Celebrating 40 years...on our own of course

In the second half of a report on censorship with regards to the new Rampant Rabbit, ‘The Wave’, TheLondonPaper mentioned the similar banning of the above magazine cover from being advertised in the London Underground by TFL. For an account of the main part of the report, and my opinions on the silencing of female sexuality, the post is below this one. And for a link to the main article on this particular matter from TheLondonPaper, go here. Otherwise, you can stay here…

The magazine cover above from the famous Gay Times (GT), was a celebration of the past 40 years of legalised homosexuality in the UK. The one on the left, as youcan see, is the cover in question. The cover on the right, is the approved version. In a simple and effective slogan leaving out all the politics, recriminations, explanations etc, GT advise: ‘homosexuality has been legal for forty years: Enjoy’

It’s a wonderful slogan on an otherwise rather quiet British celebration of liberalised legislation, if not attitudes, to homosexuality. For I daresay it is those attitudes that contributed to the TFL decision to ban the ad from use on the London Underground. According to TheLondonPaper, the decision to remove the GT advertisement was based on the fact that one of the men on the cover was unnecessarily in ‘a state of undress’…

…

Ok. Seriously. Huh?

Yes, there is indeed a man in his underwear on the cover of the magazine. And yes, one might hazard a guess as to the foreplay he might be about to initiate with the rather clothed man taking up the centre of the picture. But COME ON!!!!! So what if he’s in his underwear? Since when have we refrained from using scantily-clad men to advertise shaving foam, razors, Calvin Klein, skin cream and a whole host of other products? Even without invoking the glaringly obvious double-standard when it comes to similarly undressed women in advertising, of which there is usually a disproportionately large amount when compared with men, one must ask why it is that this particular occasion is going to be seen as problematic?

And lets talk pragmatically here too. Look at that man in his underwear. I daresay barely a third of his body is actually on display; he is almost completely obscured by the other guy wearing a jacket and trousers. I would give far more credence to the argument if the man in his underwear were actually taking up a significant section or focus of the image, but he isn’t! He’s barely an afterthought, the background to the centrepiece. The most prominent feature of him here isn’t the fact that he’s in underwear, it’s the tattoo on his arm, which is incidentally about the only part of his body we can see in any sense of completion.

Hiding this particular case of censorship behind male half-nudity is, quite frankly, ludicrous. What is at stake here is clearly not about a half-naked man. And even if it were, there would be a great difficulty explaining why seeing the male body in a pair of boxers is in any way offensive when its been ok in advertising for years. In which case, the reasoning has to be far more suspect, and I am rather fearful of the cliché in my suspicions.

Could it be, shock horror, the reason this particular half-naked man is a problem is because he’s possibly a gay naked man. I say possibly, because although he is indeed on the cover of GT, and he is posing in a state of very mild caress with another man, one really can’t discern much about the sexuality of an individual by such tenuous circumstances when it comes to modelling; the roles are usually about as true-to-life as the ones played by actors in films. Nevertheless, lets say for arguments sake he is a gay man, or that TFL are working on the same assumption. We are now faced with the sticky predicament of what is, quite probably, an instance of homophobic censorship. TFL didn’t like this image because of the suggested intimacy between two male individuals, I really believe its that simple.

What irks me is that it is possibly one of the most stupid political decision to make. Censorship of gay subject matter occurs all the time, in many different arenas, and while I hold much contempt for it, I usually do my best to understand the conservatism that drives it. But banning the cover of a magazine where the focus is about a change in legislature that heralded a liberalising of the law and society to homosexuality? That’s just plain stupid. TFL’s decision to ban this particular cover makes a subtextual statement against the legalising of homosexual relationships between two individuals. Whether it was meant to or not, the ban suggests a disagreement with the political statement being made by the cover. The approval of the second cover, showing a singular male, actually serves to affirm my statement. TFL are perfectly satisfied so long as the gay male represented is single. It is not about 'raunch' as TheLondonPaper article might suggest. TFL are actively objecting to a statement about relationships between gay men. The affirming of a cover portraying a single gay man suggests a politics of supporting the 'neutered' gay man, the gay man who is gay by identity, but does not actually conduct gay romantic relationships.

Perhaps that is a strong assertion to make, but I believe it is a very symbolically available one, primarily due to the lack of satisfactory alternatives. To say this advert was banned because there is a man on it in a state of undress is riddled with problematics, and it doesn’t fly when considering the substantial amount of heterosexual counterparts available in otherwise sanctioned advertising. To say the ad was banned because TFL didn’t agree with the celebration of homosexual relationships…somehow that seems painfully more possible.

As I said in the previous article, I do hold some reservations about the freedom of advertising when it comes to the consumption of adverts by younger children. For a child to see the cover to GT magazine and enquire as to what the slogan is about, would place a parent in a situation they may or may not welcome. But the difference between this advert and the one for the Rampant Rabbit is the relative lack of sexual content. Yes, intimacy is suggested, and is what i would consider the primarily political statement being made, but it does not have to be read as explicitly sexual. In the RR advert, the very product is sexual in nature, and the words to promote it are suggestive of that. But in the case of the GT advert, the only sexual content is what we infer from the posturing. Even the use of the word ‘homosexuality’ need not be read in purely sexual terms, especially for a child, but instead in terms of love and relationships, concepts to which we expose children in many wonderful ways. Again, I will hazard a guess that I would have little trouble explaining to my future child the significance of a law that helped to make possible the positive loving relationship between many individuals, should they be witness to an ad like the GT one. Sure, there are many people who wouldn’t want to have a discussion about it with their children due to their own prejudice, but I do quite frankly have a lack of respect for anyone who would encourage ignorance in their children.

Therefore, had TFL invoked a similar argument in this instance as they did with the RR advert, it would fail to satisfy on any level. And to have managed to pass the ban, especially after the advert had been approved by the relevant advertising bodies, is something I find ludicrous, and also incredibly disheartening.

Again, as always, any thoughts?

alex x

Run, Rabbit...

‘Does this shock you?’ Asks a recent edition of ‘theLondonPaper’ as the latest bone of contention in the arguments about censorship make small-time London news. In a curious move, Transport for London (handily abbreviated to ‘TFL’) banned the above advert from the London Underground on the basis of its obscenity, sparking the obvious increase in publicity for the latest in the Rampant Rabbit range. For those of you who don’t know what an RR is, it’s a rather famous, successful (and from what I hear successful) brand of women’s vibrators, the latest edition being ‘the Wave’.

The argument from TFL justifying their move to remove the ad from London tube stations centres on, from what I can see, exposure. And I’m not talking about the rather modestly presented mermaid on the ad. The concern over exposure is in regards to the commuters to whom the ad would be publicised. TFL’s argument is that the general public should not have to look at an ad such as the one above if they choose not to, for risk of offence. For TFL the diversity of their public must be considered, the subtext inevitably being a preference for the more conservatively minded section of that public.

Arguments over censorship are inevitably testy. One person’s depravity is another person’s sanctity; there isn’t really any way of necessarily pleasing everyone. What I find markedly curious about the incident is the relative silence about who it is that is being offended, and more importantly, by what in that advert. For all intents and purposes, the advert is remarkably tame as far as what is immediately available. What can be inferred from the mermaid ‘riding’ the wave, and one’s own familiarity with the brand and product, are what truly give it clout. In that respect, its innuendo rather than porn, this advertisement’s success is in its subtext.

And even then, if we take that inference through to its conclusion, what is exactly being inferred from the ad? Its quite simple, the ingredients are there in ‘wave after wave of pleasure’. We’re looking at female sexuality, we’re possibly looking at orgasm (several, perhaps), we’re looking at satisfaction, enjoyment, and specifically erotic gratification. And we’re looking at all of those things with regards to control and power and choice, specifically that woman’s control, power and choice. ‘The Wave’ brings pleasure if you use it. You can use it on your own, with your partner, with several partners, male or female or both or other. The pleasure, for lack of an alternate word, is yours. What we are not seeing, is abuse. We’re not seeing exploitation, subjectification, subservience. We’re not seeing a lack of consent, we’re not seeing gratuity, and we’re not seeing an unfair balance. Nor are we seeing misrepresentation (although that might depend on how good you think ‘The Wave’ really is with regards to your pleasure), or a disproportionate account of the female experience, body, sexuality etc, the likes of which we are inundated with in all other forms of advertising, posted on the tube and otherwise. In short, this advert is a wonderful example of one immune to the pitfals of so much other female-oriented advertising.

Nevertheless, TFL is concerned with offending certain members of the public. I find it curious to ponder whom among us is still willing to side with those people who are offended by female sexuality and pleasure. Perhaps it’s the fact that we are seeing that pleasure without the need or account for male intervention. Sure, ‘The Wave’ doesn’t preclude the inclusion of a man in the activities, but his presence isn’t exactly a requirement for success, so the ad would suggest. I could quite imagine some nervous and self-conscious men among the TFL seeking to protect the security of their sexual importance by getting rid of ‘The Wave’, it’s a typical, if infuriating, reaction. For me to indicate that to be the real indication behind the ban is, however, presumptuous, and also ignores another, perhaps more acceptable, if still infuriating reason.

The larger segment of the population perhaps (blissfully or not) unaware of what ‘The Wave’ or a Rampant Rabbit really is, are children. When a younger me might have gone down to catch the tube with mummy and seen the inevitably huge poster of a beautiful mermaid riding on a bright pink body of water, I admit I would have been fascinated, curious, perhaps hopeful it was an advert for a new film, and quite probably asked her there and then what exactly ‘The Wave’ was. And bound as she was to be bastion to my growing young mind, would have no doubt struggled for whatever she considered to be an appropriate answer.

As TFL annoyingly suggested, commuters on the tube have little choice but to at least glimpse the rather monolithic advertising plastered to the walls while they await their train, whereas the active decision to go out and purchase a magazine that might contain that same advertisement contains a modicum more deliberation and responsibility for content seen. In short, we can’t really choose what we see on the tube, whereas using the tube at all might fall somewhere within the realm of necessity. Yet buying a magazine or paper confers an element of more overt responsibility on the reader for signing a suggested contract accepting what they are about to see. It’s a thin yet plausible argument. We can’t really choose what we see on billboards while we walk the street, nor the adverts that pop up during our favourite shows on television, yet we retain a little faith in their controlling bodies regarding the appropriateness of the content. And inevitably, while we might be able to deal with exposures to things we regard with distaste, we are ill prepared to compensate for those same ruptures into the worlds of children who have arguably less control on the environment around them. And that is perhaps the only area where I might lend a little support to TFL’s decision.

Make no mistake, I would find little trouble with the idea of encouraging what I consider to be a fair awareness and comprehension of female sexuality in my future children that is empowering and fun, whilst at the same time maintaining for them a sense of what I consider to be within their means to handle and appropriate emotionally. Sure, I would probably struggle on the spot, but right now I have faith that I won’t be practising a doctrine of silence or conservatism with my children. Nevertheless, the choices a person make about how they choose to raise their children, with regards to ignorance of ideas or otherwise, is a decision I do not feel equipped to weigh in on.

I quite frankly don’t give a damn if some idiot adult is offended by the notion of pleasurable and empowering female sexuality; let him or her stew in their discomfort while the rest of us exchange knowing grins. But to place that same idiot in a position of explaining that notion to a younger child is unfair, and in some ways a breach of some sort of privacy, though I struggle to find words for it. Its equally unfair that there are children who will have to look to those same offended individuals for their only understanding of what sexuality is all about, but I’m afraid anything more radical I might suggest about that is really just heading on to fascism.

TFL did make an interesting suggestion about how the advert could reclaim a place in the London Underground. It would rely on the condition that the words ‘Rampant Rabbit’ be removed from the poster, along with all mentions of pleasure. Aside from the fact that this would no doubt completely transform the message of the ad, and also its promotional success, I am intrigued by the insight this gives with regards to what is offensive about the ad. I reiterate my earlier musings; why exactly are we so scared of female pleasure? What have we got to lose by promoting it, or at least talking about it?

As a final note, there have been some who have suggested to me that the ad makes it appear that it is the woman who is being advertised. The ad is for a product, and in some fashion it seems it is the woman, or mermaid specifically, who is being sold. I have to say I understand the concern over the possibility of commodifying the female body, which is indicated here. But that would be a rather crude estimation of the image. What is being sold here, aside from ‘The Wave’, is the concept of female pleasure and joy. A woman is being sold here, but it’s not as literal as one could assert. The woman sold is the woman one becomes when she owns the product; a woman who quite simply gets to enjoy herself. It’s not about selling licentiousness, or teenage pregnancy, or promiscuity (all only as problematic as one personally invests anyway), or any other host of moral issue 'buzz words' guaranteed to set tongues wagging. It’s selling the opportunity to have a good time. I really struggle to find anything in this context that could make that a bad thing.

But enough about me, what do you think? As ‘theLondonPaper’ asked, does it shock you?

alex x

Yes Virginia, this gay man DOES read Wonder Women

Prompted by a look at my collection on returning home from my ten-month trip abroad, I’ve been contemplating the place of stereotype in the way we envision the reading habits of various demographics, in relation to gender, and for me more pertinently, to sexuality.

Way back in my piece on the prospect of introducing a Wonder Boy into the ‘Wonder’ family, I touched upon a reading by Eve Sedgwick entitled ‘How to Bring Your Children Up Gay’, an ironic title whose article examined, among other things, the way in which effeminacy in gay males is decried at its most simplistic as a sign of abnormality by the more conservatively inclined, and at its more complex, a perpetuation of stereotype that can, and is often, rejected by even adult gay men. The criticism of ‘nancy boy’ or ‘sissy’ is not simply the supposed dominion of the heterosexual bigot; it is employed just as vindictively among gay men as an attack on the legitimacy of more ‘effeminate’ gay men. And why? For many, the criticism is an honourable one; to be a gay ‘sissy boy’ supposedly undermines the queer challenge to heteronormative assumptions that gender and sexuality are inevitably linked. If the simplistic and inefficacious assumption is that a gay man is simply a female in a man’s body, then the gay man who behaves according to a broad understanding of what it is to be ‘feminine’ perpetuates the legitimacy of the assumption, rather than challenging the binaries upholding the claim. The value judgment you’ll find as an extension of this, that ‘straight acting’ or ‘masculine’ gay men are the ‘ideal’, is, as far as I’m concerned, just as insidiously homophobic as statements like ‘why can’t gay men simply behave normally’, or ‘why can’t they act more like us?’

The result of the rejection of effeminacy, whilst making an interesting statement (for the challenge to an inevitable link between gender and sexuality is indeed an important one), renders marginal the experiences of gay men who do fall into that category, or more broadly the category of ‘stereotype’. Popular culture has us at an awful double bind. Behave according to the stereotypical understanding of what it is to be a gay man, and you’ll be presumed ‘understood’ and ‘accepted’ enough to appear on Will and Grace, but you’ll also face the rejection of your politically minded peers desperate to smash that stereotype. Attempt to smash the stereotype, and you get ousted from the mainstream understanding of what it is to be a gay man, and you end up launching a critique on your peers who do seemingly affirm that stereotype.

What exactly does this all have to do with comics? For me, this debate around effeminacy, and more broadly stereotype, dictates the way in which the campaign for fair representation of gay men within comics must proceed, and also sheds light on the frustratingly simplistic ways similar discussions about women as readers of comics have gone forward. As a gay male comic book reader, the need to defend my reading of titles like Wonder Woman or Manhunter becomes inevitably tied to the way we let stereotype inform our value judgements about readers. And also, as a gay male comic book reader, there is an element of personal politics that inevitably shapes my choices, and the representations of other gay men I find acceptable to consume.

To take things back specifically to my own experience here, the progression of my own political concerns has often shaped not simply the way I have bought and read comics, but the extent to which those practices have been featured in other areas of my life. As a young boy, I was a huge Wonder Woman fan. I never stopped being one; I’ve been following her adventures in some form or other since I was 5. Looking at the rest of my comic book collection as a child, I see the entire Jessica Drew as Spider-Woman run, complete with appearances in other titles. I see Firestar, Batgirl, and a fair amount of the Black Cat. And yet the extent to which that reading played a part in my friendships or school-life is marginal; reading female-headed comics as a kid would have been understood by peers and family as a marker indicative of a sexuality I was keen not to disclose. As I got older my readings shifted, I became more affluent, and also more dedicated, branching out to the majority of the DCU and some Vertigo titles. But looking at the ones that frame the majority of my collection…The Teen Titans, Wonder Woman, Supergirl, Birds of Prey, Checkmate, Sandman, Promethea, Manhunter, Lucifer, Y The Last Man…all comics featuring, if not starring, strong and diverse portrayals of female characters. As time went on, the admission of my comic book preferences, as well as the heroines I watched on TV (Buffy, Xena, Alias) went hand-in-hand with the disclosure of my sexual identity. The link between them, if not truly one made by me, was one I internalised enough to treat them with equal delicacy. For me here, what seems to become an interesting relationship to examine is the growth and development of my sexual identity and its effect, if any, on the comics I have consumed, and why. Is there any reason one can ledge an assumption that a gay male comic book reader would gravitate towards particular portrayals of strong females in comics? And what part do I play in a contribution to the success of that assumption?

In short, here’s the thing, the concern, the issue that prompts this entry. Do I like these comics because I am a gay man; are they an extension of some sort of gay aesthetic, one linked similarly to notions of effeminacy? The stereotype of the tiara-wearing gay comic fan, with his Lynda Carter obsession, is rife in the comic spheres, and to all appearances (albeit sans any tiaras and only moderate interest in Lynda Carter), that stereotype finds an example in me. Throughout the years, and only up until I was 19 or so, my interest in comics, and Wonder Woman specifically, has been downplayed in other areas of my life. In recent years however, I own more Wonder Woman t-shirts than I do Superman comics, I’m looking to shape my Masters around my interest in comics, my friends buy me comic-related memorabilia, heck my friends in New Zealand refer to me as Wonder Boy. Comfortable as I am with my interests and aesthetics, stereotypical or not, I am more keen than ever to examine the way in which we read meaning into our comic reading as indicative of who we are.

I am keen to undermine the idea that I read the comics I do simply because I self-identify as gay. Rather, the comics I read now more than ever before have become inevitably entwined with my political concerns. Heavily influenced by the online feminist community here, I have become incredibly concerned with finding empowering, strong, diverse, rich portrayals of women in comics. Not because I want to prove they exist, but because this is where I identify the enjoyment in my reading. To attempt to read that back, to look at causes and effects, to establish a link between my sexuality and my comic-book preferences, only works I feel because my politics act as the link between them both. From my sexuality extends the fundamental concern of my politics; diversity. Based on that, my academic readings dictate my appreciation of postmodernism and the poststructural undermining of identity (from which I read Y the Last Man, or the Sandman for instance). It is on those bases that I delight in non-normative portrayals of all types of individuals in comics, most especially women, because the transgressive possibility of diversity in their representation is so provocative.

I know that some of that may seem almost unnecessarily complex, but I would maintain that only such a level of complexity is ever fruitful when we come to discuss the relationship between the identities we uphold and the way we consume comics. It is a lack of this complexity that often undermines the discussion of women as readers, as creators and as characters in comics in more mainstream circles. The call to compile lists of ‘girl-friendly’ comics, to understand what it is ‘women’ want to read in comics, what should be aimed at them, how they should appear within comics, is forever apparent, forever reinforced, forever debated. And in the further reaches of the blogosphere, the call for similar discussion in relation to homosexual readers and characters also celebrates debate. I fear, at least as we currently understand it, these debates to be based in largely unhelpful terms.

To try to isolate what it is that makes a woman, or a gay comic book reader, is a hopelessly obtuse endeavour. To further obtain some kind of general understanding of what ‘they’ want to see is equally insensitive. But to look at political concerns, as much of the feminist blogosphere is doing, helps to move discussions away from hopeless ‘what makes women tick’ discussions to anecdotal looks at various different women’s experiences as readers of comics, and how their private interpretations of their genders and politics inform the way they consume comics.

As my own reading goes on, and my writings in this blog develop, my exploration of the links between my understanding of my sexuality, my politics, and my comic book preferences will be something I will hope to consistently emphasise. And I would appeal, from a private curiosity, and also a devotion to diversity, that others might do similarly. As ever the comment section of this blog is open for contribution and comment for people to share their interpretations.

And so, any thoughts?

Alex x

alive again, positively

hey,

in the spirit of commitment, and in an effort against the transience that comes from lazyness, this is just a quick blogpost to say that, while i have been gone, i WILL be back in earnest as soon as i have my own internet connection. I have moved out of NZ and back to the UK, with all the difficulties such a transition entails.

Once things settle down, I'll be looking into talking about Manhunter (having just consumed the entire series), Alias (the unrelated comics and television show), Sandman, some stuff on Artemis from Wonder Woman, some stuff about Truth and Wonder Woman, some stuff on sexual violence and redemption in Buffy, some origins of Wonder Boys, and maybe a little on Shortbus. Then, perhaps I'll commit to re-reading Promethea, and its status as what I think might be one of the most politically Queer titles i've ever read.

I hope thats enough to whet any appetites. feel free to email or leave me comments, as i do check them regularly

loves, and all that entails

alex x

ps the picture is to prove that i am, in fact, alive :)

Honesty

Well, its been awhile since I blogged, mostly because my father surprised me by coming all the way to NZ for a week from the UK, and then the next week I celebrated my 22nd birthday. Put simply I haven’t had the time to keep up with the blogosphere, much less contribute to it.

Still, I’m back now, and after reading Lisa’s piece concerning the recent controversy over the Mary-Jane statue, and the abhorrent reaction against the reaction, I’m wanting to weigh in. So go there, read that article, and then come back to see where its taken me.

Done that?

Good, now lets settle in for some nice bouts of honesty. My name is Alexander Lyons. This…..

…is what I look like. I’m a part-white male graduate from a fairly well-known and successful university in the UK, with all the privilege such a status confers. I am a gay man, as I have mentioned here before, with all cultural controversies that may invoke, and as you might now, I currently live in NZ, and just celebrated my 22nd birthday.

Why all the personal details? Its not vanity. It’s honesty. It’s an unveiling in a context that positively invites deception, a disclosure in the wake of some rather disgusting shows of deceit. It’s me saying who I am, and vaguely what I am about, because this troll thing; its not going to stop me, or many others, blogging about who we are, and what we are about.

Comic books are a source of learning, creativity, and fantasy for me. I read them for fun, for thrill, for intellect, for symbolism. I look to relate, and I look at the impossible otherness. They’re a creative form I have grown up with, one I can’t undermine. And when I come into that world, and I see the lifelessness of the Power Girl picture, or the Mary-Jane statue, I cringe at the connotation, the impression, the suggestions these images invoke. They are the seedy underside of something that gives me continuous inspiration. And just as much as I am going to write about that inspiration, I am going to write about those despairs, those heinous embarrassments for what they represent. From my position of privilege within this fandom, I am unlikely to get as much of the abuse Lisa has written about. Nevertheless, I am no less offended by the attacks that have taken place against others in the blogosphere, people whose words I enjoy reading, who challenge me. Attempts to silence these individuals are marked by abuse, but most importantly deception and absence.

Posts of complaint against the Mary Jane statue have been deleted, and anonymous posters have levelled their criticisms and abuses on blogs, attacking the personal with invisibility. It is a double-edged absence. There is an attempt to render women, and it is predominantly women I think who are receiving the abuse, silent in their protests, and at the same time to hide attack on these women in anonymity. While vicious, and perhaps even momentarily effective, an anonymous attack pales in comparison to the strength of honest confession or belief. What has often given the writing on women in comics by so many posters such strength is their candour, the open anecdotal nature of the words. The poster who attacks within the safety of hidden identity is confined to speaking without personal passions. Sure, anonymity lends itself to deft critiques, but they hold no personal weight. I can’t be inspired by a personality whose traits are venomous without context. It is the personal context that surrounds so much of the good natured and thoughtful explorations of comicbook issues that lend them their gravity. And its something I do believe is instrumental to securing the success of having a clear and strong voice, and of effecting change.

As such, and as Lisa powerfully suggests, these attacks, these attempts to relegate the topic of women in comics to invisibility, while frightening, should not be met with similar silence. We should keep talking. We should keep pushing. And we should keep being honest while we do.

alex x

On Spartans

Well, after weighing in with my perspectives on Sexual Violence in terms of Gorgo’s rape, I’ve finally gotten round to watching 300.

I’ll be as honest as I can here. There is a part of me that was incredibly entertained by the action. A part of me exhilarated by the battle. A part of me admiring the epic style. A part of me a lil guiltily turned on by the well-oiled almost unnatural physical perfection of the Spartan army.

But there’s something about underlying tones of sexism, homophobia, racism, masculinist crap about the weakness of emotion, the hideous evoking of simplistic ‘West takes on the Eastern scum’ mentality, the notion of physical perfection as moral superiority, that killed my vacuous buzz. While I acknowledge that some of this was somewhat in line with supposed Spartan ideology, I am no fool when it comes to detecting a whiff of creator agreement and embelishment.

I think the scene that undermined my superficial enjoyment the most had to be the part where Ephealtes enters the tent I’d like to call ‘The Diversity/Depravity Tent’, where we get a nice solid message about how lesbians, the handicapped, the deformed, the self-mutilating, the 7-feet-tall dark skinned men in makeup and the sexually ‘deviant’ are all evil sons of bitches, part of the same team, and want to take over the world. It was a place where the acceptance of diversity, however extreme, became synonymous with submission to evil. I mean, if ever there was a message that diversity equals depravity, this is where it got its public service announcement.

What. Utter. Tripe.

Code of the Amazons

Was just having a look at my old Wonder Woman website (I'd link to it, but I'm scared by just how bad some of it is!) and came across 'The Code of the Amazons', which as far as I remember was taken from one of the Wonder Woman Secret Files issues. Here it is, verbatim:

'Let all who read these words know: we are a nation of women, dedicated to our sisters, to our Gods, and to the peace that is humankind's right. Granted life by Gaea, the Goddesses and the souls of women past, we have been gifted with the mission to unite the people of our world with love and compassion.

Man has corrupted many of the laws our Gods set forth. So, in their wisdom, the Goddesses did create a race of female warriors, dedicated to the ideals of uniting all people, all sexes, all races, all creeds. No longer will man rule alone, for now woman stands as an equal to temper his aggression with compassion, lend reason to his rages and overcome hatred with love. We are The Amazons, and we have come to save mankind.'

So much of that Code still stands as inspiring and beautiful to read. But is it still relevant to the Amazon nation, including Diana, in light of events like the killing of Max Lord (which I was in support of) and the upcoming Amazons Attack! miniseries? Anyone wondering if the modern day Amazons need a re-written Code, or can they still legitimately claim the above as guiding their actions?

any thoughts?

How to Bring Your Wonder Boy up Gay

The name ‘Wonder Boy’ is one suspiciously absent from the current comic book world. Wonder Woman has never had a young male sidekick, and in light of the families of her respective DC trinity associates, that fact is curious in its conspicuousness. For both Batman and Superman, there is a recognisably distinct family of characters, from both sides of the gender spectrum, sharing panel time, and often their own titles, with their patrons.

Wonder Woman’s family, by contrast, has primarily been a female-only space. Along with the two Wonder Girls, fellow Wonder Women Hippolyta and Artemis, as well as Nubia, have been touted at times as members of the Wonder Family. Attempts to incorporate men into the adventuring cast of the Wonder Woman title are often hampered by their status as love interests. So, why no Wonder Boy?

Is it because of gender discomfort? By this I am referring to the gender connotations that having a young male hero inspired by a female icon like Wonder Woman might generate. In the current masculinist culture of comics in general, it is easy to see how a Wonder Boy character would be picked on for being the male sidekick of a female superhero. Yet all around the DCU, young women have and are taking up arms in the name of their male icons. Supergirl, Batgirl, Miss Martian, Speedy, Aquagirl…all of them have been at times accepted as legitimate heroines without questions to their femininity. Clearly we are comfortable with female interpretations of what were started as male traditions (though not in all cases, as Stephanie as Robin stands to prove), yet I am not sure the same would be the case for a Wonder Boy.

The recent introduction of a Power Boy is one of the only examples I can think of where a Heroine’s title has been taken and applied to a male, yet even there the urgency with which he has been disassociated from Power Girl as a namesake, and also turned into an obsessive and abusive ‘himbo’ is a worrying example for how seriously male interpretations of female traditions might be taken in the DCU. And the fact that Karen is herself a take on the Supergirl character as derived from Superman would pretty much undermine Power Boy as an example anyway. Which leaves us with…not very much.

The problem here isn’t that a Wonder Boy would be necessarily effeminate because he had a female namesake, but because it’s imaginable people would joke about it anyway, both within the text and outside it. I can just see the whispering during his first outing with the Teen Titans, or the questions about whether he’d wear a tiara too…And moreover, I wouldn’t place the line at being a questioning of his masculinity, but also his sexuality. I daresay a Wonder Boy wouldn’t just be the focus for joke about femininity, but for homosexuality as well. The way in which we live in a culture that still predominantly views gender and sexuality as collapsible categories makes it inevitable that expectations about femininity will become linked to the desire for men as a love-object, and vice versa. If Wonder Boy were questioned about his masculinity, questions about his sexuality would go hand in hand. It’s infuriating, but I daresay an annoying truth. Moreover, Wonder Woman’s status as something of a ‘gay icon’, while seemingly free from affecting her female co-stars, is something that I would hazard a guess would come to affect the attitudes towards a Wonder Boy.

Here’s the rub for me: what would be the problem if Wonder Boy were effeminate? And moreover, what if he was gay as well as effeminate. Would that be a big problem?

In an article I was reading the other day to which this post owes its title, Eve Sedgwick looks at how the image of the young effeminate male has become the spectre of the adult gay rights movement. Consistently in gay and pro-gay literature, there is a cultural emphasis and value placed on the gay male who isn’t feminine, who is masculine and takes part in a typically ‘masculine’ ontology. This move is important because it seeks to debunk the supposed link between sexuality and gender by maintaining that it is possible to be masculine and still desire men. The downside in that move, and the placing of value on this breaking of stereotypes is that the effeminate gay man becomes marginal within an already marginalized group. In psychological literature, where homosexuality has been removed from the DSM as an example of mental disorder, Sedgwick notes how there is still an apparent need to identify young male femininity as ‘Gender Disorder’. While various aspects of society have been able to move forward with regards to an open view of sexualities, the transgression of gender lines still seems to evoke discomfort, and returns to speak about what is ‘natural’.

Taking it back to Wonder Boy, if we were to introduce a Wonder Boy who is masculine and heterosexual, we would do a good job of debunking the presumed link between gender and sexuality, but we would also perpetuate the value judgement that relegates femininity in males to being an example of disorder. Because it is such a predictable outcome that a Wonder Boy would be a prime subject for questions about his sexuality and his masculinity, any attempts to contradict a stereotype would have the adverse affect of reinforcing the stereotype as something we fear.

Generally, whether or not a Wonder Boy is a big manly man or not, and whether or not he desires men, women, both or none, isn’t something that would usually concern me. However, since Jimenez introduced the character of Bobby Barnes into the Wonder Woman mythos, a character who was then not only ignored from any future issues but also met a great deal of fan scorn, I’ve been left mulling over the concept of a ‘Wonder Boy’ for some time.

For those who weren’t around for issue 188 of Jimenez’ run on Wonder Woman, Bobby Barnes was introduced as the nephew of Diana’s then love-interest Trevor, and was a young African American boy who idolised Wonder Woman and was blown away to finally meet her, receive an honorary ‘Wonder Boy’ t-shirt, and be invited to Themyscira where he could be seen sharing his panel position with Cassie as Wonder Girl. The potential for taking this optimistic young boy further in the Wonder Woman mythos and actually making him a real Wonder Boy was hampered by the fact that his uncle was killed off in the very next story-arc after Jimenez’ departure. Yet the potential for conflict between Bobby and Diana over Trevor’s death seems like a curious dropping of the ball as far as creating an interesting Wonder Boy character. Bobby could easily have returned as a newly empowered Wonder Boy to take issue with his uncle’s death, or perhaps to honour it by fighting by Diana’s side.

In any case, Bobby was forgotten from his one-issue appearance, though not without some conflict on the DC message boards. The issue of Bobby’s debut was also Jimenez’ final issue, and was a tribute to Lynda Carter. Jimenez has always been open about being a young gay man inspired by Carter’s on-screen superheroics, and how important watching the show had been for him. As a result, the strong reactions against his work, and this issue in particular, were often hard to distinguish from the general homophobia he could often receive on the message boards. Fans picked on the issue for being action-lite, and for Diana’s radical amount of costume changes throughout. It was pretty, optimistic, and some might say a little thin on content, but in the spirit of the show it honoured, it was a fun issue. Nevertheless, the readers came out in force to chastise Jimenez for fulfilling his childhood fantasies on the page at best, and promoting some kind of ‘gay aesthetic’ at worst. Attacks on the content of the issue were a thin veil for some of the homophobic abuse levelled at Bobby as a projection of Jimenez within the text, and gave a good indication for the kinds of controversy I feel writing a potentially gay Wonder Boy could arouse. The example of Jimenez’ introduction of Bobby provides another problem with the investments of a Wonder Boy; the idea that the character might become a vehicle for the politics of his creator, or will be accused as such.

As with the issues discussed earlier concerning Wonder Boy’s masculinity and sexuality, there is an almost inevitably political component to introducing a young man into the Wonder Woman mythos, one that would be difficult to avoid for any writer at the helm. If Wonder Woman is till to be considered a feminist symbol or icon, does that apply to her protégé’s, and would that include a Wonder Boy? If the double-w has become a symbol of Amazonian heritage and courage, can a man wear it and what are the connotations if so? Does DC have the current creativity and subtlety to explore those issues without resorting to stereotype; to introduce a male character with a female mentor and primary companions, without resorting to stereotypical tropes? Would the avoidance of stereotype simple reinforce them anyway? The questions I have raised above, along with the rest of this discussion, are just examples of the kind that could take place. Yet despite the hotbed of connotation, I am even more inspired that a Wonder Boy is something the Wonder Woman mythos needs, possibly because of the symbolic implications his absence currently represents.

Any thoughts?

On Sexual Violence

On reading Grace’s article over at Heroine Content concerning 300 and the opposition she has faced regarding her opinions on Gorgo’s rape by Theron, I was shocked too by the idea that there are still people who cling, at least morally, to notions of rape based in the fight or flight, in overt force. A lack of understanding about the subtle violences of coercion in relation to sex is always an alarming wake up call for me about just how people are kidding themselves in their emotional lives, and the arguments levelled at Grace’ definition expose to me this huge area of grey that still seems to need ironing out. I fully agree with Grace’s definitions of rape, and here’s why.

When I was back in school, a sociology teacher asked all of the class a series of questions to be answered only in our heads. She asked if we'd ever had sex to keep someone happy. If we'd had sex to keep someone with us. If we'd had sex because we didn't want to make someone mad, or because we feared the consequences if we didn’t do it. If we’d had sex not really knowing what we were about to do. If we’d changed our minds about wanting to have sex during the act, but carried on because we thought we had no option. If we’d had sex when we simply weren’t in the mood for it, but our partner was. And most importantly, she asked, in any of those instances, if our partner’s had suggested even a modicum of pressure, of persuasion against our unwillingness, had made us feel a negative consequence might arise from our non-conformity.

Then she asked us whether we could really justify those occasions as being consensual acts of sex, in the full meaning of consent; in the notion that both partners were willing, ready, fully informed and wanting to. We all went a little bit quiet at the indication she was making, at the idea that these cases, in what we viewed as inconsequential moments, rape, in a moral sense, was subtly present.

Its easy to hide behind the notion of rape as a) being a dramatically big event based in overt violence committed by a stranger and b) more likely male on female, in order to protect oneself from the grey areas of our own sex lives, where we may have been victims, or where we may have been perpetrators in the pressures we may exert. A more comprehensive, yet simple understanding of rape in relation to consent forces us to examine ourselves more closely, and perhaps the opposition that Grace’s opinions may get is rooted in personal discomfort. Yet I for one am not ungrateful for the personal discomfort exploring these issues evokes. If we aren’t prepared to examine the psychological violences of coercion in relation to sex, we render ourselves open to becoming victims, and more importantly perpetrators of a form, however small, of sexual violence. To underestimate the importance of fully informed consent in sex is to undermine the act itself, as well as the basic freedom of our sexual partners to make an informed and willing decision.

Any thoughts?

Pride of the Amazons

Had a look at the June solicitations for DC over at Newsarama, and of the many, MANY interesting things going on, what stands out for me is the coverage Wonder Girl and Supergirl will be getting in the Amazons Attack! storyline.

The move to link these two characters together since Kara's introduction has been given a real push in recent issues of Kara's own title, and its nice to see, at least for continuity's sake, that their connections to the Amazon nation are being remembered enough to make them important parts of the upcoming storyline. The two girls make an interesting pair of friends, bonded by their relationships with their mentors, the Amazons, and their loss over Conner. In many respects its seemed as if Cassie has been something of a guide for Kara, being the far more seasoned of the two heroines, and despite her often surly moods, also the more mature. Its always nice to see friendships portrayed in the DCU that aren't predicated on being part of the same team, or having some budding romance. But what I love most, is the interesting tangent on the Amazon ideal that these two women stand to represent.

With both Cassie and Kara, and the way in which their decisions are supposed to reflect their loyalties to the Amazons, I'm wondering just how interested DC is in setting them up as sort of legacy figures for the Amazon nation. Both of these girls stand as examples of the way in which the Amazon message is adopted by outsiders. Unlike Diana and Donna, neither of these girls were raised with the Amazons, but became a part of the Amazon way of life at later stages. Both were trained by the Amazons, presumably philosophically as well as in terms of martial prowess. At least with Cassie, we see an adoption of those themes in her other appearances, while its kind of unclear exactly what Kara gained from it herself. In any case, I think DC would be missing the boat not to emphasise the complexity of where these two girs are coming from in relation to the Amazon way and 'Patriarch's World's' way of life.

In the past, Cassie has been shown to have adopted a religious belief in the Olympian Gods (which would happen when Zeus is exposed as you father and Ares becomes your sponsor), and also a relatively Amazonian approach to her ideals and responsibilities. Kara is an even more interesting case. In her first days on Earth, Kara lived both as a regular Earth-girl, then as an Amazon, and then on Apokolips. She is the perfect cross-cultural traveller, and it'd be interesting to see just how those different experiences play out in her outlook, and also how far up in her esteem the Amazons and their cultur stands.

I also wonder if there is room in the DCU to explore this idea beyond these two girls. Cassie and Kara can't be the only teens in the DCU influenced by Amazon culture, or by a love of Wonder Woman. Back when Themyscira was a University, it could be said that a lot of teens may have been exposed to it. We also have those pockets of the Wonder Woman Foundation that were run by teenagers exploring Amazonian philosophies, and then any number who read Diana's book and took it on board. And even way back with Perez, we had the concept introduced that many shipwreck victims over the years have been sheltered and nursed on Themyscira's islets, and then returned to the world with a sort of 'Divine Inspiration' to go out and do good things in the world. Back when the Bana Mighdall Amazons were a lost nation, we saw that they themselves had been having children over the centuries to repopulate. In theory, we should have a number of young female Amazons running around of a similar age as Cassie and Kara.

With all these little pockets of information, it would make sense that we might get some kind of neo-Amazon movement, of young people, both Amazon and non, interested in perpetuating the Amazon legacy. And with both Cassie and Kara we have icons of what that movement might look like. It would be an interesting plotline to address within the storyline; the idea of a sort of tangent group of humans and Amazons representing a link between the two, and also a cross-section of their ideals. Heck, we could even have boys involved for once! I'd say more on that, but I'm saving my Wonder Boy ideas for later (I'm sure there's some kid from Jimenez' run knocking around with some bracelets on and a double-W insignia somewhere). In any respect I hope DC goes with more than a simple 'Amazons vs The World' idea here, but instead includes that whole intersection of people in between. It would certainly help diversify the DCU somewhat, creating some more character conflict, and also character opportunities. I reckon the two Cassie and Kara appearances touted for June will be a nice start, lets just hope they run with it a little more.

Any thoughts?

alex x

Why I Blog

Following Kalinara's post; Pretty, Fizzy Paradise: Why I Blog!, I figured I'd join in, because its fun to talk about me :)

5. Because They Do

Over time, there have been some other blogs that have inspired and moved me, whether its due to their poignancy, their fun, their importance. Kalinara, Ragnell, Karen Healey, Loren Javier... so many of these people have contributed to a blogosphere that is a creative and vibrant place to be a part of. Bloggers like these make me feel ready to write, make me want to be a part of the conversations, and to contribute to a space that I myself find fun to be a part of.

4. Because I love Comics

Since I was small, comics have been a huge part of my consciousness. They have been a forum for my fantasy and my learning, inspirations for my creativity and my persistence. I couldn't value them higher as a literary and artistic form. As such I can't underestimate how important a place they have in popular culture, or simply in my life, and this is simply the best outlet for my being able to express that.

3. Because I want to effect change

Though comics are the primary centre here, the issues I tend to focus on, of sexuality, and often feminism, within comics as a form, and then sometimes simply in general, are issues very close to my academic and social interests. I have absolutely no doubts in the power that discussion has for effecting change in this world, and I continue to see places where I feel change is needed. There's no sweeping moment or event that is going to turn those things I find objectionable around, and the need for change will be as exponential as the growth of our ideas. But I am perfectly happy with trying to change a small corner, person by person, heart by heart so to speak. And the conversation that arises from blogging helps me make moves towards that, which is just damned fine.

2. Because I want to learn

Blogging is such a forum for learning. When I post, I don't do so with the idea that what I have to say is going to simply stand up on its own. I write with a mind to invite criticism, and in many respects because the process of deconstruction, of being torn down through dialogue, makes the process of rebuilding that much more interesting. I love to learn, about myself, about others, about my world, and blogging gives me an entry point into all of those things.

1. Because its fun

and thats pretty self-explanatory :)

x

She's like SO whatever....

Just caught the preview pages of Supergirl's appearance in March's issue of The Brave and the Bold at Newsarama. Seems like Waid has caught on to our new Kara... have a look at these two pages....

I couldn't help but laugh. Perez is a great artist, and makes it damned clear that this isn't his projection of sexual fantasy on the page, this is a (17?, I thought she was 16, did I miss a birthday?) teenaged girl who thinks she's a male fantasy. Rather than have Kara situated in a variety of sexual poses, Perez' art works off of Waid's text beautifully, having Kara's flirtaciousness come off as childish as it sounds. Here Kara seems pretty vacuous, audacious, and I have to say pretty amusing in her lack of subtlty. Waid even manages to poke fun at Kara's skimpy costume, and her attempts to use it to get closer to GL. Its a shame that the appearance of Kara outside her own comic is one of a slightly bimbette, almost stupid girl, but then we do have the rest of the issue to have her redeemed. Also interesting is that the following pages (which you can access via the link) have Kara impulsively inserting herself into a crisis, trying to save the day. The naivety of her rescue acts as a nice accompaniment to the rest of her naivety, concerning GL's secret identity, her relationship with Kal, her romantic advances... Its almost a subtle balance between innocence and an attempt at being 'innocence lost'. Kara wants to be sexy and heroic, yet her rather blunderous attempts at both simply suggest her age, and the possibility that one day she'll find more secure ways of doing both.

any thoughts?

alex x

Feeling Inspired

Go Here for a wonderful post from Karen Healey. Every time I visit this woman's blog, I find reasons to be inspired, to be uncomfortable, to work harder. Each time I write a post, and then I read something by Karen, I feel that maybe I need to do more, to be more critical, more aware, to be aware of my priveleges, to overcome my comfortable preconceptions. She is inspiration to be a better writer, and here she talks about how necessary that can be. Start making this a regular stop, you'll see what I mean.

And in league with the feel of being inspired, or making things happen, there have been two links I found that gave me smiles.

The first is Newsarama's coverage of the Gender and Genre panel from the Wondercon. Its not simply because of what was said there, but simply because it exists, because we have one, another forum, a rather official, public one in which to discuss those issues often relegated to private writings. I know its not the be all and end all, but its something. And I am increasingly inspired by the somethings achieved.

The second is Project Rooftop's'Fashion Emergency' feature on Supergirl. The reason I love this feature is because of the creativity, the diversity, and in light of recent posts on the current Supergirl, it gives a nice impression of what potential readers want what they like, how those horizons clash or fuse, and how they relate to what we have. I'd love to see this kind of move have more of a bearing on the editorial decisions of comic book companies, but as is, they provide wonderful inspiration to share ideas.

alex x