Friday Night Fights, Round 8

I will never, ever, ever get tired of this sequence:




Take that, Bahlactus!

Carnivals

The 13th Carnival of Feminist Science Fiction and Fantasy Fans is up at Words From the Center, Words From the Edge.

The 14th issue will be held at Heroine Content on May 30th.

And if that's not enough feminist goodness for you, the mainstream Carnival of Feminists is up at KitKat's Critique, and the latest edition of Scientiae is up at Clarity.

52 Week 52 Poll

I've been reading the reviews and there are a lot of people (including me) making assumptions on how much of this issue was written by what writer.

I'm wondering, based on your reading of the issue, who you think wrote the vast majority of it?



If anyone is basing their opinion on an interview or posting by a member of the creative team, please link it in the comments.

Webzines

May's Sequential Tart is posted, and for gamers the first issue of Cerise is posted.

Cerise is also asking for submissions for its June issue, but May 15th.

And if you still have time to read, Planet Karen did a few lessons on "Misunderstanding Comics" the other week, in case you missed it.

He makes my Steve Trevor argument for me.

This link was mailed to me:

"In the comics, the easiest way to bring real life into the life of the hero is to give him a spouse," said Avi Arad, another producer on the "Spider-Man" franchise.

"Lois Lane and the other women, in the comic books, the woman is the other world that represents all of us, and she is there to support, she is there to demand, she is there to observe and to make you think of her as an ambassador of the rest of us," said Arad, who also headed Marvel Studios, the comic-book empire's Hollywood branch, until last year. "Otherwise, there is never a personal story to bring all of us into the room."

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Steve Trevor can not be replaced in this aspect and we lost so much when they threw him to the background after Crisis.

Edit: I commented on Tom's reaction post, and though I'd share what I said with you:

Steve's not there to complete Diana, he's there to complete culture Basically, if you look at the original Avi Arad quote, he says women. Not a general character type, but general female character type.

Steve was the male character who served that role for the iconic female superhero. He's gone now.

The iconic male superheroes have specific dramatic setup in their casts. Oour iconic female superheros (Wonder Woman, Supergirl, Batgirl -- Hell, even Storm over at Marvel) do not have the same dramatic setup. There is no dude-in-distress to balance the damsel-in-distress.

Diana doesn't need Steve Trevor. We do.

That's the point I thought was self-evident that actually isn't.

Wow, Dorian has a lot of friends.

Dorian's latest post answers a question that has been driving me insane.

I only read your blog to forward links to posts to my friends. And then we make fun of you. Because that's all your blog is good for.

I'd been wondering where all those "no referral site" hits were coming from.

Realism

The Heroine Next Door is discussing realism in roleplaying games:

Meanwhile, in Gaming Group Two, we're playing a game set in South America in the 1970s. Again, not the most egalitarian society in terms of women's rights. Needless to say I'm the only female player (and character). Am I surprised that the non-player characters harrass and try to flirt with my character, no, not really. Does it have to be mentioned all the time? No. Does it have to happen every scene? No. Would it kill the GM to just lay off? Okay, we get it, the NPCs ignore what I say because I'm female, and only pay attention to me when they want to flirt. Listen, we're playing a game, folks, make believe: can't we make believe that I'm being treated with a bit of respect, can't we stop dwelling on all the sexist crap and treat me like a human, here?

Really, that's what it is about, respect and being treated like a human. In either group, these guys show up to a session and they sit down and have fun gaming. When they leave, they never feel like they've been belitted or lessened because of who they are. They never get made uncomfortable for being male, they never sit there feeling like a hunk of meat, and they never have to even worry about being put in a situation that would make them feel sexually harrassed (I mean, except for Deliverance-type situations, I suppose. But, funny enough, those never seem to arrive). Meanwhile, because I'm female, situations arise all the time that make me uncomfortable.

Its easy to see where this applies to video games and anything set in a fantasy or historical setting.

Of course, she gets me thinking about comic books (lint gets me thinking about comic books). People tend to pull out the "realism" defense when discussing violence, especially rape, in comic book stories. "We want to deal with realistic issues," they say.

My response to that is if they really wish to draw attention to the problem of sexual assault and do some good about it, try volunteering, fundraising, or writing a check to RAINN or Men Can Stop Rape. Stick to these rules when it comes to your writing. Because thus far the major comic book companies have managed to flummox at least 99% of the depictions, and those flummoxed depictions are becoming more common nowadays than radiation was in the Silver Age.

They're talking about bringing realism to worlds where characters fly, throw cars across the street, travel to other planets. We're obviously up for a little escape from the most hellish aspects of human existence here. Realism is no good reason to put any part of the plot in.

Funny though, how the weirdness of superpowers is often brought up to support the persistence of dreadful sexist art in superhero comics, at the same time realism is cited to defend the use of rape as a plot point. Now, the same people aren't always using both arguments, but its a fascinating tendency of comics companies to use both in their own defense.

Looks like realism is okay, so long as it alienates women. And it looks like fantasy is okay, so long as it alienates women. I can see the ground rules are being adhered to.

Time to change them.

Hey, Green Lantern Fans

Moose Baumann has some preview art up on his MySpace.

Wow.

Cheryl Lynn found a fashion line that must be using the same ad agency as Sony.

Oh, and for those of you who missed 52...

Here is the new image of the Justice League's very first adventure:


I'm sure its no surprise by Saturday, but I've only see it mentioned on 52 Pick-Up so far. That's weird. I figured I'd see more rejoicing at this. I mean, it fixes Diana's spot in the universe without robbing Dinah of hers. We still have the JSA generational connection in the JLA founders. And best of all the two characters are no longer treated as interchangeable based on gender.

Of course, this means its just a matter of time before we see another JLA: Year One story, probably in JLA: Classified. That could be a blessing or a curse based on who they hire to do it.

They may be in need of a comics article.

Found through Feminist Writers:

Deadline: June 15, 2007

About off our backs: Off our backs is a newsjournal by, for, and about women. It has been published continuously since 1970, making it the longest surviving feminist newspaper in the United States. It is run by a collective where all decisions are made by consensus. The mission of off our backs is:

* to provide news and information about women's lives and feminist activism
* to educate the public about the status of women around the world
* to serve as a forum for feminist ideas and theory
* to be an information resource on feminist, women's, and lesbian culture; and
* to seek social justice and equality for women worldwide.

About the special theme issue: Feminisms and Cultures Culture is what we do and the importance of what we do. Feminist culture has always been important to the feminist movement. Cultural Feminism seeks to both re-discover women’s cultural contributions from earlier eras and to build a contemporary women’s culture. In the current millennium, womyn’s culture and cultural feminism continue to change and evolve providing new and important insights for feminist struggles and feminist liberations. This special issue of off our backs will explore the contemporary connections between feminisms and cultures considering the broadest possible definitions and intersections of those two words. Some of the questions we wish to consider include:

* What are feminist(s) culture(s) today?
* Where are cultural expressions of feminism found today?
* What is the role of music, art, film, literature, and poetry in feminism today?
* How does feminist cultural production confront patriarchy and other systems of oppression?
* How do feminist cultures support and sustain our political and economic work for liberation from patriarchy?

We are interested in articles that explore and engage feminist cultural production from the past and in our contemporary world. We are interested in personal accounts of artists, writers, and feminist cultural workers about the meaning and significance of their work currently. We are interested in analysis of feminisms and cultures. We are interested in reports of feminist cultural work in the United States and around the world. For our special issue on Feminisms and Cultures, we are looking for manuscripts of 500 to 2,000 words. If you are interested in writing a longer piece, please query first.

Deadline: June 15, 2007.

For manuscript submission guidelines, please visit the off our backs website here: http://www.offourbacks.org/Write.htm

Submit manuscripts to offourbacks@cs.com AND to JREnszer@aol.com Questions, queries, comments?

Please email the special editor of this themed issue, Julie R. Enszer at JREnszer@aol.com

Please distribute this call for manuscripts widely.
off our backs
2337B 18th Street
NW Washington, DC 20009
voice: 202-234-8072
fax: 202-234-8092
email: offourbacks@cs.com
web: www.offourbacks.org

Friday Night Fights, Round 7!

As Bahlactus demands:

After a post in which really only the Anonymous commenters agree with me, and I don't feel inclined to change my opinion, I like to post something lazy, mindless and frivolous. So, fill in the blanks (original image courtesy of Sally):



If you must insist on substance, I have a pleasantly short post long essay up on censorship on Blog@Newsarama. There are no pictures with it.

A Wonderful Wednesday

Sometimes we forget what we're dealing with when we read about the Amazons. They're a family, right? Diana's island full of good-natured kick-ass Aunts? Sure, when we look at them through Diana's eyes.

Through a stranger's eyes, things look different.

These are not a peaceful people. The Themiscryans are a warrior race patroned by a war-goddess, a hunting-goddess, a love goddess who is not the nicest of love goddesses, and a mother goddess who didn't mind letting the entire world starve to death over her daughter. They're also the reincarnated souls of women who were violently killed by men, and who have characteristically distrusted the male gender since Perez was writing. They had peace because they were on an isolated island. The Bana-Migdall tribe, which is now intermingling with the Themiscyran tribe, was not nearly so peaceful when we met them. They are also, by tradition, a Monarchy.

As far as they know, they have just been grievously wronged as a people again, through the treatment of a member of their Royal Family.

There've been complaints about Amazons Attack. On this one point, I must respectfully disagree (and insist those complaining learn continuity and context). The Amazons are not a sweet, peaceful people. They like quiet afternoons and intellectual pursuits, but they will not hesitate to kick ass when wronged.

After Wonder Woman #8, it makes perfect sense and is in character. Granted, that first scene made me cringe, but I'm suspecting another divine enemy's hand in all of this, someone last seen very close to the primary villain here. Beyond that, it is perfectly logical they'd attack the USA, given the events in Infinite Crisis and the end of Wonder Woman #7, and especially given the development in Wonder Woman #8.

Remember, an ongoing theme in Wonder Woman since the 80s has been that Diana carries the olive branch to both groups. She preaches peace at home and abroad. Without her, the island would not be open to talking to the other countries.

There's also a really obvious and traditional resolution ahead of us. I hope Pfeiffer plans on it, because it takes this mess and ends it with something other than "Feminism is a bad thing." I can see why so many people are annoyed, because the implication is there, but as long as I can see a few options past that I'm with Pfeifer.

If the moral does end up being "Feminism is a bad thing" I very much doubt I'll be persuaded to read anything by that writer again.

There's really nothing that can prevent mass Amazon casualties, though. Unnamed Amazons are the Red Shirts of the DC Universe, even more so than non-human Green Lanterns.

That is the problem I see developing.

Pfeifer treating the Amazons as an allegory of All Feminism? Not such a workable analysis at this point. We have to see how Diana factors into this first, and how her viewpoint is treated. She's clearly marked as a peacemaker, but how's she going to approach it? Is Diana going to be allowed to represent Feminism here, rather than the Amazons? Too many options yet, and I figure the writer deserves the benefit of the doubt on this one. He hasn't actually made a mistake so far, its the First Act, and this day's reading started with a wonderful revelation.

Too bad about the fourth page, though. I do hope there's an external influence to explain that. But we are dealing with a raid from a three-thousand year-old warrior civilization here. They didn't have the Geneva Conventions three thousand years ago. Its nasty as hell and Diana certainly won't approve, but its still in character.

Open Letter to DC Comics

Dear DC,

If what I saw is true, I love you and I forgive Jodi Piccoult's stupid meta-jokes and will assume Diana was hit on the head right before Wonder Woman #6, because this development must never be edited out of continuity.

Sincerely,
Ragnell the Foul.

PS. This had better not be a trick.

Sour Realization

I was devouring Patrick Gleason's art in Green Lantern Corps #11 (for only the third time this week) when I reached this panel and realized something awful.

Those two faces? Both belong to female characters.

Gleason draws them differently, and I was gushing over his ability to give female characters different noses, eyes, and chins.

I love this guy's artwork, but really this should be the standard, not exceptional. Its the same with body types. We should not be gushing over an artist just because they draw a women with differing bra sizes.

They should all be drawing women as individual characters. And we should be able to dismiss anyone who can't differentiate Black Canary and the Invisible Woman outside of costume as a lazy bastard or a talentless hack (or both) without running into legions of rabid fans who swear that they draw the best women in the business and should be given Wonder Woman or Birds of Prey in recognition of that.

Yeesh, that annoys me.

Love Gleason's art, though. Just found his blog today.

Odds and Ends/Requests and Demands

I saw Hot Fuzz. Everyone with similar tastes to mine should see this movie. Especially my father. If you're reading, Dad, go see that movie. Funny cops in rural England. I think you'll like it.

Also saw and enjoyed Meet the Robinsons. Mom, if you're reading, I suggest you see this movie while Dad sees Hot Fuzz, since there's a fair amount of gore in Dad's movie, and this one is a cute time travel movie.

Okay, I need participants for a little sociological experiment. Mario Wytch wants people to read his and Mykal Adams' webcomics, and email him (his address is by the little picture of him on the contact page) with what comic they laughed at, and their gender (If that makes you uncomfortable, comment here and I'll send him this link). There's only four comics up so far, so it shouldn't take long.

Finally, tomorrow (Monday the 23rd) is my birthday, and would be an appropriate day to post a rear-view image of your favorite Green Lantern, if you are so inclined. (Hey, its worth a shot!)

Edit (25 April 2007) -- Thanks, everyone who wished me Happy Birthday! (And this one was a sharp eye, took me a second look to see it!)

Who Does Mary Love?

Yeah, this one is Sleestak's fault.

Well, someone was going to do that one. It was just a matter of who got it first. And its not like anyone remembers what his mask looks like now.

I Thought I Knew Her

From Wonder Woman #7:Does anyone seriously think Wonder Woman, as characterized up to now, would do that? He made a joke. A stupid, sexist joke, but that doesn't deserve that kind of treatment.

I admit, Wonder Woman is a very strange character. Nearly every writer makes a point of talking about how hard she is to define, and a common complaint on message boards is that she's a cipher. She's been said to be the hardest character at DC to write.

Personally, I just see Diana as a complex and multifaceted individual, much like the ones you meet every day. Not entirely predictable, and you see different sides of her personality in different situations. Most writers have had a slightly different take on her, to the point that I've seen it described as "schizophrenic," but I always looked at her as a person made up of the gifts of seven very different deities (her six patrons, plus Ares who as her enemy seems as much a part of her as the others). With that in mind, the different portrayals fit together nicely, and there's even a single underlying personality trait.

You see, the secret is that, even though none of us can say we know who Wonder Woman is, its always been very clear that she knows who she is. There's trouble connecting with other people, and the gods, and her purpose, but Diana has always been centered in herself. Confident. She knew exactly what she was inside.

Its a great departure from a lot of the other characters in comics, always soul-searching. Diana had her soul, her problem was where it fit with everyone else's. The world would fall apart, and Diana always knew who she was and what she was doing. to the end of Rucka's run, she knew. It was comforting.

Even in Heinberg's story, where she professes she needs to find herself and get to know herself, that confidence and comfort is there. She has herself, she knows herself in her heart, she just can't define herself and how she relates to others anymore, so she intellectually wonders. But she knows.

It was the one consistency in Wonder Woman's characterization, and now its gone. All of that wistful mirror-gazing and angsting and confusion and loss of real-life skill has knocked that confidence away from Wonder Woman.

All of the other writers may have been confused as to exactly who Wonder Woman was, but hey, even Mark Waid who wrote her in a dystopian future where she'd lost her way and professed that he didn't understand the character seemed to understand that Diana knew who she was and was comfortable in her own skin.

Its how we, as fans, can disagree on a description of her personality but look at a scene like the one above and immediately know that that's not right That's not Diana.

Who is Diana? Who is Wonder Woman?

Hell if I know who she is, but I know who she isn't and I know she knows who she is.

Its not the usual characterization for a woman. According to what I've seen of women in fiction, we're unsure of ourselves. We're uncomfortable with ourselves. We're uncomfortable with our bodies. We're uncomfortable with our sexuality. We don't know what we're capable of. We second-guess ourselves. We surprise ourselves. We hate ourselves. We hurt ourselves and the people around us. Society seems designed to make us that way and that's what I see in most female characters. Every woman's story in fiction seems to be a coming into herself. Learning those traits.

Wonder Woman is not supposed to be like that. Wonder Woman is supposed to already be the woman other women in fiction learn to be. She's at the point where you are done working on your inside and ready to work on the outside world.

Wonder Woman is not for a deep, thoughful, soul-searching journey where, through the character, you learn your own self-worth despite the crap thrown on you by society. Wonder Woman is for when you want to sit down and vicariously kick misogyny's ass, because it seems like the world is working against you're fed up with not being able to make a change for the better externally.

That may be hard to plot, but really, how hard is it to understand?

Poor Zauriel

Admittedly, the classroom scene was worth the price of the issue.