Melanie,
When you stick to comments regarding the Disney characters it is usually
enjoyable to read your remarks. When you attack the men on this bulletin
board, you have NO idea how sexist YOU sound. Yes, women can be sexist also
and many are. The time I spent on this bulletin board, all men have
conducted themselves as gentlemen, all of the women as gentleladies. Is
that what you consider sexist? How anyone could have been offended by the
comments I have read by the gentle people on this bulletin board is beyond
me, it has to require a great deal of paranoi and work. On other bulletin
boards I belong to folks would consider what you are doing FLAMING and
people have been removed from the bulletin boards for doing it excessively
to everyone's relief. Have you considered taking up comic writing/drawing
to see what you can do to improve the medium as you see it?
Kathy
>>
>> MELANIE:
>
>(deletions of the first part of Daniel's message, to which I've already
>responded)
>
>> The role of women in comic-world has already been discussed on this club
>> long time ago. As I already tried to explain in this letter, it's a fact
>> that women get very little and/or minimal roles in the (duck)comics.
>
>Sounds as if it needs to be discussed again, since the responses seem
>rather less than enlightened to me :-)
>
>And you're exactly right about the limited role of women, which is
>precisely why I'm bringing it up in this forum. Even the Ducks could
>benefit from moving into the 20th century (at least sometime before the
>21st starts :-)
>
>Bear in mind that slavery was (and is, in some places) a _fact_, but that
>doesn't make it right!
>
>> It has been discussed here what the reason could be for that. My opinion
>> is that it is because the comics are mainly made by men. And *of course*
>> those men gave the most interesting roles to their male characters! ;-)
>
>Exactly, once again. They also make most of the movies, which explains
>why older women get fewer roles. This is not to say that all men are
>oppressors, by any means, but historically they've certainly looked out
>for their own interests at the expense of the rest of us. And once again,
>while this is historically true, it is also wrong.
>
>> Maybe a comic is of less interest to the avarage girl/woman? A funny
>> thing was, that when the role of women was discussed here on the list,
>> someone asked if there was a woman among the members. At that very time
>> there was not even one reaction!
>
>Would you be interested in something that degrades or humiliates you,
>portrays you unfairly?
>
>And you wonder why no women are on the list?
>
>> Now there *are* women here on the club (which is a good case!), but
>> still most members are men. No matter what your, mine or someone
>> else's opinion is about it: It's a fact.
>
>I also submit material to a group which studies the American Civil War.
>It was overwhelmingly male when I first joined it, and it reeked of the
>same stupid sexism I'm seeing here today. Now, that group has many more
>female participants and we're learning a history of the war from another
>perspective that most of us never knew existed, certainly never studied in
>grade school or high school! It's not so much a stretch to see the Ducks
>in new situations, with new, more interesting stories, if they take down
>the "No Girls Allowed" sign from the clubhouse door.
>
>That change starts with changing the attitudes of people like you!
>
>Oppression is a _fact_ but should we continue to tolerate racism, sexism,
>imperialism and other unpleasantries just because we have traditionally
>done so for centuries?
>
>I find it hilarious that in attempting to join a group established ostensibly
>for the purpose of sharing Disney Comics, I have in fact blundered into the
>steamroom at the Y!
>
>Sorry to burst your brandy-and-cigars bubble, boys, but I do contend
>that the Duck Universe would be improved with the addition of strong
>female characters. It's funny that people are so upset about this.
>
>> > Don't laugh too hard at the inference, but isn't it interesting how
>> > older actresses (but not actors) have a tough time finding roles.
>>
>> That's because men get handsomer when they get older. (OOoops!) ;-)
>
>I assume then, that beer-bellies and sagging...whatever...are purely
>imaginary ;-)
>
>> To be serious: Do you really think so? I don't know, I never thought
>> about it. I'll pay attention to it, next time I watch television or a
>> movie.
>
>See how many flicks Al Pacino is in compared with say, Meryl Streep.
>
>> > I await your detailed rebuttal.
>>
>> Well, here it is. One of the most difficult letters I ever wrote to the
>> club. I'm sorry for saying it, but I sometimes get the idea that you
>> very easily draw a negative conclusion out of my comments.
>
>Thanks for writing, you've made my case very nicely for me with your
>overtly sexist remarks. It's certainly safe to conclude that you have no
>real interest in strong female Duck characters; if fact, you are
>threatened by them. Hope you can get yourself liberated by the year 2000.
>
>> When I red your reply to my first letter about Hortensia and Matilda, I
>> got the idea that you were thinking I'm against women or whatever. To
>> be frankly: It made it very frustrating for me to reply again, because
>> I got the feeling I had to *defend* myself instead of explaining myself.
>
>Again, thanks, you've exposed yourself (oops, bad choice of words ;-)
>without my having to say a thing.
>
>Regards,
>
>Melanie
>
>
>
>
Author
Topic: 199512
(361 messages)
Kathy Fitzpatrick
Response to Daniel Female characters (Part 2)
Message 151 -
1995-12-11 at 05:35:34
Arthur De Wolf
dcomics-d Digest V95 #12
Message 152 -
1995-12-11 at 08:05:54
WES:
> Daniel sent me a photo copy of this picture, which I like quite a bit.
> MM looks like yours (his head was obviously drawn with a circular stencil),
> and the signatures are there. HDL are looking at the three portraits.
Yeah, sure! Give Daniel the credit of sending you the picture. ;-)
Arthur
> Daniel sent me a photo copy of this picture, which I like quite a bit.
> MM looks like yours (his head was obviously drawn with a circular stencil),
> and the signatures are there. HDL are looking at the three portraits.
Yeah, sure! Give Daniel the credit of sending you the picture. ;-)
Arthur
MASSENGALE MELANIE O
Response to Harry Female list members
Message 153 -
1995-12-11 at 08:33:23
Hi Harry,
> DANIEL:
>
> Please stop your discussion with Melanie. She uses this list
> for exposing her feminist ideas. Every sentence with the
> word "woman" or "female" in it will be explained by her
> in a negative way.
I believe this is just your perception, Harry. The discussion, you'll
recall, began with my inquiring if all the people knew each other on the
list, and if I could get a answer to the question about expanding the
roles of Hortense and Matilda. The discussion escalated from there into
why Disney comics don't feature stronger female characters. I was
attacked quite viciously for suggesting that the comics would be better
for the inclusion of such characters, especially for expanding H and M's
roles.
> I'm starting to think that all that stuff about "cliquish"
> members was just an excuse to start these discussions, no,
> I should say fights, with you, Jorgen, and others.
I had no desire to fight with anyone, including Jorgen. His remarks to me
were intentionally sarcastic.
> Melanie (still) uses a lot of words and expressions that
> we Europeans have to look up in a dictionary.
Consider the fact that I have acknowledged my use of idioms, and now use
fewer of them. I believe I'm helping your English voculabulary as well.
Don't you want to correspond with articulate people?
> And she didn't answer my letter. Maybe I should complain
> about her being cliquish?
I'm sorry but that sounds rather childish. There has been a tremendous
response to this debate, and I frankly do not have the time to answer
everybody personally.
> BTW: there are some women writing Disney comics. For instance
> Janet Gilbert (member of this list), and Kirsten de Graaf,
> who writes stories for Mau Heymans.
Terrific. I believe that someone said that in the previous debate on this
topic, no women responded.
In the future, kindly consider your own negativism, as in this message,
before attributing the same to me. Thanks.
Regards,
Melanie
> DANIEL:
>
> Please stop your discussion with Melanie. She uses this list
> for exposing her feminist ideas. Every sentence with the
> word "woman" or "female" in it will be explained by her
> in a negative way.
I believe this is just your perception, Harry. The discussion, you'll
recall, began with my inquiring if all the people knew each other on the
list, and if I could get a answer to the question about expanding the
roles of Hortense and Matilda. The discussion escalated from there into
why Disney comics don't feature stronger female characters. I was
attacked quite viciously for suggesting that the comics would be better
for the inclusion of such characters, especially for expanding H and M's
roles.
> I'm starting to think that all that stuff about "cliquish"
> members was just an excuse to start these discussions, no,
> I should say fights, with you, Jorgen, and others.
I had no desire to fight with anyone, including Jorgen. His remarks to me
were intentionally sarcastic.
> Melanie (still) uses a lot of words and expressions that
> we Europeans have to look up in a dictionary.
Consider the fact that I have acknowledged my use of idioms, and now use
fewer of them. I believe I'm helping your English voculabulary as well.
Don't you want to correspond with articulate people?
> And she didn't answer my letter. Maybe I should complain
> about her being cliquish?
I'm sorry but that sounds rather childish. There has been a tremendous
response to this debate, and I frankly do not have the time to answer
everybody personally.
> BTW: there are some women writing Disney comics. For instance
> Janet Gilbert (member of this list), and Kirsten de Graaf,
> who writes stories for Mau Heymans.
Terrific. I believe that someone said that in the previous debate on this
topic, no women responded.
In the future, kindly consider your own negativism, as in this message,
before attributing the same to me. Thanks.
Regards,
Melanie
MASSENGALE MELANIE O
Response to David G. Various Things
Message 154 -
1995-12-11 at 08:43:18
Hi David,
Condolences on the apparent passing of the unfortunate Hortense and
Matilda, the unwitting and and unhappy subjects of current debate here :-)
If anybody doesn't understand the above, I'll send 'em a dictionary.
> comments from MELANIE:
>
> Defining 'benefit of the doubt' for Daniel, you said "This is
> giving you the benefit of my doubt that you'd really like to see some
> female duck character portrayed" (explaining "benefit of the doubt"
> for Daniel)
> Huh? It's a benefit for him, that you doubt he'd like to see
> female characters portrayed? I have to confess that while I've used
> the phrase "benefit of the doubt" throughout my life, I've never been
> able to define why the phrase is used the way it is.
Huh?
If I have to explain American idioms to you, David, maybe all of us
should stop trying to communicate. This tells me more about you than
about Daniel in the current debate :-(
> Regarding Grandma vs. Hortense: "What's wrong with creating a
> career for Hortense? She could be much more a role model than another
> pale domestic character." Are you calling Grandma a pale domestic
> character?
NO, I never said that about Grandma, I did in fact state that she had some
possibilities for development (I believe I said that to Don Rosa when he
brought it up), but that I felt that H and M had more.
I have always viewed Grandma as a smart, responsible,
> determined, capable and energetic character whose faults of temper and
> occasional old-fashionedness nicely round out her personality along
> with a dollop of humorous skepticism.
> Besides, haven't you praised Grandma's character before? Why
> is she now the "pale domestic character" for you?
Again, I NEVER SAID THAT.
> You say that "Grandma hasn't been used as much as Daisy, so
> there is room to expand her character." I think that simply giving
> her center stage in any long adventure, or in a solo story of more
> than six pages in length, will show that her current traits (as I
> defined them) make for a great protagonist all by themselves.
David, what ARE you thinking? You just quoted the passage in which I said
Grandma had possibilities, after accusing me of calling her "a pale
domestic character," a phrase taken completely out of context! In short,
you contradicted yourself, and in the process put both of us in a very bad
light by misquoting.
> "You can have two old MEN in the comics, but they might have
> very different personalities." Actually, I'd say there's a stereotype
> of old men just like there is for old women. The stereotype shows
> them as irritable, doddering, eccentric, and usually interested only
> in esoteric things.
Not really. $ is considered very accomplished in the world of business,
and his eccentricities are much-indulged. "Bad" old men like Flintheart
have many of the same traits as $, but come off less well since they are
essentially evil. Liking esoteric things is seen as positive, generally
speaking.
Like... like... Ludwig von Drake, although I do
> have a soft spot for him. You know, the kind of character who goes
> around saying "by cracky" and other such things (although they'd be
> German exclamations for Von Drake).
LVD doesn't fit the model you've described. Though he is old and
interested in esoteric things, he gets flustered rather than angry and
irritable. So he doesn't adhere to a stereotype at all.
> Scrooge is an example of an old character who doesn't follow
> the stereotype -- so much not, in fact, that when DuckTales did an
> episode in which Scrooge lost his memory and (with it) his accent, the
> writers clearly figured that Scrooge must be only around 50, not a
> really old man.
Again, David, you contradicted yourself by saying that old men fit a
stereotype, and here you say that $, an old man, doesn't.
My point exactly :-)
In DuckTales, old men tend to fit that "by cracky"
> caricature. So there are probably people who'd figure that having a
> lot of old men in the strip might lead writers who adored cliche to
> tend to make them act alike.
DUCKTALES doesn't count at all in Duck canon, as far as I'm aware...in
fact, much of it is heresy :-)
> (Remember how in the Disney film UNCLE SCROOGE AND MONEY, the
> animation department figured that old male ducks were more or less
> alike and made U$ a lot more like Von Drake, even to his looks?)
I think the argument is limited to the comic Ducks, since tv and movies
diverge far from canon anyway. I welcome comments from the other readers
on this.
I _did_ say:
>> "No, please, we don't WANT to look at Daisy's women's club!"
And you replied:
> I wanted to do a Daisy story which brought it back just to
> expose its cliches. I had her somehow get on their bad side, then
> have to go on the lam, muttering all the while about how they cluster
> together, making themselves into human cliches, and how she hadn't
> thought that much about it until now. I am still open to doing such a
> story if someone can give me a good reason why Daisy would get on the
> bad side of that stereotypical club she's in.
I heard recently from a gentleman at an Italian studio who stated that any
divergence they'd attempted from stereotyped female roles was discouraged
by the Disney Co. I'd personally would be very interested in seeing your
story and think that it would have great value.
Daisy might discover that the club members were not very accepting of her
in some way; perhaps because she and Donald aren't married, maybe she
isn't "aristocratic" or associate with the right people. Such a story
would be excellent social commentary with lots of opportunities to explore
the humorous side of prejudice.
The story was to have
> Daisy remembering how DD hid from her in the lions' cage at the zoo
> once, so she does the same, just hauling off and punching the lions to
> intimidate them out of her way. But why choose the lion cage just
> because Donald did? I saw myself defying logic to make a social
> comment about the dated stereotypes of the 1950s, and so I figured it
> wasn't really worth it.
I do believe it is possible to write such a story without stretching
credibility too much. Are others interested in such stories, I wonder?
> The ONLY source I use for Daisy in the old stories, by the
> way, is the solitary example of WDC&S 88 in which Daisy is smart,
> cynical, and saves Donald's house for him with her smart dealing.
> (But that said, I have so far only used Daisy incidentally in one
> story so far. She was repairing a roof quite competently, which may
> be seen as progressive for some, but if it is, said "some" must be
> rather backwards... I thought it was common knowledge that women can
> do any job men can do.)
I agree with Don Rosa, who essentially said that Daisy is hard to work
with since she brings along a lot of stereotyped history. I keep thinking
that there is some truth to that, though some characters have been reshaped.
Do you remember the big argument about a Wal-Mart store removing some
tee-shirts featuring Hank Ketcham's "Dennis the Menace" character, Margaret?
The shirts showed Margaret stating, "Someday a woman will be President!"
Wal-Mart removed the shirts from sale when a few customers objected. It
was alleged, though not explicitly stated, that the complainers were
conservative Christians who believe that women should not be in such
positions of power.
The Margaret character has for years been a negative stereotype of loud,
brassy and aggressive women. Curiously, this incident helped Margaret's
image more than any story Ketcham could ever have written! The media
picked it up, people were outraged, Wal-Mart sheepishly restored the
shirts to the shelves, and the lady who originally offered them for sale
at Wal-mart found herself a bit wealthier, and a celebrity to boot.
Sorry for the digression, but the story illustrates that a character CAN
be changed, albeit with considerable work and difficulty.
> Being a writer has its disadvantages. My mom's a math editor,
> usually at work on a manuscript, and when it came time to show Minnie
> putting aside some work to have a talk with Mickey in one story, I
> showed her putting down a corrected manuscript and a red pencil... but
> the artist changed it to a knitting basket! Ack!
Now that's too bad :-(
I said:
> "What is the difference between Daisy and Minnie? Each
> is merely a prop for the protagonist and neither has a real
> personality of her own."
And you replied:
> Minnie is very different than Daisy. While Daisy is very much
> the object to be attained all too much of the time, Minnie in
> Gottfredson's best years has a remarkable urge for adventure which
> conflicts constantly with a dislike of real trouble -- and she finds
> that Mickey blurs adventure and trouble by means of his
> overenthusiasm. In fact, Byron Erickson did a REMARKABLE take on all
> of this in which Minnie is very, very rounded indeed... and Gladstone
> is publishing it soon! It's none other than the "Fantasy Island"
> story appearing in WDG #5. This is a GREAT story, Melanie (and
> everyone!) and everyone should make sure to get it!
I'm willing to chance it :-)
> MELANIE again:
> "David, if anybody can beat the mummification of Mickey, you
> can!" No, anyone can. All anyone has to do is simply ignore all MM
> stories made after 1940... which anyway, makes MM into such a more
> active, interesting character that the plots come much easier too.
Ah, but "anyone" hasn't, to date! I await YOURS.
> Jorgen said to you:
> > This is starting to get difficult. Do you expect to be able to enter
> > any group of people, and at once understand everything they are talking
> > about, any matter what it is? . . . On Usenet you are actually
> > supposed to read the group at least a couple of months to learn how
> > the group works before you enter it.
Well, this isn't Usenet and there aren't specific groundrules. You may
not like the way I say things, or even what I have to say, but I believe I
have raised legitimate issues.
> And you said, "given the escalating hostility of this
> exchange, I have responded privately to Jorgen in email..."
> When Jorgen said "difficult," he was, I believe, not saying
> that you were intractable, but that he was having a hard time
> explaining what he meant. Forgive me for getting into this, but I
> think you're misinterpreting Jorgen's use of English as a second
> language as his speaking to you rudely. Please don't get in a fight
> over this!
Given the extremely negative nature of his _total_ response, much of which you
have deleted and do not acknowledge, including much baiting and sarcasm
(which Jorgen himself readily admits), I felt it best to respond via email.
My intent was to contain a flamewar before it became general, but it was
too late for that as later events have shown. I have no intention of
responding to him again publicly, as I already said. I may do the same
with others who've decided to pile on since then.
I regret that you're unable to see anything positive in my arguments about
this topic.
Best regards,
Melanie
Condolences on the apparent passing of the unfortunate Hortense and
Matilda, the unwitting and and unhappy subjects of current debate here :-)
If anybody doesn't understand the above, I'll send 'em a dictionary.
> comments from MELANIE:
>
> Defining 'benefit of the doubt' for Daniel, you said "This is
> giving you the benefit of my doubt that you'd really like to see some
> female duck character portrayed" (explaining "benefit of the doubt"
> for Daniel)
> Huh? It's a benefit for him, that you doubt he'd like to see
> female characters portrayed? I have to confess that while I've used
> the phrase "benefit of the doubt" throughout my life, I've never been
> able to define why the phrase is used the way it is.
Huh?
If I have to explain American idioms to you, David, maybe all of us
should stop trying to communicate. This tells me more about you than
about Daniel in the current debate :-(
> Regarding Grandma vs. Hortense: "What's wrong with creating a
> career for Hortense? She could be much more a role model than another
> pale domestic character." Are you calling Grandma a pale domestic
> character?
NO, I never said that about Grandma, I did in fact state that she had some
possibilities for development (I believe I said that to Don Rosa when he
brought it up), but that I felt that H and M had more.
I have always viewed Grandma as a smart, responsible,
> determined, capable and energetic character whose faults of temper and
> occasional old-fashionedness nicely round out her personality along
> with a dollop of humorous skepticism.
> Besides, haven't you praised Grandma's character before? Why
> is she now the "pale domestic character" for you?
Again, I NEVER SAID THAT.
> You say that "Grandma hasn't been used as much as Daisy, so
> there is room to expand her character." I think that simply giving
> her center stage in any long adventure, or in a solo story of more
> than six pages in length, will show that her current traits (as I
> defined them) make for a great protagonist all by themselves.
David, what ARE you thinking? You just quoted the passage in which I said
Grandma had possibilities, after accusing me of calling her "a pale
domestic character," a phrase taken completely out of context! In short,
you contradicted yourself, and in the process put both of us in a very bad
light by misquoting.
> "You can have two old MEN in the comics, but they might have
> very different personalities." Actually, I'd say there's a stereotype
> of old men just like there is for old women. The stereotype shows
> them as irritable, doddering, eccentric, and usually interested only
> in esoteric things.
Not really. $ is considered very accomplished in the world of business,
and his eccentricities are much-indulged. "Bad" old men like Flintheart
have many of the same traits as $, but come off less well since they are
essentially evil. Liking esoteric things is seen as positive, generally
speaking.
Like... like... Ludwig von Drake, although I do
> have a soft spot for him. You know, the kind of character who goes
> around saying "by cracky" and other such things (although they'd be
> German exclamations for Von Drake).
LVD doesn't fit the model you've described. Though he is old and
interested in esoteric things, he gets flustered rather than angry and
irritable. So he doesn't adhere to a stereotype at all.
> Scrooge is an example of an old character who doesn't follow
> the stereotype -- so much not, in fact, that when DuckTales did an
> episode in which Scrooge lost his memory and (with it) his accent, the
> writers clearly figured that Scrooge must be only around 50, not a
> really old man.
Again, David, you contradicted yourself by saying that old men fit a
stereotype, and here you say that $, an old man, doesn't.
My point exactly :-)
In DuckTales, old men tend to fit that "by cracky"
> caricature. So there are probably people who'd figure that having a
> lot of old men in the strip might lead writers who adored cliche to
> tend to make them act alike.
DUCKTALES doesn't count at all in Duck canon, as far as I'm aware...in
fact, much of it is heresy :-)
> (Remember how in the Disney film UNCLE SCROOGE AND MONEY, the
> animation department figured that old male ducks were more or less
> alike and made U$ a lot more like Von Drake, even to his looks?)
I think the argument is limited to the comic Ducks, since tv and movies
diverge far from canon anyway. I welcome comments from the other readers
on this.
I _did_ say:
>> "No, please, we don't WANT to look at Daisy's women's club!"
And you replied:
> I wanted to do a Daisy story which brought it back just to
> expose its cliches. I had her somehow get on their bad side, then
> have to go on the lam, muttering all the while about how they cluster
> together, making themselves into human cliches, and how she hadn't
> thought that much about it until now. I am still open to doing such a
> story if someone can give me a good reason why Daisy would get on the
> bad side of that stereotypical club she's in.
I heard recently from a gentleman at an Italian studio who stated that any
divergence they'd attempted from stereotyped female roles was discouraged
by the Disney Co. I'd personally would be very interested in seeing your
story and think that it would have great value.
Daisy might discover that the club members were not very accepting of her
in some way; perhaps because she and Donald aren't married, maybe she
isn't "aristocratic" or associate with the right people. Such a story
would be excellent social commentary with lots of opportunities to explore
the humorous side of prejudice.
The story was to have
> Daisy remembering how DD hid from her in the lions' cage at the zoo
> once, so she does the same, just hauling off and punching the lions to
> intimidate them out of her way. But why choose the lion cage just
> because Donald did? I saw myself defying logic to make a social
> comment about the dated stereotypes of the 1950s, and so I figured it
> wasn't really worth it.
I do believe it is possible to write such a story without stretching
credibility too much. Are others interested in such stories, I wonder?
> The ONLY source I use for Daisy in the old stories, by the
> way, is the solitary example of WDC&S 88 in which Daisy is smart,
> cynical, and saves Donald's house for him with her smart dealing.
> (But that said, I have so far only used Daisy incidentally in one
> story so far. She was repairing a roof quite competently, which may
> be seen as progressive for some, but if it is, said "some" must be
> rather backwards... I thought it was common knowledge that women can
> do any job men can do.)
I agree with Don Rosa, who essentially said that Daisy is hard to work
with since she brings along a lot of stereotyped history. I keep thinking
that there is some truth to that, though some characters have been reshaped.
Do you remember the big argument about a Wal-Mart store removing some
tee-shirts featuring Hank Ketcham's "Dennis the Menace" character, Margaret?
The shirts showed Margaret stating, "Someday a woman will be President!"
Wal-Mart removed the shirts from sale when a few customers objected. It
was alleged, though not explicitly stated, that the complainers were
conservative Christians who believe that women should not be in such
positions of power.
The Margaret character has for years been a negative stereotype of loud,
brassy and aggressive women. Curiously, this incident helped Margaret's
image more than any story Ketcham could ever have written! The media
picked it up, people were outraged, Wal-Mart sheepishly restored the
shirts to the shelves, and the lady who originally offered them for sale
at Wal-mart found herself a bit wealthier, and a celebrity to boot.
Sorry for the digression, but the story illustrates that a character CAN
be changed, albeit with considerable work and difficulty.
> Being a writer has its disadvantages. My mom's a math editor,
> usually at work on a manuscript, and when it came time to show Minnie
> putting aside some work to have a talk with Mickey in one story, I
> showed her putting down a corrected manuscript and a red pencil... but
> the artist changed it to a knitting basket! Ack!
Now that's too bad :-(
I said:
> "What is the difference between Daisy and Minnie? Each
> is merely a prop for the protagonist and neither has a real
> personality of her own."
And you replied:
> Minnie is very different than Daisy. While Daisy is very much
> the object to be attained all too much of the time, Minnie in
> Gottfredson's best years has a remarkable urge for adventure which
> conflicts constantly with a dislike of real trouble -- and she finds
> that Mickey blurs adventure and trouble by means of his
> overenthusiasm. In fact, Byron Erickson did a REMARKABLE take on all
> of this in which Minnie is very, very rounded indeed... and Gladstone
> is publishing it soon! It's none other than the "Fantasy Island"
> story appearing in WDG #5. This is a GREAT story, Melanie (and
> everyone!) and everyone should make sure to get it!
I'm willing to chance it :-)
> MELANIE again:
> "David, if anybody can beat the mummification of Mickey, you
> can!" No, anyone can. All anyone has to do is simply ignore all MM
> stories made after 1940... which anyway, makes MM into such a more
> active, interesting character that the plots come much easier too.
Ah, but "anyone" hasn't, to date! I await YOURS.
> Jorgen said to you:
> > This is starting to get difficult. Do you expect to be able to enter
> > any group of people, and at once understand everything they are talking
> > about, any matter what it is? . . . On Usenet you are actually
> > supposed to read the group at least a couple of months to learn how
> > the group works before you enter it.
Well, this isn't Usenet and there aren't specific groundrules. You may
not like the way I say things, or even what I have to say, but I believe I
have raised legitimate issues.
> And you said, "given the escalating hostility of this
> exchange, I have responded privately to Jorgen in email..."
> When Jorgen said "difficult," he was, I believe, not saying
> that you were intractable, but that he was having a hard time
> explaining what he meant. Forgive me for getting into this, but I
> think you're misinterpreting Jorgen's use of English as a second
> language as his speaking to you rudely. Please don't get in a fight
> over this!
Given the extremely negative nature of his _total_ response, much of which you
have deleted and do not acknowledge, including much baiting and sarcasm
(which Jorgen himself readily admits), I felt it best to respond via email.
My intent was to contain a flamewar before it became general, but it was
too late for that as later events have shown. I have no intention of
responding to him again publicly, as I already said. I may do the same
with others who've decided to pile on since then.
I regret that you're unable to see anything positive in my arguments about
this topic.
Best regards,
Melanie
Frank Fabian
Hi everybody
Message 155 -
1995-12-11 at 09:14:09
ALL:
Hi everybody,
I'm still fairly new to this list, and this is my first message. While
following the digests for the last two weeks or so, I did get the impression
that it would be considered polite to introduce oneself. So here goes ...
My name is Frank Fabian, i'm 26 years old, German, and a librarian by
profession. I subscribe to this list at work, so don't expect me to
contribute often, as I won't have the time. I'll try to follow the list and
write occassionally, though.
I've been reading Disney comics since as long as I can remember (well,
anyway at least as long as I can read), the German production mostly, but
also many American books and the occasional Dutch, French or Italian book.
Nowadays I'm reading some German Disney comics and practically all of
Gladstone's output.
I have been a member of the German D.O.N.A.L.D. fanclub for some 11 years
now, though a rather passive one, i. e., I mainly read (and enjoy!) their
publications.
I most enjoy Duck comics, of course those of Barks, but also other artists
like e.g. Marco Rota, William Van Horn, and sometimes even Don Rosa ;-). But
I also like the classic Mickey Mouse newspaper strips by Gottfredson.
But enough about me. I'd like to make a few comments on the list as a whole.
I think it's quite a mixed bag of treats, and I rather like it that way.
I was a bit surprised to find Don Rosa here, writing nearly every day. How
does he ever find time to work? But it's great to have him and other
"industry insiders" here, providing comments from their view and news and
details you wouldn't get at all or much later otherwise.
I was wondering a bit about the composition of nationalities present on the
list. There are contributors from all over Scandinavia, the US, the
Netherlands, and there's the occasional Italian contributor, but what about
the rest of Europe and the rest of the world? Am I the only one from Germany
on this list? I realize this is a very high-tech kind of discussion about a
topic not that well known in every country, but surely there must be some
Disney comics fans in e.g. Australia or South America. Well, I'll continue
reading.
To close this message, I have a request. Earlier this year I bought the
two-volume Disney (comic book) index, by Alberto Beccatini et al., from
their address in Florence, Italy. I liked it very much. I know there also is
an earlier volume by the same people, dealing with the Disney newspaper
comic strips, which was published about ten or eleven years ago. Does anyone
out there know if this is still available to buy either from the original
publishers or others who have excess copies?
A reply to this query, either directly to me or via the list, would be very
appreciated.
That's all for this message. Thank you for your time, and continue to
contribute.
Regards, Frank
*********************************************************************
Wuerttembergische Landesbibliothek Frank Fabian
Konrad-Adenauer Str. 8 Tel.: 49-711-212 4383
Abt. Katalogisierung Periodika (KaP) Fax.: 49-711-212 4437
70173 Stuttgart mail:(Email removed)
*********************************************************************
Hi everybody,
I'm still fairly new to this list, and this is my first message. While
following the digests for the last two weeks or so, I did get the impression
that it would be considered polite to introduce oneself. So here goes ...
My name is Frank Fabian, i'm 26 years old, German, and a librarian by
profession. I subscribe to this list at work, so don't expect me to
contribute often, as I won't have the time. I'll try to follow the list and
write occassionally, though.
I've been reading Disney comics since as long as I can remember (well,
anyway at least as long as I can read), the German production mostly, but
also many American books and the occasional Dutch, French or Italian book.
Nowadays I'm reading some German Disney comics and practically all of
Gladstone's output.
I have been a member of the German D.O.N.A.L.D. fanclub for some 11 years
now, though a rather passive one, i. e., I mainly read (and enjoy!) their
publications.
I most enjoy Duck comics, of course those of Barks, but also other artists
like e.g. Marco Rota, William Van Horn, and sometimes even Don Rosa ;-). But
I also like the classic Mickey Mouse newspaper strips by Gottfredson.
But enough about me. I'd like to make a few comments on the list as a whole.
I think it's quite a mixed bag of treats, and I rather like it that way.
I was a bit surprised to find Don Rosa here, writing nearly every day. How
does he ever find time to work? But it's great to have him and other
"industry insiders" here, providing comments from their view and news and
details you wouldn't get at all or much later otherwise.
I was wondering a bit about the composition of nationalities present on the
list. There are contributors from all over Scandinavia, the US, the
Netherlands, and there's the occasional Italian contributor, but what about
the rest of Europe and the rest of the world? Am I the only one from Germany
on this list? I realize this is a very high-tech kind of discussion about a
topic not that well known in every country, but surely there must be some
Disney comics fans in e.g. Australia or South America. Well, I'll continue
reading.
To close this message, I have a request. Earlier this year I bought the
two-volume Disney (comic book) index, by Alberto Beccatini et al., from
their address in Florence, Italy. I liked it very much. I know there also is
an earlier volume by the same people, dealing with the Disney newspaper
comic strips, which was published about ten or eleven years ago. Does anyone
out there know if this is still available to buy either from the original
publishers or others who have excess copies?
A reply to this query, either directly to me or via the list, would be very
appreciated.
That's all for this message. Thank you for your time, and continue to
contribute.
Regards, Frank
*********************************************************************
Wuerttembergische Landesbibliothek Frank Fabian
Konrad-Adenauer Str. 8 Tel.: 49-711-212 4383
Abt. Katalogisierung Periodika (KaP) Fax.: 49-711-212 4437
70173 Stuttgart mail:(Email removed)
*********************************************************************
MASSENGALE MELANIE O
Hortense & Matilda, sexism, my responses, etc.
Message 156 -
1995-12-11 at 09:29:13
Hello All,
Sorry that I can't answer everybody right away on this interesting (if
controversial) topic. I'll do my best to respond as I can; it doesn't
mean I'm ignoring you but I do work fulltime and am constrained by a 9600
baud modem at home, from which editing the often-huge DIGEST is like
typing through glue! The response to this debate has been, if not always
terribly positive, at least not boring :-)
Thanks for your comments and continuing interest. Have a Ducky day.
Regards to all,
Melanie
Sorry that I can't answer everybody right away on this interesting (if
controversial) topic. I'll do my best to respond as I can; it doesn't
mean I'm ignoring you but I do work fulltime and am constrained by a 9600
baud modem at home, from which editing the often-huge DIGEST is like
typing through glue! The response to this debate has been, if not always
terribly positive, at least not boring :-)
Thanks for your comments and continuing interest. Have a Ducky day.
Regards to all,
Melanie
MASSENGALE MELANIE O
Response to Daniel Reply to Harry and Melanie
Message 157 -
1995-12-11 at 14:21:53
Daniel,
> HARRY:
> It doesn't matter to me if her point of view on Disney comics is
> feministic, but the thing which *did* matter to me was that I replied
> to her letters and then saw my words back, explained in a very negative
> way.
I merely pointed out the inconsistencies in your response. I cannot be
responsible for your interpretation of the material.
> It all started with my reply in which I said that I don't see the sense
> of re-using Hortense and Matilda, and suddenly I found myself in a war.
It wasn't that simple, Daniel. You pointed out that it is a fact that
most members of the club (presuming this list) are men, that comics are
written by men; I believe your exact words were, "It's a fact." Your
statement strongly implies that since men are the writers and men are the
members of this list, that only their concerns are to be addressed. I
attempted to make the point that, if the list is to grow and improve, it
should be more inclusive. THAT is when the argument became ugly.
> Melanie suddenly (more or less) concluded out of my letter that I'm
> against women, which is certainly not true.
Daniel, I'm willing to believe you if you will make one statement to the
effect that even though women are a minority on the list and in writing
comics, their concerns are valid and should not be ignored.
And I certainly don't
> want her negative conclusions about me being filed in the Disney-Comics
> archives, without me clearly stating that her conclusion about me is
> *wrong*.
Then don't make overtly sexist remarks like the following, quoted directly
from one of your previous messages in response to me:
Me:
"...older actresses (but not actors) have a tough time finding roles."
You:
"That's because men get handsomer when they get older."
You may have intended the statement as humor, but it really doesn't help
your case at all; it merely sounds prejudiced.
> I realise that it's hopeless to change Melanie's negative conclusions
> about me (which came like a bolt from the blue). And I will indeed stop
> discussing with Melanie if she continues with her negative conclusions
> about me.
That's fine, too. I don't desire a war with you, and my conclusions about
you are certainly no worse than yours are about me. As I've done with
Jorgen, I'll stop answering you publicly with this message and you may have
the last word, be it positive or negative, on this topic. I think that's
fair enough. If I do reply (which is unlikely) it will be in email. So, flame
away if you like.
> In this letter I will answer the letters Melanie sent to me via this
> club today. If it will be my last reply to her, will depend on the way
> she answers it.
Likewise.
> MELANIE:
>
> > "Huh," what? You don't understand the expression, "benefit of the
> > doubt," or you can't understand the use of it in this context?
>
> The latter, I don't understand the use of it in this context. If I say
> that I'm not against women, you'll only have to believe it (because you
> simply don't know me) instead of stating that I'm having the benefit of
> the doubt.
I simply wanted you to demonstrate that you're not against women. Since
you showed your disinterest in their concerns (see quotes in above to
Harry) based on their underrepresentation in this list and in writing Disney
comics, that disinterest contradicts your statement that you're not
against women. "It's a fact" implies "women's concerns are not important."
If you can prove that's not the case, I'll be content.
> And even if you're questioning the "sincerity of my statement", then
> say it in a nicer way. I'm a member of this club because I like Disney-
> comics, not because I like wars or whatever.
I'm not sure there is a nicer way to say it. I have nothing against you
personally. I am trying to point out that you contradict yourself. I
like Disney Comics too, or I wouldn't bother writing anything here. I
happen to have a different vision regarding the potential of the comics,
and one which apparently disturbs people.
> > The problem with the Barks Universe, if you'll pardon my heresy for
> > stating the obvious, is that the roles are still stuck in the 1950s.
> > Women are frankly NOT June Cleaver-homemakers anymore, even the ones
> > who still stay at home with the kids.
>
> I don't know how it is in your country, but you don't have to convince
> me that women are no less than men. Here in Holland women are fully
> accepted, they're very busy making careers and they're also fully
> accepted with doing that.
Good. I hope we can begin to reflect that kind of thinking in the comics.
This statement had nothing in it directed at you, but about the failure of
Disney Comics to adjust to modern life in the 1990s.
> I don't know how this all goes in other countries, but I don't think
> Holland is the only country with this attitude.
Not at all. It started here. But the comics have not caught up yet.
> > Young women want to read about more than mom or girlfriend types who
> > are just in the way of the husbands and boyfriends.
>
> I know, I *know*.
Ok. Again, it's something that would be nice to see reflected in Disney
Comics.
> > It's not so much a stretch to see the Ducks in new situations, with
> > new, more interesting stories, if they take down the "No Girls
> > Allowed" sign from the clubhouse door. That change starts with
> > changing the attitudes of people like you!
>
> What does a "No Girls Allowed" sign have to do with my attitude???
> I think I observe something here, you're using *me* for exposing your
> frustrations against men!
Think back to your earlier remarks about it being a fact that most of the
list subscribers are men, most comics writers are men. Those statements,
taken without a disclaimer seem to support the idea that it's ok to
exclude women. I'll welcome a statement to the contrary.
> No matter what positive thing I say, you'll always find a reason to
> attack me. And I certainly don't want to have that role, so you'd
> better stop with it. I don't think I deserve to be treatened that way.
I really can't see that I have threatened you in any way. You seem to
take my remarks very personally. I am demonstrating that while you say
you are supportive of women, your comments about their underrepresentation
on the list and in comics writing are anything but supportive. Don't bait
me with "humorous" remarks at my expense about actors being handsomer as
they age, and you'll be amazed how positively I can respond :-)
> > Oppression is a _fact_ but should we continue to tolerate racism,
> > sexism, imperialism and other unpleasantries just because we have
> > traditionally done so for centuries?
>
> NO! We shouldn't and we *won't*!
Good. Then you would probably agree that underrepresentation on the
subscriber list and in comics writing is no reason in itself not to show
women in roles other than domestic ones in Disney Comics, and that strong
women characters might indeed improve the existing product.
If so, then we are basically in agreement here.
> > Thanks for writing, you've made my case very nicely for me with your
> > overtly sexist remarks.
>
> I really wonder how you got *that* out of my words.
See above about the actors/actresses, and the interesting roles assigned
by male writers to the male characters. You're right about something,
underrepresentation IS a fact; I'm trying to get you to acknowledge that
while it is fact, it is not right and should be changed. I sensed that you
were baiting me by saying that the actors were handsome as they got older,
actresses are not and that's why they didn't get the roles. In this way,
you are the one being negative, not I.
> > It's certainly safe to conclude that you have no real interest in
> > strong female Duck characters; if fact, you are threatened by them.
>
> Yes, I'm always afraid that a female Duck character will suddenly come
> out of my comic and start haunting me through my house. Well, does this
> satisfy you?
You could join me here as a Duck in a shooting gallery ;-) Sorry if this
pun doesn't translate.
I'd be interested to hear anything you have to offer with regard to a strong,
continuing female Duck character.
> > Hope you can get yourself liberated by the year 2000.
>
> In fact I was thinking that of you.
If you respond positively then there is still hope for you.
> Yes, and here are my greetings, which *I do* mean! I wish you all my
> best and I really hope you will be happy one day, because you
> certainly don't seem to feel that way.
Actually, things are just Ducky with me, and quite all they're Quacked up
to be as a matter of fact! And I extend my best wishes to you as well.
After all, despite the disagreements we do share an interest in Disney Ducks.
Duck and cover,
Melanie
--------------------------------
End of dcomics-d Digest V95 Issue #15
*************************************
> HARRY:
> It doesn't matter to me if her point of view on Disney comics is
> feministic, but the thing which *did* matter to me was that I replied
> to her letters and then saw my words back, explained in a very negative
> way.
I merely pointed out the inconsistencies in your response. I cannot be
responsible for your interpretation of the material.
> It all started with my reply in which I said that I don't see the sense
> of re-using Hortense and Matilda, and suddenly I found myself in a war.
It wasn't that simple, Daniel. You pointed out that it is a fact that
most members of the club (presuming this list) are men, that comics are
written by men; I believe your exact words were, "It's a fact." Your
statement strongly implies that since men are the writers and men are the
members of this list, that only their concerns are to be addressed. I
attempted to make the point that, if the list is to grow and improve, it
should be more inclusive. THAT is when the argument became ugly.
> Melanie suddenly (more or less) concluded out of my letter that I'm
> against women, which is certainly not true.
Daniel, I'm willing to believe you if you will make one statement to the
effect that even though women are a minority on the list and in writing
comics, their concerns are valid and should not be ignored.
And I certainly don't
> want her negative conclusions about me being filed in the Disney-Comics
> archives, without me clearly stating that her conclusion about me is
> *wrong*.
Then don't make overtly sexist remarks like the following, quoted directly
from one of your previous messages in response to me:
Me:
"...older actresses (but not actors) have a tough time finding roles."
You:
"That's because men get handsomer when they get older."
You may have intended the statement as humor, but it really doesn't help
your case at all; it merely sounds prejudiced.
> I realise that it's hopeless to change Melanie's negative conclusions
> about me (which came like a bolt from the blue). And I will indeed stop
> discussing with Melanie if she continues with her negative conclusions
> about me.
That's fine, too. I don't desire a war with you, and my conclusions about
you are certainly no worse than yours are about me. As I've done with
Jorgen, I'll stop answering you publicly with this message and you may have
the last word, be it positive or negative, on this topic. I think that's
fair enough. If I do reply (which is unlikely) it will be in email. So, flame
away if you like.
> In this letter I will answer the letters Melanie sent to me via this
> club today. If it will be my last reply to her, will depend on the way
> she answers it.
Likewise.
> MELANIE:
>
> > "Huh," what? You don't understand the expression, "benefit of the
> > doubt," or you can't understand the use of it in this context?
>
> The latter, I don't understand the use of it in this context. If I say
> that I'm not against women, you'll only have to believe it (because you
> simply don't know me) instead of stating that I'm having the benefit of
> the doubt.
I simply wanted you to demonstrate that you're not against women. Since
you showed your disinterest in their concerns (see quotes in above to
Harry) based on their underrepresentation in this list and in writing Disney
comics, that disinterest contradicts your statement that you're not
against women. "It's a fact" implies "women's concerns are not important."
If you can prove that's not the case, I'll be content.
> And even if you're questioning the "sincerity of my statement", then
> say it in a nicer way. I'm a member of this club because I like Disney-
> comics, not because I like wars or whatever.
I'm not sure there is a nicer way to say it. I have nothing against you
personally. I am trying to point out that you contradict yourself. I
like Disney Comics too, or I wouldn't bother writing anything here. I
happen to have a different vision regarding the potential of the comics,
and one which apparently disturbs people.
> > The problem with the Barks Universe, if you'll pardon my heresy for
> > stating the obvious, is that the roles are still stuck in the 1950s.
> > Women are frankly NOT June Cleaver-homemakers anymore, even the ones
> > who still stay at home with the kids.
>
> I don't know how it is in your country, but you don't have to convince
> me that women are no less than men. Here in Holland women are fully
> accepted, they're very busy making careers and they're also fully
> accepted with doing that.
Good. I hope we can begin to reflect that kind of thinking in the comics.
This statement had nothing in it directed at you, but about the failure of
Disney Comics to adjust to modern life in the 1990s.
> I don't know how this all goes in other countries, but I don't think
> Holland is the only country with this attitude.
Not at all. It started here. But the comics have not caught up yet.
> > Young women want to read about more than mom or girlfriend types who
> > are just in the way of the husbands and boyfriends.
>
> I know, I *know*.
Ok. Again, it's something that would be nice to see reflected in Disney
Comics.
> > It's not so much a stretch to see the Ducks in new situations, with
> > new, more interesting stories, if they take down the "No Girls
> > Allowed" sign from the clubhouse door. That change starts with
> > changing the attitudes of people like you!
>
> What does a "No Girls Allowed" sign have to do with my attitude???
> I think I observe something here, you're using *me* for exposing your
> frustrations against men!
Think back to your earlier remarks about it being a fact that most of the
list subscribers are men, most comics writers are men. Those statements,
taken without a disclaimer seem to support the idea that it's ok to
exclude women. I'll welcome a statement to the contrary.
> No matter what positive thing I say, you'll always find a reason to
> attack me. And I certainly don't want to have that role, so you'd
> better stop with it. I don't think I deserve to be treatened that way.
I really can't see that I have threatened you in any way. You seem to
take my remarks very personally. I am demonstrating that while you say
you are supportive of women, your comments about their underrepresentation
on the list and in comics writing are anything but supportive. Don't bait
me with "humorous" remarks at my expense about actors being handsomer as
they age, and you'll be amazed how positively I can respond :-)
> > Oppression is a _fact_ but should we continue to tolerate racism,
> > sexism, imperialism and other unpleasantries just because we have
> > traditionally done so for centuries?
>
> NO! We shouldn't and we *won't*!
Good. Then you would probably agree that underrepresentation on the
subscriber list and in comics writing is no reason in itself not to show
women in roles other than domestic ones in Disney Comics, and that strong
women characters might indeed improve the existing product.
If so, then we are basically in agreement here.
> > Thanks for writing, you've made my case very nicely for me with your
> > overtly sexist remarks.
>
> I really wonder how you got *that* out of my words.
See above about the actors/actresses, and the interesting roles assigned
by male writers to the male characters. You're right about something,
underrepresentation IS a fact; I'm trying to get you to acknowledge that
while it is fact, it is not right and should be changed. I sensed that you
were baiting me by saying that the actors were handsome as they got older,
actresses are not and that's why they didn't get the roles. In this way,
you are the one being negative, not I.
> > It's certainly safe to conclude that you have no real interest in
> > strong female Duck characters; if fact, you are threatened by them.
>
> Yes, I'm always afraid that a female Duck character will suddenly come
> out of my comic and start haunting me through my house. Well, does this
> satisfy you?
You could join me here as a Duck in a shooting gallery ;-) Sorry if this
pun doesn't translate.
I'd be interested to hear anything you have to offer with regard to a strong,
continuing female Duck character.
> > Hope you can get yourself liberated by the year 2000.
>
> In fact I was thinking that of you.
If you respond positively then there is still hope for you.
> Yes, and here are my greetings, which *I do* mean! I wish you all my
> best and I really hope you will be happy one day, because you
> certainly don't seem to feel that way.
Actually, things are just Ducky with me, and quite all they're Quacked up
to be as a matter of fact! And I extend my best wishes to you as well.
After all, despite the disagreements we do share an interest in Disney Ducks.
Duck and cover,
Melanie
--------------------------------
End of dcomics-d Digest V95 Issue #15
*************************************
Don Rosa
dcomics-d Digest V95 #13
Message 158 -
1995-12-11 at 15:12:00
HARRY:
As always, when someone asks me a question about one of my stories
that has just been printed, especially if it's just been reprinted by
Gladstone, we're dealing with a story I did 1-2 years ago, and it's
difficult to recall details. However, I copied the Greek form of "Croesus"
directly off a photo of a Greek vase which showed the old fellow with his
name writ. If my Greek was in error, it's either because I'm a sloppy copier
or the Greek potter of 2500 years ago was the one who goofed.
At any rate, the last Digest was much more pleasant to read than
others of recent vintage. I was becoming afraid of what it was our poor lil'
Mailing List needed to "grow into" in order to serve the needs of the
subscribers. I was considering calling that little girl's mother's lawyer to
have him unsubscribe me, too.
...I mean, have HER unsubscribe me.
Er...have IT unsubscribe me?
As always, when someone asks me a question about one of my stories
that has just been printed, especially if it's just been reprinted by
Gladstone, we're dealing with a story I did 1-2 years ago, and it's
difficult to recall details. However, I copied the Greek form of "Croesus"
directly off a photo of a Greek vase which showed the old fellow with his
name writ. If my Greek was in error, it's either because I'm a sloppy copier
or the Greek potter of 2500 years ago was the one who goofed.
At any rate, the last Digest was much more pleasant to read than
others of recent vintage. I was becoming afraid of what it was our poor lil'
Mailing List needed to "grow into" in order to serve the needs of the
subscribers. I was considering calling that little girl's mother's lawyer to
have him unsubscribe me, too.
...I mean, have HER unsubscribe me.
Er...have IT unsubscribe me?
MASSENGALE MELANIE O
Reply to Kathy Grandma Duck
Message 159 -
1995-12-11 at 16:45:04
Hi Kathy,
(Kathy's message to Dave, indirectly aimed at me)
> I certainly agree with you that Grandma Duck is hardly a "pale domestic
> character".
(remainder of Grandma Duck defense deleted)
I'd just like to point out, again, for you and everyone else who
believes I said this, that I never at any time stated that Grandma Duck was
a "pale domestic character." My words were taken completely out of context
and applied erroneously in reference to Grandma Duck.
Here's what was actually said _specifically_ about GD:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel:
So, I would appreciate it more to give Grandma a wider personality than
introducing two more older ladies in the regular Duck-universe.
Melanie:
Grandma hasn't been used as much as Daisy, so there is room to expand her
character. But I contend that there is more possibility for expansion
with an UNTRIED character.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The "pale domestic character" reference was in the previous paragraph and
didn't refer specifically to anyone, though I was thinking of Daisy and
Minnie when I wrote it.
I would really appreciate it if, in the future, my detractors would do me
the simply courtesy of quoting me correctly.
Regards,
Melanie
(Kathy's message to Dave, indirectly aimed at me)
> I certainly agree with you that Grandma Duck is hardly a "pale domestic
> character".
(remainder of Grandma Duck defense deleted)
I'd just like to point out, again, for you and everyone else who
believes I said this, that I never at any time stated that Grandma Duck was
a "pale domestic character." My words were taken completely out of context
and applied erroneously in reference to Grandma Duck.
Here's what was actually said _specifically_ about GD:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel:
So, I would appreciate it more to give Grandma a wider personality than
introducing two more older ladies in the regular Duck-universe.
Melanie:
Grandma hasn't been used as much as Daisy, so there is room to expand her
character. But I contend that there is more possibility for expansion
with an UNTRIED character.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The "pale domestic character" reference was in the previous paragraph and
didn't refer specifically to anyone, though I was thinking of Daisy and
Minnie when I wrote it.
I would really appreciate it if, in the future, my detractors would do me
the simply courtesy of quoting me correctly.
Regards,
Melanie
Elon V. Brisola
Nationalities
Message 160 -
1995-12-11 at 16:48:11
FRANK:
Welcome to the list. I hope you're not as silent as I am!
> Am I the only one from Germany on this list?
No, you're not. Others contribute.
> I realize this is a very high-tech kind of discussion about a
> topic not that well known in every country, but surely there must be
> some Disney comics fans in e.g. Australia or South America.
I'm in Brazil. There were at least two others from Brazil, but I haven't
heard from them in a while.
Best regards,
Elon
Welcome to the list. I hope you're not as silent as I am!
> Am I the only one from Germany on this list?
No, you're not. Others contribute.
> I realize this is a very high-tech kind of discussion about a
> topic not that well known in every country, but surely there must be
> some Disney comics fans in e.g. Australia or South America.
I'm in Brazil. There were at least two others from Brazil, but I haven't
heard from them in a while.
Best regards,
Elon
Kathy Fitzpatrick
Minnie
Message 161 -
1995-12-11 at 17:18:23
I agree Daisy can be developed without changing her a whole lot. Actually
the notion of women as gossips is only looking at part of the picture.
People are gossips. You find this in any job where groups of people work in
one area, have time on their hands, and not much else in common, they WILL
gossip, and I am here to tell you from personal experience they can be just
as nasty in their gossiping as women.
As far as Daisy stories, there is the one Carl Barks story where Uncle
$crooge has locked himself accidently in one of his money slide tunnels.
Daisy is the secretary for him at that time (perhaps Ms Quackfaster has
taken a leave?) Daisy takes over the office, makes decisions, makes money.
Of course, I can not imagine wanting a car like what was designed, but the
idea that Daisy was considering her market made sense.
I am fond of the early Minnie. Not the times when she is portrayed and
utilized as trouble for Mickey so much, but the times when they go
adventuring together. That Minnie is fiesty and does not stand around with
her hands clasped waiting for Mickey to rescue her, she is out there
swinging and kicking with the best of them. She is not afraid of standing
up to any foe. That Minnie is worth resurfacing.
Daisy in many stories has proven herself to be shrewd when she isn't losing
her temper (and lecturing Donald on losing his!). She is very good at
getting to the bottom of a story such as the final outcome of the story
where HDL sabbotage Donald and Daisy's picnic, and at first she thinks it
was Donald.
One must not overlook the fact that Male characters in comics are often not
portrayed at their best and fall into stereotypes as well. Again, look at
the Archie comics, all of the main characters have stories where one of them
shines and where in the same comic, they really screw up. This to me, is
the nature of digging for humor.
Another example of female strength in comics would be the littlest
Chickadees. They seldom lose and never hesitate to rub it in. That is very
realistic. Young boys and girls to this day may play together in the same
neighborhood, but often there is competition against each other and the idea
of having a boy or girlfriend is repugnant to them. Not everyone grows out
of that stage in their adulthood.
Again I say, no female character can represent all women, anymore than any
male character can represent all men. The idea that there is a "women's"
viewpoint that says it for all women is absurd. Yet a good writer can
portray either sex in a realistic believable way. For any male writer who
can't get an idea of what kind of female role models sell when it comes to
fiction, grab one of the Dragon Rider books by Anne McCaffrey. Generally,
the women I am friends with and that read fiction or even nonfiction like to
read about women who have great personal strength of character, sensible,
capable of leadership.
Regarding June Cleaver types, name me a situation comedy on tv where the MAN
is NOT portrayed as an idiot half of the time.
Kathy
the notion of women as gossips is only looking at part of the picture.
People are gossips. You find this in any job where groups of people work in
one area, have time on their hands, and not much else in common, they WILL
gossip, and I am here to tell you from personal experience they can be just
as nasty in their gossiping as women.
As far as Daisy stories, there is the one Carl Barks story where Uncle
$crooge has locked himself accidently in one of his money slide tunnels.
Daisy is the secretary for him at that time (perhaps Ms Quackfaster has
taken a leave?) Daisy takes over the office, makes decisions, makes money.
Of course, I can not imagine wanting a car like what was designed, but the
idea that Daisy was considering her market made sense.
I am fond of the early Minnie. Not the times when she is portrayed and
utilized as trouble for Mickey so much, but the times when they go
adventuring together. That Minnie is fiesty and does not stand around with
her hands clasped waiting for Mickey to rescue her, she is out there
swinging and kicking with the best of them. She is not afraid of standing
up to any foe. That Minnie is worth resurfacing.
Daisy in many stories has proven herself to be shrewd when she isn't losing
her temper (and lecturing Donald on losing his!). She is very good at
getting to the bottom of a story such as the final outcome of the story
where HDL sabbotage Donald and Daisy's picnic, and at first she thinks it
was Donald.
One must not overlook the fact that Male characters in comics are often not
portrayed at their best and fall into stereotypes as well. Again, look at
the Archie comics, all of the main characters have stories where one of them
shines and where in the same comic, they really screw up. This to me, is
the nature of digging for humor.
Another example of female strength in comics would be the littlest
Chickadees. They seldom lose and never hesitate to rub it in. That is very
realistic. Young boys and girls to this day may play together in the same
neighborhood, but often there is competition against each other and the idea
of having a boy or girlfriend is repugnant to them. Not everyone grows out
of that stage in their adulthood.
Again I say, no female character can represent all women, anymore than any
male character can represent all men. The idea that there is a "women's"
viewpoint that says it for all women is absurd. Yet a good writer can
portray either sex in a realistic believable way. For any male writer who
can't get an idea of what kind of female role models sell when it comes to
fiction, grab one of the Dragon Rider books by Anne McCaffrey. Generally,
the women I am friends with and that read fiction or even nonfiction like to
read about women who have great personal strength of character, sensible,
capable of leadership.
Regarding June Cleaver types, name me a situation comedy on tv where the MAN
is NOT portrayed as an idiot half of the time.
Kathy
David A Gerstein
Minnie
Message 162 -
1995-12-11 at 18:01:17
KATHY, you said, "I am fond of the early Minnie. Not the times
when she is portrayed and utilized as trouble for Mickey so much, but
the times when they go adventuring together. That Minnie is fiesty and
does not stand around with her hands clasped waiting for Mickey to
rescue her, she's swinging and kicking with the best of them."
I'm basically with you here. All that bothers me in the
earlier MM stories is that Minnie is sometimes shown as having a
shocking lack of education, i. e. in "The Captive Castaways" ("What
difference does it make to a plane, if you haven't got a rudder?") and
"The Pirate Submarine" ("You said you needed ground-wire for the
radio, so I'm grinding you some!"). Those are the kinds of questions
Goofy should ask! But they're luckily rare.
My favorite Minnie moment is in "Mickey Mouse Sails for
Treasure Island" (unfortunately, one that won't see reprint until it's
heavily retouched). When a bunch of pirates jump on her and Mickey,
she steels her courage and pulls herself free, then begins battering
wildly away at them with a club. The good part though, is that it
doesn't occur to her that she's brought herself down to their level.
"Hah -- here's what you get for attacking a REFINED, UPSTANDING
CITIZEN! Imagine -- going around trying to hurt people!" And the
pirates are just fleeing in all directions. In fact, Minnie fights
her way out of that mess a lot better than Mickey, who ends up with
bumps and bruises.
The story "Mickey Mouse, Supersalesman" (1941) isn't a classic
-- but there's a great bit near the start. It begins with MM and
Minnie lazing around the house, neither of them having to do any work
because of some money they'd won for capturing Pete (or some such).
Minnie feels life needs variety, so she gets herself a job and uses
her own employment to peer-pressure Mickey into getting a job, too.
As she puts it to Clarabelle, "Psychology and propaganda -- today's
modern weapons!"
On another "female" note:
Mickey has a very practical cousin named Madeline who looks
almost just like him except with brown ears. She appeared in the
story "Love Trouble" and it was made clear that Minnie had never met
him before, because she didn't wise up when Madeline posed as Mickey's
girlfriend to help outsmart Monty. Maybe I can use Madeline again
soon, but... someone's gonna kill me for this... it's hard to come up
with stories about a mouse who seems to have no faults whatsoever.
(Unless you make him/her into a boring detective... hint, hint.)
David Gerstein
<(Email removed)>
--------------------------------
End of dcomics-d Digest V95 Issue #14
*************************************
when she is portrayed and utilized as trouble for Mickey so much, but
the times when they go adventuring together. That Minnie is fiesty and
does not stand around with her hands clasped waiting for Mickey to
rescue her, she's swinging and kicking with the best of them."
I'm basically with you here. All that bothers me in the
earlier MM stories is that Minnie is sometimes shown as having a
shocking lack of education, i. e. in "The Captive Castaways" ("What
difference does it make to a plane, if you haven't got a rudder?") and
"The Pirate Submarine" ("You said you needed ground-wire for the
radio, so I'm grinding you some!"). Those are the kinds of questions
Goofy should ask! But they're luckily rare.
My favorite Minnie moment is in "Mickey Mouse Sails for
Treasure Island" (unfortunately, one that won't see reprint until it's
heavily retouched). When a bunch of pirates jump on her and Mickey,
she steels her courage and pulls herself free, then begins battering
wildly away at them with a club. The good part though, is that it
doesn't occur to her that she's brought herself down to their level.
"Hah -- here's what you get for attacking a REFINED, UPSTANDING
CITIZEN! Imagine -- going around trying to hurt people!" And the
pirates are just fleeing in all directions. In fact, Minnie fights
her way out of that mess a lot better than Mickey, who ends up with
bumps and bruises.
The story "Mickey Mouse, Supersalesman" (1941) isn't a classic
-- but there's a great bit near the start. It begins with MM and
Minnie lazing around the house, neither of them having to do any work
because of some money they'd won for capturing Pete (or some such).
Minnie feels life needs variety, so she gets herself a job and uses
her own employment to peer-pressure Mickey into getting a job, too.
As she puts it to Clarabelle, "Psychology and propaganda -- today's
modern weapons!"
On another "female" note:
Mickey has a very practical cousin named Madeline who looks
almost just like him except with brown ears. She appeared in the
story "Love Trouble" and it was made clear that Minnie had never met
him before, because she didn't wise up when Madeline posed as Mickey's
girlfriend to help outsmart Monty. Maybe I can use Madeline again
soon, but... someone's gonna kill me for this... it's hard to come up
with stories about a mouse who seems to have no faults whatsoever.
(Unless you make him/her into a boring detective... hint, hint.)
David Gerstein
<(Email removed)>
--------------------------------
End of dcomics-d Digest V95 Issue #14
*************************************
KERSTIN S.DERBAUM
Reply to Augie
Message 163 -
1995-12-11 at 18:35:08
--- Inkommet från VD.POL2 031-667632 95-12-11 17:34
-> IN=dcomics(a)strindberg.ling.uu.se
Hi again!
All my comments on the latest 3 digest got lost last night. :-( I'll
re-write them, but it might take some while.
AUGIE:
> What lawyer does the Disney Comics Mailing List use in matters of
> unsubscribers? The firm of Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe, right?
Er.. *I'd* suggest we use the masters of the business, Fleece'm, Squeece'm
Skin'em and Skip! What do you think, Don?
---
Jakob Soederbaum
-------------------------------------------------
"I have only one soda left, señor... But I think
it has been FLAT since the Great War!
Ever since World War TWO?!
CARAMBA! There was ANOTHER one?"
---------------------------------
(Email removed)
-> IN=dcomics(a)strindberg.ling.uu.se
Hi again!
All my comments on the latest 3 digest got lost last night. :-( I'll
re-write them, but it might take some while.
AUGIE:
> What lawyer does the Disney Comics Mailing List use in matters of
> unsubscribers? The firm of Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe, right?
Er.. *I'd* suggest we use the masters of the business, Fleece'm, Squeece'm
Skin'em and Skip! What do you think, Don?
---
Jakob Soederbaum
-------------------------------------------------
"I have only one soda left, señor... But I think
it has been FLAT since the Great War!
Ever since World War TWO?!
CARAMBA! There was ANOTHER one?"
---------------------------------
(Email removed)
MASSENGALE MELANIE O
Response to David Current flamewar
Message 164 -
1995-12-11 at 19:54:50
Hi David,
> MELANIE:
> I hope I'm not going to get myself clobbered, but here's a
> response to the chaos of recent days, with a bit of humor here and
> there to try to lighten things up.
I appreciate the effort to referee, and hope you're not implying that I
will clobber you. The message appears to be that I am the only one here
who has flamed anybody, and I can assure you that the charge is quite unfair.
> "I was attacked quite viciously for suggesting that the comics
> would be better for the inclusion of [more female] characters,
> especially for expanding H and M's roles..."
> Melanie, I didn't see the initial response as an attack AT
> ALL, let alone a vicious one. A response that may be a little stilted
> due to someone's use of English as as second language isn't
> necessarily trying to be gruff or sarcastic.
Allow me to quote Jorgen directly:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
<sarcasm>
What is it really that you're complaining about, BTW? That we take it for
granted that the person we are talking to have some "basic" knowledge?
Would it be easier if I every time I mentioned Donald Duck also told that
he's the one with the sailor suit, and if I mentioned Scrooge I should say
that he's the rich one with the top hat?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
In case it's not clear, the <sarcasm> is Jorgen's insertion, not mine, and
is used more than once, just in case I missed the intent of his actual words.
I think Jorgen is quite fluent in English; in fact, in my email response
to him, I complimented him on his fine usage of the language. I seriously
doubt that he misunderstands the meaning of the word "sarcasm."
Consequently, it should be very clear I didn't misinterpret Jorgen's
meaning since he stated it EXPLICITLY.
Furthermore, the initial
> suggestion that H and M not reappear was expressed quite calmly and as
> an opinion only, no matter how you or I or anyone may react to the
> suggestion itself.
It became the argument over the 3 Grandmas, to which I responded that the
characters need not all be the same, stereotyped into a single image. I
don't see that as a hysterical response.
> "I had no desire to fight with anyone, including Jorgen. His
> remarks to me were intentionally sarcastic..."
> Sarcasm is saying the opposite of what you mean as a cynical
> joke, right? Melanie, please don't level this accusation at someone.
> Please give someone the benefit of the doubt (;-) that when they say
> something, they mean it. If you are going to read sarcasm into what
> Jorgen -- whose posts to you sounded no different to me than his usual
> way of speaking about anything, and I've been reading his letters for
> years! -- says honestly, I don't know what to say.
See above, as it was clearly intentional.
> I've really enjoyed chatting with you about Disney comics on
> rec.arts.comics.misc, Melanie -- and I'm the first to say I want women
> to both write Disney comics and be better represented in their
> characters, no matter what I personally think of Grandma (like her),
> Daisy (good in a FEW stories), Hortense, Matilda (great, but...
> dead?), Glittering Goldie (good, if a little inconsistently
> portrayed), Minnie (good for a fairly brief window of time), or
> Chi-Chi Chipmunk from Chip 'n' Dale stories (can anyone say, "Prize to
> be fought over," boys and girls? Aaack!). But if you thought I didn't
> really believe this, I might be powerless trying to convince you that
> I did. It just depends on how willing you are to accept my statements
> at face value.
David, I know you from r.a.c.s. and you're the only one on this group I
knew before I joined it. Consequently, I hope you'll extend to me "the
benefit of the doubt," something I hardly expect from people who DON'T know
me. I suspect you're interfacing for Jorgen because a) you know him
better than you know me; b) you attribute the misunderstanding to the
language difference. I appreciate the effort to mediate but sincerely
hope you'll acknowledge that my arguments are valid and that I am not the
only party implicated in escalating the flamewar. Others share
responsibility, including Jorgen.
> Here's how I define sarcasm (a bit humorously):
> "I just bought UNCLE FLOYD'S COLLECTERY #8, and that Magnum
> Bristlethwaite is -- heh -- GREAT. ;-) The way he draws that mouse
> with three ears, you wonder why everyone has been drawing him with two
> for decades, and really, when he brings in Br'er Fox to rescue Scrooge
> when he's stranded in the SWIMMING POOL of his MANSION (!!) you'd
> think that was a stroke of genius. Commissioning the art from the
> former Yugoslavia was a GREAT idea. ;-b And that computer lettering
> -- the font Jazzbo looks like it was programmed by a real master
> letterer, now, doesn't it? The overthick covers that stuck to the
> inside pages, holding them closed, were a swell marketing move."
> [The comics, artists, situations in the previous paragraph DO
> NOT EXIST -- they were just an example ;-)]
> If I read that paragraph in a monotone, it might be thought
> that I was really serious about it, but it's fairly obvious that were
> I reacting to an actual comic story this way, I actually hated it.
> But I think, Melanie, that you may be the only one who interpreted
> Jorgen's initial remarks as sarcastic. Again -- saying that Disney
> comics have traditionally been home of males is unfortunately pretty
> true, and was intended as a sad comment on the state of the industry,
> not an authoritative statement that was meant to say, "Yeah, we're a
> boy's club, so get out of here." Isn't identifying the problem, which
> I find to be what Jorgen did, the first step on the road to solving
> that problem?
I'd have extended more courtesy to Jorgen had he not explicitly stated his
intention to be sarcastic, something designed intentionally to hurt the
listener. He drew blood, so I took a pint in return. It wasn't nice on
either part; unfortunately, there is no way to fashion it as humorous,
either :-(
> Some of Jorgen's later responses, and some of Daniel's, looked
> to me like they were going out of their way to be civil in the face of
> heavy criticism. If you feel that the only way anyone can answer
> criticism is with criticism, maybe you felt that those responses
> weren't really civil, but just pretending to be. I've spent some time
> with Daniel when in Holland, and his English sounds like it did in
> these letters (no offense Daniel ;-). I knew it wasn't sarcastic.
Rather than beat the topic absolutely to death, and continue to bleed both
bandwidth and good humor, I recommend we drop the topic forthwith. I
don't think we'll agree who's at fault. If you'd like to continue the
discussion, let's do it in email and save everybody the aggravation of a
he did it/she did it flamefest. Deal?
> Sure, let's debate aplenty about the sexism in some Disney
> comics! A story like "Minnie Mouse, Girl Explorer," which was a
> giveaway in 1950, shows where we've been (the point, for non-English
> speakers, being that "Girl" has to be added or else the writer assumes
> readers think an explorer must be male). Thank God we DO have
> Hortense, Matilda, and Byron's Minnie (coming soon) today. And let's
> hear it for those who've managed to make Grandma and Minnie into good
> characters at selected times in the past.
Now that's something I can support. Thanks, David...and let me know if
the above is agreeable to you.
And finally, to paraphrase Smokey the Bear, "Only YOU can prevent flamewars!"
:-)
Kind regards,
Melanie
> MELANIE:
> I hope I'm not going to get myself clobbered, but here's a
> response to the chaos of recent days, with a bit of humor here and
> there to try to lighten things up.
I appreciate the effort to referee, and hope you're not implying that I
will clobber you. The message appears to be that I am the only one here
who has flamed anybody, and I can assure you that the charge is quite unfair.
> "I was attacked quite viciously for suggesting that the comics
> would be better for the inclusion of [more female] characters,
> especially for expanding H and M's roles..."
> Melanie, I didn't see the initial response as an attack AT
> ALL, let alone a vicious one. A response that may be a little stilted
> due to someone's use of English as as second language isn't
> necessarily trying to be gruff or sarcastic.
Allow me to quote Jorgen directly:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
<sarcasm>
What is it really that you're complaining about, BTW? That we take it for
granted that the person we are talking to have some "basic" knowledge?
Would it be easier if I every time I mentioned Donald Duck also told that
he's the one with the sailor suit, and if I mentioned Scrooge I should say
that he's the rich one with the top hat?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
In case it's not clear, the <sarcasm> is Jorgen's insertion, not mine, and
is used more than once, just in case I missed the intent of his actual words.
I think Jorgen is quite fluent in English; in fact, in my email response
to him, I complimented him on his fine usage of the language. I seriously
doubt that he misunderstands the meaning of the word "sarcasm."
Consequently, it should be very clear I didn't misinterpret Jorgen's
meaning since he stated it EXPLICITLY.
Furthermore, the initial
> suggestion that H and M not reappear was expressed quite calmly and as
> an opinion only, no matter how you or I or anyone may react to the
> suggestion itself.
It became the argument over the 3 Grandmas, to which I responded that the
characters need not all be the same, stereotyped into a single image. I
don't see that as a hysterical response.
> "I had no desire to fight with anyone, including Jorgen. His
> remarks to me were intentionally sarcastic..."
> Sarcasm is saying the opposite of what you mean as a cynical
> joke, right? Melanie, please don't level this accusation at someone.
> Please give someone the benefit of the doubt (;-) that when they say
> something, they mean it. If you are going to read sarcasm into what
> Jorgen -- whose posts to you sounded no different to me than his usual
> way of speaking about anything, and I've been reading his letters for
> years! -- says honestly, I don't know what to say.
See above, as it was clearly intentional.
> I've really enjoyed chatting with you about Disney comics on
> rec.arts.comics.misc, Melanie -- and I'm the first to say I want women
> to both write Disney comics and be better represented in their
> characters, no matter what I personally think of Grandma (like her),
> Daisy (good in a FEW stories), Hortense, Matilda (great, but...
> dead?), Glittering Goldie (good, if a little inconsistently
> portrayed), Minnie (good for a fairly brief window of time), or
> Chi-Chi Chipmunk from Chip 'n' Dale stories (can anyone say, "Prize to
> be fought over," boys and girls? Aaack!). But if you thought I didn't
> really believe this, I might be powerless trying to convince you that
> I did. It just depends on how willing you are to accept my statements
> at face value.
David, I know you from r.a.c.s. and you're the only one on this group I
knew before I joined it. Consequently, I hope you'll extend to me "the
benefit of the doubt," something I hardly expect from people who DON'T know
me. I suspect you're interfacing for Jorgen because a) you know him
better than you know me; b) you attribute the misunderstanding to the
language difference. I appreciate the effort to mediate but sincerely
hope you'll acknowledge that my arguments are valid and that I am not the
only party implicated in escalating the flamewar. Others share
responsibility, including Jorgen.
> Here's how I define sarcasm (a bit humorously):
> "I just bought UNCLE FLOYD'S COLLECTERY #8, and that Magnum
> Bristlethwaite is -- heh -- GREAT. ;-) The way he draws that mouse
> with three ears, you wonder why everyone has been drawing him with two
> for decades, and really, when he brings in Br'er Fox to rescue Scrooge
> when he's stranded in the SWIMMING POOL of his MANSION (!!) you'd
> think that was a stroke of genius. Commissioning the art from the
> former Yugoslavia was a GREAT idea. ;-b And that computer lettering
> -- the font Jazzbo looks like it was programmed by a real master
> letterer, now, doesn't it? The overthick covers that stuck to the
> inside pages, holding them closed, were a swell marketing move."
> [The comics, artists, situations in the previous paragraph DO
> NOT EXIST -- they were just an example ;-)]
> If I read that paragraph in a monotone, it might be thought
> that I was really serious about it, but it's fairly obvious that were
> I reacting to an actual comic story this way, I actually hated it.
> But I think, Melanie, that you may be the only one who interpreted
> Jorgen's initial remarks as sarcastic. Again -- saying that Disney
> comics have traditionally been home of males is unfortunately pretty
> true, and was intended as a sad comment on the state of the industry,
> not an authoritative statement that was meant to say, "Yeah, we're a
> boy's club, so get out of here." Isn't identifying the problem, which
> I find to be what Jorgen did, the first step on the road to solving
> that problem?
I'd have extended more courtesy to Jorgen had he not explicitly stated his
intention to be sarcastic, something designed intentionally to hurt the
listener. He drew blood, so I took a pint in return. It wasn't nice on
either part; unfortunately, there is no way to fashion it as humorous,
either :-(
> Some of Jorgen's later responses, and some of Daniel's, looked
> to me like they were going out of their way to be civil in the face of
> heavy criticism. If you feel that the only way anyone can answer
> criticism is with criticism, maybe you felt that those responses
> weren't really civil, but just pretending to be. I've spent some time
> with Daniel when in Holland, and his English sounds like it did in
> these letters (no offense Daniel ;-). I knew it wasn't sarcastic.
Rather than beat the topic absolutely to death, and continue to bleed both
bandwidth and good humor, I recommend we drop the topic forthwith. I
don't think we'll agree who's at fault. If you'd like to continue the
discussion, let's do it in email and save everybody the aggravation of a
he did it/she did it flamefest. Deal?
> Sure, let's debate aplenty about the sexism in some Disney
> comics! A story like "Minnie Mouse, Girl Explorer," which was a
> giveaway in 1950, shows where we've been (the point, for non-English
> speakers, being that "Girl" has to be added or else the writer assumes
> readers think an explorer must be male). Thank God we DO have
> Hortense, Matilda, and Byron's Minnie (coming soon) today. And let's
> hear it for those who've managed to make Grandma and Minnie into good
> characters at selected times in the past.
Now that's something I can support. Thanks, David...and let me know if
the above is agreeable to you.
And finally, to paraphrase Smokey the Bear, "Only YOU can prevent flamewars!"
:-)
Kind regards,
Melanie
MASSENGALE MELANIE O
Response to David Afterthoughts
Message 165 -
1995-12-11 at 20:34:55
Hello to David and everybody else,
David's points about bandwidth and peace in the group are well-taken; as a
result, I will respond privately to him in email. I leave his remarks
here undebated publicly, for everyone else to consider and discuss as they
will. I do appreciate David's sincere efforts to mediate.
Best regards,
Melanie
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> As an afterthought to my letter to Melanie before (you there,
> Melanie?) here's my comment about two of Jorgen's comments which may
> be the first ones you found sarcastic. Sorry to quote you, Jorgen,
> but I'd like to try to make peace if I can.
> "The reason why you don't get any responses to some letters is
> simply that people don't want to waste time or bandwith telling you
> they don't know the answer, or aren't interested in the matter."
> Of course it's not a waste to write to you, Melanie. But this
> is a reference to how many readers, including Don Rosa, have had to
> pay BY THE WORD to receive letters from this group in the past, so
> we've sometimes spoken of it as a "waste" to answer, "Well, I don't
> know anything about this," because then people have to pay for a
> letter that adds nothing to their knowledge (forgive me if you know
> that, Melanie... you probably do! But I didn't know when I first got
> the lowdown on this Digest about a year ago).
> "It would be quite ridiculous if anyone started to demand
> answers to their questions."
> Jorgen, perhaps you didn't know that this actually sounds kind
> of sarcastic? As if to say, "I can't actually be troubled to ANSWER
> someone..." But the rest of the letter was not sarcastic *at all* so I
> think the key word is "demand" here, not "ridiculous" (which was meant
> simply as "unusual", I think). When people may not have the answer to
> something, trying to force an answer is like squeezing a brick.
> There's no give, even if you do use force.
> Sorry to deconstruct your letters, Jorgen. Also, I sincerely
> hope this will soften the arguments we've had here. I don't like to
> see the only newsgroup I really enjoy contributing to become the
> center of furious arguments.
>
> David Gerstein
> <(Email removed)>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 14:21:53 +22305133 (MST)
> From: MASSENGALE MELANIE O <(Email removed)>
> To: (Email removed)
> Subject: Response to Daniel re: Reply to Harry and Melanie
> Message-Id: <(Email removed)>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>
> Daniel,
>
> > HARRY:
>
> > It doesn't matter to me if her point of view on Disney comics is
> > feministic, but the thing which *did* matter to me was that I replied
> > to her letters and then saw my words back, explained in a very negative
> > way.
>
> I merely pointed out the inconsistencies in your response. I cannot be
> responsible for your interpretation of the material.
>
> > It all started with my reply in which I said that I don't see the sense
> > of re-using Hortense and Matilda, and suddenly I found myself in a war.
>
> It wasn't that simple, Daniel. You pointed out that it is a fact that
> most members of the club (presuming this list) are men, that comics are
> written by men; I believe your exact words were, "It's a fact." Your
> statement strongly implies that since men are the writers and men are the
> members of this list, that only their concerns are to be addressed. I
> attempted to make the point that, if the list is to grow and improve, it
> should be more inclusive. THAT is when the argument became ugly.
>
> > Melanie suddenly (more or less) concluded out of my letter that I'm
> > against women, which is certainly not true.
>
> Daniel, I'm willing to believe you if you will make one statement to the
> effect that even though women are a minority on the list and in writing
> comics, their concerns are valid and should not be ignored.
>
> And I certainly don't
> > want her negative conclusions about me being filed in the Disney-Comics
> > archives, without me clearly stating that her conclusion about me is
> > *wrong*.
>
> Then don't make overtly sexist remarks like the following, quoted directly
> from one of your previous messages in response to me:
>
> Me:
>
> "...older actresses (but not actors) have a tough time finding roles."
>
> You:
>
> "That's because men get handsomer when they get older."
>
> You may have intended the statement as humor, but it really doesn't help
> your case at all; it merely sounds prejudiced.
>
> > I realise that it's hopeless to change Melanie's negative conclusions
> > about me (which came like a bolt from the blue). And I will indeed stop
> > discussing with Melanie if she continues with her negative conclusions
> > about me.
>
> That's fine, too. I don't desire a war with you, and my conclusions about
> you are certainly no worse than yours are about me. As I've done with
> Jorgen, I'll stop answering you publicly with this message and you may have
> the last word, be it positive or negative, on this topic. I think that's
> fair enough. If I do reply (which is unlikely) it will be in email. So, flame
> away if you like.
>
> > In this letter I will answer the letters Melanie sent to me via this
> > club today. If it will be my last reply to her, will depend on the way
> > she answers it.
>
> Likewise.
>
> > MELANIE:
> >
> > > "Huh," what? You don't understand the expression, "benefit of the
> > > doubt," or you can't understand the use of it in this context?
> >
> > The latter, I don't understand the use of it in this context. If I say
> > that I'm not against women, you'll only have to believe it (because you
> > simply don't know me) instead of stating that I'm having the benefit of
> > the doubt.
>
> I simply wanted you to demonstrate that you're not against women. Since
> you showed your disinterest in their concerns (see quotes in above to
> Harry) based on their underrepresentation in this list and in writing Disney
> comics, that disinterest contradicts your statement that you're not
> against women. "It's a fact" implies "women's concerns are not important."
> If you can prove that's not the case, I'll be content.
>
> > And even if you're questioning the "sincerity of my statement", then
> > say it in a nicer way. I'm a member of this club because I like Disney-
> > comics, not because I like wars or whatever.
>
> I'm not sure there is a nicer way to say it. I have nothing against you
> personally. I am trying to point out that you contradict yourself. I
> like Disney Comics too, or I wouldn't bother writing anything here. I
> happen to have a different vision regarding the potential of the comics,
> and one which apparently disturbs people.
>
> > > The problem with the Barks Universe, if you'll pardon my heresy for
> > > stating the obvious, is that the roles are still stuck in the 1950s.
> > > Women are frankly NOT June Cleaver-homemakers anymore, even the ones
> > > who still stay at home with the kids.
> >
> > I don't know how it is in your country, but you don't have to convince
> > me that women are no less than men. Here in Holland women are fully
> > accepted, they're very busy making careers and they're also fully
> > accepted with doing that.
>
> Good. I hope we can begin to reflect that kind of thinking in the comics.
> This statement had nothing in it directed at you, but about the failure of
> Disney Comics to adjust to modern life in the 1990s.
>
> > I don't know how this all goes in other countries, but I don't think
> > Holland is the only country with this attitude.
>
> Not at all. It started here. But the comics have not caught up yet.
>
> > > Young women want to read about more than mom or girlfriend types who
> > > are just in the way of the husbands and boyfriends.
> >
> > I know, I *know*.
>
> Ok. Again, it's something that would be nice to see reflected in Disney
> Comics.
>
> > > It's not so much a stretch to see the Ducks in new situations, with
> > > new, more interesting stories, if they take down the "No Girls
> > > Allowed" sign from the clubhouse door. That change starts with
> > > changing the attitudes of people like you!
> >
> > What does a "No Girls Allowed" sign have to do with my attitude???
> > I think I observe something here, you're using *me* for exposing your
> > frustrations against men!
>
> Think back to your earlier remarks about it being a fact that most of the
> list subscribers are men, most comics writers are men. Those statements,
> taken without a disclaimer seem to support the idea that it's ok to
> exclude women. I'll welcome a statement to the contrary.
>
> > No matter what positive thing I say, you'll always find a reason to
> > attack me. And I certainly don't want to have that role, so you'd
> > better stop with it. I don't think I deserve to be treatened that way.
>
> I really can't see that I have threatened you in any way. You seem to
> take my remarks very personally. I am demonstrating that while you say
> you are supportive of women, your comments about their underrepresentation
> on the list and in comics writing are anything but supportive. Don't bait
> me with "humorous" remarks at my expense about actors being handsomer as
> they age, and you'll be amazed how positively I can respond :-)
>
> > > Oppression is a _fact_ but should we continue to tolerate racism,
> > > sexism, imperialism and other unpleasantries just because we have
> > > traditionally done so for centuries?
> >
> > NO! We shouldn't and we *won't*!
>
> Good. Then you would probably agree that underrepresentation on the
> subscriber list and in comics writing is no reason in itself not to show
> women in roles other than domestic ones in Disney Comics, and that strong
> women characters might indeed improve the existing product.
>
> If so, then we are basically in agreement here.
>
> > > Thanks for writing, you've made my case very nicely for me with your
> > > overtly sexist remarks.
> >
> > I really wonder how you got *that* out of my words.
>
> See above about the actors/actresses, and the interesting roles assigned
> by male writers to the male characters. You're right about something,
> underrepresentation IS a fact; I'm trying to get you to acknowledge that
> while it is fact, it is not right and should be changed. I sensed that you
> were baiting me by saying that the actors were handsome as they got older,
> actresses are not and that's why they didn't get the roles. In this way,
> you are the one being negative, not I.
>
> > > It's certainly safe to conclude that you have no real interest in
> > > strong female Duck characters; if fact, you are threatened by them.
> >
> > Yes, I'm always afraid that a female Duck character will suddenly come
> > out of my comic and start haunting me through my house. Well, does this
> > satisfy you?
>
> You could join me here as a Duck in a shooting gallery ;-) Sorry if this
> pun doesn't translate.
>
> I'd be interested to hear anything you have to offer with regard to a strong,
> continuing female Duck character.
>
> > > Hope you can get yourself liberated by the year 2000.
> >
> > In fact I was thinking that of you.
>
> If you respond positively then there is still hope for you.
>
> > Yes, and here are my greetings, which *I do* mean! I wish you all my
> > best and I really hope you will be happy one day, because you
> > certainly don't seem to feel that way.
>
> Actually, things are just Ducky with me, and quite all they're Quacked up
> to be as a matter of fact! And I extend my best wishes to you as well.
> After all, despite the disagreements we do share an interest in Disney Ducks.
>
> Duck and cover,
>
> Melanie
>
> --------------------------------
> End of dcomics-d Digest V95 Issue #15
> *************************************
David's points about bandwidth and peace in the group are well-taken; as a
result, I will respond privately to him in email. I leave his remarks
here undebated publicly, for everyone else to consider and discuss as they
will. I do appreciate David's sincere efforts to mediate.
Best regards,
Melanie
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> As an afterthought to my letter to Melanie before (you there,
> Melanie?) here's my comment about two of Jorgen's comments which may
> be the first ones you found sarcastic. Sorry to quote you, Jorgen,
> but I'd like to try to make peace if I can.
> "The reason why you don't get any responses to some letters is
> simply that people don't want to waste time or bandwith telling you
> they don't know the answer, or aren't interested in the matter."
> Of course it's not a waste to write to you, Melanie. But this
> is a reference to how many readers, including Don Rosa, have had to
> pay BY THE WORD to receive letters from this group in the past, so
> we've sometimes spoken of it as a "waste" to answer, "Well, I don't
> know anything about this," because then people have to pay for a
> letter that adds nothing to their knowledge (forgive me if you know
> that, Melanie... you probably do! But I didn't know when I first got
> the lowdown on this Digest about a year ago).
> "It would be quite ridiculous if anyone started to demand
> answers to their questions."
> Jorgen, perhaps you didn't know that this actually sounds kind
> of sarcastic? As if to say, "I can't actually be troubled to ANSWER
> someone..." But the rest of the letter was not sarcastic *at all* so I
> think the key word is "demand" here, not "ridiculous" (which was meant
> simply as "unusual", I think). When people may not have the answer to
> something, trying to force an answer is like squeezing a brick.
> There's no give, even if you do use force.
> Sorry to deconstruct your letters, Jorgen. Also, I sincerely
> hope this will soften the arguments we've had here. I don't like to
> see the only newsgroup I really enjoy contributing to become the
> center of furious arguments.
>
> David Gerstein
> <(Email removed)>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 14:21:53 +22305133 (MST)
> From: MASSENGALE MELANIE O <(Email removed)>
> To: (Email removed)
> Subject: Response to Daniel re: Reply to Harry and Melanie
> Message-Id: <(Email removed)>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>
> Daniel,
>
> > HARRY:
>
> > It doesn't matter to me if her point of view on Disney comics is
> > feministic, but the thing which *did* matter to me was that I replied
> > to her letters and then saw my words back, explained in a very negative
> > way.
>
> I merely pointed out the inconsistencies in your response. I cannot be
> responsible for your interpretation of the material.
>
> > It all started with my reply in which I said that I don't see the sense
> > of re-using Hortense and Matilda, and suddenly I found myself in a war.
>
> It wasn't that simple, Daniel. You pointed out that it is a fact that
> most members of the club (presuming this list) are men, that comics are
> written by men; I believe your exact words were, "It's a fact." Your
> statement strongly implies that since men are the writers and men are the
> members of this list, that only their concerns are to be addressed. I
> attempted to make the point that, if the list is to grow and improve, it
> should be more inclusive. THAT is when the argument became ugly.
>
> > Melanie suddenly (more or less) concluded out of my letter that I'm
> > against women, which is certainly not true.
>
> Daniel, I'm willing to believe you if you will make one statement to the
> effect that even though women are a minority on the list and in writing
> comics, their concerns are valid and should not be ignored.
>
> And I certainly don't
> > want her negative conclusions about me being filed in the Disney-Comics
> > archives, without me clearly stating that her conclusion about me is
> > *wrong*.
>
> Then don't make overtly sexist remarks like the following, quoted directly
> from one of your previous messages in response to me:
>
> Me:
>
> "...older actresses (but not actors) have a tough time finding roles."
>
> You:
>
> "That's because men get handsomer when they get older."
>
> You may have intended the statement as humor, but it really doesn't help
> your case at all; it merely sounds prejudiced.
>
> > I realise that it's hopeless to change Melanie's negative conclusions
> > about me (which came like a bolt from the blue). And I will indeed stop
> > discussing with Melanie if she continues with her negative conclusions
> > about me.
>
> That's fine, too. I don't desire a war with you, and my conclusions about
> you are certainly no worse than yours are about me. As I've done with
> Jorgen, I'll stop answering you publicly with this message and you may have
> the last word, be it positive or negative, on this topic. I think that's
> fair enough. If I do reply (which is unlikely) it will be in email. So, flame
> away if you like.
>
> > In this letter I will answer the letters Melanie sent to me via this
> > club today. If it will be my last reply to her, will depend on the way
> > she answers it.
>
> Likewise.
>
> > MELANIE:
> >
> > > "Huh," what? You don't understand the expression, "benefit of the
> > > doubt," or you can't understand the use of it in this context?
> >
> > The latter, I don't understand the use of it in this context. If I say
> > that I'm not against women, you'll only have to believe it (because you
> > simply don't know me) instead of stating that I'm having the benefit of
> > the doubt.
>
> I simply wanted you to demonstrate that you're not against women. Since
> you showed your disinterest in their concerns (see quotes in above to
> Harry) based on their underrepresentation in this list and in writing Disney
> comics, that disinterest contradicts your statement that you're not
> against women. "It's a fact" implies "women's concerns are not important."
> If you can prove that's not the case, I'll be content.
>
> > And even if you're questioning the "sincerity of my statement", then
> > say it in a nicer way. I'm a member of this club because I like Disney-
> > comics, not because I like wars or whatever.
>
> I'm not sure there is a nicer way to say it. I have nothing against you
> personally. I am trying to point out that you contradict yourself. I
> like Disney Comics too, or I wouldn't bother writing anything here. I
> happen to have a different vision regarding the potential of the comics,
> and one which apparently disturbs people.
>
> > > The problem with the Barks Universe, if you'll pardon my heresy for
> > > stating the obvious, is that the roles are still stuck in the 1950s.
> > > Women are frankly NOT June Cleaver-homemakers anymore, even the ones
> > > who still stay at home with the kids.
> >
> > I don't know how it is in your country, but you don't have to convince
> > me that women are no less than men. Here in Holland women are fully
> > accepted, they're very busy making careers and they're also fully
> > accepted with doing that.
>
> Good. I hope we can begin to reflect that kind of thinking in the comics.
> This statement had nothing in it directed at you, but about the failure of
> Disney Comics to adjust to modern life in the 1990s.
>
> > I don't know how this all goes in other countries, but I don't think
> > Holland is the only country with this attitude.
>
> Not at all. It started here. But the comics have not caught up yet.
>
> > > Young women want to read about more than mom or girlfriend types who
> > > are just in the way of the husbands and boyfriends.
> >
> > I know, I *know*.
>
> Ok. Again, it's something that would be nice to see reflected in Disney
> Comics.
>
> > > It's not so much a stretch to see the Ducks in new situations, with
> > > new, more interesting stories, if they take down the "No Girls
> > > Allowed" sign from the clubhouse door. That change starts with
> > > changing the attitudes of people like you!
> >
> > What does a "No Girls Allowed" sign have to do with my attitude???
> > I think I observe something here, you're using *me* for exposing your
> > frustrations against men!
>
> Think back to your earlier remarks about it being a fact that most of the
> list subscribers are men, most comics writers are men. Those statements,
> taken without a disclaimer seem to support the idea that it's ok to
> exclude women. I'll welcome a statement to the contrary.
>
> > No matter what positive thing I say, you'll always find a reason to
> > attack me. And I certainly don't want to have that role, so you'd
> > better stop with it. I don't think I deserve to be treatened that way.
>
> I really can't see that I have threatened you in any way. You seem to
> take my remarks very personally. I am demonstrating that while you say
> you are supportive of women, your comments about their underrepresentation
> on the list and in comics writing are anything but supportive. Don't bait
> me with "humorous" remarks at my expense about actors being handsomer as
> they age, and you'll be amazed how positively I can respond :-)
>
> > > Oppression is a _fact_ but should we continue to tolerate racism,
> > > sexism, imperialism and other unpleasantries just because we have
> > > traditionally done so for centuries?
> >
> > NO! We shouldn't and we *won't*!
>
> Good. Then you would probably agree that underrepresentation on the
> subscriber list and in comics writing is no reason in itself not to show
> women in roles other than domestic ones in Disney Comics, and that strong
> women characters might indeed improve the existing product.
>
> If so, then we are basically in agreement here.
>
> > > Thanks for writing, you've made my case very nicely for me with your
> > > overtly sexist remarks.
> >
> > I really wonder how you got *that* out of my words.
>
> See above about the actors/actresses, and the interesting roles assigned
> by male writers to the male characters. You're right about something,
> underrepresentation IS a fact; I'm trying to get you to acknowledge that
> while it is fact, it is not right and should be changed. I sensed that you
> were baiting me by saying that the actors were handsome as they got older,
> actresses are not and that's why they didn't get the roles. In this way,
> you are the one being negative, not I.
>
> > > It's certainly safe to conclude that you have no real interest in
> > > strong female Duck characters; if fact, you are threatened by them.
> >
> > Yes, I'm always afraid that a female Duck character will suddenly come
> > out of my comic and start haunting me through my house. Well, does this
> > satisfy you?
>
> You could join me here as a Duck in a shooting gallery ;-) Sorry if this
> pun doesn't translate.
>
> I'd be interested to hear anything you have to offer with regard to a strong,
> continuing female Duck character.
>
> > > Hope you can get yourself liberated by the year 2000.
> >
> > In fact I was thinking that of you.
>
> If you respond positively then there is still hope for you.
>
> > Yes, and here are my greetings, which *I do* mean! I wish you all my
> > best and I really hope you will be happy one day, because you
> > certainly don't seem to feel that way.
>
> Actually, things are just Ducky with me, and quite all they're Quacked up
> to be as a matter of fact! And I extend my best wishes to you as well.
> After all, despite the disagreements we do share an interest in Disney Ducks.
>
> Duck and cover,
>
> Melanie
>
> --------------------------------
> End of dcomics-d Digest V95 Issue #15
> *************************************