Stereotypes, Caricatures, and Reality.

Mad Thinker Scott has a great post reacting to an article by Perry Moore over at his Blog in which he argues that a gay character shouldn't be considered "offensive" merely because the portrayal of said character conforms to some stereotypes of gay behavior. Essentially his argument boils down to the fact that many of the gay stereotypes are based on the behavior of actual people, and as such finding a character who exhibits said traits offensive is tantamount to finding those people offensive. In doing so he makes a point I wish more people understood.

In many ways a stereotype is nothing more than a caricature, that is to say a magnification of the pre-existing traits which help us identify people or things. If your ears are slightly bigger than the norm a caricature would enbiggen them to dumbotastic proportions but if your ears were not any bigger than most peoples a caricaturist would choose a different trait to magnify. For example a caricature of Barack Obama which didn't have big ears or a caricature of Jay Leno which didn't have a big chin probably wouldn't be recognizable as such. Its the observation inherent in the caricature which makes it effective.

The only major difference between the two is that a caricature magnifies the traits of a person while a stereotype magnifies the most often seen traits of given group. In both cases however, the traits being magnified must actually exist and be recognizable. The reason we have the stereotype of Gays as flamboyantly dressed, effeminate men for example is not because all gays are like that, or because no straight men are, but because enough openly gay men exhibit these traits that we recognise what is being caricatured immediately. If every gay man dressed in jeans and work shirts, was an ultimate fighting enthusiast, and had a goatee, our stereotype of gays would be very different than it is.

The point I'm making is that all stereotypes, like all myths, have at least a grain of truth at their core. This should be a self evident fact, but for many people its not, or at the very least they're not willing to admit that it is if the stereotype is negative. On the other hand if the stereotype is positive then most have little difficulty accepting that it is based on observable traits. As an example very few people would feel comfortable saying that the stereotype of Blacks as violent criminals exists because Blacks commit a disproportionately high number of violent crimes, yet few would show the same reticence in stating that the stereotype that Asians are good at math is based on the fact that the Asians are disproportionately represented in math heavy disciplines. In other words most people simply don't like expressing ideas that make them look like a istist asshole.

In and of itself this is not a problem. The problem arises when activists attempt to either deny the connection between observation and stereotype completely, or attempt to penalise those who portray a member of a given group in a way that "reinforces" said stereotype. It becomes a problem because any attempt to portray a member of a given group accurately will almost inevitably involve some stereotypes. And predictably, when those stereotypes are shown, those who consider themselves to be activists for that group will call it offensive. The writer is then left with the choice of either altering his portrayal of the character in question so as to reject the stereotype or accepting that people will consider him a bigot. Most writers chose the former, and the cumulative effect can lead to concepts which are irrational being accepted as rational.

As an example take the character Lady Shiva. A perfect embodiment of the idea that a woman can be just as good of a fighter as a man, current DC cannon lists her as the DCU's greatest martial artist. While there's no reason a woman can't become a highly skilled martial artist or become even more skilled than her male counterparts, skill can only do so much. As every man instinctively knows, Size Matters.

Now think about this in the context of Batman Vs Lady Shiva. A ridiculously skilled Martial Artist himself, he is usually considered to be the second or third most skilled Martial Artist in the DCU. In other words the differences in skill between Batman and Lady Shiva are negligible. However, in the issues where Batman and lady Shiva fight; she is shown as being able to not only hold her own, but in some cases to actually defeat him easily. The problem is Batman still outweighs her by at least 50-100lbs of muscle, and has a sizable reach advantage. Now if Batman's martial skills were substantially less than her own (as in the case of say Black Canary Vs Green Arrow) these advantages wouldn't be worth much, but since their skill levels are comparable they should be damn near insurmountable. To paraphrase Anita Blake "A good big guy beats a good little guy" Or to put it another way Cynthia Rothrock is a great martial artist who could probably beat the living hell out of James Gandolfini but if she fought Chuck Norris she would get her ass kicked.

Now this should not be an offensive nor a controversial concept, yet somehow it is. Since the writers know if they portray this accurately they would be accused of being sexist, they intentionally go in the opposite direction. As a result, instead of Shiva being overpowered by Batman or fighting him differently than she would fight Black Canary, we are shown a Lady Shiva who fights batman by attacking his strengths, rather than his weaknesses. More to the point, since the writers have been doing this for years if not decades in an attempt not to be sexist, its become SOP for female martial artists in the DCU to fight in such a manner.

Why is this a problem you ask? After all Superhero Comics are inherently unrealistic and if I can accept that in comics men can fly, shoot lasers from their eyes, or juggle planets, why should it matter that female martial artists are shown winning fights in a manner that would quickly get them killed in real life? The reason is that in doing so, the writers are reinforcing the idea that the only way for a woman to be shown as being as dangerous as a man is for her to be unnaturally strong. Which implies that a woman who isn't can't be dangerous. Just as Perry Moore's article implies people who are stereotypically gay can't really be heroes and thus essentially marginalises those who are, requiring Lady Shiva to be as strong as a man physically essentially marginalises every female martial artist who isn't.

Now feminists like to talk about how fictional portrayals can cause a problem by creating unrealistic expectations. I don't personally buy that theory, but for the sake of argument lets assume its true; In what way is sending a message that in order to compete women must be something their not and for most, will never be, in any way positive? Doesn't making wonder woman 6'2" and giving all Amazons super strength imply that real woman aren't good enough to live up to amazonian standards? And given that Amazons are supposed to be representative of the feminine ideal in the DCU what does that say?

Whats even more interesting is that the same writers and artists who portray size as irrelevant when women are fighting men don't hesitate to show size as a major factor in fights between two men. Robin for example never went toe to toe with Twoface, or The Joker, instead he was portrayed as using leverage, speed, agility, and skill to overcome the size deficit. The reason of course is that when two men are fighting, there's no concern that an accurate portrayal will be considered offensive.

I guess the point I'm trying to make here, is that by creating a climate in which the writers fear sending the wrong message and then tieing the definition of a wrong message to whether or not the characters portrayal is consistent with a stereotype, we end up with characters whose existence tells those same people we are trying to respect, that they aren't worthy of respect, because of who they are. If a writer attempts to make sure he didn't engage in the stereotype that Blacks like fried chicken, by specifically writing all his black characters as hating fried chicken, then wouldn't that actually send the message than any Black who does like fried chicken either isn't "really" black or can't be a hero? Likewise if he specifically makes all his homosexual characters dress like Mad Thinker Scott, isn't he implying that any who dress like Harry Hay aren't good enough to be heroes? And if so, is that what we as comic fans want?

Now me, Id rather see a DCU where Micheal Holt is allowed to like chicken, where the Pied Piper is allowed to be flamboyant and effete, and Lady Shiva is allowed to be less physically strong yet still just as dangerous as Batman. That doesn't mean that every character should follow stereotypes, I don't think I would find that very interesting. It just means that writers shouldn't be made afraid of giving a character a trait that could be considered stereotypical, and fans shouldn't be so damn quick to blast them if they do. Especially when that stereotype is heavily rooted in reality, and makes sense for the character being written.