For copyright stuff (just to be sure), I didn't post any pics in this post. I apologize for all the links. To see the Wonder Woman cover discussed here, go to the DC website: http://www.dccomics.com/comics/wonder-woman-2011/wonder-woman-31
The cover of this month's Wonder Woman, #31, depicts her tied to a tree, hunched/slumped over with her legs open, and with several arrows piercing her upper body. The DC website also includes a close up of her face, with an expression that could be pain from the multiple arrows embedded in her flesh, anger at whoever tied her up and/or shot the arrows, or could be a complete lack of feeling. It's hard to tell. Personally, I think it's embarrassment that a mere mortal male reduced her to this.
In a recent interview with Comic Book Resources- here - the artist, Cliff Chiang, talked about not wanting to over sexualize Wonder Woman and stated, "You've got to draw that thong bikini, you've got to draw those big boobs and all that stuff. I feel like we have to check ourselves and say, 'Well, is this really accomplishing telling the story that we want to tell?' " But what about the covert messages? What are young men seeing when they look at this image? How might young women interpret this in terms of their self image, their safety, and possible internalization of appropriate behavior expectations? It is especially poignant in light of the mass shooting event that occurred this week (article).
Mr. Chiang graduated from Harvard University with a joint degree in English Literature and Visual Arts (according to the Comic Vine bio), He, of all people, should know that underlying themes, meanings, and messages are everywhere: in movies, in books, and especially in the commercial where a man who accidentally showered with soap designed for women runs around frantically engaging in appropriate "manly" behaviors in order to counteract the effect of the soap: metalwork (!), mowing the lawn (*!@), and playing the drums (&*@!!#).
Oh yeah? Watch this drumming video.
Oddly enough, this is the same artist who created this poster: click here. It's pretty amazing. I'm not sure what happened to bring this current cover to fruition. Superheroes should show vulnerability at times. It's what makes them interesting, multi-dimensional characters. And Wonder Woman would be an especially good opportunity for artistic types to demonstrate emotions, based on her history and the idea that (let's face it) it's more acceptable in today's society for women to show their emotions. But depicting Wonder Woman as she is on this cover is not a demonstration of emotional vulnerability or a step forward in developing her as a multi-dimensional character. This cover places Wonder Woman in physical pain and makes her powerless and helpless. I might have to be super careful walking by myself at night, Wonder Woman shouldn't have to be.
The artwork style in this current series is based on a style from the DC past. So I pulled a book off my shelves, DC Cover Girls by Louise Simonsen, and reviewed the Wonder Woman section for past covers. Amongst images of Wonder Woman singlehandedly stopping trains and swinging villains over her head, there were some covers on which she was restrained. On the cover of #156 (May 2000), she is kneeling, head bowed, chained via her wrists to Devastation's oversized head. On the cover of #68 (10c), she is tied via her wrists to a buoy (with closed legs) while a torpedo aims straight at the buoy. #229 (30c) depicts her chained via her wrists to a wall with a missile aimed at her. The most disturbing to me is the cover of #205 (20c), on which she is depicted tied (full body) spread eagled on a torpedo headed for New York City with planes firing at her. She truly looks frightened.
Those covers were then, this is now. Damsel in distress tropes are outdated and unnecessary, although someone should probably tell Michael Bay (article or a different article). An early Wonder Woman comic (reprinted in Wonder Woman: Amazon, Hero, Icon by Robert Greenberger), in which William Moulton Marston (as Charles Moulton) details Wonder Woman's origins, includes a caption stating that "at three, the wonder child pulls up a fruit tree by its roots." Now, over 60 years later, she's tied to a tree instead.
If Wonder Woman were drawn in this fashion inside the book, she would be able to get out of the situation and show her ability, strength and power. However, by drawing her this way on the cover, she is stuck this way, helplessly preserved forever in digital memory.
I don't know what I would find if I looked through the history of Superman or Batman covers, but if someone were to currently draw either of these characters on their own covers in exactly this pose, (tightly tied, including the angle of the legs and multiple arrows slammed into their chests), and get it approved and published, then and ONLY then, should any female character be shown restrained and/or helpless on a DC cover.
When I sent the link to this image to someone via email, I was asked "What am I seeing? Is she tied to a tree?" The short answer is "yes, Wonder Woman is tied to a tree." It is not a situation to which I aspire. If I had a daughter, I would not want her (or any other girl, such as the drummer in the video) to aspire to it either. If I had a son, I would not want him (or any other boy) to consider for a second that this is an appropriate depiction of women, or that this is an appropriate way for him to treat a woman. If Wonder Woman had been present while this picture was being created, I think she would have made it very clear to the artist that she, and women, are no damsels in distress, and that depicting the type of treatment in the image is unacceptable.
When I picked up this issue I'm sure my face fell. I know my stomach did. I put the book back. There is a digital-first new version of the Wonder Woman-centric Sensation Comics coming out this summer. I'll wait for that series instead.
Sunday, May 25, 2014
Saturday, May 24, 2014
My response to "What am I seeing? Is she tied to a tree?" Part 1
Those of you who have stuck with this blog over the years (or who know me!) are fully aware of my interests or perhaps more accurately "obsessions": Jane Austen books, John Cusack movies,
and Wonder Woman.
Mostly through the generosity of friends, but with some of my own input, I have accumulated all 3 seasons of the TV series, a throw, the POP! figure, a flash drive, glasses, mugs, a watch, an action figure, Wonder Woman encyclopedias, and this handmade personalized paperweight. Without realizing it, I have become surrounded by Wonder Woman paraphernalia.
She's a feminist icon, gracing the cover of the very first issue of Ms. Magazine in 1972, and their 35th and 40th anniversary issues. She's strong and powerful, yet caring and a champion of the underdog: animals, children, women. Some women around the world may even have used her as a role model when they needed to be a little bit braver in their everyday lives. And that's enough on that.
I recently wrote a series of posts on my first visits to comic shops. Since then, I've located some characters that, although I don't know them well yet, I find interesting: Carol Danvers, Kate Kane, Sara Pezzini. I'm thinking I wouldn't mind spending time at a pub with them watching a rugby match.
But no Wonder Woman.
In a previous post I referenced a review by Alicia Anderson (this), in which she discusses the issues with the current Wonder Woman series. Keeping that in mind, I initially chose to focus on learning about other comic book characters. But each month, on new Wonder Woman release day, I found myself looking through her book, hoping that I would find something to convince me to jump into the series. Each time, not without regret, I put it back on the shelf.
As Ms. Anderson recommended, the Amazons are back in the story. There also appears to be a focus in recent issues on a storyline in which Wonder Woman is attempting to force the Amazons to accept and help raise a male child. I can't fathom why there would be any need to construct a storyline which would require the Amazon warrior women to raise a male child. Are they so threatening as a community of confident, powerful women that adding a male presence is necessary? As Anderson states, "the Amazons were a magical, immortal race of women who didn’t need men to thrive," yet in this current version of the Wonder Woman story, "her [Amazonian] sisters are the fruit of reproduction with hapless, doomed sailors. The Amazons as a race have been destroyed in this version of the mythology."
Of course, everyone knows that for a woman to be complete she should be a mother. Just look around: at the celebrity "news" about pregnancies, at celebrities chattering away about their children on Ellen, the lecture I received from a classmate about the joy of having children, and the reaction of a young woman I know after I told her I most likely won't get married and definitely won't be having children, which consisted of her telling me that the whole point of life was to get married and have babies. But the Amazons presumably helped raise Diana and other young Amazons, so they have already met this requirement to being fulfilled as women. So the point in this storyline must be that the child is male.
Everyone also knows that a woman isn't complete without a man, right? Most Disney movies start us out early in this regard. We need to find our hunky male princely soul mate, even if we have to turn into a vampire. The Amazons being the Amazons, however, a romantic male presence wouldn't be feasible, so therefore, this necessary-to-our-happiness male presence is in the form of a child. Even Bones, that logical, rational being who stated in the early seasons of the show that she wouldn't ever get married, eventually married Booth and had a child. Get with the program, Amazon ladies.
A young man raised by a group of strong, powerful warriors could potentially grow up to embrace the concept of strong women and be a facilitator of change. However, these women don't want him (and if they don't, they shouldn't be forced to) and might tell him at some point that he needs to go back and live in the outside world, where he just as easily could end up as an UnSub on an episode of Criminal Minds, in which, unable to kill the Amazons who reluctantly raised him, he kills other strong women as substitutes- Olympic gold-medalists in weightlifting or judo, maybe. The profilers on Criminal Minds talk about a "stressor", which in this case would be the rejection by this all-woman community, hypothetically speaking.
I think that DC should have a crossover issue, where Superman or Batman takes the baby and raises him as a single father.
This month, on my visit to the comic book store, I was browsing through the DC titles. I looked over the Batgirl cover, where she is being physically overpowered by a male villain named Ragdoll (last month she was draped artistically over the bottom part of the cover, restrained by Poison Ivy's poison ivy), and then, again, checked out the new Wonder Woman issue.
Obviously, the first thing I saw was the cover.
to be continued...
Anderson, A. (2014). DC: Give Us Back Our Wonder Woman. Girls Like Comics. Retrieved from
http://girlslikecomics.com/dc-new-52-wonder-woman/#.U4DZOq3jjIV
and Wonder Woman.
She's a feminist icon, gracing the cover of the very first issue of Ms. Magazine in 1972, and their 35th and 40th anniversary issues. She's strong and powerful, yet caring and a champion of the underdog: animals, children, women. Some women around the world may even have used her as a role model when they needed to be a little bit braver in their everyday lives. And that's enough on that.
I recently wrote a series of posts on my first visits to comic shops. Since then, I've located some characters that, although I don't know them well yet, I find interesting: Carol Danvers, Kate Kane, Sara Pezzini. I'm thinking I wouldn't mind spending time at a pub with them watching a rugby match.
But no Wonder Woman.
In a previous post I referenced a review by Alicia Anderson (this), in which she discusses the issues with the current Wonder Woman series. Keeping that in mind, I initially chose to focus on learning about other comic book characters. But each month, on new Wonder Woman release day, I found myself looking through her book, hoping that I would find something to convince me to jump into the series. Each time, not without regret, I put it back on the shelf.
As Ms. Anderson recommended, the Amazons are back in the story. There also appears to be a focus in recent issues on a storyline in which Wonder Woman is attempting to force the Amazons to accept and help raise a male child. I can't fathom why there would be any need to construct a storyline which would require the Amazon warrior women to raise a male child. Are they so threatening as a community of confident, powerful women that adding a male presence is necessary? As Anderson states, "the Amazons were a magical, immortal race of women who didn’t need men to thrive," yet in this current version of the Wonder Woman story, "her [Amazonian] sisters are the fruit of reproduction with hapless, doomed sailors. The Amazons as a race have been destroyed in this version of the mythology."
Of course, everyone knows that for a woman to be complete she should be a mother. Just look around: at the celebrity "news" about pregnancies, at celebrities chattering away about their children on Ellen, the lecture I received from a classmate about the joy of having children, and the reaction of a young woman I know after I told her I most likely won't get married and definitely won't be having children, which consisted of her telling me that the whole point of life was to get married and have babies. But the Amazons presumably helped raise Diana and other young Amazons, so they have already met this requirement to being fulfilled as women. So the point in this storyline must be that the child is male.
Everyone also knows that a woman isn't complete without a man, right? Most Disney movies start us out early in this regard. We need to find our hunky male princely soul mate, even if we have to turn into a vampire. The Amazons being the Amazons, however, a romantic male presence wouldn't be feasible, so therefore, this necessary-to-our-happiness male presence is in the form of a child. Even Bones, that logical, rational being who stated in the early seasons of the show that she wouldn't ever get married, eventually married Booth and had a child. Get with the program, Amazon ladies.
A young man raised by a group of strong, powerful warriors could potentially grow up to embrace the concept of strong women and be a facilitator of change. However, these women don't want him (and if they don't, they shouldn't be forced to) and might tell him at some point that he needs to go back and live in the outside world, where he just as easily could end up as an UnSub on an episode of Criminal Minds, in which, unable to kill the Amazons who reluctantly raised him, he kills other strong women as substitutes- Olympic gold-medalists in weightlifting or judo, maybe. The profilers on Criminal Minds talk about a "stressor", which in this case would be the rejection by this all-woman community, hypothetically speaking.
I think that DC should have a crossover issue, where Superman or Batman takes the baby and raises him as a single father.
This month, on my visit to the comic book store, I was browsing through the DC titles. I looked over the Batgirl cover, where she is being physically overpowered by a male villain named Ragdoll (last month she was draped artistically over the bottom part of the cover, restrained by Poison Ivy's poison ivy), and then, again, checked out the new Wonder Woman issue.
Obviously, the first thing I saw was the cover.
to be continued...
Anderson, A. (2014). DC: Give Us Back Our Wonder Woman. Girls Like Comics. Retrieved from
http://girlslikecomics.com/dc-new-52-wonder-woman/#.U4DZOq3jjIV
Wednesday, May 21, 2014
Something blue
This is Skylar, a blue nail polish made by Zoya, one of my favorite brands of nail polish.
It's also one of my newest nail polishes (so I guess it could have been in the something new post also). I got it as part of Zoya's Earth Day Exchange, in which I bought it at a discounted price, and for which I will send back an old bottle of nail polish that is not Zoya and which contains more of the toxic stuff than Zoya polishes do. They try to keep out the bad stuff, though that's not completely possible with nail polish.They will dispose of this old polish responsibly and according to EPA guidelines. Of course, I still have to send back the old stuff since I am a chronic procrastinator.
Zoya names their polishes with women's names- I also have colors called Faye and Peyton. The funny thing is that I happen to know a man named Skylar, with that exact spelling. He's a friend of friends, and he never remembers my name the few times I've met him. But the same spelling thing is fine with me- I'm all for gender neutrality in language. For example, I try to avoid the words superheroine, actress, waitress, policeman, stewardess, and/or fireman. They're superheroes, actors, servers, police officers, firefighters and/or flight attendants, regardless of which gender they happen to be. Same with Skylar.
Sunday, May 11, 2014
Something borrowed
Elizabeth felt herself growing more angry every moment; yet she tried to the utmost to speak with composure when she said,—
“You are mistaken, Mr. Darcy, if you suppose that the mode of your declaration affected me in any other way than as it spared me the concern which I might have felt in refusing you, had you behaved in a more gentleman-like manner.”
She saw him start at this; but he said nothing, and she continued,—
“You could not have made me the offer of your hand in any possible way that would have tempted me to accept it.”
Again his astonishment was obvious: and he looked at her with an expression of mingled incredulity and mortification. She went on,—
“From the very beginning, from the first moment, I may almost say, of my acquaintance with you, your manners impressing me with the fullest belief of your arrogance, your conceit, and your selfish disdain of the feelings of others, were such as to form that groundwork of disapprobation, on which succeeding events have built so immovable a dislike; and I had not known you a month before I felt that you were the last man in the world whom I could ever be prevailed on to marry.”
(borrowed from Page(s): 214-215, Pride and Prejudice (Barnes & Noble Classics Series) by Jane Austen and Carol Howard, Barnes & Noble, NOOK Study version)
I almost received a proposal on my 19th birthday, before I came to my senses and realized that I was far too young. I'm pretty sure I still am. We had been discussing it, and I suspected that it would happen on my birthday. So I broke up with him a couple of weeks before my birthday. I don't remember how I did it, but it was most likely not as eloquent as Elizabeth Bennet's speech. Although that level of disdain probably wasn't necessary in my case. I still think, however, that this is the best shootdown of a marriage proposal ever. The last bit is gold if you really want to get your point across.
Jane Austen accepted a marriage proposal, for a day, before she too came to her senses and realized that, although the gentleman in question was a friend of the family and that marriage to him would mean financial security for herself and said family, that they really would not suit each other. I picture her reply to be more in line with this letter written by Charlotte Bronte in response to a marriage proposal from the brother of one of her friends:
My dear Sir
Before answering your letter, I might have spent a long time in consideration of its subject; but as from the first moment of its reception and perusal I determined on which course to pursue, it seemed to me that delay was wholly unnecessary.
You are aware that I have many reasons to feel gratified to your family, that I have peculiar reasons for affection towards one at least of your sisters, and also that I highly esteem yourself. Do not therefore accuse me of wrong motives when I say that my answer to your proposal must be a decided negative. In forming this decision — I trust I have listened to the dictates of conscience more than to those [of] inclination; I have no personal repugnance to the idea of a union with you — but I feel convinced that mine is not the sort of disposition calculated to form the happiness of a man like you. It has always been my habit to study the character of those amongst whom I chance to be thrown, and I think I know yours and can imagine what description of woman would suit you for a wife. Her character should not be too marked, ardent and original — her temper should be mild, her piety undoubted, her spirits even and cheerful, and her “personal attractions” sufficient to please your eye and gratify your just pride. As for me, you do not know me, I am not this serious, grave, cool-headed individual you suppose — you would think me romantic and [eccentric -- you would] say I was satirical and [severe]. [However, I scorn] deceit and I will never for the sake of attaining the distinction of matrimony and escaping the stigma of an old maid take a worthy man whom I am conscious I cannot render happy.
[…]
Farewell—! I shall always be glad to hear from you as a friend –
Believe me
Yours truly
C Bronte
(borrowed from Brainpickings.com and Charlotte Bronte)
Of course, while I should maybe memorize these examples, there's really no need. Any man smart enough will know that I will be the one proposing. He'll also know not to expect it.
“You are mistaken, Mr. Darcy, if you suppose that the mode of your declaration affected me in any other way than as it spared me the concern which I might have felt in refusing you, had you behaved in a more gentleman-like manner.”
She saw him start at this; but he said nothing, and she continued,—
“You could not have made me the offer of your hand in any possible way that would have tempted me to accept it.”
Again his astonishment was obvious: and he looked at her with an expression of mingled incredulity and mortification. She went on,—
“From the very beginning, from the first moment, I may almost say, of my acquaintance with you, your manners impressing me with the fullest belief of your arrogance, your conceit, and your selfish disdain of the feelings of others, were such as to form that groundwork of disapprobation, on which succeeding events have built so immovable a dislike; and I had not known you a month before I felt that you were the last man in the world whom I could ever be prevailed on to marry.”
(borrowed from Page(s): 214-215, Pride and Prejudice (Barnes & Noble Classics Series) by Jane Austen and Carol Howard, Barnes & Noble, NOOK Study version)
I almost received a proposal on my 19th birthday, before I came to my senses and realized that I was far too young. I'm pretty sure I still am. We had been discussing it, and I suspected that it would happen on my birthday. So I broke up with him a couple of weeks before my birthday. I don't remember how I did it, but it was most likely not as eloquent as Elizabeth Bennet's speech. Although that level of disdain probably wasn't necessary in my case. I still think, however, that this is the best shootdown of a marriage proposal ever. The last bit is gold if you really want to get your point across.
Jane Austen accepted a marriage proposal, for a day, before she too came to her senses and realized that, although the gentleman in question was a friend of the family and that marriage to him would mean financial security for herself and said family, that they really would not suit each other. I picture her reply to be more in line with this letter written by Charlotte Bronte in response to a marriage proposal from the brother of one of her friends:
My dear Sir
Before answering your letter, I might have spent a long time in consideration of its subject; but as from the first moment of its reception and perusal I determined on which course to pursue, it seemed to me that delay was wholly unnecessary.
You are aware that I have many reasons to feel gratified to your family, that I have peculiar reasons for affection towards one at least of your sisters, and also that I highly esteem yourself. Do not therefore accuse me of wrong motives when I say that my answer to your proposal must be a decided negative. In forming this decision — I trust I have listened to the dictates of conscience more than to those [of] inclination; I have no personal repugnance to the idea of a union with you — but I feel convinced that mine is not the sort of disposition calculated to form the happiness of a man like you. It has always been my habit to study the character of those amongst whom I chance to be thrown, and I think I know yours and can imagine what description of woman would suit you for a wife. Her character should not be too marked, ardent and original — her temper should be mild, her piety undoubted, her spirits even and cheerful, and her “personal attractions” sufficient to please your eye and gratify your just pride. As for me, you do not know me, I am not this serious, grave, cool-headed individual you suppose — you would think me romantic and [eccentric -- you would] say I was satirical and [severe]. [However, I scorn] deceit and I will never for the sake of attaining the distinction of matrimony and escaping the stigma of an old maid take a worthy man whom I am conscious I cannot render happy.
[…]
Farewell—! I shall always be glad to hear from you as a friend –
Believe me
Yours truly
C Bronte
(borrowed from Brainpickings.com and Charlotte Bronte)
Of course, while I should maybe memorize these examples, there's really no need. Any man smart enough will know that I will be the one proposing. He'll also know not to expect it.
Tuesday, May 6, 2014
Something new (to me)
For something old, just read a previous post!
Something new (to me, at least):
I bought this at Free Comic Book Day (yeah, I get the irony of that).
Once I got it home, I was thrilled to find out that Batwoman teams up with Wonder Woman to save the day (and Gotham City)!
Title: Batwoman Volume 3 (includes issue #0 and 12-17), authors J.H. Williams III and W. Haden Blackman, artist J.H. Williams III with additional art by Trevor McCarthy, colorists Dave Stewart and Guy Major, Todd Klein letterer. Lots of men, really, but they did a great job here, in my opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)