So I went to my local comic book shop last Wednesday, and was stoked to find that they’d put on a flier promoting Womanthology, the graphic novel (read: comic book) collecting the work of various women in the industry. The brainchild of artist Renae DeLiz (the awesome artist of The Last Unicorn and assorted issues of Archie’s Sonic the Hedgehog*), it has caused a big splash in the comic-sphere, gaining a huge amount of contributors (including established talent like Gail Simone, as well as people who’ve never been published before) and becoming one of the best-funded projects on Kickstarter in a ridiculously short period of time. It’s also a particularly timely project, given DC Comic’s recent marginalization of their female fans, characters, and creators: the success of a project like this is the perfect way to let it (and Marvel, and all other companies, really) that women do read comics, and that, in ignoring this particular audience, they only do themselves harm. Also, I hope this does well enough with the menfolk to make DC and Co. realize that HEY! A lot of us have no problem reading stuff created by and for women.
So yeah. If you’re into comic books as a medium, or feel that you’d like comic books as a medium but never given it a shot, or if you just like to support female artists and have money to invest, please consider giving this a shot. I’m not exactly sure when its released–their Facebook page has a tentative December 7 date–but if you contact your nearest comic book shop–which you can locate via this handy page–they should be able to reserve it for you.
* By the way, for those of you wondering what comic book one should give a child between the ages of 7-13, Sonic the Hedgehog is a darn good choice. It’s Avatar: The Last Airbender if Aang was a small blue mammal.
“Does ANYONE think that if Obama had been a tough, principled, unabashed progressive, he’d be worse off than he is now?”
Title aside, McEwan adds nothing else to the blog post, and I sort of wish she had, since the idea that things would have been different (read: better) if Obama held progressive beliefs and fought for them is one I grapple with constantly. I’ve heard progressives make the claim with differing amounts of certainty, which is something I’ve never felt when it comes to the matter. A world in which Obama–or any other Democrat elected as President in 2008–is a Progressive is so far removed from the actual world, charting an accurate alternate history would be as fruitless as finding a soul in Governor Luis Fortuño. About the only thing I would be able to say for certain is that progressives would be happy with him/hir, and that Fox News Coverage would hardly change at all.
Yes, the country would almost certainly be better if we had more progressive policies in place. Would those progressive policies have passed, though, if Obama or a hypothetical other president, had pursued them while Democrats had control of the legislature? My (limited) understanding of the political situation leads me to believe that the answer is “no”, as best evidenced by the whole Health Care Bill debate. Was the Public Option necessary in order for the bill to be as effective as possible? As I understand it, yes–although I also understand that the health care bill we got is considerably better than doing nothing at all. Were progressives right in feeling betrayed when Democrats abandoned it? Sure. Would it have passed if Democrats had been more uncompromising in its inclusion? Like I said, probably not. Would a consistently pro-public option stance on a failed Health Care bill have helped Democrats in 2010? I don’t see how.
Now, there are certain other things which Obama does have control over, which do not require Congress in order to be enacted–say, Guantanamo bay–and where it comes to those, Obama has no excuse for following through other than a) a lack of belief in progressive policies are the best solution, b) or cowardice. Would taking the progressive option, in this case, have harmed him? I don’t see how. Would it have helped him with his base? Yes. Would it have helped with the election? I don’t know, but I’d say that probably not, if we accept that most low-information voters don’t really care about things like that, given they tend not to affect their livelyhoods. A swift withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq would similarly help him with his base, but it’s unclear how that would help congress during the election. That, however, does not change the fact that closing down Guantanamo and ending the wars were the right thing to do, even if they drew no advantage from it.
Moving on to the present day, it’s clear that Obama and the Democrats are now in a much more weakened position, at both the state and the federal level: in many states, Republicans take advantage of their majorities to roll back basic human rights, and Democrats are left with no option but to publicly complain, which they often don’t. At the Federal level, Congress has taken up destroying the economy as a hobby, taking it as a hostage by suddenly refusing to do something that they once did without a thought. Democrats, in response, have taken to promising everything and anything–even measures that go against everything they stand for and help no one–in order to try to get them to stop, a move that a) hasn’t worked, so far b) destroys the Democratic brand in the process, c) moves the center of American politics ever more to the right, as the unthinkable suddenly becomes plausible.
Still, what else could they do? Sticking to their guns would help with the base–it’d certainly reassure me–but doesn’t help unless it turns out that Republicans are actually bluffing about the debt ceiling. If they aren’t bluffing, though–and I don’t believe they are–then you end up with two immobile coalitions and a ruined economy. There’s the argument that Obama would be able to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling anyway, but my understanding of things is that he would not be able to do so until things were already in the crapper. And the same goes for pretty much everything else. All the while, Obama loses his bases’ support.
So to turn back to the main topic: the belief that things wouldn’t be as bad if Obama stuck to his party’s core beliefs. People who believe this must be seeing something I’m not, and I would like to know what that is, because certainty sounds so good right about now.
So there’s a bit of a brouhaha in the superhero fandom lately, over an altercation at a DC panel during Comic Con this weekend, in which a woman cosplaying as Batgirl asked the panelists about the perceived lack of both female characters and creators in their relaunched books. According to reports (a description can be found here) the panelists’ reaction was dismissive and mocking, which then led to the cosplayer to get booed by some in the audience. The discussion has been taken to the blogosphere, where posters like “Me” at the DC Women Kicking Ass blog, have taken to defending the status quo. This was my response, with the bits I quoted from “Me” in italics (his entire original post can be seen here.
Just take a look at
the posts on this blog or any other women centered thread on comics
boards. There’s nothing but hypersensitivity to any imagined slight
whether it be real or not. They are usually accompanied by insults to
real people over imaginary characters. So creators are supposed to
walk on eggshells and ask how high when told to jump for a group that
doesn’t think twice about constantly insulting them no matter what
Walk on eggshells? Not at all.
Acknowledging that there is valid issue to be discussed is not
walking on eggshells—it’s the first step in any sort of good faith
discussion. And fiction which consistently and willfully presents
men as the norm, with women who exist mostly in their relation to men
instead of as individuals? Is very much a problem.
The complaint now is
that there are 4 former Robins but only 1 Batgirl and it’s just
because of sexism. Really?
Really really. What other explanation
would you give? Given the compressed timeline they’re trying to work
with, having four former Robin stretches suspension of disbelief to
the breaking point, and goes against their stated desire to make
things easier for new readers. It’s supremely and obviously
counterproductive, and yet, DC sees their worth, and so they’re
there. Why do they get that benefit, when none of the other Batgirls
do, despite being equally or more interesting, and certainly more
varied from a conceptual perspective? There’s several potential
answers, and “sexism” goes well with every one of them.
There’s a Batwoman
AND a Batgirl with a Huntress mini coming and Steph coming as
Sure, and we’re glad to have them.
However, the fact that they exist doesn’t hide the fact that this new
DC Universe has unfavorably skewed the male/female ratio in negative
way. We have all of them, but we’ve lost an Oracle, two Batgirls,
one Grace Choi, one Amanda Waller, etcetera etcetera etcetera.
And another thing, numbers are only
part of the problem, but they also help obscure another part of the
problem; you could have a movie with a million women or POC on them,
and it’d still be sexist/racist/homophobic if you treat them in a
sexist/racist/homophobic manner—say, by having them be a monolith,
or by having them exist only at the service of the privileged. DC
may have a million women, but if they’re all like Winnick’s Catwoman,
you’ve got a DCU full of sex toys—they may be fun, but they’re
objects, not people. And I for one, much prefer people.
Steph, the lily white blonde girl who most find an annoying character but who has been catapulted over Cass as the direct result of the evil male
creators actually listening to you guys and bringing her back as
Batgirl in her own book.
Really. I wasn’t aware of any great clamor to bring Steph back
as Batgirl. Would anyone more involved
than I care to back up that claim? In any case, it would have been
simplicity itself to return Steph into the fold without doing wrong
by Cass (although if I remember correctly, Cass had already been
neck-deep in character derailment by the time Steph was brought back
into regular circulation) and then had two additional strong female
characters in the Bat-family instead of just one.
Yes, superhero comics is mainly made up of male
fans and male creators. You know what? That’s not
inherently evil. Throughout all pop culture there are different
genres that are dominated by different demographics. Should
female genres be forced to placate males? Should the adult
females who sexually fawn over teenage Twilight
characters be shamed? Well, ok, maybe just as much as people who seem
to get sexually charged over drawings but that’s a whole different
Inherently evil? Perhaps not (although groups that go out of
their way to alienate women tend to stagnate sooner or later). It’s
merely unnecessary, and counter-productive in the extreme. Superhero
comics? Are dying. You’re probably right that DC’s fandom (and
Marvel’s for that matter) mostly consists of males, but it’s also
rather damn clear that that audience will not sustain the industry.
DC knows this. They acknowledge it. They even make token attempts
to rectify it, like the current reboot.
There’s a huge, untapped market made out of people who are not
white heterosexual cis-gendered men.
The mainstream media would have you believe there isn’t any worth
in targeting them, but they are wrong: did Sex and the
City and My Big Fat Greek Wedding,
problematic as they may be, not do beacoup bucks
at the box office? But in order to get those audiences, you have to
a) acknowledge that they exist, both creatively as a corporation, and
engage them and b) treat them as individuals deserving of the same
amount of respect everybody else deserves, instead of as the
exception to the rule, or as something that exists at white
heterosexual cis-gendered men’s pleasure.
And you know what? Not only would a serious effort to reach a
wider audience garner more readers, they make comic books better.The Wire, one of the very few shows to honestly attempt to deal with the African-American experience in America, is widely considered the best show on television. The Scott
Pilgrim series features well-developed men and women, and
both the books and the series are critically acclaimed. Buffy
the Vampire Slayer and Xena: Warrior Princess did a lot to make genre TV cool again. They star women. Greg Rucka is considered one of the best comic book writers around; guess which kinds of characters he likes to write?
This doesn’t mean that books starring white heterosexual
cis-gendered men have to disappear—I still want to read my
Spider-Mans, Supermans, Spider-Mans and Wally Wests, thank you very
much. I just don’t want them to be the one thing you see on the
racks, overcrowding everything else, not when there are so many
kick-ass stories starring other kinds of characters to be told, who
could make a lot of people a lot of money if they just
decided to tell them.
By the way, it’s not just women who feel this way: plenty of men–like myself, in case the avatar didn’t make it obvious–would LOVE more diversity in the DCU. But apparenlty DC isn’t interested in what I have to say, either. Shame.
I also noted that there are several similarities between these and the recent “Elevator Guy” incident, in that both involve a woman calling out sexist behavior or practices, and establishment figures demonstrate naked sexism in their reaction to it. I hope that, like in that earlier incident, this one serves as a catalyst for change in the community, particularly since naked sexism is SO not what DC needs if it wants to survive.
I am totally in love with this trailer.
Not only is it capital-B Beatiful, it, like the Speed Racer movie (which I unabashedly consider one of my favorite movies ever) it almost convinces me that driving is the most liberating thing ever, instead of an activity which constrains you inside a box inside a larger box, afraid that the slightest mistake will kill someone. And the music is awesome too.
So apparently issue three of Marvel’s X-Men: Prelude to Schism features the following line:
”Kitty and Storm: powerful mutants, possessing the best qualities of their sex.”–Cyclops (Narrative Caption, I think)
Ugh. I wonder: if Paul Jenkins were asked what those qualities are (or what he thinks Scott believes those qualities are), what would he answer? I mean, surely it can’t be bravery or intelligence or their ability to inspire–it’s not like either sex has a monopoly on those. Their ability to lactate, perhaps? Their ability to give birth? In any case, it’s a rather unexpected position for someone who is leading the struggle for an oppressed minority’s personhood–surely if someone were to have “people are individuals–and that’s fine” drilled into his brain, it should be Scott freaking Summers.
That said, it’d be nice if such a line were actually an intentional attempt to portray Scott as someone who is unconscious of the way in which his stances help oppress people, despite his self-stated goals–its happens often enough in real life and it’d add some complexity to his character (even if ideally, I’d prefer the character not be sexist at all). Unfortunately, I don’t for a minute believe this is the case. I don’t know enough about Paul Jenkins to determine if the line is something he actually believes, or enough about Cyclops’ comic book incarnation to determine whether such a line is in-character for him, but the fact that it made it into the final product is disheartening, as both an aspiring writer and as someone who believes people should be treated as individuals.
So, apparently the case against Dominique Strauss-Khan, the former managing Director of the International Monetary Fund who was arrested and accused of raping a woman, is falling apart, due to lies and inaccuracies in the victim’s testimony. My first thought: “Dammit. The kind of people who believe rape victims are lying liars who lie about being raped to get men in trouble are going to have a field day with this.” These people are not the ones who need more ammo for their bullshit beliefs. And yet, here we are.
Although forensic tests found unambiguous evidence of a sexual encounter between Mr. Strauss-Kahn, a French politician, and the woman, prosecutors now do not believe much of what the accuser has told them about the circumstances or about herself.
Since her initial allegation on May 14, the accuser has repeatedly lied, one of the law enforcement officials said.