Smersh

And it couldn't possibly be because you don't bring up issues of gender equality of costumes in random global channels or PUGs? Somehow, I'm thinking that the people you associate with in the game are also a small minority. There can only be so many people in any given global channel or league, after all.

Poor argument.

Especially when you consider how unlikely it is that anyone from Paragon Studios is listening to any given global channel - and if you want to say "Hey, Paragon Studios, I am unhappy with this, I would like this to be changed, or at least to hear your rationalization for this," the forums are a much better place for that.

That's a negative.

Ouro is your friend.

I am pro-concept and I support that choice. However, I made my Inv/Fire tank specifically because I saw someone wandering around with a fire sword shortly post-launch. I include swords in my chains.

Scorch - GFS - Scorch - Incinerate is better damage.

Well. That's not a throwback to the idea of running a raid over and over for a chance at a drop, no sir.

No, I'm perfectly willing to be objective. Bring something up that you want to discuss. Go ahead. I'm all ears.

I feel this is absolutely incorrect. Misogyny, oh noes!

When I am criticizing misogyny in writing, I am specifically criticizing the writing. In general, I don't know the author, I'm not speaking to them socially, I only know them through their writing. I can't say that the author of a particular work is a misogynist - unless I see that in interviews that they've given or some other method.

When I say that there is a problem with misogyny in writing, I don't assume that the writer is misogynist. I just assume that what they wrote has certain misogynist overtones, which the writer may or may not be aware of. It's easy to do - I've looked back on things I wrote ten years ago and picked up on certain issues that were problematic. I didn't do it deliberately, certainly - but that doesn't change the fact that there are certain elements which could be interpreted as nothing other than misogyny.

If someone pointed it out to me, I'd have to say that they were correct.

Would that mean that I would have to wear a big scarlet M on my clothing for the rest of my life? Hardly. Does it mean that I was cruel to the women in my life? No. But what I had written treated women as objects, not as full characters, and it wasn't right.

It means that what I wrote was misogynist, and that I need to think about why it was and what I can do in order to avoid it in the future.

But, and I underline this as it applies to comics - it's easy to write things as a male that are problematic, and you wouldn't even realize it unless it were pointed out to you. In my own writing from ten years ago, I didn't realize what I'd done until I reread it a year or so ago - I needed that distance from it to read it from an outside perspective, and with ten years of life experiences more than when I wrote it.

And outside perspectives on comics aren't all that common.

In general, saying that you've done something misogynist isn't a condemnation of your character. If you're told that's the case and you keep doing it, though... that goes beyond an act and becomes your character. (I'm looking at you, Frank Miller.)

And, no, I refuse to accept the idea that saying "what you are doing is misogynist" is worse than doing something that's misogynist.

Go back and read the thread, you will note that I have, in fact, made references to media outside of comic books. (That would be Sefu Tendaji, a character who is killed here in CoH, and Max Payne.)

Comics have been the central issue of the thread; I see no issue with focusing my discussion there. There's a reason that the term "women in refrigerators" was coined to deal with comics. I also apply the term outside of comics when it is warranted.

If you don't like that I have chosen to focus my discussion on comic books, I... guess I'm sorry that you don't like how I've chosen to construct my argument? I'm not sorry enough to make an effort to placate you, though.

If you're dissatisfied with the direction the thread's taken, you could try contributing to it and leading it in a different direction. But I feel no need to acquiesce to your demand that I construct an argument more to your taste.

Just because I can and do apply fridging outside of the comics genre does not mean I have to upon demand.

No.

You don't get to tell me how to make my case.

You want to discuss other media? You can make an argument using another form of media, and if it is interesting to me, I will pursue it. If it's not, I won't.

The 50% ratio I was referring to was the one posited by Scythus. And that regards death, not murder.

What I was referring to is that everyone dies.

In terms of murder? Overwhelmingly committed by men, whether the victim is male or female. Your point?

If someone says there's an issue, there might be an issue. If a bunch of people say there's an issue, then there's an issue.

Fun number you pulled out of the air there, but we won't belabor that point. Instead, let's just focus on 'shock value.' That's interesting because it's true - but because it ties into gender norms and the expected gender of comics readers. Specifically, by fridging a character, comics writers are trying to get a cheap shock from reactions like those of UberGuy, who I will quote here:

Now, back to BrandX:
That's another problematic issue with comics - especially when you consider that, while male superheroes can have non-superhero significant others, the reverse is much less common (yes, there are exceptions, I know. Don't say I said never.) And, really, that's where you get into the matter of superheroines getting fridged as well. Comics are male-driven, male-dominated, and rarely are questions asked about how gender roles and norms are presented in comics. But that's an entirely different thread. I think Samuel Tow started it a couple of weeks ago.

Statesman didn't need anyone to die to get him all riled up. It's the Superman question - you need to have a way for him to fail, because he's virtually impossible to kill. And it should be possible to rile him up by setting him up for failure.

Killing someone close to him is lazy writing. And it's not just about the relationship - it's about how she went out. She used to be a superhero. She shows up in the first mission, cowers, and is killed without even so much as a defiant holding her head high, or dying declaration. It's also about how it is done.
Bucky didn't go out cowering and begging for his life, either. Nor was he a non-combatant, and he went out as a result of HYDRA supersoldiers on a train - who he got to fight against. If Bucky had been female, it wouldn't have been a fridging.

Again, it's an un-self-critical male-dominated industry where the questions never get asked. That's the sort of environment where unconscious sexism thrives.

No.

I chose comics because a) it was relevant to the thread and b) I couldn't be bothered to tally up the entire page.

If you want to move the goal posts to video games, 16 of 22 examples for video games on the Stuffed in the Fridge page on TVTropes are women. Still nowhere close to that 50/50 that exists in real life.

I don't think that helped your argument at all.

And, for the record, my definition of fridging does apply to all media.

What do you think happens when I make a claim of sexism in writing? Do you think the author has to wear a scarlet S for the rest of their lives? Do you think that I will hate them forever? Do you think that my claims are going to haunt their professional career forever?

No.

The reason I'm pointing it out is that I want people to be aware of sexism in entertainment, both creators and consumers. If the author reads this thread, looks at what he wrote, and says "Huh, I didn't think of it that way," and tries to do things differently in the future, that's a win. If a player reads this thread after playing the arc and says "Huh, I didn't think of it that way, that's kinda messed up," that's a win.

For the most part, I don't judge people's tastes in entertainment, and I don't demand that entertainment be free of problematic elements. I can enjoy reading Robert E. Howard's Conan stories, with their rampant racism and sexism. I can enjoy Ender's Game, even with the prepubescent homophobia. I just make sure that I'm aware of those elements and say, "Hey, that's problematic."

If you consume enough entertainment with problematic elements without that level of criticism for long enough, though, there can be a tendency to internalize elements of it and let it affect your worldview. That's why I prefer to point it out when I see it, and get bothered when people refuse to see it.


As a purely aside point - I finally managed to drag myself over to the TVTropes page on "People stuffed in refrigerators." A quick count of the examples under comics? 15 examples are women; 4 examples are men or large presumably mixed gender groups. Only one of those four was a male example. So much for the 50/50, yes?

So, you're saying my opinion is invalid because... I haven't held it for long enough. The number of reasons why that might be the case is as long as my arm - Maybe I didn't read Spiderman until four or five years ago. Perhaps I was unaware of the WIR phenomenon until four or five years ago. Perhaps my opinions have changed as I've had life experiences and further educated myself.

In any event, that's a nonsensical argument and not worthy of consideration. I don't care how long you've held your opinions, whether it's been two weeks or twenty years.

And your point is?

I'm not an expert in comics, nor do I claim to be.

Nor do I hew exclusively to the definition of that site, or that of TV Tropes. I've stated my definition at least twice in this thread, I see no reason to repeat it here. But I will say this: The original blog post about WIR tries to cover two scenarios, and the definition I use only covers one. Storm, Raven and the like having horrible things happen to them would be something to look at in terms of possible mistreatment of female characters at the hands of male authors, but they are not in the working definition I am using for WIR. I accept the blog post and TVTropes as illustrative, but not definitive.

What I haven't seen is your definition of WIR, and whether you believe it to be an issue or not.

I've made my declarative statements; I've laid my cards on the table. If you want to make a statement that you don't think it's a problem, we can discuss it on that level. But, if you make that statement, you don't get to tell me that my definition is wrong. I've defined what I think is happening, and you're saying "no, that's not happening."

If you do agree that it is happening, but feel my definition is wrong, we can discuss it on that level. (That is precisely where a discussion of Gwen Stacy lies.)

If you prefer to grant my definition (even if just for the sake of argument) of WIR and want to say that I'm applying it incorrectly in certain cases (i.e. Gwen Stacy) and want to refute my application based on story elements in the text, we can do that too.

All of the above are perfectly reasonable areas of debate, and I am willing to speak to any of them.

What I will choose not to do is to engage you if you're unwilling to meet halfway for debate. If you want to engage in ad hominem (YOU HAVEN'T THOUGHT GWEN STACY WAS WIR FOR LONG ENOUGH, YOU'RE WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING!), if you want to say that "it isn't happening and your definition is wrong and Gwen Stacy isn't in a fridge, but I won't state my definition of what constitutes a fridging that I don't believe happens anyway," I will bid you good day and not respond to you further in this thread.

I won't be subjected to goalposts being moved on issues not germane to my argument.

Yeah, I've gotten so many plaudits from this thread I don't know what to do with them. [/sarcasm]

I've made my definition of WIR. By my definition (which I stated upthread and is primarily interested in the attitudes of the authors), Gwen Stacy *was* WIR. I have my threshold for it, which I have stated. I have also admitted that Gwen Stacy is a threshold case - I recognize that, while I put her in that category, not everyone will, and that she is a subject for debate on the issue.

(For the record, if female characters are defined primarily by their relationship to the male protagonist and are killed off primarily to spur character growth, I consider that a fridging. It's more egregious if the character exists in the plot only to die and spur character growth, but that is not the only example. The awesome rampage of John Clark in Without Remorse? Caused by a fridging.)

You may choose to debate my definition of fridging. But since you are not the final arbiter of what constitutes a refrigerator (nor am I), you don't get to say with impunity that I am wrong. Show me I am wrong. Prove that I'm wrong. Don't assert it without backing it up.

Also, I consider twelve and a half years to not be new. Therefore, you are wrong about everything you say, if that's the standard you wish to apply.

Forgive me if I didn't take notes about when I decided to categorize a particular comic book story under a particular trope - it's not something that I mark on my calendar. It has been some time, perhaps four or five years.

To put it very simply: I can think of a half-dozen examples off the top of my head wherein a male protagonist comes home to find his wife/girlfriend/daughter tortured/kidnapped/violated/dead with a taunting note from the antagonist. I cannot think of a gender-flipped version off the top of my head. Hence, women in refrigerators.

(It's arguable that Uncle Ben was, in fact, stuffed in a fridge by my standards. That's another debate entirely.)

Ah, so you admit that I didn't say what you said I did, and that you are wrong. Glad to hear it.