BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Comic Books >

The Kryptonite Ceiling

  
  

Page: 1(2)34

 
 
Spatula Clarke
14:19 / 23.08.02
Oops, sorry Runce. Please, go back to banging yr head against a brick wall.
 
 
The Natural Way
14:34 / 23.08.02
To summarize (well, my position anyway):

There are loads of insecure, dumb males in the comix industry - ergo: an enormous amount of yucky, pubic depictions of femininity/female sexuality.

This is a crap thing.

Not all comix are like this, but tons are.

What's to debate?
 
 
The Natural Way
14:54 / 23.08.02
But there IS a cool counterbalance to all this crap. Because comics are an underground (read ignored/reviled) medium, they can get away w/ being a whole lot more experimental than most mainstream media, and, incredibley cooly, you end up with groovy chaps like Grant and Alan writing often quite challenging stuff and pumping their weirdy brainjuice into little Timmy. And the Charm Schools of the comixworld are only a tiny hop, skip and a jump away from Supe's latest fightfest on the comic shop shelves.

And then you get nice comicbook readers who grow up reading the strange/radical shit and, when they're big(wo)men, they hammer together a special place like Barbelith where good minds feed off good minds.....world without end.

Just looking for the sunshine after the rain....
 
 
Persephone
15:20 / 23.08.02
glassonion: I really love your interpretation of the Spiderman ending. I love the idea that even when Peter Parker thinks that he's learned something Big and Important, he still has so much to learn. I wish that had been brought out more in the movie... maybe that kind of idea's too big or complex for a movie.

yawn: I think you've got a hold of a *really* big idea. My "feminist cultural theory" is basically that, yes, women do hold enormous power in the world; but in a sense the most powerful person in the world is also the most vulnerable, because... because power attracts hate, I think I'm trying to say. Another way to look at it is, the massive power that a woman has is to bear children, to bring life into the world... but when she is most vulnerable is in childbirth; power and vulnerability is two sides of the same coin. (There is a thread in the Head Shop about abortion that covers these ideas.)

Anyway, all this stuff is stuffed in our unconscious & fights it out everywhere you can see --including comics, but other places obviously as well.

As for my unconscious, back to drawing pictures of Emma Frost...
 
 
The Natural Way
15:22 / 23.08.02
Hey Persephone! Movies can have beards too!
 
 
Persephone
15:37 / 23.08.02
Yeah, I know... but clean-shaven seems more the fashion these days, doesn't it? Don't get me wrong, I love movies and will never stop seeing movies. But to touch back to your last post, movies are hampered by their mainstream popularity (ha see, their power is their weakness) in a way that comics are not... but I am quite, quite far off-topic now...
 
 
Mr Tricks
21:08 / 23.08.02
Which major X-Villains did Colossus ever defeat?

Um... Proteus, Uncanny X-Men 124... reprised in Ultimate X-men just a couple of issues ago...

I also saw the ending of Spiderman as an indication of Parker's Immaturity. He's still a Highschool kid with LOTS to learn about relationships...

Now onto the actual topic... I believe there's a strong amount of momentium behind comics misogynistic tendancies... Slowly being turned around by a growing population of Female creators...

But then again, the help of socially underdeveloped geeks fancying themselves as being progressive may not actually be helpful . . .
 
 
some guy
22:08 / 23.08.02
I was talking about the. real. world. where the male fictive-body can afford to take a bit of a kicking in a way the female can't.

Isn't this incredibly sexist thinking?

Again, what specific modern comics and characters would you point to in an argument that a serious disparity in representation between the sexes in an ongoing problem? Strangely, I don't think it's an argument we can make against superhero comics anymore, largely because our 'old' paradigm for spandex books simply no longer applies (although detractors can perhaps be forgiven for not actually having read a broad cross-section of modern superhero books).

I would nominate largely crime books, such as Sin City or 100 Bullets, both of which have far more explaining to do regarding their treatment of women than any current superhero book I can think of. But then, I'd also argue that Sandman does a worse job of portraying women than, say, Claremont's first run of X-Men, so I'm clearly mad.

We do need to have a think about terms - is "misogyny" really appropriate for this discussion? I would argue no, that it would be incredibly difficult to find a mainstream comic that is anti-female. If we widen the scope of the discussion to the sexualization of characters, we have to accept the blatant sexualization of male characters in comics (eg: an understanding that all superheroes are effectively illustrated as nude physical ideals), not to mention the role and acceptability of fantasy. If we widen the scope to traditional gender roles (should we establish that these roles are necessarily bad things), then we've got a workable exercise in front of us (although again, one which will be much narrower than our memories of the spandex comics we read when we were young, and probably other media).

And to geek out for a moment, the Invisible Woman's power has been used offensively since the Byrne run. The FF is actually an incredibly poor foundation to build a misogynist argument on, unless we're going to go all the way back to the early Kirby days (when even Sue threw around words like "commies!").

As for She-Hulk - an extremely intelligent woman with physical strength and the mental prowess to build an independent career as an accomplished attorney outside stints in America's two most respected super teams. Yeah, I wouldn't want my daughter reading that crap!
 
 
bio k9
00:23 / 24.08.02
Its all good.





I admit defeat.
 
 
some guy
12:43 / 24.08.02
Yeah, because A) 1979 is such a modern cover date and B) the male Hulk is never seen in rags.

If you want to get into the cheesecake shot I'm all for it, but you actually need to have an argument developed. Is the sexualization of fantasy characters a bad thing? Is it anti-woman? Do we blatantly ignore the sexualization of the essentially nude superhero male? I recall those silly Marvel swimsuit isses had their share of Colossus and Thor wank pages, as well. If the swinsuit photo shoot you posted is bad, explain why.
 
 
The Apple-Picker
13:57 / 24.08.02
Well, just as far as this goes: As for She-Hulk - an extremely intelligent woman with physical strength and the mental prowess to build an independent career as an accomplished attorney outside stints in America's two most respected super teams.

I have to say, I've never read this comic, but as far as the description of her character here is concerned, it certainly implies misogyny to me. She-Hulk is an impressive super-heroine because she is extremely intelligent, independent, and accomplished as an attorney (and so therefore I would guess, quite logical). Those are, indeed, impressive qualities. But they have been traditionally associated with masculinity. Must she be masculine to be successful and respected? What about a super-heroine who is emotive, intuitive, soft, interdependent, and accomplished as a pastry chef or a poet, and those qualities are just as respected as any ability to sock a knock out puch right to the kisser? Or a male super-hero that has these qualities? I would definitely be impressed by a super-hero like that.
 
 
The Apple-Picker
15:21 / 24.08.02
And I like what Bio K9 says here: Supergirl and SheHulk are female versions of Superman and the Incredible Hulk, their signifigance is solely based on that of their male counterparts.

Yes, Supergirl came after Superman... almost as if she had been made from his rib.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
15:32 / 24.08.02
About Mark Millar:


When Millar writes misogynistic and homophobic characters, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, that he is trying to show HOW these characters are bad - they are evil cos they rape, they kill, they hate women and gays. Millar's problem is more that his work seems to revel in the sadism. Since Millar is so eager to show really severe violence against women and gays in really brutal and shocking ways, I wonder if he really just gets off on it in a way - he's airing sick fantasies and not just his fantasies, but the fantasies of many of his readers.

I really do think that he's letting fanboys indulge in some really sick feelings about homosexuality and women, and what does that boil down to? Hatred of anyone who might be attracted to you = hatred of people who might reject you. Think about the average fanboy - these are very sexually frustrated individuals, most of the time, people for whom possible sex partners are a total OTHER. I think Millar exploits these people for very crass and cynical reasons, and that's why he bothers me so much.
 
 
Captain Zoom
20:21 / 24.08.02
A little off-topic and I'm sorry for that, but in Mark Waid's response he says this: "Most males are fans of or in comics because they're social misanthropes who can't get laid or can't keep girlfriends and they're pissed about it on some level."

This describes no male customer I have, or any comics professional I have met.

The sentiment is echoed in Flux's post above. Perhaps there is misogyny in the fictional comic world, but there appears to be a good deal of prejudice against male comic fans in the real world. Self-perpetuating cycle perhaps?

There ya go. Tear me apart. I'm used to it.

Back to your regularly scheduled discussion.
 
 
some guy
21:51 / 24.08.02
Must she be masculine to be successful and respected?

Being a lawyer is a masculine attribute?

What about a super-heroine who is emotive, intuitive, soft, interdependent, and accomplished as a pastry chef or a poet, and those qualities are just as respected as any ability to sock a knock out puch right to the kisser?

There was a fabulous thread in Headshop awhile back pointing out how stereotypes of women as "emotive, intuitive, soft [and] interdependent" are A) just that, stereotypes and B) equally descriptive of men outside of old-school black/white short-cut thought. In many respects, a female superhero known for her cooking skills and "women's intuition" would be far more offensive than one who can toss cars around...
 
 
The Apple-Picker
22:30 / 24.08.02
Yes, Laurence, I understand that. But why aren't those attributes, which are traditionally associated with womanhood as esteemed as those traditionally associated with masculinity? Why aren't *those* the super-hero qualities?

And I never said that being a lawyer was a masculine attribute. I implied that the qualities one needs to be an attorney are those that are often interpreted as being masculine. Qualities such as aggression, calculation, logic.
 
 
The Apple-Picker
22:42 / 24.08.02
Oh, and--

In many respects, a female superhero known for her cooking skills and "women's intuition" would be far more offensive than one who can toss cars around...

Yes, I can see that happening. But I did ask for a male superhero with those qualities, too.

B) equally descriptive of men outside of old-school black/white short-cut thought.

I understand that, but I was speaking in terms of qualities that have been labelled as either masculine or feminine. I know very well that many men are emotive, intuitive, (oh how I yearn to say blah blah fishcakes!)--they tend to be the only male friends I have anymore, thank goodness.

I don't mean to exclude logic by including intuition. I think the best super-hero would have it all, baby. I was just going on the description you gave for SheHulk, and how those traits traditionally associated with being a female were left out. The ones that you listed in describing her power and success were on the other side of that black and white short-cut thinking.
 
 
The Natural Way
10:11 / 25.08.02
Zoom:

I accept that there's a stereotype. BUT. Most comixsites look a lot more like Hero's Realm than they do Barbelith. And not ALL of the posters at these places are kids - a lot of them aren't (see Millar's site where grown adults play at babytalk all the time). I don't believe all yr customers fall into the zone of the ungeek. We all frequent comic shops here and we know a significant proportion of the customers enjoy a fatbeard (and what about those funny freaks who, indiscriminately, buy up half the shop every time they come in?). This isn't about US VS THEM - it's about a small, fetishistic world full of powermuscle fantasies that tend towards the adolescent; and, whilst there's loads of good stuff, there's loads of crap aimed purely at that mindset. Its presence tells me this shit sells and that there's a significant market for it....add the evidence of my own eyes and, again, I find it difficult to take you seriously when you say that yr store is 100% kidult free.

And, Lozza, in a fair and equal world that might be a sexist thing to say, but this'n isn't. If our fictions - from Danger Girl to Razzle - didn't continually reduce the female to an empty hole ready to be stuffed full of male fantasy, then I'd agree with you. I just think the pendulum needs to swing the other way for a little while, or at least settle a bit, before we can enjoy the freedom of oggling the X swimsuit calender without banging our heads against an extremely problematic area.

Well, actually, I'm not sure a lot of this shit, as it stands, will ever cease to be "unproblematic", but, regardless, there's a preponderance of shitty depictions of the female in all media, and t'would be nice if we took it upoun ourselves - creators and consumers - to stop, unpack and take a good look at this poo.

And NXM etc. do not equal the end of spandex. I think they open the door to something else (which is great), but there's still plenty of superwank out there. Can't believe I'm debating this with a guy who, not long ago, described comics in general as "geek porn"....

And if you disagree w/ the idea that we have a responsibility to be more careful with our depictions of women, then, hey ho!, yr bumping heads with one of the fundamentals of feminist thought. Again: take it to the headshop!
 
 
some guy
14:45 / 25.08.02
And I never said that being a lawyer was a masculine attribute. I implied that the qualities one needs to be an attorney are those that are often interpreted as being masculine.

This of course is the fundamental barrier to eradicating the false male/female attribute catalogue our society has created. It's all down to interpretation. I disagree that presenting a heroine based on stereotypical feminine traits is a step forward. Instead, it is a step backward, a tacit admission that the male/female attribute catalogue is correct and useful. The "women are emotive, intuitive" nonsense is just that - nonsense. It's another behavioral cage. Feminism isn't about celebrating those qualities, it's about smashing the cultural paradigm that perpetuates their traditional ascribement to women. An intuitive chef heroine is much more Christian Comics than Pro-Wimmin Comix in my opinion.

And, Lozza, in a fair and equal world that might be a sexist thing to say, but this'n isn't. If our fictions - from Danger Girl to Razzle - didn't continually reduce the female to an empty hole ready to be stuffed full of male fantasy, then I'd agree with you

Present an argument why A) Danger Girl reduces women to empty holes, B) why this is necessarily bad in a pure fantasy context and C) why the inclusion of countless Colossus beefcake shots in Uncanny X-Men and male swimsuit pinups don't affect the argument and then we'll be getting somewhere. But otherwise this just sounds like a few key phrases trotted out without much thought - most telling being the lack of concrete comics examples.

And NXM etc. do not equal the end of spandex. I think they open the door to something else (which is great), but there's still plenty of superwank out there. Can't believe I'm debating this with a guy who, not long ago, described comics in general as "geek porn"....

Yes, but I didn't mean porn in a sexual sense when I wrote that (I meant that comics fulfilled a 'porn role' for geeks). I've asked several times in this thread now - if there's "still plenty of superwank out there," what specific comics would you point to? Why them specifically? Does "superwank" equal anti-female? What's the role of fantasy in the equation, and is fantasy good or bad? What comics specifically are anti-woman, getting back to the misogyny topic abstract?
 
 
The Apple-Picker
16:30 / 25.08.02
Let me restate: I was just going on the description you gave for SheHulk, and how those traits traditionally associated with being a female were left out. The ones that you listed in describing her power and success were on the other side of that black and white short-cut thinking.

I'm not saying that the feminine should continue being associated with the qualities I listed that are traditionally associated with the feminine (and the traditional relation of the feminine to femaleness). But those qualities are not as esteemed as are those traditionally associated with the masculine. I'm not sure we can just divorce the qualites from their traditional associations, and say that when a superhero, whether male or female, is respected, powerful, and successful as a result of demonstrably traditional masculine qualities, that that says nothing negative about women.

Anyway, I'm starting to get head-banging-into-wall syndrome here, so I think I'm gonna bow out from here on out. Preserve sanity and all that.
 
 
some guy
17:35 / 25.08.02
I'm not saying that the feminine should continue being associated with the qualities I listed

But that appears to be precisely what you're saying! You seem to be arguing for female comic heroines to conform to traditional descriptors of femininity.

that are traditionally associated with the feminine (and the traditional relation of the feminine to femaleness). But those qualities are not as esteemed as are those traditionally associated with the masculine.

Considering you admit to not reading the comics, I don't know how you could possibly make that statement. Certainly some of the most popular superhero comics, such as the X-Men franchise (and the current New X Men series in particular) embrace "feminine" attributes as part of the core series ethos. I also find it completely absurd, when dealing with superhero fantasy fiction, to argue against physical strength as a non-gendered attribute.

I'm not sure we can just divorce the qualites from their traditional associations, and say that when a superhero, whether male or female, is respected, powerful, and successful as a result of demonstrably traditional masculine qualities, that that says nothing negative about women.

Those "traditional" qualities are meaningless labels that have absolutely no validity in the real world. Women are not more emotive or intuitive or indeed better cooks than men, and men are not more logical or violent than women. As I said above, and as the excellent Head Shop thread "How Like a Man" is discussing, these things are false cultural creations that function as behavioral prisons. In many ways I think this is a no-win situation - if female characters are independent and in control they are criticized for being manly, but if they are characterized by the traditional stereotypes you're pressing for they're criticized for being misogynist throwbacks to the 1950s. See cake, having and eating.

I also disagree that the qualities you list are somehow "demonstrably traditional masculine qualities."
 
 
The Apple-Picker
18:54 / 25.08.02
Okay, okay. After this, I really am bowing out. No, I'm serious! For real. I just wanted to clarify something first.

Laurence wrote: Considering you admit to not reading the comics, I don't know how you could possibly make that statement.

I thought it was clear that my response to you, and all subsequent responses directed to you, were informed by that passage you wrote that I quoted since I admitted that I haven't read superhero comics. I wanted to show you why your description of SheHulk, to me, doesn't reflect a misogyny-free genre.
 
 
bio k9
19:03 / 25.08.02
If this thread wasn't already dead for me...

Present an argument why (reducing women to empty holes is necessarily bad) in a pure fantasy context.

It is now.
 
 
bio k9
19:03 / 25.08.02
Who wants pie?
 
 
Murray Hamhandler
20:16 / 25.08.02
The superhero paradigm is not (or at least has not been until relatively recently) a smooth fit for the feminine. It is power-centric. It revels in those tropes most readily identifiable as "male", as patriarchal. The genre as a whole is not misogynistic. There is little female-directed hatred inherent in the celebration of raging testosterone cases. But no feminist is going to argue that the environs and the conditions therein are particularly femme-friendly or equal in their presentation of the "fairer sex". And this is by design. Grant and Co. are doing their bit to move the genre out of the ghetto, away from power trips, where qualities such as cooperation take precedent over fisticuffs. It is a more level playing field that we are moving towards, one where patriarchal tropes will be de-emphasized, and one where questions of equality won't be immediately complicated and/or nullified by the essence of the genre itself.
 
 
The Apple-Picker
20:32 / 25.08.02
Who wants pie?

Ooh! What kind? I'll take a slice of apple or cherry please. But apple only if it's hot. And a la mode.
 
 
some guy
12:12 / 26.08.02
The superhero paradigm is not (or at least has not been until relatively recently) a smooth fit for the feminine.

I would demarcate the beginning of this change somewhere around 1974 with the arrival of the new X-Men, which were presented by Claremont as a family rather than a team, with female characters eventually given precedence over the male characters and an undertone of "make friends with them until it hurts" in the continuous reformation of villain characters (Rogue, Magneto, the slow humanization of the Hellfire Club and the Brotherhood, the family/mentor dimension added to Nimrod). Again, we're dealing with superhero comics, and in that context it's difficult to label physical strength/combat masculine. Rather, it's a gender-neutral component of the (action) genre (see the obviously misogynist and in no way empowering Buffy, the Vampire Slayer).

Interesting to see that we're this far down the thread and people still have yet to list specific modern comics they would classify as misogynist (my ignored suggestions of the decidedly non-superhero Sin City and 100 Bullets aside). There's an awful lot of posturing happening here and very little of substance to back it up. Bio K9 is the star example of this, obviously. If your point is so obvious, it should be simple enough to present a reasoned argument to support it. I disagree that A) modern superhero comics depict women as empty holes waiting to be filled and B) it's healthy to engage in that thinking outside of a pure fantasy context (the same fantasy context, I would add, that finds women enjoying male strippers without the added baggage of imagining a personality). However, I also disagree that we should be throwing out assumptions without first providing a cross-section of relevant examples and laying out a feasible groundwork for those assumptions. I don't think this has been done yet, and I don't think posting a swimsuit shot of some female Avengers and then ducking the resultant questions counts.
 
 
The Natural Way
19:31 / 26.08.02
Oh, go and read Elektra, Laurence.

I can't be arsed anymore. You aren't going to change yr mind, and, TBH, like Bio said - the "hole" thing clinched it. As I said, if you want to debate that kind of stuff, have it out with the heavyweights in the headshop... I'm not going to sit here and type out reams of shit explaining/defending the feminist position on this stuff - it would be long and boring (and probably a waste of time anyway: you'd only go point by point through my post explaining exactly why I was wrong on every score). To the headshop!
 
 
some guy
20:29 / 26.08.02
I can't be arsed anymore

Anymore? It's taken this long to get a single title out you! And that without any sort of reasoning or argument. "Here, read this Elektra. You'll either get it or you won't." Again, the same as pasting up an image of She-Hulk without further analysis.

You aren't going to change yr mind

The funny thing is, I do think there are misogynist books (or at least books with a tendency for poor female representation) out there. I even named two! What I am against is the intellectual laziness present in this thread, the seeming reluctance of people to examine their viewpoint in lieu of posturing. We as a group slag off superhero comics all the time - but how many of us have actually read a deep cross-section of modern superhero comics? Certainly Apple Picker doesn't seem to have, although s/he is willing to jump into the conversation anyway. We love to say how Amazing Man is an embarrassing old-school hero always rescuing damsels in distress, but when pressed we seem incapable of actually proving so! In that sense I may be playing a bit of Devil's advocate. But when the argument is reduced to, "Ooh! She's in a bathing suit. Misogyny!" when a bare-chested Tom of Finland Colossus is in trunks a few pages over, it needs a kick in the pants.

This thread originated with the presumption that superhero comics are misogynist ... but we're at the bottom of page two here and nobody has seriously tried to tackle the issue by looking at specific modern books, explaing why they are misogynist, detailing why there is an acceptable double-standard when it comes to the Marvel swimsuit book, seriously exploring the question of sexualization in fantasy fiction.

I've offered several starting points - Claremont's Uncanny X-Men as the starting point of a shift toward the embrace of "feminine" attributes in superhero comics, the question of why idealized female bodies in comics are routinely lambasted while idealized male bodies are equally rampant, whether physical strength can be validly assigned a masculine nature in action fiction. These are avenues to further discussion, not attempts to shut it down.

If, as you say, the "hole" thing clinched it for you, then I'm afraid you need to reread a few posts. I say outright that viewing women as empty holes to be filled is an unhealthy thing! But it is valid to ask if and how fantasy intersects with that - the question of women at strip joints enjoying the fantasy men without the baggage of personalities is meant to muddy the waters, because it's not a black and white issue.

If we're not meant to debate "that kind of stuff" in the comics forum, then why is this thread even here? Close it down. I suppose we can close down the Comics Theory and other weighty threads as well. We can move to the Head Shop ... where there's currently a thread smashing traditional stereotypes of masculinity and femininity. Ground we've already covered in our brief She-Hulk discussion.

I'm not going to sit here and type out reams of shit explaining/defending the feminist position on this stuff - it would be long and boring (and probably a waste of time anyway: you'd only go point by point through my post explaining exactly why I was wrong on every score).

Wow, discussion on a discussion board. What a downer. I suppose instead of using the Comic Theory thread there should just be a single post there with a list of reading matter?
 
 
The Natural Way
08:03 / 27.08.02
I guess I'm lazy, but I really can't be bothered to seek out specific examples of spandexfuck. But I'm still not convinced I need to (which, by Christ, is yet another example of my sloth-like approach to reasoned debate). From Ennis's surrogate Mummy, Tulip, to (the aforementioned) Elektra taking aim on the rooftop, arse splayed to the 4 winds (last ish of Team Up w/ Elektra regular artist).....this is teenage shit. The women in these books straddle the line from powerful Mummy to splay the arse....and, whatever you think, are often overtly sexualised. Yeah, that's all there in the bigman muscles and "force blasts", but it's not as overt (i.e. doesn't involve tits and arse shots) and (I really think this is important) MOST OF THESE BOOKS ARE WRITTEN/ILLUSTRATED BY MEN WHO HAVE SOME DEGREE OF CONTROL OVER THE WAY THEY ARE REPRESENTED.

Just to clarify: I DO think representations of men in comics are problematic, but, as I said before, I'm less concerned w/ representations of men (for reasons I've already mentioned), and anyway....this thread is about misogyny and representations of the female, not misanthropy and representations of the male. And I'm not sure it's within the remit of the thread to explain exactly why myself, and loads of other people have a problem with shitty, immature, confused (not necessarily misogynistic) representations of femininity in a "fantasy" narrative or anywhere else. Let me ask you: where do you think we can draw the line between "fantasy" and "reality"....is the model on that billboard any more REAL than Poison Ivy? Are yr mental pictures of the women you work w/ (body, personality, etc.) consistent with the 3D? How many of yr ideas about women are constructed in the alembic of "fantasy"? I think we have to be very careful about these clear cut distinctions you appear to be happy to make.
 
 
bio k9
09:48 / 27.08.02
God, I can't believe I'm allowing myself to get sucked back in. Im gonna hate myself in the morning.

Ive avoided pointing the finger at specific titles or specific creators because I don't want to start arguing over one book or one writer/artist. Thats not the point. Nor is it what this thread is about. Read the fucking abstract next time you respond to my "posturing".

You keep banging on about Colossus and Thor in their swim trunks. You really want to know what the difference is? They're flexing their muscles, showing you how strong they are. I dont remember any cock shots. Now look back up at She-Hulk. Tits and ass, baby, tits and ass.

High heels and a pearl necklace too.

Also, I'd like to see you back this up in the Film/TV/Theatre forum: the obviously misogynist and in no way empowering Buffy, the Vampire Slayer. Should be interesting, if you've the guts. (Yes, Im calling you out.)

Runce, Apple Picker and I are having warm apple pie and honey vanilla ice cream if you'd like to join us.
 
 
The Natural Way
10:25 / 27.08.02
The Buffy thing... Aaargh: that one's so fucking typical of peeps who don't watch the show. I wouldn't even know where to start.....

Honey ice cream! Let's go!
 
 
The Natural Way
10:30 / 27.08.02
Actually, fuck it, I call you out on the Buffy thing, too. C'mon Laurence.... I suspect this is a mistake, but I could do with a Buffy rant and this would be a great excuse.
 
 
some guy
12:33 / 27.08.02
I guess I'm lazy, but I really can't be bothered to seek out specific examples of spandexfuck. But I'm still not convinced I need to

I'll have to try this interesting approach to discussion up in Head Shop sometime...

and, whatever you think, are often overtly sexualised.

Yep, I've said this. What I then asked was whether this is inherently bad, and how it compares to the overt sexualization of the male characters (and yes, the presentation of Colossus, the Hulk and so forth is overtly sexualized in a Tom of Finland way, but I suppose among male fans this is akin to the "invisibility of whiteness" among white people).

MOST OF THESE BOOKS ARE WRITTEN/ILLUSTRATED BY MEN WHO HAVE SOME DEGREE OF CONTROL OVER THE WAY THEY ARE REPRESENTED.

Again, this just raises more questions. What is the role of sexualization in fantasy? Is fantasy good or bad? Is it a negative thing to enjoy looking at a woman in a swimsuit? What if she is also an accomplished lawyer and respected hero? Are Devin Grayson's Batbooks markedly different than those of her male peers? In what way?

This whole thread feels very kneejerk to me, as though we're programmed to automatically think "Man bad! Woman good! Ooh arg!" when we examine comics (the previous discussion about male comic readers shows that this spills over into real life as well). My point is that I don't think this position holds up when examining modern superhero comics. I think our position is based on outdated data. As most of us claim to not read many spandex books anymore, the previous statement should not be shocking or surprising.

this thread is about misogyny and representations of the female, not misanthropy and representations of the male. And I'm not sure it's within the remit of the thread to explain exactly why myself, and loads of other people have a problem with shitty, immature, confused (not necessarily misogynistic) representations of femininity in a "fantasy" narrative or anywhere else.

Yes, that's exactly what the remit of the thread is. We also must include a look at misanthropy as to exclude it gives an unbalanced view of women in comics. Are comics anti-women, or are they anti-person? Or are they a celebration of physical ideals (it's not like Captain America is any more anatomically correct than the Wasp, after all)? It's fine to claim there are "shitty, immature, confused representations of femininity," but where are they? If it's so obvious, why is it so hard to pick a specific issue of a comic and present a case?

Are yr mental pictures of the women you work w/ (body, personality, etc.) consistent with the 3D? How many of yr ideas about women are constructed in the alembic of "fantasy"? I think we have to be very careful about these clear cut distinctions you appear to be happy to make.

I disagree - I think there's an element of truth to your position here, but you wouldn't argue that violent video games make kids run around and shoot people, would you? It seems cultural imagery is only an influence when being one supports our argument. Most men do not data and marry supermodels. I do not think reading She-Hulk informs readers' view of women, anymore than reading Superman informs readers' view of men.

The question of physical ideals is a key one with comics and other fiction/fantasy. Should the people in fiction reflect what we are, or what we aspire to be?

Ive avoided pointing the finger at specific titles or specific creators because I don't want to start arguing over one book or one writer/artist. Thats not the point. Nor is it what this thread is about. Read the fucking abstract next time you respond to my "posturing".

Examples are what matter. Without them, our comments appear knee-jerk and uninformed. This is precisely why I raised the issue of reading deeply into modern superhero comics. It appears a considerable portion of Barbelith is "post-superhero," having read those sorts of comics in the past and now focusing on other genres and perhaps select superhero books. This is not a bad thing, but it does mean that these people are not qualified to seriously discuss modern superhero comics. Like I said, I'm happy to start slagging off older books, and there are specific modern books I've mentioned as being troubling.

You keep banging on about Colossus and Thor in their swim trunks. You really want to know what the difference is? They're flexing their muscles, showing you how strong they are. I dont remember any cock shots. Now look back up at She-Hulk. Tits and ass, baby, tits and ass.

Head over to the Gays and Comics forum on Deja, where there was a recent thread on this very comic, championing the overt sexuality of those male pinup pages. I would suggest that we see what we want to see.

Also, I'd like to see you back this up in the Film/TV/Theatre forum: "the obviously misogynist and in no way empowering Buffy, the Vampire Slayer." Should be interesting, if you've the guts. (Yes, Im calling you out.)

Is everyone's irony filter off today? Buffy is a fabulous show - one that displays all the qualities that are being bitched about in comic terms. I was Making A Point about our preconceived notions.
 
 
Persephone
14:05 / 27.08.02
LLB... I don't want to be rude or make an enemy out of you, but I think that you would get better results if you would moderate some of your ideas about discussion. One, it is not polite of you to demand of people that they "make a case" for their ideas. It very much gives the impression that you see others as having something to prove to you & personally I find that offensive. Two, you are reminding me very much of the Wilcoxes, when Charles Wilcox snaps, "Plain question, plain answer!" and Mrs. Wilcox says, "Charles dear, there are no such things as plain answers." Which is to say, people think differently and there's things that can be learned from that. Examples are not necessarily what matter in some forms of thought, which you seem very ready to dismiss as invalid ("knee jerk and uninformed"); but I can't help but seeing that as your loss, and frankly as your mistake.
 
  

Page: 1(2)34

 
  
Add Your Reply