Masters of the Universe, Gender, and Cautious Optimism

He-Man has always been about gender.

It's a Derp!

So that "It's a Bird, It's a Plane, It's Superman" musical soundtrack I posted about yesterday? I opened it up this morning to rip the tracks so I could listen to it on my iPhone. There was just one problem: it didn't fit onto the little CD-holder spinny bit in my laptop's disc tray.

Looking at the CD, it appeared that the hole was just too small, that there was a little semi-cut circle around that center hole, which was supposed to have been punched out, but wasn't. "Okay," I said, contacting my inner Tim Taylor. "I can fix this. I just need to cut out that center plastic."

So I sat down with a cutting board and a bright lamp and an X-Acto knife, and I went to work. I did pretty well with my CD surgery, cutting out a little chunk of the plastic, figuring I could work on the rest from there. At about that time, I broke the tip off my X-Acto knife and decided to take a break.

I approached my wife, ever the voice of reason, to pitch the next phase of my plan at her (of course, I have more than one X-Acto knife). "I think I know a way to make this go faster, but it will also be more dangerous. I could heat up the blade."

She responded by telling me that this was a bad idea, and that I should just buy a new CD.

I was somewhat dismayed by this turn of affairs, but happy that I had permission to just replace the semi-mutilated disc. Whereupon we went to lunch and ran some errands.

My mind mulled over this problem in the background over the course of the early afternoon, and hit upon something I should have noticed earlier (but in my zeal to do some manly tool-work-cutting, I missed): if the hole in the center was too small, how would it fit on the little plastic CD-holding-bit in the jewel case?

Returning home, I decided to test this new notion, and tried the CD in the disc tray again. It fit. I was just apparently uncoordinated and stupid before.

So now I have a slightly-mutilated Superman musical soundtrack CD, and it's a good thing that I don't listen to the actual physical discs very often anymore. And I feel like precisely the idiot that I am. But at least it ripped!

---

If yesterday was Mark Waid day, then today was Superman day. The rest of my online Borders order arrived, including things that I wasn't aware had shipped yet. So now I have Superman Chronicles Vol. 5 and 6 on my shelf, as well as Michael Eury's "The Krypton Companion" and the Neal Adams/Denny O'Neil "Superman vs. Muhammad Ali" hardcover reprint, which I've never actually read. So that's exciting.

---

And as long as today is Superman Day, I might as well mention something I've been meaning to talk about in the last couple of posts. I'm reading Elliot S! Maggin's second Superman novel, "Miracle Monday," and it's quite enjoyable, but one bit has really stuck out. Kristin Wells, the time-traveling historian who would later become Superwoman, writes a journal entry about halfway through the book, shortly after she'd been possessed or otherwise influenced by the book's villain, the demonic C.W. Saturn. It's some of the best subtle, psychological horror I've read in a superhero story. I feel like it's damning with faint praise to say it reminded me of Stephen King's short story "1408," but it's the same kind of slow-burn madness evidenced by things just being slightly off, and it's accomplished in a fairly small space. You can read it here, though I suspect it won't have the same impact if you haven't read the rest of the book up to it. So you could start here then.

---

Laura Hudson wrote essay on female creators at DC, why it's important, and why Dan Didio's dismissive, defensive answers to the problem are a problem. It's worth reading if you haven't, and I agree with it on pretty much every count.

Just when I thought I was out...

Today's newly-released solicitation for Stormwatch #2:

STORMWATCH #2
Written by PAUL CORNELL
Art by MIGUEL SEPULVEDA and AL BARRIONUEVO
Art and cover by MIGUEL SEPULVEDA
On sale OCTOBER 5 • 32 pg, FC, $2.99 US • RATED T+
The moon is alive! Following the events of SUPERMAN #1 where [TEXT REDACTED], the covert team of sci-fi Super Heroes known as Stormwatch must not only battle the Earth’s moon, but find a way to hide its monstrous metamorphosis from the rest of the Earth! How? Uh, they’re working on it. Meanwhile, the recruitment of Midnighter goes poorly, and we learn why the Martian Manhunter is a member of the team. Written by Paul Cornell (Doctor Who)!

Superheroes battling the moon because it's going through a monstrous metamorphosis? That is crazy. Like, precisely the kind of crazy that I want to read about.

Okay DC, you got me on this one. "Stormwatch" it is.

---

In other news, the second issue of the Red Hood book shows that it was possible to design a costume skimpier than Star Sapphire's. Meanwhile, Jason Todd joins Citizen Steel and that guy from "All-New Atom" in having his spandex-clad junk apparently displayed on a cover. Somehow I imagine this image will change before October. Because obviously that, and not Starfire's impossible costume, is the offensive and unacceptably sexual part of the image.

---

The announcements of miniseries for Huntress and the Penguin, and a maxi-series for the Shade, demonstrates that DC's going beyond the New 52 in coming months, which gives me hope for some characters (and perhaps more importantly, creators) that we haven't seen yet. Still no more women in the writing or art credits, though.

I want to spend another minute on that "Penguin: Pain and Prejudice" miniseries. It purports to be an origin story for the Penguin, which seems kind of odd. Why would they be releasing this now? I can't help but see parallels to the Scarecrow, Ra's al-Ghul, Joker, and Two-Face miniseries and trades and specials that cropped up before "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight" respectively, and the timing (the fifth issue of the mini, if on-time, would ship in February, meaning a trade could be out by May, easily in time for "The Dark Knight Rises") seems right. Is the Penguin an as-yet-unannounced villain (or just supporting character) in the next Batman film? I'll be interested to find out.

Power Fantasies

So, superhero comics are often characterized as stemming from adolescent male power fantasies. At the bottom, it's the average, powerless person actually (and secretly) having the power to do the things they dream of doing. I suspect Spider-Man is probably the most purely distilled version of this--a bullied, powerless geek is secretly the hero that his bully idolizes.

So, I'm curious: what's an example of an adolescent female power fantasy? If it's basically the same, then why do we gender the characterization?

I think the example that gets thrown around most is similar in the "secret princess" archetype, the "I'm not who I appear to be, I'm actually someone famous/powerful/magical" story that underlies "Amethyst: Princess of Gemworld" and other stories.

But is that it? Is that even accurate? It seems like there's considerable overlap there...like, "Matilda" fits the male power fantasy model, but "Harry Potter" falls into the female one, suggesting more to do with the author's gender than the protagonist's, which makes sense.

I'll probably do some additional looking around on this, but it's been awhile since I wrote something literary here, and I figured I'd put the call out for input.

Women in Elevators

I've got feet in two big online communities. Obviously, there are the comic fans, but I'm also pretty active in the science/skepticism blogohedron. Recently, there was a flare-up--one of a series, frankly--that exposed some ugly misogyny, some unfortunately unrecognized privilege, and what the hay, touched on everyone's favorite third rail, the issue of "tone"--or, "I don't disagree with anything you said, but did you have to say it that way?"

The inciting incident was a facepalmingly common one--some dude at a conference played the creep. More specifically, awesome Skepchick Rebecca Watson announced her decision to go to bed at 4 AM, and was followed into the elevator by some guy, who proceeded to proposition her. Bottom line, it was creepy, and that's about the extent of Rebecca's initial comment on the subject, which set the whole blogosphere a-gnashin' about feminism and privilege and misogyny and so forth.

On the whole, I think the conversation has been worthwhile. There have been some truly clueless comments by some otherwise intelligent people, and I hear the comment threads are just brimming with misogyny, but it seems like several good things have come out of this incident: first, a line in the sand has been drawn, saying that prominent women in the community will no longer take this sort of treatment silently. A sizable and vocal block of feminist skeptics has formed, slamming their collective staff on the stone ground and telling the Balrog of misogyny that it shall no longer pass. Second, it's shown that no one is necessarily above privilege, and thus no one is above criticism. Finally, and most importantly, I think there's been a lot done in this situation to educate some of the thicker people who might not have gotten it any of the other times this has gone around (and I count myself somewhat among those thick-headed people). Richard Dawkins aside, I think we can all recall times when confronted with creepy people engaging in behaviors that most folks would recognize as socially unacceptable. Not all such situations have such connotations of sex and rape and objectification, but I would hope that we all know what it's like to meet someone who's a total creeper, and to apply that awkward pressure on them in hopes that they will be less creepy.

If you haven't had such experiences, then I suspect that people around you might have.

I think that's easier for most men to understand. Men might not get why women don't like being ogled and cat-called--even my brain clicks to "gee, it'd be nice if someone ogled me once in a while"¹--but they get what it's like for someone to stand too close to you in the elevator, to take the urinal next to yours when there's one open on the other side of the restroom, to strike up a conversation from the next stall over...to violate any of a bajillion understood-but-unspoken rules of social conduct and trigger that weirded-out feeling.

I realize, of course, that there's a lot more to it for women, but men have fur, and I think this is something that gets through it a little. Which is why I think that this is a great example: most people see why it's a skeevy thing to do, regardless of their privilege, and not just in the intellectual, detached, "women don't necessarily like being hit on" way that's the case with most of these situations. And that's why I think this incident might actually make a difference to the (thick-headed men in the) community in a way that previous incidents haven't.

Boy, I'm rambling here. So, why am I rambling on this blog instead of the other one that would generally be more suited to this sort of thing? Mainly because I really would like to see that kind of difference happen in the nerd community at large. Ragnell linked to this post describing a strangely similar incident from a comic convention several years back. There were notable differences--Karen Healey wasn't directly propositioned, she was wearing a costume, there were multiple men--but the situation is remarkably similar: woman in an elevator receives unwanted and unwarranted advances from strange men. Strange men who apparently saw no problem with making advances toward a strange woman in an elevator.

Karen mentioned in passing another strange situation in that post:

This and like incidents have happened to me, like many women, time and time again: strange men telling me to “smile!”; strange men shouting “Show us your tits!” as they drive past; strange men groping my breasts and ass in crowded train carriages.

It's disturbing, for two reasons. One, it resonates with another such incident I encountered on the skeptical side of the blogosphere. Two, it lays bear the assumption (I think) that's going on here: women's bodies are public. Remember the open source boob project? It's the same kind of thing, but without even the token advances toward consent. A man can expect to have a bubble of personal space, violation of which results in, at the very least, that "weirded out" feeling. Women can expect the same, but must also expect to have that space violated by others (read: men) who view women's bodies as some sort of public resource, subject to public oversight.

I realize that this is a larger problem than the geek community, and my conversation with Ragnell and MadMarvelGirl on Twitter suggests that geek conventions may be better than my experience would suggest. All I know is that at GenCon or Wizard World or C2E2, I encountered my fair share of people with no apparent capacity for self-awareness or self-assessment, people ignorant of basic social mores and courtesies, people with no regard for personal space--you know, creepers. Moreover, I think geek culture shields creepy people, and largely justifies, defends, or validates creepy, socially-awkward behavior.

Yes, I realize that people are different, and I'm not one to say that all social rules, standards, or mores are good or justified or reasonable. I also realize that there are actual conditions (like Asperger's) that may impact someone's social intelligence. That's really beside the point, which is that the important social rules--the ones whose violation will set people off as "creepy" and elicit that weirded-out (or threatened) feeling--exist as a result of people's basic social expectations. Violating someone's personal space or ogling them in an elevator violates the basic social contract, the basic principle that people deserve to be treated as individual persons whose desires should be respected and taken into account.

The point, to reiterate, is that people--regardless of gender or dress or attractiveness or whatever--deserve to be treated like people at all times, deserve to have their wishes taken into account at all times. Cornering someone in an elevator when they're trying to go to bed, and asking them to have sex with you, is a violation of that principle. Telling someone that they should be smiling, as if you own stock in their face, is a violation of that principle.

And people should be able to bring this kind of subject up on comic blogs and forums without being shouted down by misogynists and the clueless-and-defensive.

---

1. My brother likes to eat Ramen noodles. He makes enough money that eating Ramen noodles is one option out of many. I suspect, if he had no choice but to eat Ramen noodles all the time, he'd like it a lot less. There's a difference between wanting a thing, and that thing happening whether you want it to or not.

Do Women Get Empowered?

So, I re-read Empowered Vol. 2 and read through Vol. 3 tonight. As usual, I loved it, and it's great to see some of the subplots coming to a head. Hopefully next issue (September?!) will give us the Weregiraffe-By-Night, because few things would be awesomer.

But I was thinking, I don't see many of the illustrious feminist bloggers talking about Empowered. Granted, I don't see many bloggers of either gender or any political philosophy talking about the series. Sure, Chris Sims does, and he reads great feminist titles like Anita Blake and Tarot, but what about everyone else?

When I read Empowered, what I see is someone trying to do something more worthwhile with fan service. After all, that's how the book started: Adam Warren drew some heroine-in-bondage commissions, and eventually turned them into a real story with fleshed-out characters. That seems to be the mission statement for the series; even when it delves into blatant fan service, it does something clever with it. In the latest volume, one passage was used to give us the lowdown on the unwritten rules of superheroics, while another was narrated by the always spectacular and amazingly alliterative Caged Demonwolf.

But gnawing at the back of my brain, borne no doubt of a healthy dose of liberal guilt, is the lingering question: isn't it still fan service? Doesn't it still just boil down to fetish porn? Sure, Warren's using it to poke fun at superhero tropes and the objectification of women in comics, but he's still using objectification and fetishy fan service to do it. Does a good story excuse what might otherwise appear sexist?

I'm not exactly asking for an answer, because I doubt that there is one. And I'm not looking for validation, for Lady Feminist to drop by and say "I grant thee permission to enjoy the books of Sir Adam of Warren, who doth verily draw women of the bootylicious sort." I'm just curious as to why there seems to be so little conversation about a book that ought to be pushing buttons all over the place. Seems like fan service and objectification are some of the blogohedron's favorite topics, and Warren attacks them head-on. Why isn't this book causing more waves?

Whatever your more philosophical musings on the subject, I recommend picking the book up. At least from my point of view, it's fantastic, albeit a little too brief. I polish these things off in a half-hour, then curse the heavens that another installment is six months away. Damn you, Warren!

Myth Motifs and Gender Stereotypes

By this point, it should be obvious how much I enjoy looking at themes and story-archetypes that worm their way through various mythologies and folk tales. There's one, however, that I keep coming across, and it nags at me because of its ubiquity and its general misogyny. Here's the basic format:

Woman is told by a male authority figure not to look in/at something, but is given no reason. Woman looks in/at said thing. Bad stuff happens.

That's pretty generalized, but it's at the heart of more myths than I care to count:

• Bluebeard--Bluebeard's newest wife is told not to look in the forbidden room; she does, and finds the remains of Bluebeard's previous murdered wives. He attacks her in punishment.
  
• Pandora's Box--Pandora, the first woman, is told by Zeus not to open her jar/box; when she does, she unleashes all manner of evil into the world, preserving only hope.
  
• Cupid and Psyche--Cupid visits his new wife at night, in the dark, and tells her never to try to see his face/reveal his true form. She looks at him while asleep, and manages to fall in love with him, but he flees when he finds out she's seen him.
  
• Lot's Wife--Lot, his wife, and their daughters are fleeing Sodom as Yahweh rains fire and brimstone down on the city. Yahweh tells them not to look back; Lot's wife looks back. As punishment, she is turned into a pillar of salt.
  
• Disney's "Beauty and the Beast" (not sure if it's in the de Beaumont version)--takes a page from Bluebeard; Belle is told by the Beast that she cannot enter the West Wing of the castle. She does, where she discovers the magical rose that binds the Beast, and when discovered she is cast out.

Expand it just a little and you can include the story of Eve as well. There are more, though some are slipping my mind at the time, but the pattern should be fairly clear. And of all of these, I can think of only two variations where a male character is the one to turn back: one classical, one more modern.

• Orpheus--Orpheus the poet descends into the Underworld to rescue Eurydice, who was killed on their wedding night. After softening the hearts of Hades and Persephone with his song, they allow Eurydice to follow Orpheus back to the world above, on the condition that he does not look back until they have left the Underworld. Almost at the end of their journey, Orpheus turns back, only to see Eurydice disappear forever.
  
• The Girl with the Ribbon--a man falls in love with a woman who never removes a ribbon that she wears around her neck (usually of a specified color; I first read it as black, but I've heard it as green, red, and pink as well). Eventually the two are married, but she makes him promise that he will never try to remove the ribbon. Eventually, he does, and her head falls off.

That last one there scared the hell out of me as a kid. Most ghost stories didn't, but for some reason that one stuck with me.

It's interesting to see how nearly all these different myths, from various places around Eurasia, play on this notion of women's curiosity and disobedience of male authority figures, who expect them to obey unquestioningly and without any stated reasons. Even Orpheus is portrayed with stereotypically "feminine" traits, being an emotional musician who never even consummated his marriage. Only in the modern telling do we get a really complete gender reversal.

In folktales with male protagonists, cleverness is a virtue. How many stories of giants and genies end with the male underdog outsmarting their physical foes? Yet for these women, curiosity is a singularly dangerous trait. I applaud the more modern retellings for spinning the heroines' intellects into a positive quality, but I still wonder why this theme is so prevalent in the earlier stories. I have little doubt that this was part of teaching young girls the proper way to think and behave, preparing them for lives of quiet obedience; after all, when girls showed an inclination toward curiosity, their parents could point back to these stories and say "don't be another Eve/Pandora/etc." But what about the attitude and stereotype at the heart of these stories? Where did that come from? Aren't men just as curious as women? Haven't men been taking credit for the fruits of curiosity (science, for instance) since the dawn of civilization? I suspect that it's partly a relic from a time when men's curiosity was seen as something that could be directed toward producitive ends through training and education, while women's curiosity was useful only in producing unhappy shrews who longed for the same rights that men received by default. But I really don't have anything to back that up.

In any case, I think it's interesting to look at, and I'd be interested in your input--has someone done the legwork to explain all this? Are there stories that I'm forgetting? What do you think?

Girls are Icky

People who've been paying attention for awhile should know that I love watching bad movies (ignore all the unfinished posts, please). Whether it's independent shoestring-budget schlock like "Shatter Dead" or bloated big-budget silver screen abominations like "Face/Off," I get some perverse pleasure out of watching terrible, terrible films.

But my love of the terrible is not limited to the wonders of the screen, oh no. I've a soft spot in my head heart for bad literature, and I listen to quite a lot of bad music as well. Of the three, bad music tends to be the cheapest and easiest to find; I mostly just turn on the local Top 40 station and listen for a few minutes.

Sidebar: there's quite a lot of bad music from previous generations, too, but it tends not to get as much radio play now. You could listen to the oldies station for days before you caught "Macarthur Park," and you might never hear "Timothy" or "He Hit Me and It Felt Like a Kiss." When's the last time you heard "Too Young To Date" on the '80s channel? Conversely, you might hear "Grillz," "Me Love," and "Girlfriend" in one twenty minute block on Top 40 radio.

Now, there's a national show I sometimes catch on weekends called The Open House Party, which tends to employ a more strict censorship policy than the regular station (I assume so it can be played across the country, regardless of regional differences in sensitivity). I've got a problem with censorship to begin with, but recently a prurient hack-job on the Open House Party exposed me to something far more offensive than foul language.

The song was "Money Maker" by Ludacris and Pharrell, a crude tune that continues this trend of mentioning women's mothers in pick-up lines, which I have to imagine is about the most unsexy thing ever. But I'd heard all that before; the new wrinkle in this listen-through was that the show censored the word "wet" in the line "How every way you turn I'll be makin' you wet."

It's clearly a reference to female arousal and I can see why you'd cut such an obviously sexual reference. Taken alone, that decision isn't surprising. It's when you listen a little longer, to the line "Get up, and I stay harder than a cinder block, man," which was not cut. Why is it that a clear reference to female arousal can't be played, but a clear reference to male arousal can? What is so different between erections and lubrication? Is it the presence of fluids? I'm sure they'd cut "cum," but that's far more specific to what it's describing than "wet;" it's not like Luda said "every way you turn I'll be making you discharge lubricating fluids." No, it's a double-standard: it's okay to talk about erections and male arousal, but it's not okay to talk about female arousal.

Seems to me that this is a symptom of a social contradiction: "the purpose of women is to be sex objects" vs. "girl parts are icky." It's absolutely fine to have a whole song where women are merely objects of sexual desire, but you can't actually discuss the mechanics of their girl parts, because that's too gross. Guy parts, however, are simple and clean and all on the outside, out in the open, not mysterious and dark and dank.

These contradictory social dichotomies show up all over the place in misogyny, both the personal and institutional sorts. There's the Frank Miller Special, "virgins" vs. "whores;" there's the classic chivalric "women are better than men and deserve exaltation" vs. "and that's why they ought to be second-class citizens with different rights;" there's even "women don't actually want/enjoy sex" vs. "all women lie/cheat/sleep around (see also: John Donne)" vs. "women who dress provocatively and flirt are just asking for it."

It happens with other minority groups too--I'm specifically thinking of the "noble savage"--but seemingly without as much frequency, tenacity, and diversity as these attitudes toward women. I've seen screeds from misogynists that hit on several of these contradictory points in a row, completely oblivious of how poorly they fit together. "Wait, getbackinthekitchen_48, if men are naturally much smarter than women, then how was she able to manipulate and trick you for so long?"

Generally stereotypes contain within them some measure of truth; that's part of why they're so widely believed and so easily disseminated--members of one group already perceives all members of an outgroup as a homogeneous whole, so traits which purport to describe all members of an outgroup fit within that framework. What people so often fail to do is actually examine the traits they've used to label these outgroups and see that they often don't fit together. If all Mexicans are lazy, then why are they a threat to your manual labor jobs? If all homosexuals just want to have loads of indiscriminate no-strings-attached sex, then why are they a threat to the sanctity of marriage? If your stereotypical traits don't jive with each other, then what are the chances that they apply to all members of a community?

The truth is that all group descriptions, all things that may be true "on the whole," break down on the individual level. On the whole, women aren't as physically strong as men; that doesn't mean that every woman is physically weaker than every man by any stretch of the imagination. It's not enough just to tell people that stereotypes are bad and that we should reject them; stereotypes are bad, but they're also a natural consequence of evolution-sculpted psychology. In order to overcome the instinct to create generalizations, we have to apply intellect: we have to recognize the stereotypes for what they are, accept that we use them, understand why we construct them, and finally see why they fail and how to overcome them. The first step toward overcoming natural drives is recognizing them as such.

Not getting the Joke

So, I was skimming various blogs today, and came across a post (I forget where at this point, but I'll link to it if I find it again) which decried "Batman: The Killing Joke" for being misogynistic.

Now, I can certainly see the elements in the story which would cause someone to make such an argument. What I'm having a problem with, though, is sorting out what element in particular justifies the claim, and the reasoning behind it. Because I'm running through the various scenes in my head (it's been awhile since I read it, so I could be forgetting something), and nothing quite seems to hold up for me. I don't mean to sound crass or anything, I'm just honestly trying to figure out where this argument is coming from.

I guess, what I'm really trying to understand, is "when is fictional violence toward women misogynistic?" Is it when the violence leaves the victim obviously maimed, as with Barbara's paralysis? Is it when the violence is coupled with sexual humiliation? Is it when an otherwise strong character is turned into a damsel in distress? Is it when the violence is committed solely in service of some other plot?

The first instance is a strong case, probably the strongest of the four I've listed. But Barbara's paralysis did not need to be a continuing character trait. It was only because later writers chose to run with it, rather than subject her to any number of comic book "outs" from such a condition, that it became a permanent fixture. I can think of half a dozen ways right off the top of my head that could easily have been used to undo what the Joker did, from a skintight exoskeleton to experimental surgery to a character with healing powers or magic. It seems difficult to condemn someone for giving a lasting change to a character, when the very next writer could easily reverse that change (and given the state of comics, is quite likely to do so).

The second is strong, but bothers me on a number of levels. The first is the obvious one, that sexual humiliation is often a real-life component of violence toward women. That real-life violence and humiliation may certainly be classified as misogynistic, but when one tells a story about such violence, and said story makes it clear that this is a bad thing, can we reasonably call the story or the writer misogynistic? It's one thing if it's the hero going around being a sexual sadist and treating women as garbage (yes, Frank Miller, I'm talking obliquely toward you), it's quite another when it's the villain.
My other problem with that line of reasoning is that it seems to ignore Commissioner Gordon's similar ordeal in the same story. The Joker took naked photos of the injured Barbara Gordon, and may have done other things to her, clearly in order to humiliate her. But then he also drugged and stripped Jim Gordon and put him in a dog collar to be beaten and led around by insane bondage midgets. Is that misandry? Doesn't that suggest a more equal opportunity sort of offense?

The third line is similar to the second. I'm not sure about Barbara's character in the early '80s, but I'm hoping there was something of a distinction between it and the dainty damsel of the recent Showcase volume. Assuming that by the time she took the bullet, Barbara was a take-charge butt-kicker rather than the "typical Silver Age female," the violence certainly left her in a less-than-powerful state, atypical of the strong independent character we've come to know. But, again, the Commissioner was put in a similar situation: a strong character humiliated and placed at the Joker's mercy, in such a state that he had to be rescued. Granted, his ordeal didn't leave the obvious scars and consequences that Barbara's did, but that's less the fault of Moore and more the fault of later writers.

So, what of the fact that, in more ways than one, the violence toward Barbara wasn't the point of the story. From an outside perspective, it was done to underscore the Joker's dangerousness and psychosis, and to demonstrate the vulnerability of the Bat-family to such attacks. From within the story, it was done as part of the Joker's larger plan to drive Jim Gordon insane. In either case, it was merely means to an end. Yet, if it had been the focus of the story, wouldn't that have made this a "you touched my stuff" tale, and equally open to criticisms of misogyny?

Like I said, I'm really trying to figure out what specifically marks this story as misogynistic. I understand that it's something of a fuzzy area; we can all recognize the blatant, outright misogyny, and that's why I'm trying to figure out how people distinguish between the more subtle misogyny and plain old violence.

Just like that song 'bout Nabokov

So there's this popular Japanese comedy manga called "Nymphet," which, according to Newsarama, features an eight-year-old girl who wants to have sex with her teacher. While it was scheduled to be translated and released in America, Seven Seas Publishing has decided against that. They refused to censor or alter the book, and so they chose not to publish it, rather than risking the inevitable backlash.

Personally, I applaud Seven Seas. They stuck to their principles and took a hit on this one, and I can respect that. I wish we could live in a society where people would be able to distinguish between "fiction" and "reality," or even "porn" and "comedy," but since we don't, their response was reasonable.

See, the whole "lolicon" thing creeps me out. I don't like the idea of kids in sexual situations, which is one of many reasons why I don't read it. But I also recognize that in these cases, it is just the idea of kids in sexual situations. And while I may find the material gross, I find censorship much grosser.

I don't know, I just can't quite see getting outraged at fictional characters doing things that I may find morally disgusting. I'm no supporter of pedophiles and their ilk, and I'll vehemently defend laws that set age limits for consent. But there's a big difference between people looking at real sexually-explicit photographs taken of minors without legal consent, and people looking at sexually-explicit drawings of fictional minors created by a consenting adult. And apparently with this book, it's not even that, it's a sexually suggestive story about a fictional minor. Even if there were no other value to the story, even if this were just produced for creepy teenagers and would-be pedophiles to get their rocks off reading about Lolita's little sister, at least no minors are being harmed. And you're going to have to show me some evidence before I get on the "people who read about X are more likely to do X" bandwagon.

This whole debate has been really enlightening; the cultural differences between America and Japan are so vast when it comes to sex (and I apologize if I misrepresent Japanese culture here at all, please feel free to correct me if I do). Japan has ranked consistently (as I recall) as one of the most sexually-dissatisfied nations in the world. There's a Victorian-esque repression going on, which is why it's so startling that they would air their fetishes out in the open as they do. Pornographic cartoons and video games cater to every conceivable fetish market.

Meanwhile, in America, we're far less repressed when it comes to social roles and everyday conduct, yet we relegate pornography to brown bags and low-budget films. As far as I'm aware, American fetish porn is remarkably limited when compared to the subtle genres of Japan. In America, there's mainstream porn, there's bondage, and then there's "weird stuff," while the Japanese have individual words for every genre and subgenre.

And the weirdest, the absolute weirdest thing to me is how Japanese society's sexual repression has led to the creation of wholly new fetishes. From my understanding, the tentacle porn that fueled the whole "Heroes for Hire" brouhaha developed because the Japanese outlawed scenes of penis/vagina penetration, and so the next best thing (phallic tentacles) was invented. I understand that the rules regarding pubic hair have been changed (has anyone else lived with an Asian Studies major recently? Isn't it amazing what you learn?), resulting in a bush revolution of sorts. I have to imagine that there wouldn't be such a ridiculously detailed fetish market if people felt more free to express themselves sexually.

And then there's the rape fantasy stuff, which seems to make it into every Hentai game I read about on Something Awful. I've read enough books and watched enough SVU to know that rape's more about power than sex. I have to wonder if the combination of a society that tends to look down on female independence with international contact with societies that promote feminism, along with a male inferiority complex (partially borne out of the same international contact) is why these disgusting fantasies are so prevalent in Japanese media. The male power structure in Japan is being eroded through international commerce, and this destabilized patriarchy is grasping at straws trying to retain that power.

And when it comes right down to it, I think that's a big part of sexism in America, at least among the old-guard of misogynists. But while American feminism was mostly homegrown, espoused and enforced by our loved ones, to the Japanese (and various other cultures) it represents an outside influence, which threatens the patriarchy with inadequacy and obsolescence.

Oy...I don't know about you, but I think I'm done talking about porn and patriarchy for awhile.

An open letter to Comics

Dear Comics,

You and I go way back. In fact, I can't remember a time when you weren't part of my life. We've had our share of ups and downs, especially in the '90s, but I've never regretted our relationship. And I still don't! In fact, I doubt I ever will.

But we both know that you have some personal problems, particularly when it comes to the ladies. Things have been extra-tough in that area lately, I understand. Sometimes it seems like you can't do anything right. Once in awhile you'll stumble on something like Sandman or Y: The Last Man or Green Lantern, and you'll knock it out of the park with the women, but every time you try to recapture that or generalize it, you fall on your face. It's hard, I know. But you've got to stick with it. Eventually, you'll find your stride and hit that happy medium where no one feels marginalized and everyone can enjoy a given comic.

I'm saying this because I'm worried about you, comics. These days, it doesn't even seem like you're really trying. Sure, you'll throw a bone like Minx or Power Girl's JSA Chairmanship out to the female readers, but all the while you're drawing up Michael Turner covers and releasing raunchy statues. I think you're backsliding, Comics, and it frightens me.

You were making progress, you know. Honestly, you were. Sure, some people are going to get offended at anything, but you've got to learn to determine what's just offensive to the watchdogs, and what's genuinely offensive to everyone. You've struggled with that since they Coded you, I know, but you were really making some good headway. You were realizing that "Crime Suspenstories" was less offensive than "Superman spanking Lois Lane with a hairbrush." And we all applauded you, with the exception of the anti-Crime watchdogs and the spanking fetishists.

But lately, it doesn't seem like you're making the same effort. In fact, it seems like you're doing things just to piss people off. An ugly Michael Turner JLA cover is one thing, a sexist Mary Jane statue is another, a creepy tentacle-rape cover for Heroes for Hire is still another. As isolated incidents, maybe they wouldn't be so ridiculous. But these have all happened within what, the last month and a half? And that's not everything. It's like you've been gaining steam, decreasing the time period between each subsequent source of justified feminist outrage. I'm not sure how long people are going to put up with it, to be quite honest.

Let me help you, Comics. I know you don't want to be seen as a slavering source of juvenile male fantasy material. But unless you do something to change your image, that's all people are ever going to see in you. The road will be difficult; we can't change your image overnight, you know, but it'll be worth it. I promise.

So, let's take a deep breath, and start with something small. Something that you can definitely handle. Let's go one week without producing something that will offend every feminist in fandom. Let's go one week without inciting a blogger riot. After that, we'll try for another week. But let's start small, and work our way toward something better.

You've done it before, Comics. I know you can do it again. I believe in you.

Sincerely,
Tom Foss

Dirty Laundry

Other people have discussed in great detail the things that are wrong with this statue. There's the problem with MJ's terribly stretched-out anatomy; there's the fact that she's barefoot and doing the laundry; there's the fact that she's wearing low-rider jeans and the worst thong-wedgie I've ever seen; there's the fact that despite wearing her crappiest pair of ripped jeans to do the washin', she's also wearing a pearl necklace and a nice, low-cut shirt; there's the fact that even though the Adam Hughes image it's based on has the same backwards 1950s attitude toward women, at least it isn't as egregiously distorted; there's the fact that no one washes clothes in a bucket anymore; there's the fact that no one, even someone who actually washed their clothes in a bucket, would do it on such a short table that they had to bend over like that, as if begging for major back problems; there's the fact that "Comiquette" is just two letters shy of "coquette," which is just a little too apt.

Those are all valid things that are wrong with this stupid statue. Any one of them would be reason to be upset, reason to write long and angry rants, reason to rally together and write Marvel and Sideshow Collectibles (and DC, just for good measure) for change.

But for me, my immediate first thought when I saw it, the thing which stuck out most as horrendously wrong, was that Peter Parker does his own damn laundry.

I mean, I guess MJ might do it once in awhile, but I've always gotten the feeling that Pete's the more domestic of the two. And either way, neither of them is going to be filling buckets with warm water and Tide in order to wash the Venom-spit out of the ol' red-and-blues, least of all Mary Jane. I think Peter would feel obligated to do his own laundry, that he'd feel guilty if Mary Jane had to do it for him. You know, with great odor comes great responsibility, that sort of thing.

I honestly have no idea who would pay money for this statue; you'd think the people who would be so desperate as to have a burning desire for it are the same ones who would be upset by a glaring continuity error like that.

There is one thing that would make this a little better: if Marvel and Sideshow teamed up to do a statuette with accomplished seamstress Peter Parker, dressed in some tighty-whiteys, sewing up all the rips in MJ's jeans.

And to be completely honest, I'd be far more likely to buy that, than the curvaceous cheesecake monstrosity above.

Inappropriate Interlude

I'm aware of the male gaze. I'm also aware of the female gaze.

But I usually call them lesbians.

Finals are over, content should resume shortly.

Has Black Canary been drinking Gingold?

The idea of a Black Canary miniseries intrigues me. I like that it seems like it'll be examining the whys and wherefores of a character giving up her high-stress, high-priority position on the Birds of Prey in order to take care of an adopted daughter, only to be suddenly caught up in a marriage proposal and a leadership spot on the JLA.

This image, however, bodes ill. I mean, honestly. All other anatomical problems aside, I should not be able to see ass-crack and both breasts in the same image. This looks like the solicitation for "Black Canary: Spinal Crisis" with M.C. Escher on pencils.

Bad idea!

No, I'm not talking about Penance or organic web-shooters again.

I was skimming over yesterday's post, when I got an idea for a story. A Fantastic Four/Spider-Man team-up story, in fact. See, the amazing wingless Wizard has reformed, and has decided to put his anti-gravity technology to good use. In addition to selling the technology to a variety of civilian and military installations, he has united the tech with unstable molecules to create a new generation of high-tech fabrics, which he specifically designs for use by the superhero and law enforcement communities. But it's when he releases the space-age fabric to civilians as his own clothing line that his career really takes off. Athletes everywhere are buying Wittman brand shoes, athletic supporters, and bras. "When it comes to quality, nothing's higher than Wittman's." "This Valentine's Day, skip the Whitman's Sampler. Let her sample some Wittman's."

Months pass, and it seems like everyone in New York is wearing Wittman's clothes. The Wizard has become an overnight success. That is, of course, until legions of superheroes, law enforcement officials, military craft, athletes, and well-supported women start storming the Baxter Building. The Wizard has teamed up with (insert Marvel villain with mind-control technology here) in a mad bid to destroy his enemies and take over the world! Now, Ben Grimm, Reed Richards, and Spider-Man must hold their own against every trendsetter in New York City, including their own allies and family members who have been dominated by the Wizard's mind-controlling gravity-defying fashions!

Actually, now that I type all that, it doesn't sound so bad...

"Anything bigger than a handful, you're risking a sprained thumb"

My last post and the recent Draw Power Girl thing got me thinking. There's been some talk, both over that awful Michael Turner JLA cover and over at Project Rooftop about the plausibility of Power Girl's outfits and their ability to support her large breasts.

Now, I like that PG is well-endowed. I think we ought to have women of all shapes and sizes, including large-breasted ones, in comics. I just wish there were more women of other shapes and sizes, y'know? But I like that PG is large, and I think she ought to be generally large: large-breasted, muscular without being masculine, tall (but not necessarily Big Barda tall), etc. And I think there should be a bit more thought put into costuming in general. Sure, we can suspend our disbelief when it comes to where Clark Kent keeps his boots and that sort of thing, and we can all accept that comic book fabrics don't quite behave like real world ones, but there's a limit. Costumes like the new Star Sapphire's? Yeah, they can't even see the limit anymore. Some thought should be given to basic things like "would this costume support the character's various outcroppings?" and "is this effective in battle?" and "should we really be able to tell whether she's an innie or an outie?" and "gosh, wouldn't that be horrendously uncomfortable?"

Horrendous discomfort is somewhat subjective; after all, someone with bulletproof skin might not mind a permanent wedgie. And I'll totally accept the "lack of support" complaints with regard to characters like Knockout and Vampirella and Catwoman and many, many others.

But Power Girl? Power Girl can fly. She can, quite literally, defy gravity. If her powers work anything like what's described in Wolverton's The Science of Superman (graviton manipulation/production) or even in Byrne's Man of Steel (telekinetic aura), then there's no real reason she'd need a bra. Now, this may cause some unintended consequences if she's knocked unconscious or somehow loses her powers, in which case extra support may be warranted, but in general she just has to expend a little bit of energy and she can go a step farther than the Invisibra.

So, just keep in mind when you're thinking about gravity and the realities of superhero costuming that there are some lucky characters for whom gravity isn't a concern.

Hey Jealousy

I guess there's some consternation around the Interblag about Lois Lane's apparent jealousy in the latest issue of Superman. The issue basically follows the plot of every Maxima story ever, with a vampiric little twist, and Wonder Woman guest-starring. It's very Silver Age, with a more modern moral and some creepy implications, and I think that sensibility is creeping into how some folks are interpreting Lois in this issue.

Here's the story in a nutshell: Khyrana was a beautiful Greek woman who rebuked all would-be suitors, preferring solitude. Unfortunately for her, she spurned Zeus. If there's one thing Greek deities hate, it's spurnage, so the sexually-frustrated god-king doled out a classic ironic punishment. For refusing to give consent to a god who was never one to seek it, she would forever crave the touch of humans, especially men, and would need it to survive. So, she becomes a kind of succubus, draining men's life-energy so she can stay alive (though apparently she also can't die). After some plot-wrangling to get Clark, Lois, and Wonder Woman into the same room, Khyrana comes into contact with Superman and kidnaps him. Diana and Lois realize what's up, and naturally they go to rescue Superman. Diana and Clark beat Khyrana (in a moment taken straight out of a She-Ra episode), and Lois shows up with the cops.

Anyway, as you might expect from such a Silver Age plot, there's quite a bit of opportunity for Lois to jibe Clark about Wonder Woman's perfect body. This hasn't (to my knowledge) become a major issue in the comics blogohedron, but I noticed that a couple of people thought Lois was portrayed as uncharacteristically jealous. Me, I saw a secure woman who knew how to put the planet's most powerful man on the defensive. Lois's comments, like "Hmm. Maybe I shouldn't be wild about you attending so many Justice League meetings. You and her together, a secluded cave...," sounded to me like good-natured, playful ribbing between lovers. Heck, she follows that particular quotation up with "Ha! You're so easy, Smallville." She's just trying to get a rise out of him. The way she shifts between joking about Wonder Woman's "spangly trunks" to teaming up with her, without missing a beat or showing any distrust or animosity, further speaks not only to the fact that the "jealousy" is a joke, but to the fact that she doesn't see Diana as a threat to her relationship.

Incidentally, she doesn't seem to see Khyrana as a threat to her relationship either, just a threat to Clark's health and well-being.

But even if the jealousy were genuine, would it be such a bad thing? Why wouldn't Lois occasionally feel inadequate for the Man of Steel?

We occasionally hear about this on the other side; the Donner cut of "Superman II" deals with it explicitly (I can't remember if the Lester version does or not), and I'm pretty sure it was covered in the Rick Veitch "Swamp Thing" issue with Superman; hell, even the Spin Doctors' "Jimmy Olsen's Blues" touches on it. The argument goes like this: doesn't the presence of Superman make normal men (with Clark Kent usually acting as a stand-in) feel less adequate? Don't they get something like "power envy"? After all, here is the perfect male specimen, wrapped up in a red cape. How can mild-mannered Clark Kent compete with that? Aren't all women Holding Out for a Hero? Once you've been with Superman, everything else pales in comparison.

Heck, this is basically the modern justification for why Lex Luthor hates Superman.

So why shouldn't we get it on the other side? You've got these impossibly perfect women flitting about the DCU in swimsuits (or less), defying gravity in every possible way, why wouldn't "normal" women feel the same anxiety, the same insecurities? Over in "Bulleteer," we not only saw superheroines fetishized, but we saw the lengths to which some people will go to live out their fantasies. In the real world, people protest the unreasonable physical standard set by supermodels and movie stars and comic book superheroines, why wouldn't people in the DCU feel the same?

You know, I'm a normal guy, and I'm dating a normal girl in a world filled with normal people. We've been together a bit over five years now, and I still think I'm the luckiest guy on the planet. Of course, the flipside of that is that sometimes I wonder if maybe I'm not worthy of such luck. And I know sometimes she feels the same way, and sometimes we each get a little insecure, a little jealous when we meet each other's friends of the opposite gender. It's not a feminine thing, it's a relationship thing.

Take heed, Joe Quesada: This type of story not only should be told, but it's one of those running subplots that only works when the characters are in a committed relationship. The panel above is from one of my favorite (though oft-maligned) stories of the early 2000s, where Superman and Diana were taken to Asgard by Thor, to fight off the demon hordes. And though they fought for a thousand years (by their reckoning), Superman never compromised his vow against killing, and he never succumbed to the temptation of choosing Diana while Lois was long gone. Meanwhile, Lois is left in Metropolis to deal with her own insecurities at having her husband stolen from bed by an Amazon (and a subplot involving Lex Luthor, but that's neither here nor there). It's not that she feels actively threatened by Diana, it's not that she doesn't trust Clark, it's that we all have a tendency to judge ourselves in comparison to others, to suffer from insecurities, especially with regard to a relationship. Writers who understand relationships, who understand the new and myriad problems that come with a committed relationship or a marriage, do well with this basic fact of life.

Did you hear that, Joe? Married people have unique problems, ones that are at least as interesting as your latest love triangle.

And of course, such insecurities are bolstered by the problems presented in superhero stories. How many comic fans (and writers) think that Clark should be with Diana? The number ain't small; in-continuity, it's been made explicit that some people just kind of assume they belong together. Who in the DCU, not knowing Superman's dual identity, would think that he'd get married to a normal woman?

And on the other side of things, how often do we see people wondering aloud what Lois Lane could possibly see in nebbish Clark Kent? It's not something we see much post-Crisis (though I think Perry said something to that effect in the first Johns/Donner issue), but there's a social disequilibrium between Clark and Lois, not just Lois and Superman. Both would be generally perceived to be dating out of their league.

And so I like seeing stories where the main conflict is not necessarily a physical one, but a psychological one, where the only "villain" is self-doubt. Granted, that doesn't really describe Busiek's latest Superman issue; the insecurity there was mainly Lois's way of pushing Clark's buttons. But take the Action Comics issue in Asgard, where the giant demon battles take a backseat to showing just how committed Clark is, not only to the mission, not only to his friends, but to his moral values and his wife, that he would remain faithful for a thousand years in another world. And it shows that Lois isn't the tough-as-nails ball-busting bitch that she's sometimes portrayed as, but a human being with real feelings and issues of her own. And in the end, it shows that amor vincit omnia--"love conquers all."

In his 130th Sonnet, William Shakespeare says "I grant I never saw a goddess go; / My mistress, when she walks, treads on the ground." But Superman has seen goddesses go, and alien princesses, and superheroines of every stripe. If we, or Superman, chose relationships based on power level or physical perfection, then he'd have settled down with Big Barda or Maxima or Wonder Woman decades ago. But relationships aren't just about which two people have the most in common, they're about who you connect with, who you love.

So, I think I know what Clark might say, were he writing that sonnet's final couplet:

And yet, by Rao, I think my love as rare
As any she belied with false compare.

Interlude and Inquiry

This is an honest question, presented with no snark or agenda: at what point does masculine pride become sexism and/or misogyny?

I got hit by a Minx Car

Maybe it's just because I have a penis, but it seems to me that the buzz about Minx is absolute proof that comic fans are never happy about anything, ever.

So, if you've been under a rock for the last couple of weeks, DC has launched the Minx line of graphic novels, designed to increase readership among teenage girls. The Minx line will initially feature seven titles. Here's the text from Newsarama, with truncated creator descriptions:

* THE PLAIN JANES (May 2007)
The story of four girls named Jane who are anything but ordinary. Once they form a secret art gang, the girls take on Suburbia by painting the town P.L.A.I.N. - People Loving Art In Neighborhoods. [Writer: Cecil Castellucci; Artist: Jim Rugg]

* RE-GIFTERS (June 2007)
A Korean-American California girl learns that in love and in gift-giving, what goes around comes around. [Writer: Mike Carey; Artists: Sonny Liew, Marc Hempel]

* CLUBBING (July 2007)
A spoiled, rebellious London girl conquers the stuffy English countryside when she solves a murder mystery on the 19th hole of her grandparent's golf course. [Writer: Andi Watson; Artist: Josh Howard]

* GOOD AS LILY (August 2007)
What would you do if versions of yourself at ages 7, 29, and 70 suddenly became part of your already complicated high school life? [Writer: Derek Kirk Kim; Artist: Jesse Hamm]

* CONFESSIONS OF A BLABBERMOUTH (September 2007) When Tasha's mom brings home a creepy boyfriend and his deadpan daughter, a dysfunctional family is headed for a complete mental meltdown, compliments of Tasha's blabbermouth blog. [Writers: Mike Carey, Louise Carey; Artist: Aaron Alexovich]

*WATER BABY (October 2007)
Surfer girl Brody just got her leg bitten off by a shark. What's worse? Her shark of an ex-boyfriend is back and when it comes to Brody's couch, he's not budging. [Writer/Artist?: Ross Campbell]

*KIMMIE66 (November 2007)
This high-velocity, virtual reality ghost story follows a tech-savvy teenager on a dangerous quest to save her best friend, the world's first all-digital girl. [Writer/Artist?: Aaron Alexovich]

And the two major complaints seem to follow thusly:
1. There's only two female creators: Cecil Castellucci and Louise Carey.
2. The name has negative and sexual connotations.

I can't really speak to #2. I agree, to some extent, and the phrase "you saucy little minx, you" pops into my head. But, it's a term that hasn't been vogue for what, sixty years? When I hear the word "minx," I might think of a black-and-white "doll" with "moxie" and "spunk" who smokes a cigarette, has a "beauty mark," and slaps men when they get too "fresh." It's not a terrible image, really, it speaks to strength and beauty and mystery and confidence, in addition to sexuality. And it's a better name than "spunk," which, unlike "minx," has taken on different connotations since it was popular.

But I digress, and I kid. Reclaiming the word "minx" seems like it would be neither difficult nor unrewarding. It's vaguely onomatopoeic, it sounds bright and sharp and positive. And, as I mentioned before, it's not popular, which means attaching a new connotation to it wouldn't be difficult. And it fits thematically, for good or ill, with girl-oriented products like "Bratz." Now, personally, I think the word "brat" has almost universally negative connotations, and the Bratz dolls themselves look slutty and creepily inhuman, so among its similarly-named companions, Minx is a step up.

As to the first problem, I would say that there are four female creative forces on this line (counting editors Karen Berger and Shelley Bond), but that's nitpicking. I'd also say that one does not have to be X to tell good stories about X, or to tell stories that appeal to X. Joe Kelly, who, so far as I know has never had a child suffering from cancer, told a damn good vignette about just that in Action Comics #800 (better than Jeph Loeb's story of the same tragedy in the backup to Superman/Batman #26, despite his experience with the matter). As Neil Gaiman said, through William Shakespeare, "I would have thought that all one needs to understand people is to be a person." Despite things like the color of our skin and the stuff between our legs, we're all pretty similar. All it takes to write a good story, no matter who it's about, is being a good writer. If we all followed the old "write what you know" adage, the only books would be autobiographies. I don't think one needs to be black to write about black people, or a woman to write about women, or a man to write about men, any more than they need to be a child to write about children. It's obvious that having the experiences that come with being those things will inform an author, and will lend a realism and credibility to the story that wouldn't otherwise be there, or would have to be reasonably fabricated. I'll even say that it would be arrogant and offensive for a white person to write a story which focuses on the trials and tribulations of being an oppressed black person. It'd be similarly offensive for a man to write a story that centers on the difficulty of womanhood. But most stories with characters from one minority or another are stories about people, and you don't have to be anything but a person to tell those stories, no matter what people populate them.

I'm not going to go into what sorts of comic books teenage girls like, because no matter what I say will be anecdotally and individually false. What I will say, though, is the only way any comic will appeal to a wider audience than the niche market that comics currently cater to, is by getting out of the isolationist, dark, snooty, elitist atmosphere of most comic shops. Few comic shops are welcoming to women; most comic shops are fairly unwelcoming to all newcomers. I loved my last LCS to death, and I shopped there for over ten years, but I remember when I would walk in there as a kid (and as a young teen) how the older guys who hung out there all the time got quiet and tried not to look like they were putting their porn and "mature" items out of view. I've seen the atmosphere of comic stores, and I've seen comic stores with no atmosphere whatsoever, save coldness. They're places where the people who were bullied and shunned in High School can go and be in charge, and be among their 'own kind' and support each other.

They're Fortresses of Solitude.

And that's intimidating to neophytes. I don't blame anyone, regardless of gender, for being uncomfortable in comic stores. But it's because of that sort of atmosphere, that 'I don't know how to act around women' or 'there's a girl in the clubhouse' feeling, that helps keep girls out of comic stores. And so, the comics that most girls buy are ones they can get outside of the comic shops--i.e., the bookstores.

So that much, DC's doing right--marketing directly to the stores with slightly-larger-than-digest graphic novels. And at the head of it, they have Karen Berger and Shelley Bond, heads of Vertigo, who have (at DC anyway) probably had more experience with gender crossover material than anyone else. Despite showing up on all the moronic "buy this for your girlfriend" lists, Vertigo offerings like Sandman and Y: The Last Man have had a great deal of popularity among women, greater apparently than the offerings from the mainstream capes-and-tights DCU. So it's a no-brainer for two people with decades of experience finding talent that appeals to people of both genders, to be heading up this imprint.

And Johanna Draper Carlson has addressed some of the more practical reasons for the lack of female talent, namely that monthly books pay better (understandable for a new imprint; after failures like Matrix Helix Comics, I can imagine why DC would be cautious about this sort of experimentation), and that some creators didn't want to be pigeonholed. I'd say that's understandable; female creators are rare in the industry, and I imagine some fear that if they start writing "comics for girls," it'll become the new stigma--female writers can only write comics for women. Sadly, I suspect that if the majority of the talent on Minx were female, that would be the resounding cry from the blogohedron. As the quotes on Johanna's post mention, this is meant to appeal to the people who frequent the YA aisle of your local bookstore, and said aisle is full of gender diversity. As long as these books are good, the genders of the creators shouldn't be a concern.

And what if all these books had female creators, and the line tanked? What would that say to the "bottom-line" people? What would the fans say? That DC picked these people for their gender, not their skill, as if girls would rather read things made by girls than things of quality? At least this way, if the first batch of titles doesn't do so hot, they have the opportunity to ramp up the line with more female talent, more talented talent, and try for a second wave. And if that's more successful, chalk it up to girl power.

So, what we have from Minx is a collection of titles designed, despite the genders of their creative teams, to appeal to teenage girls. The manifesto of the line is that it shies away from the fantasy and superheroics and horror that define DC's other imprints, though that seems rather arbitrary to me (I'll get to that in a moment). We have some hot creators, a good mix of indie and mainstream talent, and no one can say that a line with Mike Carey and Marc Hempel isn't trying for high quality. We have a name with mixed connotations that, hopefully, will take on some new ones as a result of the line's success. It's an attempt to tell quality stories that can appeal to young girls through their availability and through the fact that they're relatively free of the nerd-icky of normal comics. Maybe it's just me, but finding fault with that smacks of nitpicking perfectionism.

That being said, I do have a bit of a problem with the stated purpose of the Minx line, specifically Karen Berger's statement that "Again, these are stories about real girls in the real world. There are no genre or fantasy aspects to it." Now, it seems to me odd that a book like Kimmie66, a "virtual reality ghost story" about the "world's first all-digital girl" and thus clearly science fiction of some sort or another, wouldn't be considered a "genre or fantasy" aspect. And, since one of the implicit goals of this line will naturally be to get a new audience interested in some of the other things published by DC, and considering the apparent popularity of fantasy manga, it seems like it should be natural for this line to have some of those genre and fantasy aspects.

But, this is the beginning of what will hopefully be a long and successful life for Minx, and I can understand their trepidation regarding those "geekier" aspects of comics, the things that might turn young girls off. So, hopefully in the future, we might see something akin to Marvel's "Mary Jane" series or something to compete with the more fantastic manga out there, things that could serve as the 'gateway drug' to mainstream DC comics (while, naturally, being good comics on their own).

As a male comics reader, and thus as someone clearly outside the target audience for this line (but one who will probably end up checking out at least a couple of these titles), I know a few things I'd like to see. First, I think this is the perfect place for a new Amethyst series, and I think the graphic novel structure would hold up better than the demands of a serialized monthly, which high fantasy comics struggle with. I also think that the manga Wonder Woman pitch that's been making the rounds looks fantastic. I don't read manga, but I think I'd have to check that out. It's a novel approach to comics' most enduring superheroine, and those tend to be hard to come by (though I suppose this could fit just as well or better in the CMX line, but it seems like Minx is getting more attention, the sort that this book would deserve). I think this would also be a good opportunity for DC to employ the trademark they took out on Chloe Sullivan, with a Nancy Drew/"Spider-Man Loves Mary Jane" take on Smallville's pluckiest reporter and her encounters with the weird (including the superpowered object of her affections).

But, that's for another time, and another purpose (namely, getting more people interested in mainstream comics). Up until the line can handle that sort of thing, until it proves itself sturdy enough, I wish Minx the absolute best of luck. Even if it isn't perfect, it's a step in the right damn direction, and to damn it already seems foolish.

And I'll totally be reading Good as Lily.

Hm...seems like this post is still missing something.
Ah, right, of course!
It's been way too long since I got linked, anyway.

Read More!

This-ism, that-ism, -ism -ism -ism

I don't call myself a feminist. I've been rethinking this position lately, but I just can't seem to make myself take the plunge. I think women ought to be treated equally, and I think all of society benefits from equality, not just the minority. I've read Tekanji's How to be a Real Nice Guy, and while I have some contentions with the finer points of the "reverse -ism" argument, it's a nice combination of "things I ought to be more aware of" and "things that make me feel a little less guilty and worried." It underscores a lot of things (like privilege) that I've had a gut feeling about for years, and it's nice to see them put into words. It really helps me understand why I feel so torn over Politically Correct language (English major/editor anxieties about language vs. "liberal guilt" and respect for minorities). Despite all this, I have a hard time thinking of myself as a feminist. I tell people that I don't feel like I've earned the right, and every time I think about privilege, I feel even less certain of that.

Hm...it's at this point that I'm going to invoke the "Read More" link. Things get personal below the fold, folks. If you don't care, just come back tomorrow and enjoy a Civil War rant.

See, part of my problem is that I've always had an overactive sense of guilt. I've always tended toward being "the good kid," and I think a large part of that is due to a youth spent with an overactive imagination that would tend to pick out the worst possible consequences to any action, and frequently replay them. That, and I always identified with the good guys; I wanted to be Superman and He-Man and Optimus Prime (and yes, I credit cartoons and comic books with a significant part of building a strong moral fiber).
Though not humility, apparently. In case the general lack of personal info on my blog hasn't clued you in, I really don't like writing about myself. My feelings? Sure. My reactions to this week's Batman or whatever? You betcha. But who gives a damn about my past and my life? Whatever, I'm knee-deep in it now, might as well take the plunge.

So, due to a variety of little quirks in my upbringing, I'm always a little worried about being a racist, homophobic, bigoted jerk. I've said some horrendously homophobic things, and it was only around the end of my Junior year of High School that I got the bigot's epiphany. I've done whatever I could since then to promote equal rights and acceptance for the GLBTQ community--going to rallies, joining the Gay-Straight Alliance--mostly because I've felt so passionately about the subject, but also in hopes of atoning for the things I said in the past, so that I might clear my own conscience.

So I think that my personal history of prejudice has a major effect on my feelings about considering myself, with the privilege smorgasbord of being a young white middle-class heterosexual male, ideologically equal to someone who actually has to deal with discrimination and bigotry on a daily basis. The most I've done is attend a rally or two and watch The Vagina Monologues for V-Day. The last time I felt discrimination was when I was thirteen and old clerks followed me through the drugstore (well...unless you count religious discrimination, but even that's pretty minor). How does that measure up to people who have to fight every day to be recognized as people?

And then there's the little matter that I tend to play apologist/Devil's Advocate for some of the various majority groups to which I belong. As much as I can imagine myself into another person's shoes, the only perspective I can offer is that of a young white heterosexual middle-class male. It only reinforces the barriers between us to see that perspective dismissed or unconsidered, and sometimes I can't resist the impulse to say "well, look at it this way." It's only through understanding each other that we'll even be able to discourse equally, let alone treat each other equally. Good fences don't make good neighbors, they just make it harder to see the other side.

Yes, I believe women are people. I believe homosexuals ought to have the same rights as heterosexuals. I believe that everyone should be treated equally regardless of gender, skin color, religious affiliation, or sexual preference. I believe that comics aren't "meant for" any one audience, and that everyone should be able to pick up an issue of Justice League and find something that appeals to them. I believe that overt sexualization and stereotyping hurt comics' appeal far more than the occasional late book or fill-in artist. I want to see developed, defined, well-rounded characters of every sort, not characters who are defined by how developed and well-rounded their breasts are. I'd like to see equality, in comics and the real world, because I think equality ultimately benefits everyone. It's not a zero-sum game; you don't appeal to female readers at the expense of the male ones. You broaden the scope, you don't just shift the narrow focus. You open it up to everyone, and allow everyone to find something that includes them.

I believe that people ought to be treated with respect, whether they're real or four-color. I do what I can to treat real people with respect; I could do more, I'm sure, and I'll keep trying. I'd like to be in a position to treat four-color folks with respect, but that's really up to DC Comics, at this point (hint hint). I don't think that's enough for me to take up a label associated with people who have to fight to receive that sort of respect. Maybe I'm way off-base, here, and I wouldn't mind being told so. But it seems to me that calling myself a feminist would be the height of presumptuousness.

At this point, I'd usually go back and make sure this all makes sense, but I know that nothing I do to it will eliminate the rambling incoherence of it. This is going to be the Finnegan's Wake of comic blog posts. Sorry 'bout that, folks.

Give post a chance!