![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
trinityvixenWhat's so wrong with being a superhero's girlfriend anyway? Well, plenty, if this latest brou-ha-ha over the MJ statue is indicative of anything (it is).
Sigh. There's nothing at all to say about the inanity of comic book character statuettes that could be any more clever than anything that's been said before. Personally, I find most of those statues really fugly, especially the busts with no arms. Seriously, if it's going to be a bust, end it at the bust. Don't give me a torso with no arms. I mean...yaaarghh!! Gross!
Look at that last link--just look at the difference between the black-costume Spider-Man and Venom. Giving Venom arms instead of nonsensically chopping said arms off at the shoulder or midway through the bicep increases the dynamism of the statuette. The same rule of drawing comics should apply to busts, you ask me--if the artists do their best to imply a sense of motion and action to a still image, then the sculptor ought to do his/her best to carry that movement over into the three-dimensional representation. Dude, how much more awesomely HULK SMASH-y is this bust for having the Gray Hulk about to pound the shit out of the coffee table you put it on? A lot, that's how much more. THEY NEUTERED APOCALYPSE BY TAKING OFF HIS ARMS. THAT IS SO WRONG FOR EN SABAH NUR, I CANNOT BEGIN TO OVERCAPITALIZE MY RAGE ENOUGH!!! WHAT IS EVEN THE GODDAMNED POINT!?!
Ahem. Anyway, there's plenty of ways to keep arms. A popular one seems to be having the character in question cross his arms over his chest (I say "his" because this does not seem to be the same rule for the busts of female characters--probably because that would negate the point of a bust of a character like Psylocke, which is, namely, to be showing off her chest). But if you can make room for the Jackman to menace your bookshelf with his claws or a Bizarro Brandon Routh to threaten the ceiling with his raised fist, you can figure out more arm postures to keep the goddamned arms on the goddamned bust if you're going to insist on still calling it a bust even though it goes all the way down to the waist.
Ahem. I think I was starting to write about superheroes' girlfriends, right? Basically, I am not well-versed in comics. Especially not compared to others in my circle of friends. Especially not. However, I am a casual consumer of comics, enough to know my shit most days (specifically in the Marvel catalogue, though I've got a working knowledge of some DC and indie titles). My sense is, with this stupid MJ statue, that the comics people are in agony. The decent comics people. The ones who really do appreciate good stories, great characters, and fine art (versus this piece of shit statue). They're jumping up and down to be heard, to say, "This isn't how most of us feel about comic book characters, okay?"
And it's a good thing, too. Because comics do have a lot to answer for with their portrayals of women. They do. But, as a subversive (i.e. not mainstream) medium, they also have the breadth of opportunity and decades of experience to alter the formula. For the most part, it is possible to enjoy comics despite the fact you won't find a fat girl among any hero group (nor any of the more popular villainesses). The medium as a whole celebrates ridiculous body types, on men and women, but pardon me for griping if it still maintains the sexist approach of celebrating physical perfection in women that is unhealthy (versus the muscular men who, though probably abusing steroids, aren't an unhealthy ideal).
This is most abused in the superhero comic, as most you reading this would know. But then you would also know that someone like Mary-Jane Watson-Parker is, despite her being popped out of the superhero girlfriend body-type mold, an actual character. Circumstance has led Peter Parker to have a number of fairly strong female role models around (who would dare argue that Aunt May is anything but?). While Kirsten Dunst might be happy being the damsel-forever-in-distress in the movies, most comics fans know better and, rightfully, shake their heads over the booty-fication of this stupid statuette.
And man, if comics have something to answer for with unrealistic standards and dimunition of female minds, the movies are in real trouble. Hence the title of my post--I can argue better on these grounds because I've seen just about every superhero movie made (except Superman III and IV, but I'm assured that I'm right with God for having not done so, and I'd like to keep it that way). Superhero girlfriends in the movies are among the worst female characters onscreen. They more often fall into stereotypes than women in "chick-flick" movies (or the token female in an action movie) do.
So, in a way, I'm not surprised that MJ got the treatment (and the business) like this because the movies haven't done much to think better of her. The closest she got to being a real person with real hopes, disappointments, and determination is when, in Spider-Man 2, she went and got Peter to stop being emo and just go out with her. Because she was tired of his always getting to choose how and when they could--as a couple and as friends (since he's proven he's a lousy friend when he wants to be more and still pushes her away)--be together. The line she has is this: "Can't you respect me enough to let me make my own decision?" First, last, and about only time I sat back and went, "Huh. I think I like movie MJ."
That's the problem, of course: it was about the first, last, and only time I ever liked her because it was the first, last, and only time MJ spoke up to prove why she was worth four different men falling all over in love with her (Flash, Harry, Peter, and John Jameson, in case you were wondering; I try not to think about Willem Dafoe leering at her as much as possible). Otherwise, she was just a waffly naif with an attitude and unreasonable demands (I still can't work out how come she was so pissed at Harry for what his asshole father said about her--Harry was defending her the whole time!).
And I'm hard-pressed to think of another superhero girlfriend I've liked. There's the stellar example of Lois Lane, who, despite the fact that they had her fall stupid over Superman, was still so awesome for the rest of her life that it excused it. Seeing as Clark was equally dumb over her, it's sorta more level a playing field in terms of ridiculous things happening between people in love instead of just one girl completely going girly over a guy. In fact, if the Donner cut of Superman II had been released ages ago, Lois would have been more awesome for a lot longer, because it let her intelligence be the means of discovering Clark as Superman rather than coincidence. Give credit where credit's due, and let Lois be not blind enough to figure that all out, and she's finally as awesome in movies as she (deservedly) is in comics.
Of course, I liked her a bit less in Superman Returns, but I suspect that was the fault of Kate Bosworth. I liked very much that she resisted going back to the guy who, superhero or not, is something of an emotional abuser and who left her very much in a serious lurch. She was making motherhood and career work for her, though, which I admired because if there's one thing that movies do less justice to than the superhero girlfriend, I think it would have to be the career mom. What was lacking was not Lois' independence but the spunk that earned her recognition from not one but two fairly nice, well-rounded guys. It's sad when the third-wheel boyfriend has more of a personality than Lois Lane.
What's sadder is, other than her? Who else is even worth mentioning as the superhero girlfriend? I cringe at what was done to Rogue (even though Bobby's attentions to her as a boyfriend were sweet and respectful until X-Men: The Last Stand, but that sucked too much to hold against just him), and Jean was utterly ruined as a character--again because her awesomeness was made to be known rather than proved (it is stated in the way that the cool guy--Logan--likes her and the way he and Scott fight over her and use her death as a banner and means to change the world. Which makes Jean into female stereotype #29357: the dead loved one whose memory is used as fuel for a righteous crusade). And the other X-women? Kitty was cute (Ellen Page is amazing; if you've not seen Hard Candy, you're missing out). Storm was...leaderly I guess (they were trying for badass; if it didn't work when she was half naked in leather cracking a whip, what were the odds it would work out as Storm WITH BAD HIGHLIGHTS?!). Mystique is about the only consistently awesome female in the movies, and even she got skunkified (ugh, making her hit on the Jackman, then turning on Magneto...grrr). Not to mention the fact that she was naked in all the films... You know, those last three weren't even girlfriends of anybody and they managed to be forced to suck at points. Bravo, Fox.
You have Elektra, I suppose. She was a girlfriend who held her own initially. But she got shoved aside in favor of Ben Affleck with a toupee, so that's not saying much. Plus, in her own movie? She's a soulless killing machine what must be made to understand people--namely by sticking her with a kid sister/child surrogate and a dead-ass boring love interest. So, so much for her. Susan Storm? HAHAHAHAHA right. Betty Ross? OMG no. I suppose the flame-chick from Hellboy was okay, but I'm biased to like Selma Blair, so I don't trust my own judgment on that one.
Honestly? I think the love interests in the Batman films are probably the best off of any of them and not one reappears after one movie (except Rachel Dawes, and well, we'll see how that goes). Vicki Vale was actually pretty cool for all that she was a damsel-in-distress. And it goes without saying (but I will anyway!) how fucking awesome Michelle Pfeiffer is as Catwoman. The non-Burton Batman films, pre-Batman Begins aren't worth mentioning, but, for all that Bruce Wayne's four-poster is a revolving door, he does tend to bang some pretty interesting chicks now and again. Most of them even come with personality. It's crazy!
It's probably best if, at this point, I just plain didn't go into anything having to do with Frank Miller. So I won't.
I think that got away from me. It's mostly me rar-rar-rarring over the fact that there really aren't any admirable superhero girlfriends in the movies. Yes, I can understand the attraction of a Jessica Alba (hey, I'd do her), but you get nothing but funny looks if you try telling anyone you like movie-Invisible Woman for her "personality" (I like her for her boyfriends! And her hot brother!). That's all I'm saying.
Oh, and back on the subject of statues? If I were ever to shell out a superfluous $200 I didn't otherwise need or found on the street or something for one of those statues? I'd totally buy this one. It's like this one, only WAY MORE AWESOME because it's evil. Dark Phoenix is way sexier than Phoenix Light.
Sigh. There's nothing at all to say about the inanity of comic book character statuettes that could be any more clever than anything that's been said before. Personally, I find most of those statues really fugly, especially the busts with no arms. Seriously, if it's going to be a bust, end it at the bust. Don't give me a torso with no arms. I mean...yaaarghh!! Gross!
Look at that last link--just look at the difference between the black-costume Spider-Man and Venom. Giving Venom arms instead of nonsensically chopping said arms off at the shoulder or midway through the bicep increases the dynamism of the statuette. The same rule of drawing comics should apply to busts, you ask me--if the artists do their best to imply a sense of motion and action to a still image, then the sculptor ought to do his/her best to carry that movement over into the three-dimensional representation. Dude, how much more awesomely HULK SMASH-y is this bust for having the Gray Hulk about to pound the shit out of the coffee table you put it on? A lot, that's how much more. THEY NEUTERED APOCALYPSE BY TAKING OFF HIS ARMS. THAT IS SO WRONG FOR EN SABAH NUR, I CANNOT BEGIN TO OVERCAPITALIZE MY RAGE ENOUGH!!! WHAT IS EVEN THE GODDAMNED POINT!?!
Ahem. Anyway, there's plenty of ways to keep arms. A popular one seems to be having the character in question cross his arms over his chest (I say "his" because this does not seem to be the same rule for the busts of female characters--probably because that would negate the point of a bust of a character like Psylocke, which is, namely, to be showing off her chest). But if you can make room for the Jackman to menace your bookshelf with his claws or a Bizarro Brandon Routh to threaten the ceiling with his raised fist, you can figure out more arm postures to keep the goddamned arms on the goddamned bust if you're going to insist on still calling it a bust even though it goes all the way down to the waist.
Ahem. I think I was starting to write about superheroes' girlfriends, right? Basically, I am not well-versed in comics. Especially not compared to others in my circle of friends. Especially not. However, I am a casual consumer of comics, enough to know my shit most days (specifically in the Marvel catalogue, though I've got a working knowledge of some DC and indie titles). My sense is, with this stupid MJ statue, that the comics people are in agony. The decent comics people. The ones who really do appreciate good stories, great characters, and fine art (versus this piece of shit statue). They're jumping up and down to be heard, to say, "This isn't how most of us feel about comic book characters, okay?"
And it's a good thing, too. Because comics do have a lot to answer for with their portrayals of women. They do. But, as a subversive (i.e. not mainstream) medium, they also have the breadth of opportunity and decades of experience to alter the formula. For the most part, it is possible to enjoy comics despite the fact you won't find a fat girl among any hero group (nor any of the more popular villainesses). The medium as a whole celebrates ridiculous body types, on men and women, but pardon me for griping if it still maintains the sexist approach of celebrating physical perfection in women that is unhealthy (versus the muscular men who, though probably abusing steroids, aren't an unhealthy ideal).
This is most abused in the superhero comic, as most you reading this would know. But then you would also know that someone like Mary-Jane Watson-Parker is, despite her being popped out of the superhero girlfriend body-type mold, an actual character. Circumstance has led Peter Parker to have a number of fairly strong female role models around (who would dare argue that Aunt May is anything but?). While Kirsten Dunst might be happy being the damsel-forever-in-distress in the movies, most comics fans know better and, rightfully, shake their heads over the booty-fication of this stupid statuette.
And man, if comics have something to answer for with unrealistic standards and dimunition of female minds, the movies are in real trouble. Hence the title of my post--I can argue better on these grounds because I've seen just about every superhero movie made (except Superman III and IV, but I'm assured that I'm right with God for having not done so, and I'd like to keep it that way). Superhero girlfriends in the movies are among the worst female characters onscreen. They more often fall into stereotypes than women in "chick-flick" movies (or the token female in an action movie) do.
So, in a way, I'm not surprised that MJ got the treatment (and the business) like this because the movies haven't done much to think better of her. The closest she got to being a real person with real hopes, disappointments, and determination is when, in Spider-Man 2, she went and got Peter to stop being emo and just go out with her. Because she was tired of his always getting to choose how and when they could--as a couple and as friends (since he's proven he's a lousy friend when he wants to be more and still pushes her away)--be together. The line she has is this: "Can't you respect me enough to let me make my own decision?" First, last, and about only time I sat back and went, "Huh. I think I like movie MJ."
That's the problem, of course: it was about the first, last, and only time I ever liked her because it was the first, last, and only time MJ spoke up to prove why she was worth four different men falling all over in love with her (Flash, Harry, Peter, and John Jameson, in case you were wondering; I try not to think about Willem Dafoe leering at her as much as possible). Otherwise, she was just a waffly naif with an attitude and unreasonable demands (I still can't work out how come she was so pissed at Harry for what his asshole father said about her--Harry was defending her the whole time!).
And I'm hard-pressed to think of another superhero girlfriend I've liked. There's the stellar example of Lois Lane, who, despite the fact that they had her fall stupid over Superman, was still so awesome for the rest of her life that it excused it. Seeing as Clark was equally dumb over her, it's sorta more level a playing field in terms of ridiculous things happening between people in love instead of just one girl completely going girly over a guy. In fact, if the Donner cut of Superman II had been released ages ago, Lois would have been more awesome for a lot longer, because it let her intelligence be the means of discovering Clark as Superman rather than coincidence. Give credit where credit's due, and let Lois be not blind enough to figure that all out, and she's finally as awesome in movies as she (deservedly) is in comics.
Of course, I liked her a bit less in Superman Returns, but I suspect that was the fault of Kate Bosworth. I liked very much that she resisted going back to the guy who, superhero or not, is something of an emotional abuser and who left her very much in a serious lurch. She was making motherhood and career work for her, though, which I admired because if there's one thing that movies do less justice to than the superhero girlfriend, I think it would have to be the career mom. What was lacking was not Lois' independence but the spunk that earned her recognition from not one but two fairly nice, well-rounded guys. It's sad when the third-wheel boyfriend has more of a personality than Lois Lane.
What's sadder is, other than her? Who else is even worth mentioning as the superhero girlfriend? I cringe at what was done to Rogue (even though Bobby's attentions to her as a boyfriend were sweet and respectful until X-Men: The Last Stand, but that sucked too much to hold against just him), and Jean was utterly ruined as a character--again because her awesomeness was made to be known rather than proved (it is stated in the way that the cool guy--Logan--likes her and the way he and Scott fight over her and use her death as a banner and means to change the world. Which makes Jean into female stereotype #29357: the dead loved one whose memory is used as fuel for a righteous crusade). And the other X-women? Kitty was cute (Ellen Page is amazing; if you've not seen Hard Candy, you're missing out). Storm was...leaderly I guess (they were trying for badass; if it didn't work when she was half naked in leather cracking a whip, what were the odds it would work out as Storm WITH BAD HIGHLIGHTS?!). Mystique is about the only consistently awesome female in the movies, and even she got skunkified (ugh, making her hit on the Jackman, then turning on Magneto...grrr). Not to mention the fact that she was naked in all the films... You know, those last three weren't even girlfriends of anybody and they managed to be forced to suck at points. Bravo, Fox.
You have Elektra, I suppose. She was a girlfriend who held her own initially. But she got shoved aside in favor of Ben Affleck with a toupee, so that's not saying much. Plus, in her own movie? She's a soulless killing machine what must be made to understand people--namely by sticking her with a kid sister/child surrogate and a dead-ass boring love interest. So, so much for her. Susan Storm? HAHAHAHAHA right. Betty Ross? OMG no. I suppose the flame-chick from Hellboy was okay, but I'm biased to like Selma Blair, so I don't trust my own judgment on that one.
Honestly? I think the love interests in the Batman films are probably the best off of any of them and not one reappears after one movie (except Rachel Dawes, and well, we'll see how that goes). Vicki Vale was actually pretty cool for all that she was a damsel-in-distress. And it goes without saying (but I will anyway!) how fucking awesome Michelle Pfeiffer is as Catwoman. The non-Burton Batman films, pre-Batman Begins aren't worth mentioning, but, for all that Bruce Wayne's four-poster is a revolving door, he does tend to bang some pretty interesting chicks now and again. Most of them even come with personality. It's crazy!
It's probably best if, at this point, I just plain didn't go into anything having to do with Frank Miller. So I won't.
I think that got away from me. It's mostly me rar-rar-rarring over the fact that there really aren't any admirable superhero girlfriends in the movies. Yes, I can understand the attraction of a Jessica Alba (hey, I'd do her), but you get nothing but funny looks if you try telling anyone you like movie-Invisible Woman for her "personality" (I like her for her boyfriends! And her hot brother!). That's all I'm saying.
Oh, and back on the subject of statues? If I were ever to shell out a superfluous $200 I didn't otherwise need or found on the street or something for one of those statues? I'd totally buy this one. It's like this one, only WAY MORE AWESOME because it's evil. Dark Phoenix is way sexier than Phoenix Light.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-05-15 05:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-15 05:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-15 06:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-15 06:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-15 06:41 pm (UTC)I, personally, have nothing against sexualized images of women (Boucher's Miss O'Murphy is a favorite of mine), and I don't think the statue is morally objectionable. It's just badly done, unnaturally proportioned, and implausible. I'm not offended by Spider-Man washing a dress in a thong, either (I thought that picture was hysterical).
no subject
Date: 2007-05-15 07:19 pm (UTC)I'm reminded of PNH's comment about Warren Ellis groping Connie Willis: "Just as with George W. Bush's now-famous uninvited shoulder-rub of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the basic message of Ellison's tit-grab is this: "Remember, you may think you have standing, status, and normal, everyday adult dignity, but we can take it back at any time. If you are female, you'll never be safe. You can be the political leader of the most powerful country in Europe. You can be the most honored female writer in modern science fiction. We can still demean you, if we feel like it, and at random intervals, just to keep you in line, we will."
I think it's morally objectionable to market images like those that really hurt women. I do agree that she's from an entirely different era--but they've updated her! They've updated her clothes (look at that thong!) and her haircut. Why not her body? And I don't EVER remember seeing her in the comics as THAT skinny.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-15 07:53 pm (UTC)Part of the reaction, here, seems to be the combination of sexualization and domesticity (Mary Jane in a thong while doing laundry, barefoot, in pearls), which I agree is pretty gross.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-15 07:58 pm (UTC)More than that, it's pathetic. It's this unattainable ideal fantasy that encourages one to think little (to nothing) about the socialization with women that the purchaser has done.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-15 08:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-15 07:56 pm (UTC)And nice comment about the painting--I was going to say the same. There's a difference to it beyond the weight--there's the general comfort of the photo, the enjoyment of looking matched with the enjoyment of being looked at on the part of the model. The MJ statue is all "LOOK AT MY GINORMOUS TITTIES AND HOW I KEEP THEM IN LINE WHILE I DO HOUSEWORK."
no subject
Date: 2007-05-15 08:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-15 10:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-16 02:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-16 01:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-15 07:50 pm (UTC)There's a difference between the believably, understandably sexualized and the sexually exploited/exaggerated. The MJ statue is also offensive for the fact that there's an association that doing your man's handwashed laundry is somehow able to make a chick so horny. It's disgusting.
I'm not offended by Spider-Man washing a dress in a thong, either (I thought that picture was hysterical).
THAT IS THE POINT. If it looks ridiculous when a man does it, it looks ridiculous when a woman does it. However, the woman doing it gets a pass because sexually objectifying her/forcing her to live out the male fantasy of a hot babe who likes to dress like a tramp and do your chores is acceptable in a patriarchy. Yet if I were to make a statue of a man in skimpy briefs baking me cookies or otherwise offering himself up for objectification, it would be "funny" and is a source of humor instead of panting/lusting.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-15 08:02 pm (UTC)Still, I'll add that's it's pretty unusual in that regard. There are plenty of near-pornographic images of women in Geek Lit, but most of them are not of domesticated women. More common are the Laura Croft-style pics of women kicking ass. They're just as sexualized as Mary Jane, possibly more so.
Also, the Spider-Man drawing was a parody. It's was supposed to be funny, so I don't think it was unusual for me to react that way. Yes, pornographic images are silly. So what? That doesn't make them morally objectionable. If you look at gay-male porn I'm sure you'll find as many stupid, improbable poses.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-15 08:46 pm (UTC)And while the titillation factor is not to be discounted, the difference lies in the agency. Lara Croft is strong, smart, and determined all on her ownsome. She keeps herself fit and pretty as suits her own tastes/needs/body type, but she is first and foremost a heroine. She makes things happen; she doesn't sit around being unpaid house servant.
That should be considered sexy--sister doing it for herself.
As for Spider-Man, it was a parody, but not in the way you mean. It was the same degree of objectification as the statuette of MJ, and in immitation lay the humor. The fact that the immitation, when translated onto someone who is without question "a person" not just a sex object, it was ridiculous. So, if you equated the same degree of personhood to MJ, the statuette of her should be equally repulsive (and it is).
no subject
Date: 2007-05-15 09:13 pm (UTC)OK, but note the Miss O'Murphy painting. For all we know the sitter was a typical 18th century Anglo-Irish artistocrat who didn't do much at all! I still don't see anything wrong with finding it erotic.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-15 09:22 pm (UTC)She chose to do the painting, I assume. The active involvement of the model in the work is sexy. Sure, they get paid for that, but they're being paid to be confident and sure of themselves, and I see no problem with encouraging that kind of display. There isn't anything wrong with finding confidence sexy.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-16 11:07 pm (UTC)Men want to have sex with eager partners. The eagerness of the partner is important (I would argue essential). That is what makes something hot, and that's what is (potentially) missing in this statue. The artists have even made some nods to include it -- because it *has* to be included -- look at the expression on MJ's face, she's got this arch "I wanna do you next" look on her face. She has to be cast as a participant for her to be interesting.
The problem here is that those few visual cues are enough for the statue's audience to say "oh, okay" and accept the rest. For a woman who would consider what she'd feel like in that position, it obviously wouldn't be active participation. It's as offensive to suggest that (out of some specific specialized play-context) a woman would like being like this, as it is to depict it. I mean, the ridiculousness of the porneriffic pose (I can just imagine "not tonight honey, I've got a backache" being the next line in this scenario) is one thing, but the ridiculousness of the suggestion that "this is what women are and what women enjoy" is, imo, far worse.
The Miss O'Murphy painting is hot because she's clearly comfortable going about her business being naked. She is an active participant in her own display. This gives her agency and power and makes her way hotter. Display is only hot when it's willing display (voyeur fantasies aside). And the willingness of that display means that yeah, there isn't anything wrong with finding it erotic (I mean, assuming that the painter isn't just publicizing a private moment for crass commercial gain, and that the sitter knew she was going to be displayed naked for the world to see).
The natural counterargument is fantasies about unwilling women, e.g. rape porno. My understanding (not being a consumer of such materials) is that the real fantasy there isn't actual rape, but that the woman secretly likes it. I mean, isn't it key to the plot that the schoolgirl actually really wants the attacker's sex? For voyeurism, I would argue that normal men find it far more erotic to think that the woman actually knows (and welcomes) that she's being watched... but even without working out the details, I think that we'd see things take shape this way.
Put in another way, nothing would make would-be erotic images un-erotic more than to imagine the people depicted in them as hating the whole business...
sigh. Never try to come up with a grand theory off the cuff.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-16 02:09 pm (UTC)She makes things happen; she doesn't sit around being unpaid house servant.
I just felt a great disturbance in the force. As though a million soccer moms and housewives cried out, and then went back to making things happen.
And honestly? As someone striving to be in position to be a stay-at-home dad in a few years? I don't know whether to be mad at you for your offensive view, or pity you for being a working-stiff sucker.
I get that domesticity was forced upon women for generations, but it's 2007 now and plenty of people of both genders are now choosing it freely. Don't disparage their choice by saying that any depiction of domesticity (or is it only when the subject is female?) is vile. That's a pitifully closed-minded view. Domestic work is critical and arduous, and if it's as thankless as people say it is, that's only because people haven't been raised to appreciate it the way they should, and the way some of us have.
I might be wrong, but wasn't your mom a full-time mom? You should've said all this to her on Mother's Day; it would've been a great gift. "Hey, mom, you're a fucking tool for all you did for us as kids! You shoulda been out working!"
no subject
Date: 2007-05-16 04:00 pm (UTC)Ah yes, the tried-and-true cry of the anti-feminists around the world. "WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE HOUSEWIVES!?!?!"
Dude, seriously? How many women choose it the way you are able to? How many couples sit down and go, "If we want to have kids, someone has to be with them," and pick the woman to do it because she wants to rather than the continued disparity in the work force means that, financially, the family won't be solvent unless she leaves the work place? Raising kids is fucking expensive, yo.
Do some women choose it? Absolutely. Is that even an issue here? No. Why? Because this isn't ALL women. This is a statue of one woman--one woman chosen in particular to be debased. Mary-Jane isn't a housewife. She never chose to be one and doesn't want to be one. She's happy to be a wife, and then someone drew a picture and made a statue to suggest otherwise--to allude to the fact that--secretly--MJ has always wanted to be a sex object housefrau and maybe if her man can just dominate her a little, she'll finally get what she wants.
You can tell me that's not offensive. But then again, you're not subject to such latent thinking. You have a privilege of being male in a male-centric world, so you have the privilege of not seeing how obnoxious it is that, no matter what your choice, your gender is returned again and again to the subservient, sexual object stereotype.
Domestic work is critical and arduous, and if it's as thankless as people say it is, that's only because people haven't been raised to appreciate it the way they should, and the way some of us have.
That's what Mother's Day is for, right? < /sarcasm>
You can be appreciative all you want. I sure as hell was, and I thank my mother every time she helps me out. It's the way she raised me. Doesn't change the fact that, no matter how grateful we were to her, she still did the lion's share of the work around the house. You can be grateful to the point of kneeling at mom's/dad's feet, but you still expected--consciously or not--that said chores would get done. I find the expectation with gratitude as a forgiveable assumption fairly repugnant. "Oh, what a great job you do!" doesn't just dismiss the assumptive attitude. Celebrating moms once a year is just another way of forgetting about them for the rest of it with a clear conscience.
I might be wrong, but wasn't your mom a full-time mom? You should've said all this to her on Mother's Day; it would've been a great gift. "Hey, mom, you're a fucking tool for all you did for us as kids! You shoulda been out working!"
Fuck you, too. No, I mean it. I never made this personal, and that's fucking personal. You back the fuck off. My mother did work, actually. She worked as a librarian until my last sibling was born. She did that and the majority of the housework and child rearing because my dad had the better job and he was forever working there. This is what I mean about the illusion of women "choosing" to stay at home. My mother loved her job. She studied hard, worked hard to get there, and when it came down to it, FIVE KIDS LATER, she couldn't stay where she wanted to. Were the kids her choice? Sure. The fact that she kept working through that many was amazing. The fact that she couldn't keep working because of real biases against mothers in the workplace is disgusting. So don't fucking assume that choice alone excuses all these imbalances.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-16 04:37 pm (UTC)Even if the situation you describe is the case the bulk of the time, it's just as easy to say that the man is "forced" to go back to work as it is to say that the woman is "forced" not to. I'm not saying that men are penalized by making more than women, but the crux of the issue is the elimination of choice. Once we're talking about a couple, their incomes are effectively one, and the disparity affects them both.
No, MJ wasn't a housewife. She was a model. That's just as debasing, if not moreso. I'm not saying that the implication of her "secret desire" to be a housewife wouldn't be offensive, I'm saying that that implication is not present. I often say that one is not a statistically significant sample, so I don't know why you'd take one piece with no context and read all that into it.
Look, someone's gotta do it. What does it matter what the division of labor is as long as everyone's doing their fair share? Appreciation is more than the person who works usually gets for paying the bills. I've never heard anyone say, "Hey, thanks for working your ass off to pay for the house and the electricity and the heat and the...." But every night I thanked my mom for dinner and I thank M on the nights she makes it now. I might be a rabid capitalist in the larger social context, but in the home, labor and the fruits of that labor are all communal. If thanks aren't enough for work that SOMEONE has to do, I can't see a solution.
Look, I sure as hell didn't mean to insult your mother, and I think the fact that you read it as an insult proves my point. Ask any (good) parent, whether they work or not, they'll tell you that raising their children is the most important, rewarding, and fulfilling thing they do. You're choosing not to have kids, so you'll be able to devote as much time as you like to your career. I don't think that's wrong even though it's not what I choose for myself, and you shouldn't think it's wrong when anyone else chooses different from you. Quite honestly, if both people in a relationship want do devote so much time to their careers, I think they shouldn't have kids in the first place. Yes, kids are expensive, they're also time-consuming. Again, it all comes down to choices. I also admit that I don't know very much about your family, so I don't know what you mean when you say she "couldn't" keep working because of biases, and can't speak to that. I do apologize for how my remark was taken, anyway.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-16 04:57 pm (UTC)As for the rest of it: I'm learning that there's a fundamental disconnect between how we perceive the choices made here and there's no way arguing more on the subject will cause either of us to budge. My personal experience/opinion has informed me one way, and yours has informed you another.
I will say, however, on the issue of gratitude for breadwinner vs breadmaker, there isn't really a solution there to appreciate the one equal to the other because of the fact that money taints recognition's sincerity. The person making money is already rewarded for their work--they would have that money and the things it buys for them whether they were married with kids or not. Where it can get thorny is the expectation that spouse is then the housewife/husband and will raise the kids is a part of that monetary reward. That perception is perfectly unconscious, but I do believe it's there.
There's also the fact that the spouse who works is supported--buffeted against bad times with a job and all the benefits that come with (experience, recommendations, connections, and friendships in addition to monetary ones), whereas the stay-at-home spouse faces the uphill battle of getting back into working should anything happen. This insecurity of position freaks people the fuck out, as it should. One way to correcting this problem and allowing the choice of who should be at home and who shouldn't is to remove the bias against parents period.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-16 05:29 pm (UTC)I really think that my differing views stem less from the fact that I'm male and more from the fact that, all else being equal, I'd choose to stay at home rather than work. I only work because I like expensive things; if I had a spouse making enough money to keep me in expensive things, I'd drop my career like a bad habit, even if it meant doing all the housework. One of my male cousins is a full-time dad (part-time actor), while his wife makes fucking assloads of money as a regional sales manager for Cisco. He's incredibly happy, and she wishes she were at home more (and telecommutes whenever possible).
The thing is, my mom was a single parent, and worked (at a job she tolerated). She's extremely left-wing, including being accurately described as feminist. She's the source of all my values (not to mention my sense of humor). I do think women should have true equality. I just find it hard to take it seriously when a corporate appeal to horny geeks for the sake of making easy money is seen as some sort of attack, or harbinger, or sign, or whatever. It's just the same old thing: sex for money. Now, that sounds bad, but you can't really argue with sexual desire, and in this case most of what's bad about it has been removed: there's no actual sex, and in fact no actual woman. I don't believe you'll ever change the fact that women want more subtlety and men want more skin - you can call that objectification but I don't think that necessarily follows. So all that's left is that she's washing his clothes. Since I'm still washing my own, I just can't see the big deal in that.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-16 07:26 pm (UTC)In a perfect world...no, actually, I'd still work. I mean, if I had no monetary concerns at all? I'd volunteer, do fun stuff I like, but I couldn't just not have something to do each day or I'd never get out of bed. Again, personality difference, not necessarily a judgment on either me or you.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-16 08:19 pm (UTC)See, now that's interesting. I didn't think of it before, but I actually see being a homemaker as having far more freedom than being a worker. That's probably a large part of why it appeals to me so much. I'm very independent, and at the very least I do chores if I deem them necessary and at a time when it suits me. I dislike work because I have to be here 9am to 5:30pm whether it suits me or not, and every day whether I have much to do or not. I see work as far more a waste of time than anything I could come up with myself. That's all not to mention it's all work on someone else's vision.
But of course we're different. I knew you'd prefer to continue working. AFAIK you love biosci, and that's hard to do as a hobby. And you don't want kids, which are why I'll be even more adamant about being at home in the future. The only people I'd judge are those who'd choose to do NOTHING. That's just a waste of a life. But if it comes to the difference between working or raising a family or bettering oneself or anything else productive, no, I wouldn't judge one as better or worse, either. I just know what's right for me.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-16 08:54 pm (UTC)So long as you can support yourself one way or another, that's just fine. My experience has been that the people who don't work are more at risk of having the rug pulled out from under them if they're not working and bringing in money. It's hard to do that on top of care-taking, and if the breadwinner walks out...ayah.
Perhaps I'm a fatalist and untrusting, but I'd prefer to maintain independence and sustain myself financially either way--with/out spouse/kids. I know finances are shared, but I would prefere the sharing not to be balanced out by unpaid labor. I intend to contribute to any shared finances.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-16 09:27 pm (UTC)I don't see it as unpaid labor, though, because the assumption is that whatever discretionary income is left after bills are paid (which when they're enough can make a job feel like unpaid labor, lemme tell you) is shared. I sound like a damn hippy, but share the work and share the rewards; that's how I believe it should work.
Take hypothetical me again. If M starts writing trashy novels that bring in $1M a year and I dump my job to become a kept man, doing all the chores she hates so much, I'd expect her to keep the cutting-edge computer parts rolling in for me. I wouldn't call it unpaid labor at that point.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-16 11:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-17 01:48 pm (UTC)In fact, I actually think nearly everyone else does, too. I know there are incidences of sexism, of course, but I don't think it's as widespread, systemic, and insidious as you do.
two more strong female characters of marvel
Date: 2007-05-15 06:42 pm (UTC)Re: two more strong female characters of marvel
Date: 2007-05-15 07:45 pm (UTC)Especially since I swear I've never heard of them nor would I venture many have...
no subject
Date: 2007-05-15 06:51 pm (UTC)But yeah - it's a rare thing when I come across a well-portrayed, recurring female character in a comic series... especially when they're playing second-fiddle to a Main Hero.
Even when I do find one, and bask in all their awesomeness (comic!Elektra, for instance), a Marvel movie usually goes and bashes them back into a mold. (Seriously having to restrain self from going on a whole Daredevil rant right now, but suffice to say: Frank Miller created Elektra precisely because he himself was annoyed that "superhero girlfriends" weren't ever on the level of the heroes themselves.)
The Batverse does seem to win for the strongest secondary females. I've always liked Barbara Gordon (eventually Nightwing's girl, though if you go by the animated series she had a fling with Bruce too); she feels realistic and recognizable as a woman - and just gets better, IMO, as Oracle. Paralysis by the Joker's hand can't stop her from bringing the awesome and being a huge cornerstone for Batman. I just finished reading the novelization of No Man's Land, and she was written quite well there - along with the "new" Batgirl, Cassandra Cain.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-15 08:12 pm (UTC)This bust thing has bothered me for years. There's a glass case in the store I used to go to with the arm-less busts and it's just really creepy. I can't figure out why anyone does that shit. What? Are arms out of style since the Venus de Milo hit it big? And aren't those just missing 'cause Lex Luthor has them hidden in a basement somewhere for his own private amusement??
Frank Miller created Elektra precisely because he himself was annoyed that "superhero girlfriends" weren't ever on the level of the heroes themselves.
Frank. Miller? The Frank Miller? Frank "WHORES WHORES WHORES WHORES" Miller? That Frank Miller? Maybe it shouldn't surprise me given some of her backstory and her unfortunate choice of wardrobe.
(btw, to find that comic, I had to google "Frank MIller whores" which makes me the bravest person ever to search for stuff on the interweb.)
Oracle is awesome, though I feel that her being crippled side-lined her for a long time even from being considered female/sexual. That's not helpful either. There needs not to be this line that says "females allowed to be sexy but insipid over here; females there to 'diversify' but otherwise not be actual human beings over there." It's an oversimplifaction in Babs' case, but it's often true. It's part of the reason why the people who made the MJ statuette probably don't understand why there's any fussing. "Hey, we made her sexy!" Yes, but you also took away her agency in being a sexual creature, and that's tantamount to rape (especially since, with the relative gender-based power issues in Mary-Jane and Peter's relationship, this statue is definitely at least character rape).
I just finished reading the novelization of No Man's Land, and she was written quite well there - along with the "new" Batgirl, Cassandra Cain.
That's a great novelization. It's disturbing as hell. I don't like what the happens with Montoya re: Harvey Dent, or Jim Gordon's loss, or Huntress' being emo, but Cassandra's definitely holding her own there. Especially as she makes moot the point she cannot speak, which is a pretty severe handicap (for anyone not in the bat-cowl, that is; bat-folk are standard-issue mutes for the most part).
I don't want to geek out too much about No Man's Land (here, anyway), but one of my favorite things ever is Batman offering up his identity to Gordon and Gordon not wanting/having it. Fucking amazing.
(http://www.shortpacked.com/d/20060207.html)
no subject
Date: 2007-05-15 08:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-15 08:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-15 10:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-15 10:40 pm (UTC)Yep. One and the same. (HEE @ that comic, btw.) The only time I am a serious advocate of the man is in relation to his Daredevil work, which was his first stint as a writer back in the 80s and pretty much single-handedly reinvented the character - in the best way possible, making Matthew Michael Murdock the most psychologically effed up and fascinating persona in the Marvel universe. He regularly wages war with Batman as my Great Love of Comicdom.
So the fact that I find Miller's Bat-stuff overrated, and can't even process things like Sin City, I sort of bypass. ;) Random trivia, by the way: the original Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles comic was written as a parody of Miller's Daredevil and Ronin work. Which I find hilarious because I was in love with Raphael's red bandanna and sais long before I ever discovered Elektra. Heh.
I don't want to geek out too much about No Man's Land (here, anyway), but one of my favorite things ever is Batman offering up his identity to Gordon and Gordon not wanting/having it. Fucking amazing.
YES. Holy shiznit. The second that scene ended my one thought was, "Good Lord I want to see that in future movie." It encapsulates so much about their relationship at once (along with the very end of the book), and. Argh. I just wish movies weren't complicated with aging actors and finicky studios and restless directors, because I want to see a Batman and Gordon in their Nolan-verse prime arrive at that scene, or its equivalent.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-16 03:35 pm (UTC)That shit is hilarious. Cheers for that.
I want to see a Batman and Gordon in their Nolan-verse prime arrive at that scene, or its equivalent.
It would certainly feed my superhero with his mask off fetish and be dramatically brilliant. ::drools::
no subject
Date: 2007-05-15 06:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-15 07:51 pm (UTC)Movie spoilers for SM3 and Hard Candy abound below
Date: 2007-05-15 07:42 pm (UTC)I think the statue is kind of a lame thing to get worked up over. It's like the opposite end of the spectrum that one should complain about. Obviously, you go into the comic books themselves, but you should really focus on that and not some lame collectible thing that probably cost a lot of losers like $100. I'll admit that the laundry is pretty lame, but even if she was just in some random other position, it's really just a statue, in a pose. I am not one to subscribe to the idea that you start at the bottom (no pun intended) and work your way up. And the books are probably already changing, so that's something.
And I have to admit that I loathed Hard Candy. Hated it hated it hated it hated it. I don't remember if I brought this up before, but while I'm of course against rape, that doesn't mean you get to go and be a evil, torturing psychopath. Worse, the movie doesn't even concede that anything even happened until the last five minutes, which left me intensely aggravated that some self righteous little girl kept blathering on about how she knows his secrets and she's smarter than he is when I as a viewer have no reason to believe this dude isn't innocent and she's just going nutso on him. Frankly, I would guess that Hard Candy is the kind of movie that sets feminism back farther, faster than some statue.
Re: Movie spoilers for SM3 and Hard Candy abound below
Date: 2007-05-15 08:40 pm (UTC)As for Hard Candy, what about that makes you uncomfortable or angry? As I see it, she's torturing the guy, which isn't okay. But taking out her rage and exacting revenge on someone else's behalf is vigilantism, and that definitely gets a pass when a guy is doing it. I could name three movies off the top of my head where, if the vigilante's family/friend was murdered, he is sympathetic when he goes on a violent, revenge-bent spree (Desperado, A Time to Kill, and The Bourne Supremacy are just the three that came to me now). Aside from her attitude being a little snotty (she's a teenager, what else would you expect?), she's not wrong, popularly, to go after this guy's nuts (literally). If she were the daddy of the girl who was raped, there wouldn't have been any problem at all.
Also, even though we are not convinced that this particular guy raped and killed the girl that Ellen Page's character talks about, it is clear that he is a serial pedophile even if he's yet to physically abuse anyone. Emotional abuse, especially under the guise of professionalism (as he would have, being a photographer), is particularly hard to prove but absolutely exists. The question of the movie was whether it was okay to pre-emptively punish someone whose tendencies were, most likely, going to hurt someone very badly. It gets lost as he's revealed to be guilty, I agree, but there was never any question that this guy wasn't very likely to do those things if he hadn't already.
As for whether or not this sets back feminism? I dunno. On the one hand, it is clearly a revenge fantasy for women and parents who'd like to think it's possible to trap all such abusive perverts and torture them until they are no longer threats and to punish the ones that get away with it. Fantasies aren't reality, and trying to make the fantasy seem possible is damaging because it prevents people from focusing on the reality.
On the other hand, women live with the threat of sexual predation everyday. Women are abused more often and more often with impunity than men. They are subjected to humiliation when they come forward to report abuses and more often than not blamed for the violence visited upon them because they were somehow "asking" for it. Would I want to live in a world where men didn't rape or abuse women and girls out of fear of physical retribution? No. Would I like to live in a world where the consequences of such acts could prey as heavily on the consciences of the perpetrators as they do on the victims? ABSOLUTELY. And, though Ellen Page's character uses the threat of physical violence to influence her victim into repentance, she uses that threat to bring about a psychological change, a recognition of the fear and pain and self-loathing that he brought to others. That, to my mind, is the least of which someone like him deserved for treating others the same way.
Ultimately, feminism is about recognizing that women are people. We hurt, get angry, make mistakes. Rape and abuse are about power, about the rapist/abuser needing to assert power over someone else. If women aren't kept as potential victims in the mindset of the majority, fewer men will automatically turn to them to use them as means of proving their manliness and prowess and power. Feminism is about improving men, too, about proving that they have no need to live up an ideal of "manliness" that is as artificial and infantilizing as the burden of "femininity" is for women.
Re: Movie spoilers for SM3 and Hard Candy abound below
Date: 2007-05-15 09:48 pm (UTC)While your argument about other movies makes a point, it is also true that of the four movies Hard Candy is probably the only one within the realm of reality. Bourne Identity comes close, but I would say there is a lot less pure revenge in those movies than the others. I'm not sure the movie is so much emulatable, but I have to feel that it really changes the scenario when it's, say, The Punisher hacking down some crazy German scientist than it is in Hard Candy. Additional note (not a very good argument, but a point that may or may not be worht mentioning): In the movies you mentioned, the person taking revenge is usually the one who had something happen to them. In the case of Hard Candy, sure, the characcter who would take revenge is dead, but still.
Also, I doubt I have to argue this, but it is possible for guys to be stupid. I wouldn't call it outside the realm of reality to say that some stupid geeky schmuck with a camera never considered that it is creepy to bring home a high schooler. I think the problem in this case lies within the movie itself: it's almost as if the movie is avoiding telling you whether or not he really did it as if it is a twist, and so I was sort of wondering if the other shoe was gonna drop the entire time.
Reading your last paragraph I was trying to figure out a point, but since I don't really know what it is I think I will stop myself for now. But I'm a guy who's never really felt the need to prove my manliness to anyone so I don't have much of a perspective on that.