The other day, Ororo (the blogger) posted this, where she said that we wanted our female comic characters to have their mouths shut and their legs spread. I commented on her blog that I couldn’t think of any female characters that seemed to fit that characterization. She deleted my comment, so I posted virtually the identical comment on my blog here.
Ororo posted this the other day in which she explains that she deleted the posts in part because she wanted to ignore the “trolls.” All well and good. It’s her blog and if she doesn’t want to comment, that’s certainly her right. I might give Ororo some advice and show her what ignoring and “not engaging” looks like. The following is an example of something I posted that ignored a comment:
(Ororo, please feel free to cut and paste that onto your blog the next time you want to ignore commenters.)
What Ororo actually did -- among several comments similar or even more discourteous -- was to write this:
The outright misogynists are obvious trolls. They are easy to ignore. The trolls that aren’t so easy to ignore are the guys who sound like they want an honest discussion with you but really, they’re just there to take over the discussion and turn it away from the issues. Known as “secret misogynists” (I totally just made up that label. These are the guys who believe that they’re not misogynists. But, possibly without even being aware of it, their “discussions” online show that the patriarchy has indeed had its way with them), they’ll protest that they truly do want to discuss it (of course, most of the time, they want to discuss what they believe you’re saying rather than what you’re actually saying—an example of little woman, I know what you’re saying better than you do) and if you don’t explain yourself to them, then you must not be open to other ideas.
That isn’t "ignoring." That is what we usually call “insulting.” This kind of insulting attack is absolutely something she can chose to do, but I have to point out that she also wrote this:
And why, in every discussion about feminism that I’ve been involved in, does it basically come down to male attacks and female defensive statements?
I might suggest that the reason for that is that every discussion she has about feminism does not basically come down to male attacks and female defensive statements. What precipitated my comment was Ororo’s attack on men that stereotyped them as only wanting to see comic book women who had their mouths shut and their legs open, which appeared to be a stereotype without basis. She didn’t mention any female characters that fit that mold, name any men who said they wanted their female characters to be that way, or even quote comic authors who said that’s what their audience wanted. If anyone was on the defense, it was me and other men who felt we had to at least question Ororo’s insulting accusation.
She ends her post with:
Right now, I believe the word you’re looking for is “bitch.”
Ummmm, no. Actually, the word I was looking for the name of a mainstream, female comic character who had her mouth shut and her legs open. While Ororo is under no obligation to back up her insulting stereotypes of comic reading men with facts, she’d certainly be more persuasive if she had. She may even really know the names of several mainstream female characters who have their mouths shut and their legs open. Perhaps if a woman asked her to name some of those characters it wouldn’t seem so patriarchal and she’ll convince me that her insults where ground in reality.
The right to choice is based on the right of privacy. The Supreme Court found that if a governmental agency was going to make rules that invaded your privacy, the government had to prove that it had a legitimate state interest in violating you privacy. The 9th Amendment in the Bill of Rights says:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
In other words, just because a right is not specifically spelled out in the Bill of Rights or the rest of the Constitution, that should not be taken as evidence that a right doesn’t exist. The Founding Fathers lived under English Common Law, which were basically laws and rights that were created by the courts as they interpreted the law. The Supreme Court of the United States, a creation of the Founding Fathers, has found and upheld several times the right to privacy, claiming that, although it is not specifically named as a right, we can see the intent of it from the other rights named in the Constitution. The Supreme Court found that without a right to some privacy, there can be no true liberty. If a government can tell you what to do in the privacy of your own home or your own body with no good reason to do so, no compelling interest, you don’t have liberty. So if the government is going to infringe on your liberty, it has to prove it has a good reason. The Supreme Court found this right in the 14th Amendment, which said that a person had the right to due process before one’s liberty could be taken. If anyone ever says to you that the right to privacy or the right to an abortion is not found in the Constitution, remember that.
But remember also that the right of privacy can be abridged if the State can prove that it has a compelling interest, and there are judges out there who believe that the State does have a compelling interest. They believe that the State can save the lives of what they would consider babies. It is an argument that I don’t believe in, but it is not an argument that no one believes in.
There are two ways to remove the right of choice. The first is the change the makeup of the courts, so the judges who did not believe that the State’s interest outweighed the right to privacy with those who do. The judges exist. Roe v. Wade was not unanimous and was almost overturned (at least in part) by Gonzales v. Carhart. Who become judges is greatly influenced not only by what judges you vote for in local elections, but also by who you vote for in state and national elections. It is very likely that the next President of the United States will be nominating more than one judge to the Supreme Court. It is very likely that that nomination will be for someone fairly young, like John Roberts, who might be on the Court voting for decades to come. Right now, replacing even one judge, might overturn Roe v. Wade for our lifetimes.
The second method of removing the right of choice -- or even more broadly, the right to privacy – would be to change the Constitution. Listen to Mike Huckabee:
I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that's what we need to do, to amend the Constitution so it's in God standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.
In a part, Huckabee is right. It was a lot easier to add the 14th Amendment to the Constitution that prohibited slavery than it was to remove the Exodus 21, which gave instructions for selling one’s children into slavery, from the Word of the living God. It was easier to add the 14th Amendment than it was to remove Job 1, where Job is said to be blameless and upright but also the owner of many slaves. Job’s slaves were, in fact, considered evidence of God’s blessing. Hmm?
Christians have come to change their minds about slavery. They now think that it’s a sin, despite the clear evidence that the Bible has virtually no trouble with the ownership of people. But for some reason, many Christians still believe that abortion is a sin despite the fact that there is nothing in the Bible prohibiting it. In fact, in some instances, it commands that the unborn be destroyed. Read Genesis 38 some time. Among the peculiar moral concepts in that chapter, we find that almost everyone in the story was quite keen on enforcing their Biblical Law of burning an unwed pregnant woman to death, which would, of course, also kill the fetus. And Numbers 5: 11-31 (at least in the New English Bible’s translation) gives instructions for performing magical abortions.
It’s possible that just as the people who used to support laws that inhibited the liberty of Blacks will come around and stop their support of laws that inhibit the liberty of women’s bodies, but until that time, it is important to vote for people who support the 14th Amendment. If we don’t, the right of choice may not be the only right we loose. The 14th Amendment and the right of privacy found within it have been used to give people the right to contraception, to marry people of a different race, and to have sex with consenting adults regardless of their gender. If you have an interest in any of those rights, you have an interest in voting to support those who support the 14th Amendment and the right to privacy.
I'm not sure how much I'll have to say on January 22, but I'm going to give it a shot. I'd like to see fans of WFA join in.
RMM, I suppose we should expect a rebutal, right? Just to let you know, I'm probably going to quote from your Bible the verses that say that unwed, pregnant women should be murdered, which would, of course, kill all those fetuses you think God is so very concerned about.
I don't know if this would be considered a more or less positive portrayal of Wonder Woman than the Playboy cover, but at the very least, her entrance is impressive ... and a wee bit frightening if you have testicles.
So to change the tone of the Wonder Woman fuss, have a little fun with this performance.
Oh, and speaking of "performance," if there are any drag queens reading my blog (and how could there not be), let this be a lesson to you. Moving your lips is not a performance. (Although, not moving them might be if you have puppet on your lap.)
Over here, Ororo says in reference to the Playboy flap:
"These photos—like so many comics—don’t view women in comics as three dimensional characters. They’re pretty much there as T&A.
"Again, I’m not really that upset about it. But I do think it takes the way women are treated in comics and just brings it into our reality. Naked woman. Boobies. Ass. Mouth shut. Legs spread. That’s the way we like our women in comics."
Can anyone tell me who these shut-mouth, legs-spread female characters are? Are they in mainstream comics? All the significant female characters I can think of in mainstream comics are outspoken, independent, strong-willed, and not particularly promiscuous. They may not get as much page space as the guys. But mouth shut?
Who is Ororo (blogger) referring to? Not Ororo (comics), I hope!
Take a look at my blog entry here, read the links if you have time, and then answer the entirely unscientific poll to the right.
And please comment! I'd be especially interested in seeing your comments if you are a straight, male comic fan because those seem to be the people that Greg Rucka thinks would be bothered by a Playgirl cover that had a nude superhero on it. Although, all comments are more than welcome.
Thanks for playing!
On a related note, isn't Dean Cain pretty? Click on the picture below to see it full-sized. It is worth it. He is a sight to behold. He's not even my type, but man, is he good looking! If he is ever going to have the Superman costume painted onto him for the cover of Playgirl, not only will I buy the issue, I'd pay a substantial amount to do the painting. In fact if there are any Playgirl editors reading this blog (and how could they not be?), I'd like you to know that I am very experienced with the Superman costume including that tricky "S", and I have extensive finger-painting skills honed by hours of producing kindergarten dinosaur masterpieces.
Over here, Greg Rucka, whose writing I really like, says the following in regard to the Wonder Woman on Playboy’s cover flap:
And as for those who say that Diana is a fetish character, 1) find me a superhero who isn't ("Spandex," says Mark Waid, "is a privilege, not a right.") and 2) how many of those people would burst a vessel, if not a vital organ, if Playgirl ran a similar cover/pictorial with a male, semi-erect model painted up as Batman?
Over here, Ragnell says that she thinks this paragraph refutes the points made by my goddess, Laura Hudson, here.
I might agree with Rucka if I could think of even a single instance of a male superhero being sexualized for a female audience and anyone being bothered by it. I know that a significant amount of straight guys would be bothered by sexual images of men on the covers of magazines that were marketed toward men. There seemed to be a bit of a reaction to the Citizen Steel's uber-crotch on the cover of the JSA, which they felt was marketed to them. That reaction smelled a bit of that "Whatever you do, pleeeeeeeeeeeeease don't think I'm gay just because I'm buying this!!!" homophobia. But would they really be bothered by those images being marketed to women? I don’t think so. I can’t see that a significant number of guys would be bothered by that or if they heard that a male stripper was incorporating Batman or Superman into his routine, which strippers have done.
And can I mention that I doubt many women would be bothered by male superheroes being sexualized? Seriously, can you imagine that if a stripper came out on stage in a Superman outfit that women would leave Chippendales in huff because male superheroes were being degraded ... even if the women were comic fans?
Moreover, I have to wonder if Rucka means that he would burst a vessel, if not a vital organ, if Playgirl ran a similar cover. Is Rucka suggesting that he’d think that Batman would have his power as a male symbol of strength robbed from him if Playgirl did that cover as Ragnell suggested happened to Wonder Woman when Playboy did its cover?
Gay men have tons of sites and such that depict superheroes in the nude and in very sexual situations. So is Mr. Rucka bursting a vessel over that? Does he think Batman would be robbed of his power as a symbol of male strength if gay men created a magazine cover with a naked Batman on it? And if he's not bothered by gay guys doing it, why is he bothered by straight guys doing it?
Or what if the painted on Wonder Woman appeared on the cover of a lesbian erotic magazine? Would Rucka be bothered by that?
If you believe that Mr. Rucka is correct, that male comic fans would get their painted on panties in a bunch if Playgirl did something similar, I suppose you could see his argument as shooting down Laura’s, but not only don’t I think most guys would be bothered, I know factually that most gay men haven’t been bothered in the slightest by the numerous instances of sexualized superheroes that they've seen (and paid for and hung on their walls), and I sincerely doubt that Rucka would be bothered. I can’t help but to notice that he speaks of “those people,” and not himself almost as if he knows that he wouldn't be bothered.
But how many of “those people” really exist? Are you one? Is Rucka? Is anyone? (Take the poll!)
I'm going to write something a little more thoughtful about this later, but I thought I'd comment quickly on Ragnell's problem with Playboy comparing Tiffany Fallon to Lynda Carter seen here and here. Ragnell writes:
" The writer is calling a reality-TV-Queen the "modern-day Lynda Carter" without listing a single heroic role or action. … By listing a bunch of reality TV shows and calling her the 'modern-day Lynda Carter' because they painted her into a WW costume, they presented the adventure story as fetish material."
Please note that Playboy was comparing Tiffany to Lynda, not to Diana. I don’t know about you, but I couldn’t think of even one heroic act done by Lynda Carter unless you count shilling for a contact lens company as a heroic act. And I’m not sure that Lynda’s semi-finals finish in the Miss World pageant (not Miss Universe, mind you, but the lesser Miss World) really counts as being classier than being on reality TV.
Moreover, Lynda Carter starred in a little movie called Bobbie Jo and the Outlaw, which came out the year after she first played Wonder Woman. If you don’t remember Bobbie Jo and the Outlaw, don’t kick yourself. Almost no one does. The only memorable thing about this B-movie -- containing heroic scenes of women being burned with cigars ... oh, and being urinated on ... actually, let's call it what it is; they're being pissed on -- was that Lynda Carter appeared nude in it. I considered embedding that nude sex scene from the film on my blog, but I was afraid that might violate the terms of service, so I’ll just link to it. (OK, straight boys and lesbians, don't say I never did anything for you. Music lovers, sorry; I owe you one.)
SooOOOooo, anyone still seething with righteous indignation about comparing Tiffany to Lynda?
In the column on the right, I created a poll asking how likely you think it would be that you’d use your powers for evil if you had super powers. Personally, I had trouble believing that I wouldn’t. Whenever someone asks some variation of “What comic character’s super powers do you want?” question, I always choose something that wouldn’t let me take over the world or kill my enemies with impunity. I just don’t trust myself with that kind of power. I kind of suspect that if I could wish people into the corn field, there’d be a few bad drivers and people who count multiple cans of cat food as one item in the express lane who So instead of choosing a powerhouse like Superman or (God help us … umm, or rather, God help you) the Spectre, I pick some like Madrox, the Multiple Man, who would be able to do a lot of cool things, but he couldn’t really become a major threat or violate the rights of others to any significant extent. (And on a related note, why the hell aren't more people reading X-Factor? It is by far the best X book out there!) Would the ends justify the means ... if you had the means? Would you dispose of the right people? Mind control those who should be controlled? Would your fight against fascism, hunger, sexism, or some other "evil" convince you to bend the rules especially since you could get away with it? I did a poll like this before and asked if people thought they’d become thieves if they had Kitty Pryde’s power. 100% admitted that they would. So what do you think? Could you be trusted with power?
In the comments section of this post, RMM says,
“The one thing you have in common with feminists, Scott, is this belief the world owes you something. It does not. Not respect, not employment, not love, not acceptance, nothing. You don't have a right not to be viewed as a stereotype any more than I do. What you do have, and what you seem to place no value on, is the right to try and overcome these and many other obstacles, and earn these things. “
In a word, WRONG!
I’m an atheist and a materialist. I don’t believe that the world owes me anything. I don’t even believe in rights as they are popularly understood, you know, as in “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” I don’t believe that. I don’t believe in a Creator, so I don’t see that it could have endowed me with rights. I believe in matter, gravitation, and electromagnetism, and frankly, I don’t think they give a damn if I’m able to pursue happiness, have liberty, or even if I’m alive. The universe doesn’t owe me anything. The universe doesn’t care.
But I do. We do. What rights we have are not the construction of a Creator or the universe. What rights we have are our constructs. They are given existence only by our collective will and power. I have the right of free speech not because the Creator wants me to have it but because the majority of us in the US think that having the right of free speech is a good idea and we are willing to put power into supporting that idea. In other words, the only reason I have the right to free speech is because it is the law.
And it’s a law we can expand or abridge if we wanted to. In fact, we have. For instance, at one time, free speech did not include burning the flag, but now it does. We added to what free speech is. Although free speech is considered the primary freedom in our legal system, we do limit free speech. It is possible that you could even be executed for what you’ve said. For instance, some speech might be treasonous if you were telling State secrets to an enemy, or if you plotted a murder, the instructions you uttered could make you culpable in the murder. Other abridgments of free speech have lesser penalties. You could be jailed for inciting violence with your speech or sued for libel.
No right is absolute. Even life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness can be taken away from you in some circumstances no matter what you think your Creator endowed you with. We weigh individual rights against the rights of others and will of the community. For instance, we believe in the right of the individual to have free speech, but we also believe that person has the right to be protected from untrue slander and most of us don’t want our community to be a place where slanderous liars have safe refuge, but we also want people to be allowed to say even the most hurtful insults if they are true, so we allow freedom of speech to be abridged in cases of libel but say that the truth of the statement is an absolute bar against being sued for libel.
If people have the right to be judged when applying for jobs or buying homes without regard to their race, religion, sex, or sexual preference, it isn’t because they are “owed” that right by the Creator or the universe. If they have that right, they have it because enough of us said that we wanted them to have it and we used our power to enforce it, i.e., we made it the law. Those rights, where they exist, come from the same place as all the other rights and, IMHO, are, therefore, just as valid.
RMM has granted that communities have the right to create laws that make the community better. For instance, among other laws like those that prevent business from putting up large signs or making too much noise, he seems OK with zoning laws that prevent business from being in areas zoned for residence. Most of would agree with him -- even those who are inclined to always disagree with RMM out of principle or habit. However, he believes that zoning laws are “a far cry” antidiscrimination hiring laws. But are they really?
Let’s say my neighbor decides to start a barber business in his living room. According to RMM, it’s ethical for me to get the government to stop my neighbor’s business. If I don’t like the extra traffic it brings to my street, I can get the government to put a stop to his business, and even RMM wouldn’t be persuaded by the guy’s arguments that zoning laws are un-American or unethical. RMM wouldn’t agree with my neighbor and he wouldn't say to me, “Scott, you aren’t owed a street with only non-business traffic. Shit happens. Man up. I don’t like everything that happens on my street.”
But what if my neighbor said, “It is un-American and unethical to tell a man what he can’t and can’t do in his own home?” What does RMM say then? He’s not opposed to zoning laws. Do we have a right to tell a man what he can and can’t do in his home? If there is anything more sacrosanct in America than one’s business, it’s one’s home. So why does RMM think I have the right to tell a man that he can’t hire people to work out of his home, but I don’t have the right to tell a man what he can and can’t do when hiring in his business?
RMM says that a business should be able to hire and fire whoever it wants without governmental interference. Apparently, that means that RMM is opposed to child labor laws. If we as a community decide that we don’t like businesses taking time away from children’s studies or putting them in positions that might be bad for their health, well, that’s tough. He’s apparently also opposed to sexual harassment laws as they pertain to hiring and firing. So if as a community, we decide that we don’t want women to be pressured into sleeping with their bosses, that’s tough. Shit happens. If I guy wants to fire a woman if she doesn't put out, that's his right. We know he’s opposed to laws against racial discrimination, so if we see factors creating an underclass that might come back to bite the rest of the community through crime, loss of property values, or even uneasy feelings about allowing an underclass to suffer, he’d say that was just tough. We’d be un-American if we created laws that prevented hiring discrimination.
In other words, according to RMM’s logic and ethics, if we want to improve our community by banning big signs, loud noise, or extra traffic, we’re fine, upstanding, civic-minded citizens exercising our right to create zoning laws and other rules that make life better. However, if we want to improve our community by preventing children from being distracted from school or even being tempted into dropping out of school by creating child labor laws, we’re un-American, unethical people who need to grow up. If we as a community decide that we don’t want our neighbors to feel like they have to become whores to keep their livelihood, their homes, or their insurance, we should come to understand what an unethical thing it is to impinge upon the freedom of an employer. If we want to create rules that we think will allow people to feel as if they will get a fair shake in the work force or be able to move into any community so that we encourage them to try to succeed or encourage the best and brightest of them to move to our community so we have a competitive edge, RMM would say we should be better than that.
Why is that? Why doesn’t RMM believe the reverse is also true? Why not say to the bigoted employer, “Oh, you don’t want to work with blacks? Tough. Shit happens. You aren’t owed a white only life. From what did you think you got that right? It’s not in the Constitution, state or federal law, the Declaration of Independence or even the Bible. The courts haven’t found it, so how did you? I don’t like all the laws that affect me either, but you are part of a community, and you have adult responsibilities to that community. Quit whining and man up.”
