Maybe we're all just goobers in this . . .

[chantico]

Today I am very cranky and easily angered. I keep working myself into a self-important lather over silly things (and some not so silly ones) for no good reason other than it's easier to surf on a wave of pre-existant seething than fight the tide. Which is no excuse, of sourse; that's why I'm making a deliberate effort to be congenial today.

I've got my feminist side all riled up over the last few weeks for various reasons:
This article, paired with a recent report in the IDS last wekk (which I now cannot find, curse it, though I still have the physical paper) about the steady wage gap. I guess as I come closer to the reality of A Job, I'm starting to pay a little more attention to the problems that I know are there (which is kind of a sucky of me, actually, to pay attention to something only when it's directly confronting me). Not that I plan on getting into corporate America any time soon, but these are still issues to be concerned about. And then, of course, there is the, erm . . . kerfluffle surrounding the Mary Jane statuette.

Oh, you hadn't heard? Here's a link to the main page where it mostly began:
http://devildoll.livejournal.com/750924.html

Scroll down a bit to get to close ups (and the link to the Bingo card is great). Certainly on the lighter side of OMG OPRESHUN, but a little disturbing none-the-less, at least to me. Mostly because it highlights an argument I got into after seeing Spiderman 3 about women's portrayal in comics, RE: They suck. That was probably fueled by my UNDYING hatred of Greg Land, but also my irritation of MJ's representations in the movies (and in this statue) because, well, yeah, she's a fairly cheescake character, but she has spark, too-- and that's *not* something I've seen in the movies at all. Three instances of the boring "woman falling from building so Spidey can save her" thing is a little much for me, thanks-- feminism aside, it's *tired*.

This is followed by a great thread on Scan_Daily when there is a post with a *ridiculously* beefcake Wonder Man. The ensuing comments are fairly intelligent once they get into debate and cease the OH GOD MY EYES. (The cover, by the way, is actually a fake, worry not).

Of course, in all fairness, here's a good rebuttal to the dramaz: http://tcj.com/journalista/?p=355

This link requires some scrolling down until you hit the Comics Culture section. Overall, I think he's claims are at least *somewhat* valid. I agree with his stance on economics, in that women are not great supporters of American comics, therefore publishers do not cater to them. I don't agree with his knee-jerk labeling of entitlement on all of the fangirls, because that just perpeatuates the name calling on both sides, when intellligent debate brings up good points (and bad) on both, and neither is fully right.

I do take a fair amount of issue with his assertation that if women want good women portrayed in comics, they should write them themselves, as in the Manga takeover in Japan he refernces. He makes it sound deceptively simple. Breaking into comics is *stupidly* hard no matter *who* you are . . . and breaking into comics as a woman is even harder. the playing field is incredibly male dominated, and to make it as a woman writer or artist in the Big 2 means to conform to their standards.

Secondly, the Shojo manga from Japan is not a particularly good example . . . because shojo manga still often fits within a the box of acceptable female behavior. The Shojo thing was acceptable *because* the feminie, pretty styles fit into the perception of 'girly' that was appropriate. I'm a fan of equality, dammit, not *segregation* of the genders. "Girls can read these comics because they are made for them, boys can read these other comics made for them" don't fly in my book. I fucking *hate* Shojo-- I want my power fantasies and explosions and people in tights, dammit.

That's really the problem, I think-- building another sandbox because we're not allowed to play in the main one does not work.



Of course, all of this vitrol *could* be because I woke up with a double shot of adrenaline latte this morning. Mmm . . . being startled out of sleep. Feels like a burning sensation in my chest and a lingering twitchiness all the day long.

Comments

[d-c-m.livejournal.com]

What more can I say but ROCK ON SISTAH! I totally agree with you. I think MJ should have a bit more backbone and frankly the women in the X-Men Comics KICK BUTT whereas in the movies they are kind of wishy-washy.

In short, yes, I need to see/read more cool women. I'm right there with ya'.

[d-c-m.livejournal.com]

AND there are days when sexist bullshit gets me so down I want to break something. So in short, once again, I am right there with ya'.

[tooth-and-claw.livejournal.com]

It's not even so much the sexist bullshit, it's the *acceptance* of said bullshit. I hate it when epopel I uaully think of as intelligent people , or people I trust, brush this stuff off. It's real, and dimissing it means you're dismissing the people whom it affects.

[d-c-m.livejournal.com]

Yes. Again, I totally agree with you. And yes, it is frustrating.

[swan-tower.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I've got some big issues with the Journalista thing. The part I can agree with: get out there and make the comics. Because if nobody's making them, then they can't be published, and really, you need to take a battering ram to all the doors at once, not just a select few. But that also means it isn't enough just to start writing the comics, either, for the reasons you point out. Saying women don't buy enough comics for their opinions to matter, and therefore they should shut up? No. Saying the male gaze isn't inherently bad? Fine. Saying that means all cheesecake is okay? No. Calling all these fangirls entitled when they complain? No. And so on.

Grrr argh.

[sapphohestia.livejournal.com]

Comics also seem to have a lot of focus on the idea that it's the father figure that makes a hero. For Robin, it's Batman. For Superman it's his father. For Batman it's his parents or Alfred. I can't think of any really good examples where it's a mother figure that shapes a hero. Even Aunt May is never quite the influence that Uncle Ben was to Peter, and Aunt May is about as strong as the mother figure comes in the comics I've seen. Of course, perhaps I've just not read enough comics.

[tooth-and-claw.livejournal.com]

Wow . . . that's a really good point that I hadn't thought of at all. Well said.

[tooth-and-claw.livejournal.com]

i agree that as a business model, catering to your biggest customers isn't necesarrily a bad idea. My problem is that I actually hold these companies-- companies that are currently desperately in need of a business model revamp anyway, because their sales are shit-- to havign some social responsibility. They are in the business of crafting stories, art . . . culture, really. Just as I would rag on an oil company that refused to start looking for alternate energy sources because their customers use fucktons of oil (companies that will soon be pwned by their competitors who *are* making changes), I'm going to rag on a company that's in the business of pop culture if they don't take some responsibilty.

I don't want the abolition of all cheescake. I *like* cheesecake. Burlesque and Betty Page and boys in thongs, YAY! I just wish there was a viable and well supported alternative.

[swan-tower.livejournal.com]

Re: business -- this is exactly the discussion that's been going on in sf/f about things like the low percentage of women published by certain magazines. Yes, women make up a low percentage of their readership. You know what? Their audiences are also shrinking. So they can go on catering to the audience they have, if they like, and suffer the consequences. But maybe they should think about trying to expand their appeal, and draw in new readers. Adapt, or die. It's their choice.

Re: cheesecake -- that was my response, too. I wouldn't mind the cheesecake half so much if it were one corner of a diverse spectrum of female depiction in comics. But when female characters, even female superheroes, are routinely reduced to nothing more than the sum of their parts, then it's a problem, because then my choice isn't cheesecake or these twelve other options over here; it's cheesecake or nothing. So I choose nothing, and now we're back to business again. It's no accident that I don't think I've ever bought a superhero comic. Give me Elfquest, or Fables, or Transmetropolitan, or something else where the women are there for more than providing T&A.

[kniedzw.livejournal.com]

To a degree, I blame Freud. He definitely downplayed the influence of mothers on children, going so far as to say that morality in girls was due to an attachment to the father born of a rejection of their mothers because they have no penis.

Eh. Whatever. He was kind of batshit anyhow.

In any case, modern developmental psychology, while much better researched and supported, doesn't have the same easily-encapsulated soundbites, so it's tough to counter that with a more modern perspective, particularly since most modern psychology is so cognitively-oriented, anyhow. Very little is being written about moral development these days, as morality is so difficult to pin down. Ditto emotional development. Cognitive development, which can be portrayed with nifty graphics of firing synapses in peoples' brains? Much easier and sexier science.

In any case, I don't think this particular issue is limited to comics, really. Strong father figures are easier for me to call to mind throughout literature than strong mother figures. Perhaps it's because "mothering" is so often equated with more passive nurturing, rather than a more active, driving "fatherly" impulse. The passive is more difficult to portray flatteringly and interestingly in literature, after all. Name me a strong mothering figure in literature, and I'll name you three strong father figures.

[tooth-and-claw.livejournal.com]

Also a good point, though I don't think the dichotomy in literature is *as* pronounced as in comics. It makes me wonder about other media representations of father/motherhood right now, especially since the 'people with kids' thing is big in genre right now (Michael and Walt on Lost, Niki and Micah on Heroes, etc.) and sitcoms are usally family oriented. And then there's things like Desperate Housewives, Six Feet Under, The Sopranos, and other family oriented dramas. In TV, the father/mother figure seems a little more evenly divided between the two . . . though neither are necessarily great role models. I wonder why that might be true there, and not in literature or other mediums?

[tooth-and-claw.livejournal.com]

There's also the fact that well written characters from any gender make a book better. Sure, a lot of great books fail in this day and age (Nextwave!), but when established books get great writers on them . . . amazing things can happen. I find it insulting to me as a *reader*, not just a woman, when characters sren't up to snuff, or an otherwise great story is marred by a stereotypical cheesecake girl. Likewise, I imagine it's insulting to guys to insinuate that they'll take slutty crap over well-written books.

Of course, some . . . many . . . do.

[teleidoplex]

My response was too long, so I posted it on my own journal.

[kniedzw.livejournal.com]

You know, I'm getting to the point where I don't know which journal you post in. I have you on my friends list three times now, so I'd best have all your accounts at this stage. If not, I can't be held responsible for not seeing your posts any longer. :)

[danielmc.livejournal.com]

what he said. triple coverage! holy multposty!

[iblis-kukl.livejournal.com]

diy hydrogen generator

[(Anonymous)]

Interesting post.