUOTA. 50/50 male/female. They employ Jim Cheung, Bryan Hitch, Greg Land, Amanda Connor, Sana Takeda and Jane Doe.

With the new quota, technically you could argue that Rob Liefield has been excluded due to his gender. But is that really true?

If women had more opportunities to be panellists, and comic book artists, and writers - if they knew those opportunities were there - then we might well see more women aiming for them. It's hard as hell to get into the comic industry. How much harder is it for a woman? If Greg Land were a woman, I wonder if his tracing would be so tolerated?

[personal profile] donnblake 2012-02-20 02:11 am (UTC)(link)
Okay, yeah. I think the issue I'm having is that I'm trying to skip to the theoretical no-sexism industry. I really want it to be as simple as telling DC (or Marvel or any other company), "Hey, stop being sexist," but I feel like if that were the case someone would have told them already.
valtyr: (spider-woman)

[personal profile] valtyr 2012-02-20 02:24 am (UTC)(link)
Yeah, I think you may be underestimating the extent to which sexism is ingrained - even people who don't want to be sexist can act from sexist preconceptions, and subconsciously discriminate. It's a tough problem, no lie.

[personal profile] gerardotejada 2012-02-20 03:22 am (UTC)(link)
No one wants to be sexist, no one does It because they want (exept trolls). Its complicated and no one should never acuse some one of beign sexist but explain how something in a particular context can be seen as sexist by audience/society/wathever.
valtyr: (delphyne gun)

[personal profile] valtyr 2012-02-20 03:30 am (UTC)(link)
Plenty of people want to be sexist, because they have a vested interest in the perpetuation of the sexist status quo. There are plenty of men out there who are actively interested in subjugating women.

no one should never acuse some one of beign sexist but explain how something in a particular context can be seen as sexist by audience/society/wathever.

You don't get to make that decision. Decide how you react to sexism, and let others decide how they react to sexism. As it is, this is a completely irrelevant comment as no person has been accused of sexism in this post.

[personal profile] gerardotejada 2012-02-20 04:08 am (UTC)(link)
First I dont know no one tnat would say he is sexist, I think the active pursuit of sexism is a paranoic stance. There are men that try to protect the status quo because that is a safe place.

I was adressing a way in wich to react to sexism if It present to some one, Is my right to say that I dont want people calling names obiously I dont have a gun in your head, I can only say what I think is apropiated,

Your post is extreamly bitter, I really think you are beign offensive, please rest and answer my post when you are more calmed.
valtyr: (Hulk map)

[personal profile] valtyr 2012-02-20 04:15 am (UTC)(link)
You do realise that you cannot trust people to self-report on whether or not they are sexist, right?

I think the active pursuit of sexism is a paranoic stance.

Yes, I too believe that sexist men are sexist out of paranoid fear, I'm glad we've found this common ground.

I was adressing a way in wich to react to sexism if It present to some one, Is my right to say that I dont want people calling names obiously I dont have a gun in your head, I can only say what I think is apropiated,

Where does calling names come into this? And why do you think it's appropriate for you to tell other people how they should react to sexism? Why is it your business?

Your post is extreamly bitter, I really think you are beign offensive, please rest and answer my post when you are more calmed.

So you are lecturing people on how to behave, and when you are told it's a) not your business and b) irrelevant to the conversation as no-one is doing the things you disapprove of here, you accuse them of being bitter, offensive, and not calm? What an interesting point of view.

[personal profile] gerardotejada 2012-02-20 04:34 am (UTC)(link)
People are told that being sexist is bad, they have a predisposition to not want to be sexist.

Is my bussines because I care

I was given a sort of advice at how things should be, I did nothing wrong yet I have the feeling you were really pissed off with me because of my comment.

You said people act subconciously I was refering to that, if people is being sexist sunconsiously you cant say he is sexist just he is acting in a sexist way.

I really feel you are atacking me, I should have said I felt your post was extrimly bitter.

I cant know if you are, but Im suspicious if you, There is something that make me feel you are attacking me, anyway It is pointless to discuss about how I would like sexism to be adressed. I find It the better way, thats all.
valtyr: (Infinity)

[personal profile] valtyr 2012-02-20 04:46 am (UTC)(link)
People are told that being sexist is bad, they have a predisposition to not want to be sexist.

And yet many men personally benefit from sexism, and so have reasons to want it to continue.

Is my bussines because I care

The Catholic Church cares who I have sex with. And yet! It's none of their business. Pro-lifers care if I have an abortion. And yet! It's none of their business. Caring about something does not make it your business.

I was given a sort of advice at how things should be, I did nothing wrong yet I have the feeling you were really pissed off with me because of my comment.

It's none of your business, and I told you so. I'm sorry if that feels like an attack, but it is none of your business how other people respond to sexism.

if people is being sexist sunconsiously you cant say he is sexist just he is acting in a sexist way.

Sure I can. And as it's almost impossible to tell whether someone's being deliberately or subconsciously sexist - as people cannot be trusted to accurately self-report - it would be silly if we couldn't.

It is pointless to discuss about how I would like sexism to be adressed.

Then why did you decide to bring it into the conversation?

(frozen comment)

[personal profile] gerardotejada 2012-02-20 04:56 am (UTC)(link)
Because I thought some one could find It usefull, I didnt think It actually thirgger a discussion. Look if you want I can erase It
greenmask: (Default)

(frozen comment)

[personal profile] greenmask 2012-02-20 12:50 pm (UTC)(link)
This thread is frozen whilst under discussion by the mod team
stubbleupdate: (Default)

[personal profile] stubbleupdate 2012-02-20 12:21 am (UTC)(link)
Gail Simone will be very, very busy at Con Season

[personal profile] gerardotejada 2012-02-20 01:36 am (UTC)(link)
Thats the first reason I think this is a bad strategy
Did Cornell do a research at DC? Doesnt he knows that the last 7 or 8 years almost every women in DC has moved away (half the creators to be fair, from Dixon to Yost and from Rucka to Waid)


WARNING both All-Star Western and Demon Knights are border line to cancellation. Palmotti and Grey have already asked for help BUY ALL STAR WESTERN. Cornell have already left Stormwatch, dont let his book go under 20k (It is already below 25k)
stubbleupdate: (Default)

[personal profile] stubbleupdate 2012-02-20 06:50 am (UTC)(link)
I'm really not sure what cancellation figures has to do with this.

ext_197528: (Default)

[identity profile] kurenai-tenka.livejournal.com 2012-02-20 12:33 am (UTC)(link)
Man, I just love Paul Cornell so damn much.

[personal profile] gerardotejada 2012-02-20 01:43 am (UTC)(link)
He seems a really great guy, Capitan Britania and the MI13 was very good but It was cancelled, I pray so his Demon Knights dont get cancelled too.
ext_197528: (Default)

[identity profile] kurenai-tenka.livejournal.com 2012-02-20 02:06 am (UTC)(link)
Ditto. I was gutted that he got taken off Stormwatch, but I really love Demon Knights and I can't imagine anyone but him writing it.

[personal profile] gerardotejada 2012-02-20 03:38 am (UTC)(link)
I know a few that coukd write the book but they would make something closer to Mooreesque aproach to the magic universe. I would love that but the charm this "first season" has is that is more about the D&D/Skyrim aproach to sorcery, a vertigo sequel could be great with the same writter as Madame Xanadu or maybe the one who wrote Zatanna series that was awsome.

You know actually I think I liked Cornell more in Capitan Britania, but this book is looking better and better
valtyr: (balaclava)

[personal profile] valtyr 2012-02-20 12:35 am (UTC)(link)
It's worth noting he made this announcement shortly after the guest list for Kapow was released. I advise anyone wondering how even the split is to check out that guest list - and check out last year's guest list, too.

Kudos to Paul Cornell for noticing this, and acting in a way that will both be a small correction, and draw attention to the problem.
q99: (Default)

[personal profile] q99 2012-02-20 01:05 am (UTC)(link)
I like him.


Also? Nice cover!

[personal profile] gerardotejada 2012-02-20 01:41 am (UTC)(link)
You think so? Is the worst cover in the series so far, I find It photoshoped (ugly).

Look the other covers, If you like this one the others will blow your mind.

Buy ALL STAR WESTERN and DEMON KNIGHTS they are borderline cancelation, and two of the five or six high quality series of DC (and still are far behind Justice
League and Green Lanter wtf)
q99: (Default)

[personal profile] q99 2012-02-20 01:59 am (UTC)(link)
Demon Knights does have a *lot* of good covers, admittedly.

I like this one, I like the one where Ex headbutts a triceratops, etc..

I am one of the people who buys DK and recommends it whenever I get a chance ^^

Considering DK is a 'Dark' book, I don't think it needs quite as high sales to keep going, so hopefully it'll be fine.

[personal profile] gerardotejada 2012-02-20 03:41 am (UTC)(link)
Well the new aproach to cancelations says otherwise, Palmotti and Grey are in the EDGE brand and they are concerned. I hope DK go up the 25k line, cause under 20k is the red list
dancesontrains: (Default)

[personal profile] dancesontrains 2012-02-20 05:26 pm (UTC)(link)
...surely the solution re. not enough women creators to join a panel is to hire more ladies? Maybe do it like orchestras apparently have for the last few years, judge the quality of the art/writing/colouring/etc without knowing the name of the creator.
crabby_lioness: (Default)

[personal profile] crabby_lioness 2012-02-20 05:44 pm (UTC)(link)
So gallantry is not dead after all. :)
kenn_el: Northstar_Hmm (Default)

[personal profile] kenn_el 2012-02-21 02:52 am (UTC)(link)
I'm going to do the same thing at my meetings at work! Genius! With luck, I won't have to sit through another snoozefest for a year!