![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Wonder Woman and Buffy - two chicks with great powers, male fantasy or female empowerment?
I liked this post by ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
gabrielleabelle quite a bit, it expresses fairly clearly some of my own thoughts on the issue of how female sexuality has been exploited by and for men in comics historically...and why this is a problem.
http://gabrielleabelle.livejournal.com/216802.html
As I stated in her blog - it is particularly an issue in the comic book world. We see more female than male nudity in comic books and anime films. Often women are sex objects. If provided with power - it is in a manner that suits a male fantasy, going back as far as Wonder Woman. Who was allegedly created as a feminist role model in a world torn by male hatred. The creator was William Moulton Marston, a controversial figure in later years. According to a documentary on comics I saw a while back - Marston was described as a fetishest who was into dominatrixes and Wonder Woman came from his own sexual fantasies.
In regards to Wonder Woman - Marston, wrote:
Not even girls want to be girls so long as our feminine archetype lacks force, strength, and power. Not wanting to be girls, they don't want to be tender, submissive, peace-loving as good women are. Women's strong qualities have become despised because of their weakness. The obvious remedy is to create a feminine character with all the strength of Superman plus all the allure of a good and beautiful woman.
A statement that is unfortunately to a degree true today. This was written in the 1940s. How many times have you heard or read the statement: "Don't be such a girl!" Recently, Dawn said it to Xander in the Buffy Comics, "Oh Xander, don't be such a girl!". And how often have we heard the statement - "Don't be such a boy!" in derogatory terms.
Years after Marston created her - his creation was cited as an example of bondage themes in modern literature:
Marston's Wonder Woman is often cited as an early example of bondage themes entering popular culture: physical submission appears again and again throughout Marston's comics work, with Wonder Woman and her criminal opponents frequently being tied up or otherwise restrained, and her Amazonian friends engaging in frequent wrestling and bondage play (possibly based on Marston's earlier research studies on sorority initiations). These elements were softened by later writers of the series. Though Marston had described female nature as submissive, in his other writings and interviews he referred to submission to women as a noble and potentially world-saving practice, leading ideally to the establishment of a matriarchy, and did not shy away from the sexual implications of this.
To move away from this, DC tried to re-envision the character without super-powers, making her fists and kick ass fighting skills:
At the end of the 1960s, under the guidance of Mike Sekowsky, Wonder Woman surrenders her powers to remain in Man's World rather than accompany her fellow Amazons to another dimension. A mod boutique owner, the powerless Diana Prince acquires a Chinese mentor named I Ching. Under I Ching's guidance, Diana learns martial arts and weapons skills, and engages in adventures that encompassed a variety of genres, from espionage to mythology.
But feminists such as Gloria Steinman - fought to take back their heroine - stating, don't robe her of her powers. The fight over Wonder Woman ended finally, with Diana getting her powers back. Sekowsky was bewildered by the outtrage, citing that he'd made her a woman, someone women could actually identify with. Clearly Sekowsky did not get it. And Wonder Woman eventually returned to her roots.
Here's an interview describing the controversy regarding Wonder Woman and comics in the Boston Globe:
IDEAS: But in the 1950s Wonder Woman was depicted less as an athlete than as a va-va-voomy pinup -- and her secret passion for Army intelligence officer Steve Trevor became central to her story.
ROBINSON: After Marston's death in 1948 -- and particularly after psychologist Frederic Wertham's 1953 treatise "Seduction of the Innocent," which called Wonder Woman and her sidekicks lesbians, and therefore a "morbid ideal" for girls, and a threat to masculinity -- the comic's feminist politics were subverted. Although Wonder Woman was later appropriated as a feminist icon, when Gloria Steinem put her on the cover of the first issue of Ms. in 1972, she has failed to keep pace with the women's movement. Even today, Wonder Woman is no sister.
Steinman's attempt to take her back from Sekowsky, who had re-written her to get away from the Marston's view of her.
IDEAS: Later comic-book characters like Supergirl, Invisible Woman, and She-Hulk were career women who kicked male butt daily -- yet you say they're no feminists.
ROBINSON: Female superheroes through the 1970s, though tough, lacked both Wonder Woman's heroic feminism -- her antagonistic relation to patriarchy -- and her civic feminism, based on the notion of equal participation in society. And since then, comics have become postfeminist. Suddenly women in comics don't face any discrimination. Today Invisible Woman -- formerly Invisible Girl -- is called the strongest member of the Fantastic Four, as though she had never been depicted as almost pathologically shy and retiring. Somehow mainstream comic books went from prefeminist to postfeminist without ever going through feminism.
Perhaps, Whedon in the Buffy Comics is attempting to address that. Yet, it is a man who is doing so. Which begs the question, does Whedon get it? Can he?
IDEAS: Why can't we have it all -- feminists with super-powers?
ROBINSON: Even in the 21st century, the one thing mainstream comics can't acknowledge is that there are social problems that might be open to solution by a movement. Apparently that's scarier than any supervillain or bug-eyed monster.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2004/04/04/wonder_working_power/
Now, best-selling novelist Jodi Picoult is writing Wonder Woman.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/books/04/26/picoult.wonder.woman/index.html
Picoult's five-issue run doing the title makes her only the second woman to write the character in its 66-year history. But despite the assignment's historical significance, when DC originally approached her to pen the story -- the company had noticed a character in Picoult's "The Tenth Circle" was a comic-book penciller -- she wasn't entirely sure she had the time (or the desire) to do it.
And what is Picoult's take? To explore the human side, to explore Diana, and what it is like to handle all these things, a woman we can identify with.
"Over the years, she has had many different incarnations in the human world, some that I thought were pathetic," she says. "[But[ there's never been something that a reader could sink their teeth into and say, 'Oh yeah, this is why I'm like her.' "
"You can be the strongest woman in the world, and be incredibly sure of yourself in many realms of your life, and yet there's always going to be a chink in your armor," she observes. "There's always going to be one part of your life that you wonder, 'Am I doing a good enough job?' "
It's that very real internal struggle that drives Picoult's fictional "Wonder Woman" story. Recent events in the DC universe find Wonder Woman (and Prince) struggling with her place in the world.
"She is not human and elevating herself to the level of a superhero like Batman or Green Lantern. Instead, she is other than human and she's slumming it with all of us," Picoult observes.
Reading this, makes me wonder what would happen if a woman was chosen to write Buffy - in the same manner that Jodi is writing Wonder Woman. There aren't nearly enough female voices in the comic book or television or film industry. Our media permeates our lives, yet it tends to be written mainly by one group, white men. With few exceptions. As a result, women and minorities are depicted through their lense, we see ourselves as they see us. We see our issues through their eyes. We see our fears, desires through their pov.
What if a woman wrote Superman? Or Batman? Kelly Armstrong wrote Angel for a bit, to bad reviews - and I admittedly did not like her run. Gender and race does not dictate how good a writer you are. I'm no fan of Picoult's and I can't stand Stephanie Meyer - who writes a partriachial anti-feminist view of the universe. But I do wonder what would happen if we had more voices. Voices such as JK Rowlings or Kim Harrison or the many online. What if Marni Noxon and Jo Chen wrote Buffy? Or the writer of Persepolis? Or a woman wrote the X-men? (For a bit Louise Simon was an editor, but to my knowledge they have never hired a female writer in their entire run.)
Women are writing, but remain on the fringes. And it is getting better...sort of. There's a female editor at IDW overseeing the Angel comics more or less, and Jo Chen, a female artist is drawing the cover art on Buffy, and Jane Espenson is writing bits and pieces here and there.
Better...but not quite there yet. At the moment, as the recent issues of Buffy have demonstrated, the girl is still being shown as primarily the guy's fantasy. She's still being written to fit his worldview. Although, I'm willing to bet his intentions are well-meaning, much as Skewosky's were when he reinvisioned Diana as un-powered living amongst us, a kick-ass superhero, without her powers. There's a battle going on in our culture regarding the role of gender identity and gender power. The Court of Appeals recently permitted a class action suit to be go through against Wallmart regarding it's unequal pay practices for women. Men were making more than women at Wallmart and were promoted above women, regardless of skill level.
This is also an issue in the entertainment industry and publishing field. As well as in construction.
Men and women have to get beyond how they identify gender roles. Male and female traits exist in all of us. Was listening to a co-worker today, explain how she and her friend used to make money mowing neighbors lawns and shoveling - typically boys jobs, but it didn't stop her. She played sports. She was a tom-boy. And she won't be caught dead in a dress - or heels, bloody uncomfortable. But she is female and heterosexual. NOT butch. And I've met men who liked to wear pink, enjoy flowers, and love musicals, and hate sports. Who wish they could wear a skirt. And no, they are not gay. Just as I've met people who are homosexual or queer or gay that do not fit the stereotypes. Our gender should not dictate our jobs or how we live our lives. My brother is into kids and a nurturer and excellent teacher. I'm more clinical, critical, and prefer analyzing things, along with business. He loves sports. I love theater. We have both male and female attributes.
To define someone by gender - to assert power over them by that definition is as limiting as defining them by race or ethnicity or age. One of the things I love most about the internet is to a degree we are blind to such things. One of the people on a posting board I used to belong to - referred to themselves as hir - they did not want to reveal their gender. They liked not being treated on that basis. It was freeing. And to a degree I've found it to be too - when people did not know.
Yet, gender also does have a role in who we are. We should not be ashamed of it. We are not weak because we are girls. We are not chauvinistic because we are boys. We are not strong because we are male. We are not shrews because we are female. Such generalizations are old hat and should be thrown to the winds. Until they are...we make fools of ourselves.
gabrielleabelle quite a bit, it expresses fairly clearly some of my own thoughts on the issue of how female sexuality has been exploited by and for men in comics historically...and why this is a problem. http://gabrielleabelle.livejournal.com/216802.html
As I stated in her blog - it is particularly an issue in the comic book world. We see more female than male nudity in comic books and anime films. Often women are sex objects. If provided with power - it is in a manner that suits a male fantasy, going back as far as Wonder Woman. Who was allegedly created as a feminist role model in a world torn by male hatred. The creator was William Moulton Marston, a controversial figure in later years. According to a documentary on comics I saw a while back - Marston was described as a fetishest who was into dominatrixes and Wonder Woman came from his own sexual fantasies.
In regards to Wonder Woman - Marston, wrote:
Not even girls want to be girls so long as our feminine archetype lacks force, strength, and power. Not wanting to be girls, they don't want to be tender, submissive, peace-loving as good women are. Women's strong qualities have become despised because of their weakness. The obvious remedy is to create a feminine character with all the strength of Superman plus all the allure of a good and beautiful woman.
A statement that is unfortunately to a degree true today. This was written in the 1940s. How many times have you heard or read the statement: "Don't be such a girl!" Recently, Dawn said it to Xander in the Buffy Comics, "Oh Xander, don't be such a girl!". And how often have we heard the statement - "Don't be such a boy!" in derogatory terms.
Years after Marston created her - his creation was cited as an example of bondage themes in modern literature:
Marston's Wonder Woman is often cited as an early example of bondage themes entering popular culture: physical submission appears again and again throughout Marston's comics work, with Wonder Woman and her criminal opponents frequently being tied up or otherwise restrained, and her Amazonian friends engaging in frequent wrestling and bondage play (possibly based on Marston's earlier research studies on sorority initiations). These elements were softened by later writers of the series. Though Marston had described female nature as submissive, in his other writings and interviews he referred to submission to women as a noble and potentially world-saving practice, leading ideally to the establishment of a matriarchy, and did not shy away from the sexual implications of this.
To move away from this, DC tried to re-envision the character without super-powers, making her fists and kick ass fighting skills:
At the end of the 1960s, under the guidance of Mike Sekowsky, Wonder Woman surrenders her powers to remain in Man's World rather than accompany her fellow Amazons to another dimension. A mod boutique owner, the powerless Diana Prince acquires a Chinese mentor named I Ching. Under I Ching's guidance, Diana learns martial arts and weapons skills, and engages in adventures that encompassed a variety of genres, from espionage to mythology.
But feminists such as Gloria Steinman - fought to take back their heroine - stating, don't robe her of her powers. The fight over Wonder Woman ended finally, with Diana getting her powers back. Sekowsky was bewildered by the outtrage, citing that he'd made her a woman, someone women could actually identify with. Clearly Sekowsky did not get it. And Wonder Woman eventually returned to her roots.
Here's an interview describing the controversy regarding Wonder Woman and comics in the Boston Globe:
IDEAS: But in the 1950s Wonder Woman was depicted less as an athlete than as a va-va-voomy pinup -- and her secret passion for Army intelligence officer Steve Trevor became central to her story.
ROBINSON: After Marston's death in 1948 -- and particularly after psychologist Frederic Wertham's 1953 treatise "Seduction of the Innocent," which called Wonder Woman and her sidekicks lesbians, and therefore a "morbid ideal" for girls, and a threat to masculinity -- the comic's feminist politics were subverted. Although Wonder Woman was later appropriated as a feminist icon, when Gloria Steinem put her on the cover of the first issue of Ms. in 1972, she has failed to keep pace with the women's movement. Even today, Wonder Woman is no sister.
Steinman's attempt to take her back from Sekowsky, who had re-written her to get away from the Marston's view of her.
IDEAS: Later comic-book characters like Supergirl, Invisible Woman, and She-Hulk were career women who kicked male butt daily -- yet you say they're no feminists.
ROBINSON: Female superheroes through the 1970s, though tough, lacked both Wonder Woman's heroic feminism -- her antagonistic relation to patriarchy -- and her civic feminism, based on the notion of equal participation in society. And since then, comics have become postfeminist. Suddenly women in comics don't face any discrimination. Today Invisible Woman -- formerly Invisible Girl -- is called the strongest member of the Fantastic Four, as though she had never been depicted as almost pathologically shy and retiring. Somehow mainstream comic books went from prefeminist to postfeminist without ever going through feminism.
Perhaps, Whedon in the Buffy Comics is attempting to address that. Yet, it is a man who is doing so. Which begs the question, does Whedon get it? Can he?
IDEAS: Why can't we have it all -- feminists with super-powers?
ROBINSON: Even in the 21st century, the one thing mainstream comics can't acknowledge is that there are social problems that might be open to solution by a movement. Apparently that's scarier than any supervillain or bug-eyed monster.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2004/04/04/wonder_working_power/
Now, best-selling novelist Jodi Picoult is writing Wonder Woman.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/books/04/26/picoult.wonder.woman/index.html
Picoult's five-issue run doing the title makes her only the second woman to write the character in its 66-year history. But despite the assignment's historical significance, when DC originally approached her to pen the story -- the company had noticed a character in Picoult's "The Tenth Circle" was a comic-book penciller -- she wasn't entirely sure she had the time (or the desire) to do it.
And what is Picoult's take? To explore the human side, to explore Diana, and what it is like to handle all these things, a woman we can identify with.
"Over the years, she has had many different incarnations in the human world, some that I thought were pathetic," she says. "[But[ there's never been something that a reader could sink their teeth into and say, 'Oh yeah, this is why I'm like her.' "
"You can be the strongest woman in the world, and be incredibly sure of yourself in many realms of your life, and yet there's always going to be a chink in your armor," she observes. "There's always going to be one part of your life that you wonder, 'Am I doing a good enough job?' "
It's that very real internal struggle that drives Picoult's fictional "Wonder Woman" story. Recent events in the DC universe find Wonder Woman (and Prince) struggling with her place in the world.
"She is not human and elevating herself to the level of a superhero like Batman or Green Lantern. Instead, she is other than human and she's slumming it with all of us," Picoult observes.
Reading this, makes me wonder what would happen if a woman was chosen to write Buffy - in the same manner that Jodi is writing Wonder Woman. There aren't nearly enough female voices in the comic book or television or film industry. Our media permeates our lives, yet it tends to be written mainly by one group, white men. With few exceptions. As a result, women and minorities are depicted through their lense, we see ourselves as they see us. We see our issues through their eyes. We see our fears, desires through their pov.
What if a woman wrote Superman? Or Batman? Kelly Armstrong wrote Angel for a bit, to bad reviews - and I admittedly did not like her run. Gender and race does not dictate how good a writer you are. I'm no fan of Picoult's and I can't stand Stephanie Meyer - who writes a partriachial anti-feminist view of the universe. But I do wonder what would happen if we had more voices. Voices such as JK Rowlings or Kim Harrison or the many online. What if Marni Noxon and Jo Chen wrote Buffy? Or the writer of Persepolis? Or a woman wrote the X-men? (For a bit Louise Simon was an editor, but to my knowledge they have never hired a female writer in their entire run.)
Women are writing, but remain on the fringes. And it is getting better...sort of. There's a female editor at IDW overseeing the Angel comics more or less, and Jo Chen, a female artist is drawing the cover art on Buffy, and Jane Espenson is writing bits and pieces here and there.
Better...but not quite there yet. At the moment, as the recent issues of Buffy have demonstrated, the girl is still being shown as primarily the guy's fantasy. She's still being written to fit his worldview. Although, I'm willing to bet his intentions are well-meaning, much as Skewosky's were when he reinvisioned Diana as un-powered living amongst us, a kick-ass superhero, without her powers. There's a battle going on in our culture regarding the role of gender identity and gender power. The Court of Appeals recently permitted a class action suit to be go through against Wallmart regarding it's unequal pay practices for women. Men were making more than women at Wallmart and were promoted above women, regardless of skill level.
This is also an issue in the entertainment industry and publishing field. As well as in construction.
Men and women have to get beyond how they identify gender roles. Male and female traits exist in all of us. Was listening to a co-worker today, explain how she and her friend used to make money mowing neighbors lawns and shoveling - typically boys jobs, but it didn't stop her. She played sports. She was a tom-boy. And she won't be caught dead in a dress - or heels, bloody uncomfortable. But she is female and heterosexual. NOT butch. And I've met men who liked to wear pink, enjoy flowers, and love musicals, and hate sports. Who wish they could wear a skirt. And no, they are not gay. Just as I've met people who are homosexual or queer or gay that do not fit the stereotypes. Our gender should not dictate our jobs or how we live our lives. My brother is into kids and a nurturer and excellent teacher. I'm more clinical, critical, and prefer analyzing things, along with business. He loves sports. I love theater. We have both male and female attributes.
To define someone by gender - to assert power over them by that definition is as limiting as defining them by race or ethnicity or age. One of the things I love most about the internet is to a degree we are blind to such things. One of the people on a posting board I used to belong to - referred to themselves as hir - they did not want to reveal their gender. They liked not being treated on that basis. It was freeing. And to a degree I've found it to be too - when people did not know.
Yet, gender also does have a role in who we are. We should not be ashamed of it. We are not weak because we are girls. We are not chauvinistic because we are boys. We are not strong because we are male. We are not shrews because we are female. Such generalizations are old hat and should be thrown to the winds. Until they are...we make fools of ourselves.
no subject
It makes me wonder too.
At the very least, I think a woman would comprehend some of the protests people have had with the Season 8 comic. Right now Buffy is in a double bind. Either she just jumped Angel in spite of his murdering thousands of her Slayers... or we have the big, strong Angel making decisions for Buffy without ever giving her a vote. And when reading the response of the comic editor and the fill-in writers it's as if they are completely baffled when people raise concerns about this. They pat people's heads and say it's just about shipping. Which is basically amounting to patronizing the 'girls'.
no subject
Which demonstrates how clueless they truly are. I've read posts by people who ship B/A - that found issue 34 repulsive. As well as those who were ambivalent.
Either she just jumped Angel in spite of his murdering thousands of her Slayers... or we have the big, strong Angel making decisions for Buffy without ever giving her a vote.
Or the third option, Angel wasn't responsible for the deaths of the slayers - and there's another big bad out there that he was combatting. I don't like that one either...because it more or less syncs with option two - big strong Angel making the decisions for the stupid girl. It's patronizing and sexist.
Granted that may well be the point. Whedon may be writing a feminist nightmare - see, this is how the world views strong women! Aren't I cool for pointing it out to you! Isn't this subversive and amazing? Sorry, no. Just disappointing. If you were a woman, Whedon, you'd realize we already know it. Better than you. One can't help but wonder what the comics would have been like if he'd hired Jodi Picoult (Wonderwoman scribe) instead of Brad Meltzer (Superman scribe) to co-plot them.
no subject
no subject
What's occurred to me is that Buffy gave in, out of despair and a desire to just let go, give in to it. She's felt disconnected through the whole arc. Every time she tries to connect - something stands in the way. And now, finally, someone wants her, and he's powerful, and they can just be that glowly power. This was to a degree forshadowed in Retreat - where she listens to the tale of Oz's counterpart - the guy who gave into the werewolf and became the power, as opposed to doing what OZ did, giving it up. First she tries OZ's option and well, we know how that turned out. Then she tries the other guy (whose name starts with an M) and gives in, goes for the power. Angel is a metaphor for the power. Giving into Angel is akin to giving in to power. I don't really see any romance here or true love. These two do not appear to be in love with each other, so much as in love with the power and feeling of it. Their coupling to a degree reminds me of Caleb and the First, that same heady high - which is amongst the many reasons it repulsed me. Caleb - so not a fan. But in retrospect, I sort of miss him, he was better than Twangel.
no subject
no subject
And that Buffy is bad because she wants to be loved? That giving into passion is bad?