So I started to to follow When Fangirls Attack, which is a great aggregator of, well. Women-in-comics links. And I've been reading through the various Detective Comics/Batwoman related things, and maaaaan is everyone in love with her/the book.
Except by "everyone" I mean "all the guys who are writing reviews." There are women that write reviews of comics, right? Somewhere? In the week and a half since the book came out, most of the reviews I've read have been by males. And the few negative or neutral reviews I've read have been the ones by women, or by people whose gender isn't evident based on name. (Which leads me to my first caveat: I'm absolutely admitting to assuming gender - and making alliteration! - based on posting name.)
One of the most obvious indications of the maleness of the reviews is that they all love love love Kate but the reaction to Renee is middling. Femmes get all the straight, male love, yo. And a lot of the focus is on the art, really.
There's something that doesn't sit right with me when a review by a man starts out with "I'm in love." This isn't to say the rest of the review isn't valid, or that people don't have a right to continue the objectification of women (well...), especially in the very visual medium of comics where the practice has been rampant for years, but how many reviews of Dick Grayson throwing on the Batman outfit start with "I'm in love."? There's this cloud that hangs over the head of a lot of lesbians with an interest in pop culture, and that cloud is: two ladies macking on each other is twice as hot as one lady just standing there!
I don't like that cloud. It takes away from my sunny joy of finally finally having a lesbian leading a major comic line at a major comic company. We're one issue in and I already need an umbrella (and a new metaphor). And these guys aren't getting it from nowhere. They're getting it from pointy-nippled costumes and cracks about Batwoman's hair, and her essentially using her (unattainable to the male) sexuality to soothe a bad guy in the first few pages of the issue.
Danger Will Robinson.
Can you imagine The Question going up to some guy, cooing at him in a soft voice with her lips (erm... no-lips) inches from his, running a hand through his hair, and talking coyly? No, exactly. How about Batman? And the sad part is, I'm not sure if I can see Wonder Woman doing it, or Black Canary or any number of other female superheroes. That means that the "femme" lesbian is getting hypersexualized while in her superhero persona. On purpose.
Why?
As one of the few female superheroes with a costume that actually covers her entire body, and with sensible shoes, to boot, why does the sexuality have to be turned up a notch or ten?
I'm interested/scared to see her interactions with the child-like Alice. Male homosexuality is often associated (wrongly) with pedophelia. So let's see where this goes. I'm interested/scared to see this supposed trauma in her past. If it's rape at the hands of some military guys either related to her dad, or while she herself was in the military prior to getting ousted for DADA stuff, I may have to walk away from the title. Lesbianism is often associated (wrongly) with rape survivors. That kind of overdone storyline may be a deal breaker for me. (Okay, I'd still get it for the Question co-feature, but... you know!)
So, yeah, let's see where it goes. I continue to have faith in Greg Rucka, because I think he's awesome and I like his sensibilities (I've been reading his livejournal and started following him @twitter). But the reviews I've been reading have got me worried, because this is the audience that's being catered to: straight and male. Let's be honest. Even if they're aware that LGBTQ people and females or other gendered people are reading their comics, and even if they're trying to get an inclusive message out to the majority group, they still want to sell comics. So that's not who they're aiming for, because minorities are, well. Minorities and therefore aren't spending at the same level, and comics are still a business and businesses need money to survive.
Maybe I just want a Question feature and a Batwoman co-feature and I'm bitter that it's the other way around. Heh. 'Cause seriously, I don't love Kate Kane. I like her, and I'm interested in her, and I like what she means, but I don't love her. Not yet. But Renee Montoya... well.
I guess she's more my type.*
*Irony intentional.
Except by "everyone" I mean "all the guys who are writing reviews." There are women that write reviews of comics, right? Somewhere? In the week and a half since the book came out, most of the reviews I've read have been by males. And the few negative or neutral reviews I've read have been the ones by women, or by people whose gender isn't evident based on name. (Which leads me to my first caveat: I'm absolutely admitting to assuming gender - and making alliteration! - based on posting name.)
One of the most obvious indications of the maleness of the reviews is that they all love love love Kate but the reaction to Renee is middling. Femmes get all the straight, male love, yo. And a lot of the focus is on the art, really.
There's something that doesn't sit right with me when a review by a man starts out with "I'm in love." This isn't to say the rest of the review isn't valid, or that people don't have a right to continue the objectification of women (well...), especially in the very visual medium of comics where the practice has been rampant for years, but how many reviews of Dick Grayson throwing on the Batman outfit start with "I'm in love."? There's this cloud that hangs over the head of a lot of lesbians with an interest in pop culture, and that cloud is: two ladies macking on each other is twice as hot as one lady just standing there!
I don't like that cloud. It takes away from my sunny joy of finally finally having a lesbian leading a major comic line at a major comic company. We're one issue in and I already need an umbrella (and a new metaphor). And these guys aren't getting it from nowhere. They're getting it from pointy-nippled costumes and cracks about Batwoman's hair, and her essentially using her (unattainable to the male) sexuality to soothe a bad guy in the first few pages of the issue.
Danger Will Robinson.
Can you imagine The Question going up to some guy, cooing at him in a soft voice with her lips (erm... no-lips) inches from his, running a hand through his hair, and talking coyly? No, exactly. How about Batman? And the sad part is, I'm not sure if I can see Wonder Woman doing it, or Black Canary or any number of other female superheroes. That means that the "femme" lesbian is getting hypersexualized while in her superhero persona. On purpose.
Why?
As one of the few female superheroes with a costume that actually covers her entire body, and with sensible shoes, to boot, why does the sexuality have to be turned up a notch or ten?
I'm interested/scared to see her interactions with the child-like Alice. Male homosexuality is often associated (wrongly) with pedophelia. So let's see where this goes. I'm interested/scared to see this supposed trauma in her past. If it's rape at the hands of some military guys either related to her dad, or while she herself was in the military prior to getting ousted for DADA stuff, I may have to walk away from the title. Lesbianism is often associated (wrongly) with rape survivors. That kind of overdone storyline may be a deal breaker for me. (Okay, I'd still get it for the Question co-feature, but... you know!)
So, yeah, let's see where it goes. I continue to have faith in Greg Rucka, because I think he's awesome and I like his sensibilities (I've been reading his livejournal and started following him @twitter). But the reviews I've been reading have got me worried, because this is the audience that's being catered to: straight and male. Let's be honest. Even if they're aware that LGBTQ people and females or other gendered people are reading their comics, and even if they're trying to get an inclusive message out to the majority group, they still want to sell comics. So that's not who they're aiming for, because minorities are, well. Minorities and therefore aren't spending at the same level, and comics are still a business and businesses need money to survive.
Maybe I just want a Question feature and a Batwoman co-feature and I'm bitter that it's the other way around. Heh. 'Cause seriously, I don't love Kate Kane. I like her, and I'm interested in her, and I like what she means, but I don't love her. Not yet. But Renee Montoya... well.
I guess she's more my type.*
*Irony intentional.
I'm a female comics blogger and I really really the new Detective comics. Ia heven't managed to write areveiw yet, life has been too hectic, but i will do.
ReplyDeleteThe smoochy lips at the criminal's face didn't make a lot of sense to me but I have faith in Greg Rucka, I think he'll do a great job.
Also, I ADORE Renee.
Well, I look forward to reading your review. I liked the new Detective Comics, but I'm a bit more guarded than a lot of the reviews seem to be.
ReplyDeleteIt's mostly my faith in Greg Rucka (and my willingness to read anything that co-features Renee) that keeps me going.
FYI, my review is now up.
ReplyDeleteI believe quite a few of the reviews I linked on WFA were female.
ReplyDeleteWell, mine was, anyway.
And I liked it. I dunno, I wasn't bothered by the way she talked to the criminal. It seemed to be more about lulling him into a calmer state, something Batman fails at. And the crack about her hair was meant to be ironic, wasn't it, because it's actually short? I don't get the nipples though, agreed there.
Argh, Blogger ate my original response.
ReplyDelete@nevermore999
I know they weren't all male (and I did read yours), and I completely admit to not having done a quantitative, in-depth analysis of the gender of the writers, and even owned up to making assumptions. I was mostly using it as a jumping-off point, but am completely willing to accept wrongness on this one.
I don't know if they've established yet that Dick knows who Batwoman is. I don't think they have, so I don't know if the hair thing can be ironic. I guess it can from the viewpoint of the quasi-omniscient reader, but I didn't take it that way. I think the lulling was very sexual, and there are other ways to lull a criminal into a calmer state (but, yes, looking at it from the "well, Batman could never do this" POV definitely adds something to it).
Yes, Dick knows who Kate is; he worked this out during Batwoman's debut storyline in 52, and helped Renee rescue her from the Cult of Crime that she's currently going after on her own. Dick-as-Nightwing was the one to formally wlecome her into the Bat family.
ReplyDeleteWow, very insightful post. I apologize in advance for how long and rambly my response is going to be. I'm a rambler. It's a failing.
ReplyDeleteFWIW, I focused on The Question in my review. Also, I don't think I've ever started out a review with "I'm in love." that I can remember. I know I abuse the adjective "awesome" but that's another annoying habit altogether.
I personally assumed the "trauma" in Kate's past was simply the whole "kidnapped by the Church of Crime to be sacrificed" business back from 52 - being drugged, tied up and stabbed through the heart until Renee helped rescue her. I don't know if you followed 52 but I think that's what her Dad is directly referencing before she talks about how helpless she felt. All of which means that she's spending the entire issue working through what they did to her by tracking down the Church of Crime . . . and kicking them in the face. That's some therapy I approve of. :)
Re: Alice - considering the other Lewis Carroll themed character in Gotham seems to have a "lock" on pedophilia (ugh and ew), I'm hesitantly sure Greg Rucka won't make Alice a pedophile. Mind you, I'm very interested to see in what ways she is disturbed and why someone obsessed with Alice In Wonderland is in charge of a such a large group.
The caressing issue - well, first off, I thought you might want to read this. It's Greg Rucka's original script for that scene. It is troubling, certainly, but I wasn't immediately offended. What I primarily took away was that she's willing to use every weapon in her arsenal to get what she wants. Is this particular usage of sexuality as a weapon wrong or offensive? To be honest, I'm not really sure. Power Girl, just as a mildly ironic example, is a female superheroine I could never imagine using feminine wiles. On the other hand, I would never imagine Nightwing caressing a thug gently either. I'm still not sure where I stand on this but it's definitely a sequence worth thinking and talking about. Thanks for bringing the issue up. I'd really love to hear Greg Rucka's thoughts on it.
Funnily enough, what I liked the most about Kate's story occurred moments after the "caress". Kate actually corrected Batman about the crime in "his city". Somebody who knows more about anything than Batman is rarer than gold in the DCU, much less what goes on in Gotham. That right there is a very telling way to establish her prowess. Just a shame it came after a divisive moment.
Along similar lines, I'm curious - did you ever read the issues of Birds of Prey where Huntress agreed to go on a date with a skeevy young man named Josh because he refused to give up vital information otherwise? Your post made me think of that storyline. One of Simone's very rare missteps during her run, I always thought.
@innerbrat Thanks. I only read bits and pieces of 52 (is it out in TP yet?) so that's good to know. The only person I've talked to about it before said that he definitely didn't know her ID, and I took her word for it. :) So does Kate know that Dick is the new Batman?
ReplyDelete@K.D. actually, your Question review (and it being one of the few I saw) was why I started following your blog.
The way Rucka's mentioned Kate's trauma, I've taken it to mean something farther back in her past than ust the events of 52 (which, like I said above, I've read bits and pieces of).
I'll be honest, that script doesn't make me feel much better. All the blood imagery, and the outright comparing her to a succubus (with a bad attitude, no less)just heightens her sexuality even more in my mind. Blood is often mingled with sex, especially with the loss of innocence (which leads me back to worries of a rape-victim background). Plus it reinforces her as a vampire. I've been pretty vocal about my dislike of her dead-pale looks, but the history of vampire lesbians isn't exactly sparkly clean (not that she IS a vampire, but it's the imagery that gets to me). Not that any vampires have a clean image, just that there seems to be a particular fascination with the lesbian vampire from the male gaze. It's really not that I'm offended, per se, so much as concerned.
I agree with you re: what you liked the best. It was great to see her one-up Batman, but I don't know that it would have happened with Bruce. Not that that's bad, of course, it's still her one-upping Batman, Bruce or not. It still rang a little hollow for me, because it was about the specific Religion of Crime. If she'd one-upped him on something more general, it would have been nice. I've noticed that the writers are giving all the new-Bats villains from their particular area of expertise (Kate gets RoC, Dick gets Circus People, we'll see what the new Batgirl gets). It doesn't really bother me, since I assume they'll move beyond that, it's just something that's pinged my radar.
I haven't read those issue, no. I'm honestly just getting back into heavy-duty comic reading, so I'd love to go back and check them out. Do you know the issue numbers?
I'd love to hear Greg Rucka's thoughts on this stuff, too. Like I've said, I've got a lot of faith in him to steer this storyline in a direction that doesn't go to the Worst Case Scenario I've pictured in my mind. I'm waiting it out right now, but I'm moving forward cautiously.
"They're getting it from pointy-nippled costumes and cracks about Batwoman's hair, and her essentially using her (unattainable to the male) sexuality to soothe a bad guy in the first few pages of the issue."
ReplyDeleteYes, yes, yes. All these things made me very ambivalent about this opening issue. I never read the Church of Crime issues where she's captured, and those scenes made me very uncomfortable because there was a strong rape vibe to them, whether or not that happened. Succubus? UGH.
Greg Rucka has a podcast interview at Word Balloon where he discusses how these issues are to be the definitive origin story for Batwoman (apparently the 52 appearances were rushed and they made some mistakes in her backstory that will need to be reconciled here - which would explain some of the the apparent contradictions in Detective Comics). He specifically didn't identify /who/ was Batman when Batwoman first met him, so I guess either Dick or Bruce could be the dick (heh) who made that crack about her hair.
You know, what's called "feminine wiles" are just strategies used by those in the subordinate class, and I don't want to have to see female superheroes resorting to that last measure. They should be more powerful than that.
My co-blogger Danielle did a review of it: http://geekgirlsrule.wordpress.com/2009/07/07/reviews-batman-and-robin-1-2-batman-687-detective-comics-854/
ReplyDeleteI haven't had time to pick it up yet myself.
I really liked this review - you brought up some interesting points that I haven't seen brought up before/yet much regarding Batwoman.
ReplyDeleteFor the record I wrote about it and was linked on WFA and I'm also female. :)
I liked your inclusion of Renee in your review here as I feel most bloggers (myself included - I talked about how I liked it and was excited to see more at the very end of my review) didn't bother. But you're right that in many ways she's far more interesting and is the real story to watch. But people (again, myself included) go crazy for the Bats.
Anyway, just wanted to jump in and say "nice work - and I'll be back" (but not in a creepy terminator way - more in a stalker-y fellow blogger way...) Ah, cripes.
Thanks! Glad you dug my review. :)
ReplyDeleteI'm with you on both the concern and the trusting Rucka regardlessly bits. I'm not really familiar with the history of lesbian vampires in pop culture, tho', so I'll take your word on that. *Googles* Holy crap, there's an entire Wikipedia page for 'Lesbian Vampire'? Wow. You really do learn something new every day.
Anyways, I don't know the exact back issues to check out, but I do know that the Josh business is in Simone's first two collected Birds of Prey trades. While Simone's BoP run started out a bit rocky, it was a really great read on the whole that I wholeheartedly recommend. I also really enjoyed 52, which is out in in four annotated trades now (they actually mention Greg Rucka's objection to Wonder Woman showing remorse for killing Max Lord). Mind you, 52 is pretty continuity heavy, just to give you fair warning.
@Michelle - I'll have to check out that podcast. Personally, I don't see why any sexuality needs to be involved at all. With the exception of the tight costumes the male characters wear, I have yet to see a good guy described as an incubus. The darkest good guys are violent, not sexual. The fact that Kate is a lesbian is supposed to be a non-issue, and yet her femininity and sexuality (not sexual orientation, but just the feminine sexuality) are turned into anvils for us to devour. But, that said... it's been one issue. We'll see.
ReplyDelete@geekgirlsrule - I read that review and enjoyed it. I need to get better about commenting. Thanks for pointing the way. :) I definitely recommend picking the issue up. It's good, despite my quibbles.
@1979semifinalist - Thank you! I'm glad you enjoyed the review. I was waiting for Kate's premiere for so long that I think I built myself up on all sorts of expectations that were just kind of chinked away one at a time (and yet I still enjoyed the issue). I don't see my preference for Renee over Kate changing any time soon. I wish the rest of the comic world agreed and she could get her own title, but I'm happy just to have her back in my comic shop monthly. I guess part of that is that I've never loved the Batfamily, and had literally no interest in any Bat-titles until the whole Batman: Reborn thing (with Kate at the center of it, for me). Feel free to come back any time. Asta la vista. ;)
@K.D. Oh yeah, lesbian vampires are a biiiiiiig pop culture (and subculture) archetype. Even if it's unintentional on the part of Rucka (and I don't know, he seems to be pretty in-the-know on a lot of queer theory stuff), I can't help but be reminded of those things when I read/see Kate.
I'll check out the trades. I love Simone and I love the BOP, so it's sort of a shame I haven't gotten there yet. I heard good things about 52, and I'm okay with continuity... there's always the internet to help me out if I get lost. :)
Look, the only thing I'm going to comment on here, is to ask everyone to please, please, PLEASEs top calling every single feminine-appearing lesbian a "Femme". Femme is a very particular subculture of queer female identity with very specific coding, traditions, behaviours and psychology behind it.
ReplyDeleteI have seen NO EVIDENCE that Kathy Kane is a Femme.
I personally think depicting a GENUINE Femme lesbian would be incredibly subversive.
IT HASN'T BEEN DONE YET.
Can people, before they just start grabbing language and using it willy nilly, LEARN what it means and what sort of meaning it HOLDS to others. As an ACTUAL Femme, I am OFFENDED by every single comics fan who dismissively and indiscriminately uses this term when they obviously have no freaking idea what it means.
Okay? Just. Stop.
@lovedatjoker Maybe instead of angrily commenting here, you'd like to educate us all about what a femme is, in your viewpoint. Personally, I think Batwoman is a femme. I think that the Kate Kane from 52 is a femme. I'm less sure about the Kate Kane from Crime Bible and from Detective Comics, but these are all conclusions I come to based on what I've read of Kate Kane and my personal idea of what a femme is, which has been informed by the femmes I've dated, the femmes I've known, and the literature I've read about queer identity. If I'm somehow mistaken, I apologize, but I am NOT calling Kate Kane a femme because she's feminine appearing. For example, I consider Renee Montoya to be pretty butch, and she's fairly feminine appearing (except for her recent hair cut, which arguably doesn't mean much).
ReplyDeleteJust so you know in the future, should you ever come back, a lot of what I write is tongue in cheek. The title of this post specifically was tongue in cheek. I find the fact that DC is playing up Batwoman's sexuality (specifically her feminine sexuality) to be interesting/worrying/ironic considering the general view of what it means to be a lesbian. But this is all just my opinion on my blog.
Anyway, thanks for your input. I'm sorry that I apparently offended you by expressing my viewpoints. Personally, I'm sort of offended (no caps) by your tone, but I can understand being upset over that kind of perceived slight. Thanks again for the input, and sorry again for the misunderstanding and/or mistatement, whichever it may be.
Er... your education is not my responsibility. Seriously, that's a 101 derailing tactic right there and if you're all up on the politics, as you claim, then you should know that.
ReplyDeleteI don't disagree with any of the particular concerns you've raised. But I'm really tired of contradictory and conflicting messages being put out there by queer and feminist geeks - critiquing depiction of queer identities at the same time as demonstrating a stereotypical/shallow understanding of some of those identities, for example.
You might not think it's a big deal; I think it's a really big issue if we're positioning ourselves as any sort of authoritative/example voice on these issues. Do guys really love FEMMES, or do they love the FEMININE faux-lesbian of porn films? That you don't seem to think there's a very critical difference, with appropriate language to accurately communicate that, is worrying to ME. In my opinion and experience, femme subculture and identity is ultimately alienating and ultra-excluding to "guys". Using Femme in the way you have also perpetuates that stereotype of heteronormative feminity. Most people outside of the queer community do not know what Femme is or means and so you using it here in this way is going to provide those ignorant with a connection between true Femme identity and the faux-lesbianism of male fantasy that you're talking about.
So, if we're going to have a public voice on these issues, shouldn't we at least try to be a bit consistent and self-critically aware in our language and the messages we communicate?
@lovedatjoker No, my education isn't your responsibility. But your personal feelings aren't mine, either. You came here claiming personal offense "as a femme" (which is another derailing tactic, one that devalues the opinions of people who aren't femmes).
ReplyDeleteAnd just like my education isn't your problem, I'm not sure that the education of the readers of this blog is my responsibility either. Should we be self-critically aware in our language? Absolutely. And after I got over the abrasive way you stated your opinion I completely took what you said to heart, and I completely see your point. I think you're lucky that I did, nobody really gets educated by angry condescension. I don't assert myself as any type of authoritative voice or example, I'm just a queer comic book fan writing a comic blog that is informed by my personal experiences (some of which are heteronormative, because that's the society I live in). I suppose my profile maybe makes it seem like I should be some sort of voice on queer geekdom, but I don't really think I'm claiming that.
I appreciate that language and the use of language is a very large issue for you. My issues are slightly different, but, again, I see your point. I hope you come back in the future and, hopefully more politely, keep up the discourse. I can slap all sorts of labels on myself or others, but I certainly like seeing other viewpoints, and am pleasantly surprised that a self-identifying femme lesbian bothered to comment, even if it was in a negatively critical way.
The fact of the matter is that DC is perpetuating the stereotype of heteronormative femininity with Batwoman (as in the costumed superhero; I once again am not so sure about her alter ego of Kate Kane, that remains to be seen). But I don't think she has been presented as a faux-lesbian along the lines of pornography (or basically any network television show), I think she's been presented as a femme. And, again that's my opinion. As for differentiating the language: again, I'm writing my blog with the idea that, if anyone at all reads it, it will be a general audience. I'm not here to delve into the trenches of critical gender theory, I'm here to use my background of critical gender theory, my love of pop culture and comic culture, and my personal experiences to rant, rave, and/or praise the comics (and comic-related things) that I read and see.
But, all that said and done, I absolutely agree that the message "we" communicate is an important one. So is the way we communicate it. Which is why, like I said, I'd love for you to come back and keep reading, and keep chatting with em about this kind of thing. When I created this blog, I never really expected discourse along these lines and I totally welcome it.
Hmm, well, I'm not going to get up in arms about the fact, but I have to agree that Kate is not a femme. I think she was intended to be in 52, but I think Greg has essentially given her a reboot and actually turned her into a proper character.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I love both her and Rene. I don't see the fuss about the pointy nipples; I think it's a cool costume thing (maybe with some useful protection) and, as the hair piece and sports bra indicate, the costume is a layer of artifice. Kate's life is clearly compartmentalised and she's a woman with a clear and frustrated desire to make a difference in the world, who carries a lot of anger. Unlike Bruce, I think there's the sense that her identity is Kate foremost and not Batwoman.
My reaction to the costume is that she is using it to play with power in a similar but different way to Batman himself. Men give certain types of women a lot of power over themselves, quite freely, and I think it's part of Kate's MO to exploit that as needed. It's fair to say that some of the reactions to the strip are indicative of the fact it works very well.
It's psychological roleplying and a touch more sophisticated than pure intimidation and beating the crap out of people. It creates an unbalancing disorientation that keeps people on their toes and can be a powerful interrogation technique. I'm aware there are negative media cliches that follow this sort of power play, but I also think they reflect more traditional hostorical examples of female power that have been demonised by "male" society over the years: some may see psycho lesbian vampire, I see Morgan Le Fay. The succubus itself is just negative subversion of female power, conjured up by frightened men, anyhow.
Just another queer woman's opinion :)
(quick note, since I can see no way to edit the above)
ReplyDeleteI just wanted to clarify that I did not mean that Femmes are not "proper characters". My intention was to imply that I did not feel Kate was well developed as a proper character in 52. She seemed very "generic superheroine" down to the heels, and even ignoring those I thought she was presented as far more of an object for the male gaze at that time (as most female superheros are).
Also to further clarify my clarification: I'm just saying that i think she started out as a fairly generic character who happened to have the Femme label tacked on, because she wore dresses. It'd be interesting if she was a femme in this incarnation, but I have a feeling that it is no longer even a part of her intended background.
ReplyDeleteI swear I will stop now and type/proofread any posts in advance next time. My sincere apologies for the format ^^ '
@typr No problem, I have issues with the lack of an edit feature myself.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your opinion. I'm still mixed on Kate Kane as a femme (but yeah, she definitely was an ancillary character in 52... Crime Bible Kate was a bit more fleshed out, so to speak, but that's right around where I think they stopped writing/drawing her the same way they had). But I still think Batwoman is a femme. And the fact that you point out that Kate keeps these compartmentalized much moreso than Bruce (and most of the Robins) just sort of drives that home for me. It would even make sense to me, giving Kate some knowledge of queer theory that she may not even have, that she would do that purposefully. It's another mask she can wear.
Good point about Morgan Le Fay. I'm not a big fan of the Morgan character, though I know she's been rewritten in a much better way by modern authors, so to me that's not much of a positive spin. But I get what you're saying. I don't really see a psycho lesbian vampire, I just see a lesbian vampire. I'm actually a fan of lesbian vampires, depending on how they're written of course, I just find it clichéd (especially since we're talking about a BAT title) and I'd rather see Batwoman go in a different direction.
To be honest, with more thought behind it, I'm sort of looking forward to the Red Queen/White Queen potential that facing this Alice character may bring up. It's definitely better than the reverse-predator/prey thing that could happen (with the "innocent" Alice being the actual predator).
Anyway, glad to have another opinion around. Thanks for commenting. :)
Okay, I FINALLY managed to track down this comic. I don't read much DC, but the above discussion was too engaging for me to pass this up. Bad news for me was that all my shops were out of the first printing; good news is that today I found a copy of the second printing (the one with the super fabulous cover).
ReplyDeleteMy only point here is to say thanks to you all for piquing my interest in this book. I can definitely see where Sam's (and others') concerns are coming from. But also that there is a lot of thought and talent going into this book, enough to convince me that it's more than worth giving it a chance.
@Ken I'm really glad you got your hands on a copy (I broke down and bought the super fabulous cover despite having the first printing) and that you enjoyed it. My concerns certainly aren't stopping me from reading the series, and like I've said above I have a lot of faith in the creative team that's working on the title.
ReplyDeleteDid you pick up #855 while you were at the shop? What did you think?
"You know, what's called "feminine wiles" are just strategies used by those in the subordinate class, and I don't want to have to see female superheroes resorting to that last measure. They should be more powerful than that."
ReplyDeleteIs this true? I don't know that the use of attractiveness for advantage necessarily indicates a generally subordinate status, let alone that the entire class one is part of is necessarily subordinate.
On the original Star Trek, for instance (it quickly comes to mind, but I don't think it's unique), Captain Kirk often uses attraction to him to tactical or strategic advantage - indeed, aside from a pair of instances in which he'd fallen in love, this is the origin of his reputation. Even in the new movie, his relationship with a fellow cadet is in purposeful furtherance of an attempt to infiltrate a computer system. Mr. Spock also uses his attractiveness to his advantage in at least one episode. I don't think it could be reasonably argued that either of them is in a generally subordinate position.
Moreover, even if the use of attractiveness for advantage were restricted to only persons in a generally subordinate position, subordination runs across a number of lines, and many characteristics correlate much more strongly with subordination than does sex. Whose situation was more subordinate in the segregated American South, a male of mostly African ancestry, or a female of European ancestry?
Well, I think we're getting into rough seas when we start comparing oppressions (and we're talking about oppression, here, not the slightly-more-benign subordination).
ReplyDeleteYou have to remember not just the context of a particular episode where Kirk seduces a woman, but also the entire scope of the way women, persons of color, and queer people are portrayed in pop culture (and regular culture). Kirk wasn't just seducing that woman and using his attractiveness. He was preying on someone who couldn't resist him, and she couldn't resist him because she was a woman.
In addition, you have the fact that it's perfectly okay for men to have multiple partners, while women are judged for the same behavior. What's the masculine term for a slut? There isn't one, that I can recall. Certainly not one I can recall being used a lot. I think it's fairly telling that another Captain from Trek, Janeway, was practically asexual for the seven year run of her show, and the writers went out of their way to make her avoid relationships and, when she did get into them, to angst about it for awhile (not to mention that whole "falling in love with a hologram" episode). Meanwhile, Picard became a sex symbol, and Sisko was involved with a woman during most of the run of DS9.
Sorry, Trek tangent.
Back to comparing oppressions: I'd really recommend against it. It doesn't matter who's oppressed more, it just matters that people are oppressed. The oppression of the slave in the American South doesn't make the oppression of a woman of European ancestry suddenly just go away. And vice versa. And either way, each individual in that situation still has to experience the daily oppression of their situation. It's hard when you start talking generally about things that individuals have to deal with, and it's hard when you start comparing all of the bad things that have happened to people over the course of human history. It shouldn't matter who's dealt with worse, or more, it should matter that they've had to deal with it.
I'm not even sure if this answers your question. But thanks for asking it, because I really enjoy the discussions that this post has sparked.
@Ken I'm really glad you got your hands on a copy (I broke down and bought the super fabulous cover despite having the first printing) and that you enjoyed it. My concerns certainly aren't stopping me from reading the series, and like I've said above I have a lot of faith in the creative team that's working on the title.
ReplyDeleteDid you pick up #855 while you were at the shop? What did you think?
@Michelle - I'll have to check out that podcast. Personally, I don't see why any sexuality needs to be involved at all. With the exception of the tight costumes the male characters wear, I have yet to see a good guy described as an incubus. The darkest good guys are violent, not sexual. The fact that Kate is a lesbian is supposed to be a non-issue, and yet her femininity and sexuality (not sexual orientation, but just the feminine sexuality) are turned into anvils for us to devour. But, that said... it's been one issue. We'll see.
ReplyDelete@geekgirlsrule - I read that review and enjoyed it. I need to get better about commenting. Thanks for pointing the way. :) I definitely recommend picking the issue up. It's good, despite my quibbles.
@1979semifinalist - Thank you! I'm glad you enjoyed the review. I was waiting for Kate's premiere for so long that I think I built myself up on all sorts of expectations that were just kind of chinked away one at a time (and yet I still enjoyed the issue). I don't see my preference for Renee over Kate changing any time soon. I wish the rest of the comic world agreed and she could get her own title, but I'm happy just to have her back in my comic shop monthly. I guess part of that is that I've never loved the Batfamily, and had literally no interest in any Bat-titles until the whole Batman: Reborn thing (with Kate at the center of it, for me). Feel free to come back any time. Asta la vista. ;)
@K.D. Oh yeah, lesbian vampires are a biiiiiiig pop culture (and subculture) archetype. Even if it's unintentional on the part of Rucka (and I don't know, he seems to be pretty in-the-know on a lot of queer theory stuff), I can't help but be reminded of those things when I read/see Kate.
I'll check out the trades. I love Simone and I love the BOP, so it's sort of a shame I haven't gotten there yet. I heard good things about 52, and I'm okay with continuity... there's always the internet to help me out if I get lost. :)
I really liked this review - you brought up some interesting points that I haven't seen brought up before/yet much regarding Batwoman.
ReplyDeleteFor the record I wrote about it and was linked on WFA and I'm also female. :)
I liked your inclusion of Renee in your review here as I feel most bloggers (myself included - I talked about how I liked it and was excited to see more at the very end of my review) didn't bother. But you're right that in many ways she's far more interesting and is the real story to watch. But people (again, myself included) go crazy for the Bats.
Anyway, just wanted to jump in and say "nice work - and I'll be back" (but not in a creepy terminator way - more in a stalker-y fellow blogger way...) Ah, cripes.
My co-blogger Danielle did a review of it: http://geekgirlsrule.wordpress.com/2009/07/07/reviews-batman-and-robin-1-2-batman-687-detective-comics-854/
ReplyDeleteI haven't had time to pick it up yet myself.
"They're getting it from pointy-nippled costumes and cracks about Batwoman's hair, and her essentially using her (unattainable to the male) sexuality to soothe a bad guy in the first few pages of the issue."
ReplyDeleteYes, yes, yes. All these things made me very ambivalent about this opening issue. I never read the Church of Crime issues where she's captured, and those scenes made me very uncomfortable because there was a strong rape vibe to them, whether or not that happened. Succubus? UGH.
Greg Rucka has a podcast interview at Word Balloon where he discusses how these issues are to be the definitive origin story for Batwoman (apparently the 52 appearances were rushed and they made some mistakes in her backstory that will need to be reconciled here - which would explain some of the the apparent contradictions in Detective Comics). He specifically didn't identify /who/ was Batman when Batwoman first met him, so I guess either Dick or Bruce could be the dick (heh) who made that crack about her hair.
You know, what's called "feminine wiles" are just strategies used by those in the subordinate class, and I don't want to have to see female superheroes resorting to that last measure. They should be more powerful than that.
@innerbrat Thanks. I only read bits and pieces of 52 (is it out in TP yet?) so that's good to know. The only person I've talked to about it before said that he definitely didn't know her ID, and I took her word for it. :) So does Kate know that Dick is the new Batman?
ReplyDelete@K.D. actually, your Question review (and it being one of the few I saw) was why I started following your blog.
The way Rucka's mentioned Kate's trauma, I've taken it to mean something farther back in her past than ust the events of 52 (which, like I said above, I've read bits and pieces of).
I'll be honest, that script doesn't make me feel much better. All the blood imagery, and the outright comparing her to a succubus (with a bad attitude, no less)just heightens her sexuality even more in my mind. Blood is often mingled with sex, especially with the loss of innocence (which leads me back to worries of a rape-victim background). Plus it reinforces her as a vampire. I've been pretty vocal about my dislike of her dead-pale looks, but the history of vampire lesbians isn't exactly sparkly clean (not that she IS a vampire, but it's the imagery that gets to me). Not that any vampires have a clean image, just that there seems to be a particular fascination with the lesbian vampire from the male gaze. It's really not that I'm offended, per se, so much as concerned.
I agree with you re: what you liked the best. It was great to see her one-up Batman, but I don't know that it would have happened with Bruce. Not that that's bad, of course, it's still her one-upping Batman, Bruce or not. It still rang a little hollow for me, because it was about the specific Religion of Crime. If she'd one-upped him on something more general, it would have been nice. I've noticed that the writers are giving all the new-Bats villains from their particular area of expertise (Kate gets RoC, Dick gets Circus People, we'll see what the new Batgirl gets). It doesn't really bother me, since I assume they'll move beyond that, it's just something that's pinged my radar.
I haven't read those issue, no. I'm honestly just getting back into heavy-duty comic reading, so I'd love to go back and check them out. Do you know the issue numbers?
I'd love to hear Greg Rucka's thoughts on this stuff, too. Like I've said, I've got a lot of faith in him to steer this storyline in a direction that doesn't go to the Worst Case Scenario I've pictured in my mind. I'm waiting it out right now, but I'm moving forward cautiously.
Wow, very insightful post. I apologize in advance for how long and rambly my response is going to be. I'm a rambler. It's a failing.
ReplyDeleteFWIW, I focused on The Question in my review. Also, I don't think I've ever started out a review with "I'm in love." that I can remember. I know I abuse the adjective "awesome" but that's another annoying habit altogether.
I personally assumed the "trauma" in Kate's past was simply the whole "kidnapped by the Church of Crime to be sacrificed" business back from 52 - being drugged, tied up and stabbed through the heart until Renee helped rescue her. I don't know if you followed 52 but I think that's what her Dad is directly referencing before she talks about how helpless she felt. All of which means that she's spending the entire issue working through what they did to her by tracking down the Church of Crime . . . and kicking them in the face. That's some therapy I approve of. :)
Re: Alice - considering the other Lewis Carroll themed character in Gotham seems to have a "lock" on pedophilia (ugh and ew), I'm hesitantly sure Greg Rucka won't make Alice a pedophile. Mind you, I'm very interested to see in what ways she is disturbed and why someone obsessed with Alice In Wonderland is in charge of a such a large group.
The caressing issue - well, first off, I thought you might want to read this. It's Greg Rucka's original script for that scene. It is troubling, certainly, but I wasn't immediately offended. What I primarily took away was that she's willing to use every weapon in her arsenal to get what she wants. Is this particular usage of sexuality as a weapon wrong or offensive? To be honest, I'm not really sure. Power Girl, just as a mildly ironic example, is a female superheroine I could never imagine using feminine wiles. On the other hand, I would never imagine Nightwing caressing a thug gently either. I'm still not sure where I stand on this but it's definitely a sequence worth thinking and talking about. Thanks for bringing the issue up. I'd really love to hear Greg Rucka's thoughts on it.
Funnily enough, what I liked the most about Kate's story occurred moments after the "caress". Kate actually corrected Batman about the crime in "his city". Somebody who knows more about anything than Batman is rarer than gold in the DCU, much less what goes on in Gotham. That right there is a very telling way to establish her prowess. Just a shame it came after a divisive moment.
Along similar lines, I'm curious - did you ever read the issues of Birds of Prey where Huntress agreed to go on a date with a skeevy young man named Josh because he refused to give up vital information otherwise? Your post made me think of that storyline. One of Simone's very rare missteps during her run, I always thought.
Argh, Blogger ate my original response.
ReplyDelete@nevermore999
I know they weren't all male (and I did read yours), and I completely admit to not having done a quantitative, in-depth analysis of the gender of the writers, and even owned up to making assumptions. I was mostly using it as a jumping-off point, but am completely willing to accept wrongness on this one.
I don't know if they've established yet that Dick knows who Batwoman is. I don't think they have, so I don't know if the hair thing can be ironic. I guess it can from the viewpoint of the quasi-omniscient reader, but I didn't take it that way. I think the lulling was very sexual, and there are other ways to lull a criminal into a calmer state (but, yes, looking at it from the "well, Batman could never do this" POV definitely adds something to it).
I believe quite a few of the reviews I linked on WFA were female.
ReplyDeleteWell, mine was, anyway.
And I liked it. I dunno, I wasn't bothered by the way she talked to the criminal. It seemed to be more about lulling him into a calmer state, something Batman fails at. And the crack about her hair was meant to be ironic, wasn't it, because it's actually short? I don't get the nipples though, agreed there.
FYI, my review is now up.
ReplyDeleteI'm a female comics blogger and I really really the new Detective comics. Ia heven't managed to write areveiw yet, life has been too hectic, but i will do.
ReplyDeleteThe smoochy lips at the criminal's face didn't make a lot of sense to me but I have faith in Greg Rucka, I think he'll do a great job.
Also, I ADORE Renee.