I don’t know what you would consider “tightly reasoned” or “authoritative,” but I would say that before you can prove sexism you must discriminate between how a ’sexist image” differs from a ’sexy image.’ There have been “authorities” like Mulvey and Faludi who conflated the two, but I don’t think that they should be conflated, either in the superhero genre or in others.

To take a non-superhero example, Bill Ward’s TORCHY was a long-running sex-joke feature, devoted largely to lame humor with lots of T&A and lingerie. So it was full of sexy images. But were they also sexist? I’ve heard attempts at “tightly reasoned” arguments that such images automatically promote discrimination, i.e. “sexism.” But I don’t consider those arguments more than ideologically-correct “attempts.”

I don’t assert any of those rationalizations you list for female superheroes to wear skimpy costumes. Clearly they do so to look sexy, but I think that most male heroes are supposed to look appealing to the opposite sex as well. Remember, most male heroes, aside from a few like Iron Man, look like their costumes are painted over their bodies, and so most of them, too, are nearly running around nude. Now, there probably have been comics-genres that afforded young girl readers the same scopophilic pleasures that adult women get from paperback romance covers (with those ripped male torsos I mentioned in a previous post). If you wanna say comics have not tried as hard to appeal to female scopophilia as to male scopophilia, I’d agree. But I’m not sure that’s “sexism,” or if it is, it’s not on a level comparable to discriminatory hiring practices.

Not quite. Though I didn’t like the Byrne revision of the Englehart concepts, and though I did think that particular story was bad, it’s bad for reasons that don’t have anything to do with sexism. Byrne has done other stories that display sexism, but I think he rewrote Englehart for reasons that have more to do with a sort of Calvinist philosophical outlook than his sexism. As I recall, he satirized the Vision-SW relationship by saying it was like “having sex with your toaster.” That’s not a very deep reaction, but I don’t think it’s primarily about sex, or even about simplifying his formula. However superficial Byrne’s reaction may be, I believe he genuinely didn’t like Englehart’s storyline. That’s why I’ve harped on the Vision being treated just as poorly as Wanda, even though Vision is at least a symbolic male.

“If you want to argue that 90+ percent of superhero comics are junk that aren’t worth buying and reading, and that sexism in the art and story content is the result of idiots creating stories for other idiots to buy and read, and that sexism is less of a concern than is getting intelligent people to write superhero fiction, you might have a point, but you’d also be posing a problem that’s impossible to solve.”

That may be your contention, but it’s not mine. I have my own concerns about the discriminatory powers of both the mainstreamers and the artcomics guys but both my concerns and yours are irrelevant to the discussion of sexism in the mainstream.

BTW, I give Chris Claremont higher marks in the anti-sexism sweepstakes than you do.

Attempts to rationalize the costuming by reasoning that well, she’s invulnerable, or she controls her body temperature, or she’s sensitive to fabrics, is silly because, somehow, the heroine never walks around nude, even though she doesn’t need clothing. Conner’s rationalization that Power Girl emphasizes her breasts because she’s proud of them is an apparent case of backwards reasoning. One could just as well argue that a blonde bimbo in a story wants to be a bimbo, because the status spares her the trouble of having to think for herself. Everyone tells her what to do.

I don’t think a person needs to be ashamed or embarrassed about buying Playboy for the pictorials, not the articles, but people seem unable to say that they like, or generic fans like, seeing a busty heroine in a comic book because it’s a soft turn-on.

SRS

The intelligence of the creator matters a lot. If he knows little about science, the arts, or current events, if he’s not well-read, if he only tries to regurgitate what little he knows from reading comics and hanging out with buddies, then his stories will unavoidably be junk, and sexism in the story will result from the creator’s stupidity, rather than a deliberate effort to do anything but fill the pages.

If you want to argue that 90+ percent of superhero comics are junk that aren’t worth buying and reading, and that sexism in the art and story content is the result of idiots creating stories for other idiots to buy and read, and that sexism is less of a concern than is getting intelligent people to write superhero fiction, you might have a point, but you’d also be posing a problem that’s impossible to solve.

SRS

Here we definitely disagree. Assuming I agreed that women receive worse characterizations than men in superhero comics– which I don’t, actually– one would still be faced with the fact that the superhero genre is first and foremonst about action, not character interaction, though Bendis and Ellis have almost managed to squeeze all the action out of their offerings.

You have to prove that men are significantly better characterized, not just more front-and-center, and you have not done so here.

“Finding that a work of fiction is misogynistic or sexist requires analytical ability and a willingness to believe that sexism and misogyny can be present in fiction. Practically, such work requires recognizing when characters are used as plot devices or flagrantly mischaracterized, and when character treatments that, taken individually, might be considered inept writing or otherwise unremarkable, form a pattern when looked at as a group.”

Okay, I’m with you so far.

‘In the case of Byrne, I’d argue that his desire to make work simple by writing formula fiction (e.g., “Everything you know about (fill in the blank) is wrong“) was the primary motivation in his AWC storyline, and that he’s biased against marriage, children, etc., because they complicate the task of grinding out his formulaic fiction.’

Bit of a leap on Byrne’s motivation, but I’d agree that formula fiction by its nature resists a lot of complicating storytelling factors that are widely-used in other modes of fiction, and that like a lot of creators of formula fiction Byrne avoids those complications (though he did also state some philosophical problems with the Wanda/Vision relationship in his JOURNAL interview, so ‘grinding out’ may not be the ONLY motive.)

“The storyline’s plot certainly appeared sexist in its handling of Wanda, but the sexism might have been more the result of writing for Marvel’s target audience (Marvel’s institutional sexism) than it was determination to be sexist in one particular storyline.”

Still reading along and wondering if you’ll address my point re: his treatment of the Vision. I’m gonna bet “not.”

“Wanda the villainess was generic, as characters go; one would have to ask Byrne why he chose to do the implied fellatio (?) sequence involving evil Wanda and Wonder Man.”

I don’t remember this (though I bet it got a Tom Spurgeon comment!) Sexism might indeed be shown as a pattern if it were demonstrated that evil-ized heroines always become sexually abusive and evil-ized heroes don’t. Might make an interesting survey, so we’re still agreed in principle.

“Of course, one can argue that, in terms of mechanics, there’s little difference between writing Byrne’s formula fiction and writing porn.”

And are the mechanics of Henry Miller porn the same as the mechanics of, say, Superheroines Demise?

“if the primary concern is filling the allotted page space month after month and getting paid for doing that — then one winds up with porn/trashy comics.”

Still, though I too admire Englehart more than Byrne, you could probably find examples where he took over a title from a previous creator and proceeded to ignore *something* that writer had been doing, simply because he Englehart didn’t like it. Some of that is just the name of the game played.

“Bendis’s “Avengers” material has arguably been misogynistic in its handling of female characters, with the casual killing of the Wasp just the latest artistic casualty at Marvel.”

Ah don’ nuhin’ ’bout defendin’ no Bendis.

Won one bet, lost another. Oh well.

“Luckily, because I am in such a happy mood because it is the holidays, I won’t point out how their Horatio Caine-like diligence with regards to proof and the highest truth of all may just be a smokescreen to prevent people from discussing the LEGITIMATE ISSUES THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN BROUGHT UP. Or perhaps it might be their own immunity to seeing gender issues (issues that are, admittedly, much clearer when you are a member of a gender, i.e. female, and not a person, i.e. male) that enables, Gene, for example, to write “The next resort is usually to point at examples of Big Two comics that supposedly proves male-centeredness.” because if there’s one thing there is a big question about, it’s whether Big Two comics are male centered, followed closely by whether shojo comics are female centered and whether yaoi looks gay.”

I don’t remember claiming that a female was not a person (or even a poisson).

I think that for whatever time I’ve hung out at this blog I’ve probably read both the legitimate issues and the illegitimate issues. On the last thread of this nature I myself mentioned the late Kim Yale’s allegations of sexism. As memory serves her allegations sounded to me like a legitimate gripe But not everyone’s gripe is legitimate just, y’know, they say that it is.

For instance, here’s one on this blog that I thought was illegitimate in terms of reasoning:

http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2008/01/31/the-one-with-a-lot-of-comments/

And one to which Lowborn Gene didst object somewhat here:

http://arche-arc.blogspot.com/2008/12/battle-ofthe-biologies.html

(Yes, I was looking for a way to sneak a plug in, but at least it’s a related plug.)

Anyway, the main point was, if one isn’t going to recite chapter-and-verse re: individual offenders, that’s fine, but some compelling evidence from some arena ought to be offered, shouldn’t it? Something more compelling (logically speaking) than Power Girl’s boobs?

“Luckily, because I am in such a happy mood because it is the holidays, I won’t point out how their Horatio Caine-like diligence with regards to proof and the highest truth of all may just be a smokescreen to prevent people from discussing the LEGITIMATE ISSUES THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN BROUGHT UP. Or perhaps it might be their own immunity to seeing gender issues (issues that are, admittedly, much clearer when you are a member of a gender, i.e. female, and not a person, i.e. male) that enables, Gene, for example, to write “The next resort is usually to point at examples of Big Two comics that supposedly proves male-centeredness.” because if there’s one thing there is a big question about, it’s whether Big Two comics are male centered, followed closely by whether shojo comics are female centered and whether yaoi looks gay.”

I don’t remember claiming that a female was not a person (or even a poisson).

I think that for whatever time I’ve hung out at this blog I’ve probably read both the legitimate issues and the illegitimate issues. On the last thread of this nature I myself mentioned the late Kim Yale’s allegations of sexism. As memory serves her allegations sounded to me like a legitimate gripe But not everyone’s gripe is legitimate just, y’know, they say that it is.

For instance, here’s one on this blog that I thought was illegitimate in terms of reasoning:

http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2008/01/31/the-one-with-a-lot-of-comments/

And one to which Lowborn Gene didst object somewhat here:

http://arche-arc.blogspot.com/2008/12/battle-ofthe-biologies.html

(Yes, I was looking for a way to sneak a plug in, but at least it’s a related plug.)

Anyway, the main point was, if one isn’t going to recite chapter-and-verse re: individual offenders, that’s fine, but some compelling evidence from some arena ought to be offered, shouldn’t it? Something more compelling (logically speaking) than Power Girl’s boobs?

The sexism in superhero fiction is worse, I think, because it’s a combination of handling women badly as characters, in terms of personality, actions, and purpose (a woman as a disposable love interest) and of exaggerating physical (sexual) characteristics in ways calculated to appeal to male readers. Sexist handling of women can offend male and female readers both, whereas if a hero is overly principled, too noble, too assertive, etc. — well, those are minor character flaws which don’t deflate the hero.

As I mentioned earlier this week, I think there are heroines who are mostly visual images on the pages of a comic book, and practically empty shells otherwise. Power Girl, She-Hulk, Ms. Marvel (written by Reed as an alpha male), Thundra, and villainesses such as Madame Hydra. If there are equally empty heroes, I’m not aware of them.

SRS

The main text that prompted the comment re “women’s safe space” is interesting; this section stood out:

“In A Natural History of the Romance Novel, Pamela Regis discusses the fact that women are taught in school to read the experiences of a male protagonist as representative of humankind in general, therefore including women within that representation. Men, on the other hand, are not taught to read the experiences of a female protagonist as representative of their own experience, and when it does happen that a male writes a female protagonist accurately, it’s remarkable.”

The students are, presumably, reading literature, not genre fiction targeted at a specific group of readers. Still, that would have an effect on readers as they matured, I’d think, and could be responsible for males treating inaccurate depictions of women in genre fiction as non-issues.

What male writers of superhero comics have handled women well? Englehart did good treatments, I think, of Wanda, Mantis, Moondragon, Patsy Walker, Firebird, Yrial, Scorpio Rose, and others. Claremont’s writing has been complimented in that respect, but I saw his women as stereotypes, in line with his formula fiction X-writing. No other writers come to mind.

There’s the question of what women who are drawn to read superhero comics in spite of the genre’s weaknesses, and want to write stories, want to accomplish. Do they have dream storylines for certain characters? Do they want to write certain characters better? Or do they see the work as something that pays better and is more enjoyable than clerical or retail work? The motivation will influence how well characters are treated; I’m assuming that someone who is well-read, does research, etc., wouldn’t consciously sluff off on a storyline.

I’ll take a look at academic databases next week to see if there are newer figures on gender bias in the creative fields, unless someone else does it first. There is, necessarily, a time lag in compiling statistics of that sort.

SRS

SRS

Honestly, my Jonah Hex editor is a woman, my lawyer is a woman, one of my two agents is a woman…the artist on powergirl is a woman [ yeah, amanda conner, lol] and I see more and more woman getting into our business daily and its all good.

Talent first is the way to go… best person for the job. It’s that simple.

Peggy and heidi, both awesome forces of nature. love them both.

I grew up with 3 brothers and my parents. My dad taught us that women are equals and treated my mom the best he could and they both taught us the same.

Amanda was brought up by two parents that were both artists and told her she could do anything she wanted in the world with her life and she chose to become a comic book artist.

i think the post is great and the conversation important…and most important , i really want comics to be open to all people…a place where talent counts way before sex, color or religion and i think we are heading in that direction a little at a time.

here is to great moves forward in 09.

jimmy

It’s great that women have penetrated many areas of the comics industry and are doing well, but their lack of presence in that other area presents a problem, the effects of which have greater ramifications, given the value and significance of mainstream superheroes in media and culture at large.

The superhero genre has often been referred to as our modern-day mythology, and if women aren’t involved in that, it’s a problem.

In the case of Byrne, I’d argue that his desire to make work simple by writing formula fiction (e.g., “Everything you know about (fill in the blank) is wrong“) was the primary motivation in his AWC storyline, and that he’s biased against marriage, children, etc., because they complicate the task of grinding out his formulaic fiction. The storyline’s plot certainly appeared sexist in its handling of Wanda, but the sexism might have been more the result of writing for Marvel’s target audience (Marvel’s institutional sexism) than it was determination to be sexist in one particular storyline. Wanda the villainess was generic, as characters go; one would have to ask Byrne why he chose to do the implied fellatio (?) sequence involving evil Wanda and Wonder Man.

Of course, one can argue that, in terms of mechanics, there’s little difference between writing Byrne’s formula fiction and writing porn. If one is uninterested in developing characters with any complexity, uninterested in learning a character’s history and adhering to continuity, uninterested in having a character grow or in developing (broadening) a character’s theme(s), uninterested in being innovative, or even professional, in the plot material or character creation, if the primary concern is filling the allotted page space month after month and getting paid for doing that — then one winds up with porn/trashy comics. One might as well call Marvel’s SI and “Dark Reign” material porn.

In the case of Englehart’s Wanda, there were clearly literary elements in the evolving Vizh-Wanda relationship, based on the union of opposites (science and magic, logic and emotion, synthetic and biological), with the children as the physical realization of the union. It’s easy to see those elements in the V & SW maxiseries and to understand the logic underlying the conception of the twins, and to admire what Englehart accomplished, or at least to acknowledge the accomplishment — but one can also look at the material without any thought, declare that the Vizh-Wanda union was junk, and (try to) demolish the structure that was built.

Bendis’s “Avengers” material has arguably been misogynistic in its handling of female characters, with the casual killing of the Wasp just the latest artistic casualty at Marvel. Questions of misogyny aside, the plot in SECRET INVASION #8 should have eliminated any doubts that Bendis is practically at a loss for ideas when handling material that isn’t directly based on crime fiction stories. But why did Marvel publish the material? Do they think the majority of the readers are stupid? Or are they stupid themselves, and writing to entertain others who are equally unintelligent? IMO, the general poorness of such material complicates determining that a story is deliberately sexist. Rednecks are sexist because they don’t know any better. If one wants to conclude that Marvel Editorial is controlled by a bunch of rednecks and that the possibility of change doesn’t exist because they’re incapable of changing, I’d be satisfied with that.

SRS

Which Rich?

What’s wrong with beards?

Oliver - I don’t recall the Deposit Man ever making a pass at you–

~

Coat