Okay, I admit that I have very little familiarity with Power Girl. I have never read any of her stuff before, and only know the history I've read about her either on the internet or in various TPs or other comics where it's mentioned. I know her chest size is some kind of running joke, which... grates, but. Whatever. "Eyes up here." Yeah, it's just so funny every single time. Har har.
SoI have to ask. Is the entire title meant to be a commentary on feminism, an attack on feminism, or is it just stupid?
Because. Seriously.
DC released its September solicits on Monday (?), including this gem of an arc title: "Space Girls Gone Wild". (Okay, okay, this started in the August solicits, but I didn't read those. And it didn't have a cover with the "trio of sexy alien marauders".) Cool. I mean, it's not like Girls Gone Wild is a misogynistic series of videos that takes advantage of inebriated and peer-pressured young women for the voyeuristic pleasure of men (and some women, maybe?). Sure, they've got their staged porn scenes with actors, but most of the draw are the real women that do various sex acts for the hordes of men watching in person and at home.
So I'm really excited for this arc, needless to say. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the actual videos and more to do with having a catchy tag line, but really DC. If I were your target audience (a horny guy?) I'd probably still be annoyed. Or maybe I'd be busy watching GGW. I don't know, because I know I'm definitely not your target audience (let's talk post Detective Comics, btw).
Like it's not bad enough that Power Girl's chest is still a running joke in 2009?
So I went into PG #2 this week already in a bad mood. And what do I get? Bestiality! A giant ape (get it! ape! like! chest beating man!) that's really a dorky, sickly guy who's trying to overcompensate! Bestiality and blood play! Hysterical mom-scientists and rational guy-scientists! Jokes about how PG doesn't use her brain! Blondie remarks! Chest jokes!
By the way, I think I managed to get the variant cover, which didn't have a slightly-cranky looking PG with a ferocious Ultra-Humanite behind her (edit: that one was by the interior artist, a woman, thanks for the correction, Michelle). Instead I got an almost Alex Rosseque and statuesque PG with her fists on her hips and cape flowing in the wind (and, you know, giant breasts, because yeah).
I suppose I can take comfort in the fact that PG will eventually beat the Big Bad Ape-man. I suppose I can also take comfort in the fact that Karen Starr is sort of a kick ass liberal business woman (I don't know if she's a feminist yet, I haven't seen enough of her, but it seems like she is in the over-the-top way that men write feminists, you know... actually, this should be out of the parenthetical).
Just to grossly generalize (how's it feel?), men seem to have two ways of writing feminist characters in comics (with two exceptions): either as man-haters or as hard-working women just trying to get by who constantly (and I mean constantly) have to deal with sexism, but don't want to. Karen Starr seems to fall into the latter category. Nevermind the fact that there are many shades of feminism (which leads me to my exceptions, because I think Greg Rucka and Paul Dini both do great jobs with strong women that I think would be called feminists if everyone weren't so afraid of that word).
So if there are any long-time Power Girl readers out there, I'd really like to know:
WTF?
SoI have to ask. Is the entire title meant to be a commentary on feminism, an attack on feminism, or is it just stupid?
Because. Seriously.
DC released its September solicits on Monday (?), including this gem of an arc title: "Space Girls Gone Wild". (Okay, okay, this started in the August solicits, but I didn't read those. And it didn't have a cover with the "trio of sexy alien marauders".) Cool. I mean, it's not like Girls Gone Wild is a misogynistic series of videos that takes advantage of inebriated and peer-pressured young women for the voyeuristic pleasure of men (and some women, maybe?). Sure, they've got their staged porn scenes with actors, but most of the draw are the real women that do various sex acts for the hordes of men watching in person and at home.So I'm really excited for this arc, needless to say. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the actual videos and more to do with having a catchy tag line, but really DC. If I were your target audience (a horny guy?) I'd probably still be annoyed. Or maybe I'd be busy watching GGW. I don't know, because I know I'm definitely not your target audience (let's talk post Detective Comics, btw).
Like it's not bad enough that Power Girl's chest is still a running joke in 2009?
So I went into PG #2 this week already in a bad mood. And what do I get? Bestiality! A giant ape (get it! ape! like! chest beating man!) that's really a dorky, sickly guy who's trying to overcompensate! Bestiality and blood play! Hysterical mom-scientists and rational guy-scientists! Jokes about how PG doesn't use her brain! Blondie remarks! Chest jokes!
By the way, I think I managed to get the variant cover, which didn't have a slightly-cranky looking PG with a ferocious Ultra-Humanite behind her (edit: that one was by the interior artist, a woman, thanks for the correction, Michelle). Instead I got an almost Alex Rosseque and statuesque PG with her fists on her hips and cape flowing in the wind (and, you know, giant breasts, because yeah).
I suppose I can take comfort in the fact that PG will eventually beat the Big Bad Ape-man. I suppose I can also take comfort in the fact that Karen Starr is sort of a kick ass liberal business woman (I don't know if she's a feminist yet, I haven't seen enough of her, but it seems like she is in the over-the-top way that men write feminists, you know... actually, this should be out of the parenthetical).
Just to grossly generalize (how's it feel?), men seem to have two ways of writing feminist characters in comics (with two exceptions): either as man-haters or as hard-working women just trying to get by who constantly (and I mean constantly) have to deal with sexism, but don't want to. Karen Starr seems to fall into the latter category. Nevermind the fact that there are many shades of feminism (which leads me to my exceptions, because I think Greg Rucka and Paul Dini both do great jobs with strong women that I think would be called feminists if everyone weren't so afraid of that word).
So if there are any long-time Power Girl readers out there, I'd really like to know:
WTF?
WTF indeed. I'm equally at a loss as to what the writers think they're doing. I didn't like the issue either, for all the reasons mentioned above (I didn't even get the blood play thing: I was just really uncomfortable with all the torture and pain and terrified helplessness and constantly COVERING POWER GIRL'S FACE). And what was up with the "hysterical mom-scientists and rational guy-scientists"?
ReplyDeleteThe upcoming "Space Girls Gone Wild" storyline is not reassuring. From these first two issues it definitely looks like the writers are going for "hard-working women just trying to get by who constantly (and I mean constantly) have to deal with sexism, but don't want to.", and that's not what I expected from a Power Girl comic.
(BTW the cover you didn't get is by Amanda Connor, the interior artist.)
I feel like female-fronted titles are an excellent chance for writers to, I don't know, show us that it's not still 1955 in their heads. But they don't seem to follow through on this so much. I think it's all part of the attachment to the golden/silver age, and the "average" comic geek/writer's inability or unwillingness to realize that there are women out there reading comic books (and feminist men as well) that may not want to see the same tired old stereotypes we've been seeing for sixty years. One step forward and two back is still a step back.
ReplyDelete(Thanks for the info on the covers. I read the info wrong on the DC page, I think.)
If you don't mind my asking, how would you define feminism? I'm male, and though I've always believed that persons should be treated the same regardless of their sex, ancestry, etc., I've never been comfortable with the term 'feminist', nor have I been entirely clear what it entails.
ReplyDeleteI think part of the difficulty I have with the term is its association with females particularly, rather than with equality in general. Is discrimination against males (for females) opposed by feminism, or only discrimination against females (for males)?
The Oxford Dictionary of American English says that feminism is "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men," which sounds like it considers equality paramount, but which also makes clear that it's focused on women . . . which doesn't seem to track.
I'm curious what you think of this, given your allusion to types of feminism (and to feminism in general). Would a story in which male and female characters are simply treated equally be feminist? If so, would a character in the story be a feminist if they, like the story, paid no attention to sex except where relevant (attraction, medical care, etc.)?
@guardian.orion I hope you don't mind the delay. I've been thinking about the best way to answer this. There isn't really one way to define feminism. I suppose everyone takes it sort of personally and interprets it how they'd like. There are certainly textbook (and dictionary :) ) definitions of it, but I've found it to be a very individual thing, usually based on peoples' personal experiences and education.
ReplyDeleteI think it IS about equality generally, but it's not flat out, across-the-board equality. The fact is that males and females are biologically different, and that men and women have are treated differently by society (I should give the caveat right now that I differentiate between biological sex and social gender). To, I think, explain the Oxford definition, feminism is focused on women because women are not equal. It's focused on getting us there. One of the oft-used and still-true factoids is that women make 70 cents to the male dollar while working in equivalent jobs. Female attorneys are passed over for partnership because of fear they might have children. Women are expected to be both full time mothers and to have full time jobs (depending on the socio-economic class of the family), while men are just expected to have jobs and help out with traditionally make jobs when they get the time/inclination.
Those examples are generalizations, of course, but they exist still.
I don't think a story where a character paid no attention to sex or gender would be feminist. It would be, for lack of a better word, white washing reality. That would be like asking if a story where people pay no attention to race would be considered racially progressive. No... race still exists. People are treated different based on race, gender, and sex (and sexuality and religion and yadda yadda). Similarly, characters doing the same thing would feel wrong and fall flat to me, as a feminist.
So to me, and I have no idea if this has been insightful at all, feminism is about recognizing the differences between sexes and genders and writing stories that don't pigeonhole females or women based on those differences. It's not just about women having the ability to wear pants, it's about them not being an object of desire or derision just because they choose to wear a short skirt. Unfortunately, that desire/derision can come from both men and women.
(Tangentially, I think men should be able to choose to wear skirts, too, but it's going to take a long time before society's cool with that.)
I don't have this idea of a perfect world where men and women are absolutely the same. I don't think that's possible, and I'm not sure I'd want that anyway (a world of one biological sex, I guess). Feminism is about making the world we do live in a better one for women, where women aren't sexualized or maternalized in fiction, where they earn as much as men for doing the same job, where they're not judged for choosing a career over a family, etc. etc.
I have no idea if this made any sense. Please feel free to ask for clarification. I appreciate that you asked in the first place, and I wish I could be more clear.