Miriam’s post on Storm dressing hot and acting like a man generated some interesting comments. In particular, Nick said:
“in soap, and in soapy superhero comics – especially the shallowly written and safe ones, which is most of them – I don’t tend to see much real difference in the way one or another character is written, along gender, race or any other lines.
At most, you’ll see a distinction between character archetypes – the idealist, the cynic, the brawler etc – before you’ll see one along a gender line. Certainly, to follow Miriam’s example, there were points where Storm could have been male, or Cyclops female, and you’d never really know it. Solo books would tend toward male protagonists, but that seemed incidental to me – Peter Parker didn’t seem particularly masculine in his behaviour, and the women in his life seemed to pretty much run rings around him.”
It’s an interesting point, but I think it is based on a too rigid sense of how the male/female divide can work. It’s possible to be gendered male and be wimpy like Peter Parker, for example; in fact, Parker’s nerdishness is all about having women mob him despite/because of his nebbishness; it would all look very different if Parker were a woman. Similarly, the whole Jean Gray corruption story is intensely sexualized (through fetish clothing, but also thorugh power dynamics and through the idea that corruption equals sexualiztion) in a way which couldn’t have happened with a male character. Kitty Pryde’s naif pose is also very female; Storm’s particular kind of caring/non-violent persona is also very female. Wolverine would be a lot different if he were a woman (he’d be overtly sexualized, for one thing.) So would Cyclops, whose blankly boring uptightness is only made feasible by his maleness (maleness being the default setting for super-heroes.) To justify being a woman, he’d have to be more interesting.
It’s also worth pointing out that American culture finds women who act like men really appealing. The fact that Storm behaves like a guy in some ways (kicking ass, being one of the boys) while parading around almost in the altogether is part of the appeal. I mean, yes, there’s also a fetish associated with deferential women…but overall, pop culture in the U.S. is a lot more sexually into butch than femme.
The point here I guess is that gender presuppositions and stereotypes are a lot harder to get away from than just saying, “Hey, look, we’re all superheroes here!” Miriam writes that:
“I think the worst lesson I learned from growing up on Marvel comics is not that women are sex objects, but that women can dress in lingerie and not be sexualized by those around them. “
And it’s true to some extent; Storm isn’t a sexual object to the other X-Men, in that she’s not groped or talked down to. But she *is* a sexualized object for the male reader…and, I suspect, at least in some ways for the female reader as well. (There’s a similar dynamic in covers for women’s magazines, I think. Sexualized female bodies are used to attract both men and women.)
I guess the point here is that you don’t get away from gender, or sexism, just by letting women fight the bad-guys and lead the team and kick ass. And, indeed, I don’t know that getting away from sexism is even exactly the point. The problem with super-hero comics and gender isn’t that they’re sexist — I mean, most things are sexist. The problem is that they’re dumb; you get the same gender stereotypes repeated over and over without a whole lot of thought or insight. (Hey! Mary Marvel is corrupt and sexualized now, I hear!) Sexist is one thing; boring is another.
I accidentally posted an incomplete version of this earlier; sorry for the confusion, if any was caused.
Yeah, I take your point… if I start thinking hard about it, I can find a few examples where my on-the-spot theory doesn’t really stand up.
It’s a quite self-centered – and I don’t mean that in a negative sense, necessarily – point of view that I’m coming from, I think. To personally see that stuff, I have to go looking for it – my formative response to Kitty Pryde, for example, was that although I found her cute, I really just related to her, but that probably says more about my social positioning at that stage of my life.
The comment that Miriam made, and the reason she characterises it as a bad lesson, is about a similar thing, I think – her response to the comics wasn’t inherently wrong, it was just out of step with the way the real world actually is, in a way that she couldn’t possibly have known about!
I grew up with a dad doing shift work, a mum and two sisters, so I guess it never really occurred to me that there was a world where men held hegemonic sway over women! And I suspect the American cultural preferences that you mention make for a more defined viewpoint on the subject than my watery middle-class English one!
And I take your point that Storm is more of a sexualized object to the audience than she is to her teammates (of course, I would, because it’s one that I was – somewhat less concisely – trying to make elsewhere!). The question becomes whether or not that response was one that Claremont et al were deliberately trying to trigger, or that they just came across because they happened to be heterosexual men writing and drawing comics.
I do approach such issues with quite a pragmatic eye – and I totally agree with your conclusion that the issue isn’t sexism so much as it’s dumbness. While cogitating over at the other blog, I had to admit that if I was right – and in some ways I still think that I might be – it’s almost worse that the characters are written in such a non-descript and interchangeable way.
Thinking about it, I think Claremont did much worse on the old racial stereotyping dialogue front than he did on gender. Which is kind of funny, because at the time I thought the X-Men were refreshingly diverse!
I guess I’m not sure that the line you draw between trying to sexualize Storm and just being heterosexual men sexualizing Storm really matters, or even exists. Genre tropes, stereotypes, gender preconceptions, what’s sexy and what isn’t; that stuff isn’t handed down from above. It’s ways of thinking. People use that stuff to write stories.
Richard Reynolds makes the same point as Miriam in his (generally pretty mediocre book) Superheroes: A Modern Mythology (U of Mississippi P). He talks about Storm and Scarlet Witch, in fact, as examples of women in dental floss and everyone acting as if there’s nothing inherently exploitative or sexual about it. He points specifically to the ways in which this plays on the reader’s flattering sense of themselves. (“Hey, these women are strong and powerful—this is not me (or the artist) being sexist!”)–but obviously it’s all a bunch of hypocrisy…I have to admit though, I never thought about what screwy “life-lessons” this could be giving to young girl readers—expecting not to be ogled when they wear stringy and insubstantial clothes. I guess I never thought anyone could take these things literally in that way…but heck, when you’re a kid…
noah, you said I guess the point here is that you don’t get away from gender, or sexism, just by letting women fight the bad-guys and lead the team and kick ass.
yes, although now that i'm made to think about it, i don't know what could make a superhero story anti-sexist. i think leading the team is a lot more important than kicking ass, because the kicking ass, like the leather onesies, is so completely inapplicable to the actual world.
in real-life sexual assault situations, even women with rigourous training often fail to kick the ass of an assailant who is bigger & got the drop on them. & in sexual harassment situations, responding with violence would get you fired, or arrested, or beat up.
i do wonder about the ass-kicking heroine & her appeal to fanboys & why she *isn't* a symbol of real empowerment or equality. i'd love to hear some thoughts about it.
& you say that the point isn't that comics are sexist, but that they're dumb. for me, the point *is* that comics are sexist, because people & impressionable youngsters read them, & they could stand to be inculcated with a bit of anti-sexism, or just a bit less sexism than they're otherwise absorbing.
Has anybody read anything with X-23, the female clone of Wolverine? I haven’t, but in light of these posts, I wonder how that character is being handled.
Can superhero comics avoid being sexist? There’s a pretty good question, but, of course, anti-sexist superhero comics have been written. Moore’s Swamp Thing certainly is… and probably The Invisibles to some degree. But these comics might not be “called” superhero comics since they don’t have people in tights. They have “superpowers” but not “underwear on the outside,” which seems to inevitably lead to these kinds of problems. Miracleman is also an interesting case, since it does involve tights…but the key here seems to be that the “strong women” in these books are not the “superheroines”–Instead they wear regular clothes and show themselves to be human, vulnerable, psychologically complex, AND resilient, intelligent, resourceful, etc. (I think of Abby Arcane Cable and Liz Moran to a lesser degree). Once “Miraclewoman” appears, looking hot in tights, some of the same problems inevitably are introduced.
This makes me think of the new female Question…who wears a three piece suit and a mask that obscures her facial features. How can she be objectified then? Well…by making her an excuse to portray voyeuristic lesbian sex. A flip through of Greg Rucka’s collection of Question stories confirms that despite the lack of tights, he’s managed to turn the character into an excuse for some typical masculine fantasizing. Getting Batwoman in on the action is just a bonus
Can I quote myself?
I wrote about some related issues when talking about Linda Hamilton in T-2:
Hamilton really looks like a normal woman who decided she needed to get buff.
Now, why do I even bother to bring this up? Well, because look at how most other action movies have chosen to depict “butt kicking babes”: usually, they’re these graceful, acrobatic, fashion model ninja ballerinas of mayhem – like Carrie-Anne Moss in The Matrix, Uma Thurman in Kill Bill, or Zhang Ziyi in Crouching Tiger. The other popular choice is just to kind wink at the whole idea that physicality is at all relevant: this is what Joss Whedon does with Sarah Michelle Gellar in Buffy and Summer Glau in Serenity: there’s supposed to big this big disconnect between what they look like (girlie-girl, tiny hippie chick) and the amount of violence they can do.
I admit: I like all these movies/shows. But, ugh, I also think that there’s at least a little bit of underhandedness here. The creators of these characters probably see them as “strong women”, but they’re all kind of fantasy women and it is a very male/geek fantasy: Uma Thurman is not only HOT but she’s into swords and kung-fu instead of “girl stuff” and likes to solve problems by killing them instead of talking them through! (Buffy is a bit different: she’s into the “girl stuff”, but that’s always under threat and eventually she has to give most of it up to become a better warrior!)
Hey Miriam. Yes, of course the sexism matters to me too. I get too concerned with covering my butt on the PC charge. And also I tend to just somewhat cynically assume that if it’s a comic it’s going to be sexist, so I should just move on. Either way, though, I should be called on it.
I think the lack of unsexist super-hero stories has a lot more to do with the intended audience than with the particular problems of the genre. Male genre literature is…not always, but really almost always sexist. (As opposed to female genre literature, where it’s more like 50-50.)
Jon, I think Buffy had a bunch of problems, was in some ways sexist, and wasn’t really all that good…but it didn’t fetishize Buffy’s tough-guy ass-kicking the way Storm gets fetishized. Buffy was always fully dressed. She also wasn’t just one of the guys; she had strong female friendships — a *big* thing missing from most super-hero titles. Again, I think this has a lot to do with the audience, which was definitely tilted female.
As for non-sexist super-heroes…I never saw Birds of Prey…? Any thoughts on that? There’s also Cardcaptor Sakura of course. Promethea maybe? She’s definitely sexualized, but it’s done thoughtfully and is fairly complicated…. Um…
You know, those Jeff Parker FF stories I was so enthusiastic about; I don’t think his Sue Richards is especially sexualized. She doesn’t exactly kick ass in a fetishizable way; she hangs out with her husband and her brother and her relationships with them are pretty reasonable… HIs scripting of the way she interacts with Namor when he’s after her is funny and didn’t read as sexist…I mean, she comes across as definitely gendered, and fits into some stereotypes (caring, desirable, scientist’s wife) but she gets to play a lot of roles and seems pretty realistic overall. I dunno…anybody else read those stories and care to weigh in?
Oh, and Bryan; I looked up X-23 on Wikipedia. This item caught my eye:
“X-23 surfaces in New York City and is taken in by a pimp named Zebra Daddy; she works as a prostitute who specializes in cutting masochistic patrons. X-23 continues to cut herself with her own claws, is mostly mute, and proves unable to free herself from the grip of Zebra Daddy. “
Pretty much says it all.
jon, eric, thanks! you both addressed a lot of the questions i'm thinking of.
eric, that's very interesting about swamp thing (one of the few alan moore books i haven't at least tried reading, & i really ought to). it wouldn't surprise me if sexy costumes are the biggest impediment to heroine dis-objectification… which saddens me, because, like i said, i imprinted on them at an early age.
jon, i think you've hit on something with the kick-ass heroine/waif physique connection. i guess a lot of fanboys (everyone gets that i don't hate men, right? ok, moving on) find the ass-kicking titillating, but don't feel threatened themselves because they also have the fact that it's a 100-pound girl in front of them at all times.
if the heroine actually looks like a bodybuilder, or even just like linda hamilton, suddenly it's a lot less ok with a lot of guys, who won't hesitate to tell you that they find her "scary" or she "looks like a man." there are exceptions, of course… i know that female bodybuilders are sexualized for some people too, cause i have also met them at comic-con.
& jon & noah both glance at the fact that it's hard for a female character to be really a beacon against inequality if she's the only girl on the team, or if she's an honourary dude when she is not flirting or in distress or something. which in my mind brings us all the way around to the bechdel test, which i only learned of last year, but has been a great tool for me in understanding & confronting sexism in popular media.
I’m struggling, here, because I’m in a dilemma. All of the examples people are giving of sexism in comics are valid observations, and if I go looking, I can find them, too.
But at the same time, I don’t know how helpful it is to put too much emphasis on it, beyond it being an interesting exercise.
Don’t get me wrong – something like X-23, who I had read about before, is pretty indefensible – though to me it always comes down to it sounding like a lazy-ass piece of character design and writing more than its gender representation. It’s not a good example of gender representation, for sure, but it doesn’t in and of itself constitute a hate-crime – it’s just retarded.
Once you go too far down an ideological road, it becomes impossible for any piece of entertainment to really measure up, to the point in the conversation where it sounds like almost any approach to a female character is suspect, and a smart writer would be better off not bothering!
Because most of the examples given of comics where female characters are treated differently than in the ones we’re complaining about don’t seem that distinct to me, beyond that they are generally featured in more deeply written books, and as such are more deeply written characters.
Struggling to remember my old Swamp Things, but as I recall, Abby Arcane wasn’t often out of peril. Though her relationship with the titular character meant that she was often off on her own having her own life, generally speaking she acted as a way into a situation that Swamp Thing was then going to have to deal with. I’m pretty sure there were heavy sexual undertones to at least a few of the perilous situations she was written into, too, that wouldn’t have happened had she been a man.
The Invisibles is a slim example, at best – because everybody in that book is sexualised, and fetishised, but in fact the characters that the book rotates around are generally the male ones. You could argue that the women there are well-rounded characters, but you could also argue that they are a melodramatic and manipulative sex-doll in bondage gear, a “safe” lesbian stereotype insomuch as she’s butch but hetero, and a transvestite whose past life is informed by a sexual assault when dressed as a woman.
Even Moore’s excellent League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen, which gives it’s one female character leadership of the team and a fierce independent streak, has her violently assaulted and powerless to stop it, and only able to seek solace through her sexuality.
Birds Of Prey would seem to be a good example of gender equality in comics, and it’s always been pretty well written when I’ve read it, but looked at another way, it seems to suggest that the only way women can have equal footing in a team is if there are only women in that team.
It’s tough for me to really forge a way through the discussion – both here and in the wider world – when it’s one that is so charged, and in which everyone has different rules.
Ultimately, I have to go with quality of writing – do I buy the situation, as it’s presented, regardless of what readings I can apply to it? If there are things about it that I find a little unpleasant or manipulative, are they outweighed by the positives?
As far as the effects of these stories on a child’s sense of self-worth or identity, the absolute best I can hope for is that if and when I have kids, I teach them to have that same level of pragmatism and awareness, and not to be too swayed by how the media seems to tell them they should behave.
I’m going to go look up the bechdel test, though, see if that gives me a clearer sense of where the discussion is. Thanks for drawing my attention to it, Miriam!
More specifically:
Noah> It's not really a firm line – my opinions are flexible on this and most things because I'm forming them constantly, which can – I'm sorry – be a little bit disarming in internet discussions because it's not the way people normally are! But I'm enjoying this – I organise my thoughts on a subject through talking about it, and comics and art aren't something I get to talk about often.
Of course, you're right that ways of thinking aren't handed down from above. I may be misunderstanding what other people here mean when they say that something is sexist – I've always taken the "-isms" as a suggestion of intent, either conscious or just deeply ingrained in the writer/artist. To my mind, right now, there's a point at which a work of "art" can't be held responsible for itself – meaning either comes from the artist or the audience.
Well, unless it comes from "editorial", of course!
My first response to your comment about male and female genre literature was, I think, completely based on a misinterpretation. Are you referring to masculine and feminine genres, or to genre fiction by male or female writers?
Eric B> I don't know how many life-lessons kids really do take from comics. From Miriam’s story, it seems that comics actually completely failed to assert their apparent sexual inequities on her, and in my case, they taught me that every personal situation can be talked out, and every imposing physical one can be beaten by retreating, regrouping, and thinking through it. These were lessons that real life quickly proved wrong!
It’s a problem across society, really. A child in a position to be swayed too far by comics or other media growing up is by definition one whose life doesn’t have any stronger influences.
Also, I’m really not sure about the new Question. I haven’t read any of the comics, but I’ve come to trust Rucka’s judgment over years of reading his novels and comics. From what you’re saying, I can certainly see a reading like that making sense, but at the same time, it sounds like if you’re going to have a lesbian character, unless you completely cut personal relationships out of the equation, there are going to be intimate scenes between two women. Are the bits in question really over-the-top?
Course, that you don't see similar scenes between gay men in mainstream comics becomes an issue at this point, but is it one of female exploitation, or one of poor gay representation?
Jon Hastings et al> I'm irrationally defensive of Buffy, so I won't go too far into this, beyond saying that while all of the subtexts that people mention are there, they've never seemed like the whole picture. My favourite character was always Willow, and I think that at the time she was a pretty unusual representation of femininity, that though she became a bit of a pin-up, wasn’t fulfilling any common male fantasy at the time – though of course, making her gay skewed any reading of the character.
Watching through the show at the moment, and I have to say that any objectification that goes on there seems balanced out against the ways in which the men are treated – Whedon doesn’t seem to have inserted any particularly successful proxies for himself in there, when even Xander can be seen buff and posing in briefs midway through the second season. Male characters in the show seem to be pretty regularly emasculated.
Hey Nick. Not sure this will answer anything, but I talk more about comics and gender here
Just read it, Noah. Great post!
It outlines a great tool to have in one’s kit for discussing cultural objects! I think it’s always handy to have a few different ways of looking at a thing – so thanks for providing another one!
Two things
1) I don’t really like Greg Rucka…so I don’t trust him as Nick! does.
2) Abby is sometimes in peril…and sometimes Swampy saves her…but there are some great episodes where Abby saves herself (and other women in peril)… and the way things are presented suggests repeatedly that she is not merely a damsel in distress, but a living, breathing, thinking, resourceful organism. Two examples–one in the very early days with the monkey-nightmare thing the Demon helps to defeat. Yes, Abby runs to get Swampy—but then she doesn’t scream, faint, and show her legs…Instead she rescues children, keeps her wits about her, etc. 2nd, when Swampy is “dead” and in outer space, Abby saves Liz Tremayne from her psychopathic control freak husband, Dennis, and helps bring Liz back into the realm of intelligent, empowered women. I just don’t see any way that Abby is a typical exploited damsel in distress type. Mina Harker certainly is a different story, as I discussed at great length over at Noah’s Gay Utopia blog thing.
Abby also surprisingly doesn’t fall apart when Swampy “dies” and she stands up to Batman too.
Eric B> Totally agreed. I wasn't by any means suggesting that Abby wasn't a strong female character – I was trying to make the point that with any character, writer or series, you can often find support for either side of this debate, depending on how deeply or shallowly you’re willing to examine your examples. I mean, that’s the nature of any discussion, sure, but I think it sometimes bears mentioning.
That Abby didn’t always fall apart doesn’t change the fact that her inability – I’d say as a human, but you could say as the physically weaker party in the relationship – to deal with certain situations by herself was often used as a conduit through which to get her husband involved in a situation.