Gatekeepers

Every so often someone makes the argument that we shouldn't give so much attention to the little things that bugs us/that aren't obviously sexist/that may not be sexist because it lessens our credibility when the really important stuff happens.

For example:

BONUS: Something Comics Fans Should Never Do Again

React to any expression of female sexuality on a comic book cover as something that inherently denegrates the character's integrity or the character's ability to be perceived as an "ass-kicker". This is dangerous because it makes complaints about legitimately sexist garbage like the MJ statue and HFH #13 more likely to be ignored.

I say "Bullshit."

This statement is dangerously close to filling a bingo square by alluding to the "but what are you doing about x,y,z?/it's just comics!" argument. A sentiment that is dismissive of feminist theory and how the status quo is maintained: all the little things that seem inconsequential often help create the foundation for the bigger things. Do I really need to remind anyone that comics itself is considered by many to be one of those "little things?"

As I've argued before, it's exactly because our visual definitions of male and female vulnerability/strength are so different that someone - several people - felt as though the Heroes for Hire cover would be be appropriate. Whether or not you think the wedding story line is just good fun or not, there is a parallel between the Black Canary cover and the Heroes for Hire cover. Both show normally competent women looking vulnerable and they do so by playing to stereotypes. That one is a joke while the other is not* does not mean that there is not room to question the reasoning behind doing either cover - or story line.

To argue that one should only complain about the "legitimately sexist garbage" raises the question of who decides what is "legitimately sexist garbage." When this sentiment is paired with the argument that false complaints damage feminists' reputation, the implication is that our "male default" society - not women or feminists themselves - has the final say in what is worthy of discussion. Simply arguing that someone is wasting space with their argument, or saying that you think that they shouldn't say or do something, is not in and of itself an attempt to silence feminist or female voices. But when it's combined with the suggestion that we should not make that argument because we must defer to the prejudices of the culture we are critiquing, it comes dangerously close to doing so.

The assumption that people will be turned off of "legitimate" complaints because the same people are making "non-legitimate" complaints is another example of having a different standard for a non-privileged group than for privileged groups. People demonstrate quite often that they are capable of understanding that disagreement on one issue does not always mean disagreement on every issue.

There is also the sexist implication that men are less capable of doing this than women - at least when it comes to sexism.** If I recall correctly, the first few men mocking the original complaint are not exactly known for being virulently anti-feminist. I seriously doubt complaints such as these dramatically alter how they view feminism. I think that men are quite capable of figuring out what is sexist and what isn't, and so disagreements among feminists (or between feminists and "I'm not a feminist, but..."s) are hardly going to befuddle them in a manner similar to when sitcom husbands are faced with housework.

How does this fit with my agreement with Kalinara's statement that:

A man telling a woman what she should or should not find sexist is proving he doesn't understand the meaning of the word.

Note how Kalinara phrased her declaration. It's not so much about men not having a right to an opinion on what it sexist, it's about a man - or anyone, really - telling a woman that she should have a particular opinion. Lynxara's argument bugs me because she*** isn't just saying that pervyficgirl is wrong, she's saying that she should only talk about things that Lynxara thinks are sexist. Lynxara may believe that the Black Canary wedding story line and covers are merely an "expression of female sexuality" but pervyficgirl obviously does not. (And however mockworthy her name may or may not be, one can hardly accuse her of being anti-sex.) There's a fine distinction between arguing with or dismissing a complaint, and claiming to speak for everyone or being the voice of authority. It's certainly extra levels of stupidity when the topic is sexism and it's men that are doing it, but it isn't a good argument when anyone does it.

This leaves us with just one remotely valid argument, which is that such complaints often support feminist stereotypes. Well, yes, they can, but they only do because it's anti-feminists who often have the floor. They only do so because schools and the media tend to teach parodies of feminism, not actual feminism; it's not that simply being exposed to these arguments make people think that all of feminism is bunk, but that this is often the only feminism they see. Not voicing these concerns will not mean that people won't see feminism this way, it will simply mean that other arguments will be taken out of context instead.

Arguing that this means we should concede ground for reasons of strategy ignores the fact that the best defense is a good offense. One could just as well argue that a wider number of complainants and longer list of demands strikes more fear into the hearts of our enemies, and that having such a long list is often a better bargaining strategy than only making the demands nearest and dearest to your heart.

No, the better argument is to encourage people to write clearly and carefully when they write about the more nuanced feminist complaints, not to ask them not to make such complaints at all.

*******

*I actually think it's quite likely that the HfH was meant to be a parody of sorts, at least when it comes to the artist's intent, but the general consensus seems to be that it is not. Which just goes to show how unimportant intent really is.

**The other assumption is that non-feminists (male and female) will view such criticism differently than feminists will. This is true, and may be an argument for being more careful when making more controversial arguments, but it's not a valid argument for not making them at all.

***So it occurred to me part way through writing this that I assumed lynxara to be a woman, when I have no idea if lynxara is a he or a she. Since it doesn't really change the point of my argument, just whether or not lynxara's statement pisses me off or really pisses me off, I'm leaving my silly assumptions in as an example of this.

I'm Sure the Problem Lies With My Illogical Brain

* Nebraska Revised Statutes
Section 27-403
Rule 403. Exclusion of relevant evidence; reasons.

Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

Source:
Laws 1975, LB 279, 13

(emphasis mine, hat tip to Marcella)

I'm still trying to figure out how "rape" and "victim" are not only "unfairly prejudicial" - or at least more so than being able to say that "they had sex" - but are "unfairly prejudicial" to such an extent that they override any and all concerns about the language used during the trial being "misleading" or causing "confusion."

What's in a Name?

Some people have been arguing that it makes sense for a judge to disallow "rape" "sexual assault" "sexual assault kit" and "victim" from a rape trial because using these terms presumes guilt.

First of all, I was under the impression that the prosecution is presuming guilt (based on the evidence they've gathered) - that would be the point of the trial, after all.

Secondly, it may be different in other states, but as far as I know my state allows prosecuting attorneys to use the legal definition of the crimes that they are accusing the defendant of. See the previous sentence and "rights of the accused" as to why.

Third, banning "rape" and "sexual assault" from witness testimony is not the same as requiring that attempted murder victims use words like "kill" or the like instead of word "murder"- which doubles as a legal term. This is because "rape" does not have as many synonyms as "murder" does. The judge has effectively banned about the only two terms that are used by laypersons to describe the crime in question. And the latter is mostly by used only by laypeople if they write for newspapers or if the assault is something less than rape.

Furthermore, said persons may want to look up the legal definition of "rape" in the state in question before they focus on "rape" as a legal term. It's not. The legal term is "sexual assault." (hat tip Kristen)

Fourth, if legal meaning of "sexual assault" (or "rape" if that were the case) prevails above all else despite the profound lack of clarity that will result in the victim and the prosecutors not being able to use this term, then the legal meaning of "victim" should prevail as well. The state in question defines "victim" (at least as it pertains to sexual assault) to be

the person alleging to have been sexually assaulted

Yes, "alleged" is included in legal definition of "victim" in the state in question. I rather think it's quite likely that this is the prevailing legal definition of the term.

While I can see the logic behind arguing that terms like "victim" and using the legal definitions of crimes to mean something nonlegal can be confusing for jurors and might prejudice them, I hardly think that it does so to a greater extent than banning both "rape" and "sexual assault" - while simultaneously allowing for "sex" and "sexual intercourse" (which presume consent) to be allowed.

Amanda, Jill, Bean, and Shakesville have more. (Shakesville is down, I will add when they come back up.)

update

Since that particular argument also seems to boil down to "such things are standard" - can get a special "wha?" As in, "then why the need for special orders?"

Hide Your Little Yellow Thingies!

Oh dear god.



LOL

The internet is a lovely place, is it not?




hat tip to imaginary_guilt

via jade reporting

Things You Should Know

Since I don't do enough useful stuff with this silly bog of mine:

Eastern Michigan University

Eastern Michigan University

Eastern Michigan University

Eastern Michigan University

Eastern Michigan University

Eastern Michigan University

Eastern Michigan University

Eastern Michigan University

Because, Eastern Michigan University, knowing is half the battle.

(idea stolen from Auguste, who has more to say on the subject)

(hat tip to Melissa as well.)

So, It's Official

On the internet nobody cares if you are a 70 year-old Chinese immigrant, or a 22 year-old Harvard student, or a stay-at home blogger dad...

Does this mean that "Where are all the women bloggers?" won't be making the rounds anymore?

And People Look Down On Me For Not Reading This Shit

“We found that how people use chargers is very different,” she said. “For her, she wants it to be instantly understandable.”

from a NYT article on women and technology. (via Shrub)

Yeah, because all the guys I know are looking for any excuse to do more work.



Oh, wait, was she instead implying that women are stupid?

/sarcasm

Since the paragraph immediately preceding this little gem was:

....the $20 Easy Charger, is aimed at women, who usually end up managing the household’s batteries....Large light-emitting-diode readouts spell out what the countertop charger is doing at every phase of the charging cycle. Focus-group testing indicated that men were turned off by the Easy Charger, especially in how its readouts appeared to tell them what they thought they already knew, said Mandy Iswarienko, the brand manger for rechargeable products.

Not only would that appear that she was indeed implying that women are stupid*, but it also looks as though she may be right.

Or it would, if it wasn't for the little bit that Marriott (the author of the article) managed to mention without bothering to note that it had any significance.

Let's read that first line again.

...the $20 Easy Charger, is aimed at women, who usually end up managing the household’s batteries.

(emphasis mine)

So, let me get this straight, men don't need all those 'readouts [that appear] to tell them what they thought they already knew" - but it's women who manage the apparently tricky task of managing household batteries?

(ps - how do the men think they know what phase of the cycle the charger is in without a readout - psychic energy?)

Here's the charger in question, by the way.



Note how the "readouts" are vastly different from half the chargers I've ever used, what with the words "done" and "charging" printed right on the two light covers and everything, rather than a changing picture of a battery. That's just....revolutionary!

In all seriousness, I do think it's a pretty smart design choice, but I fail to see how printing words on the little lights suddenly means that the charger is "spell[ing] out" what phase it's in. Except in the literal sense of actually using letters, of course, but I don't think "spell it out" was meant literally in this case.

Although mostly I'm still gawping at the idea that they spell out "every phase of the cycle." There's two "phases" - "charging" and "not charging." It's not, um, like a dishwasher or a washer/dryer, which actually do have several phases.

For comparison, here's the "guy" charger, the Dock and Go:



So, they did technically "spell it out" in the sense that the "guy" charger has just a light, no words. Presumably the light changes color and/or blinks. Which means that "spell it out" really means "you don't need to know some special code to figure out if it's done or not." (The phone chargers at work do this, and I can never remember what is supposed to mean what. Except that red means that nothing is working.)

So really, it's not that guys like stuff to be hard, it's that 1) the guys they tested like to pretend stuff is harder than it is and 2) the women they tested were less likely to be familiar with the semi-standard flashing light code that many chargers use.

Which reminds me of the time I wanted to recently smack some sense into a co-worker...but that's a story for another day. Or the next post anyway.

In any case, this is pretty typical for the article.

“If a man brings home a big whooper of a television, the woman is going to say, ‘That’s stupid; it’s too big for the wall,’ ” he said.

Mr. Brady said that men and women tended to have radically different approaches to televisions in the home. “Men want the TV to dominate the room,” he said “Women look more at the TV to not be the centerpiece of the room, but more of an accent piece.”

Um, maybe it's just me, but I think my Dad's and my brother's big screen TVs are stupid because the are too big for the room in the sense that the rooms they are in are not big enough to let you sit far enough away to be comfortable, not that they visually dominate the room. (And I have excellent peripheral vision. And I love architecture.)

That, plus the fact that they are way too high a quality for a lot of my older DVD box sets, which end up looking supremely crappy on them. (Yes, I'm talking about you, Buffy Season 1.) It's like the time the whole family went to go see Fantasia 2000 at an IMAX theatre (yes, I'm serious. and yes, you can stop laughing now.) I could totally see the pixels on all the computer animation. Bigger is not always better.

The combo TV-DVD players, which usually cost $800 to $1,000, are equipped with auto wake, permitting users to turn the television on by simply slipping a DVD into it. Knowing that one does not have to fumble with a multi-button remote control becomes a subtle signal to buy.

Plus there's that little bit about not having to go searching for the magically disappearing remote just to watch a damn movie. Now if only they'd stop being idiots and go back to putting all the basic buttons onto the actual TV/DVD player as well as the remote, I'd be so much happier.

“Women are busier than men,” she said. “I don’t love technology enough to sit down and spend two hours with a manual like it’s some great puzzle. Men get great gratification out of that. I’d rather read a book.”

Again, you think maybe it's not so much the men liking it more, but the men being less likely to be stuck doing it when it is no longer fun? Seeing as how it's "women, who usually end up managing the household batteries" and "women [who] are busier than men" and all.

But alas, how quickly we forget the humorous anecdotes of Dad going not so quietly ballistic late into the night on Christmas Eve - when his tinkering is made less fun by the practicalities of actually having to get shit done.

*possibly the writer was, but that drivel sounded like it came straight from some idiotic marketing/PR press release.

The Really Scary Part?

This is not the only one of it's kind out there.

How about this:



please note that the decay has managed to touch neither superheroine's breasts. trying to look sexy, my ass.

Or this:



Sadly, it seems to be a trend (and no, I don't mean the zombie bit.)

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

Violence against women as a punch line is so overused that even misogynist comedians should take a break from it for no other reason than on account of it being excessively amatureish.

Showing women who are maimed or had violence done to them as sexy is so pervasive in our culture and so fundamentally disturbing given real life stats that, no matter how good-natured the intent, it's pretty much never a good idea.

Plus, it tends to make the whole irony of a sexy zombie not so ironic after all.

Buffy 1.1

You're like a textbook with arms.

I just started re-watching Buffy. Because I'm pathetic like that. And I figured that as long as I found interesting things to talk about, I'd talk about it.

*I really like that we meet someone besides Buffy first. Not only does it help with the world-building, but we also get see a female villain right off the bat. Which is cool. Especially since she isn't all smexed up. Yet, anyway. Darla does quickly become a bit smexed up, but in her first scene that's not really the case. For example, her little schoolgirl outfit is meant to make her look young and vulnerable and therefore contribute to the bait and switch. The fact that it plays to some people fetishes is a bonus, but not it's main purpose.

*Charisma Carpenter didn't even look young enough to play a teen in Ep 1. And I hate how this always sounds as though it's a complaint about her as an actress or how pretty she is. CC is gorgeous and a great actress. She also doesn't look old, she just doesn't look like a kid.

*This is obvious in part because Gellar and Hannigan are not only closer to their character ages, but they also still have a bit of the kid pudginess that teen girls often have. (For TV stars, in any case.) You look at them and can tell that they are very close, but aren't quite in adult bodies yet. It makes CC look even older than she would otherwise.

*Jesse is a Nice Guy (lite). And that's why he dies. He keep hitting on Cordelia for absolutely no reason other than that she's the hottest and most unattainable girl in school. Even blithering idiot Xander knows shallowness and meanness should be a turn-off. That's why Xander stumbles his way into being a nice guy.

*Lots and lots and lots of exposition. And apparently Watcher is a synonym for "Narrator."

*Angel comes off as creepy more than intriguing. And Gellar isn't really convincing when she says that he is annoying, but is supposed to mean something else. In fact, most of the dynamics are off. Interestingly, the most natural looking scenes are between Willow and either Xander or Buffy.

*Wow. Everyone is so very white. Now that I'm attached to all of them, I wouldn't want to lose any of the characters as I've come to know them. But still....

*I very much get the criticism that Buffy is still reinforcing harmful beauty standards, but I have to say that the show wouldn't have worked in the early days if Buffy hadn't been (TV's version of) a typical CA beauty. If she had looked like Kendra or Willow, we wouldn't have been surprised by many if the things Buffy did because the untypicalness of how she looked would have been a clue as to the untypicalness of her actions. That said, I think we are well past being surprised by a female action hero, and so that same excuse doesn't work elsewhere. (And yeah, some of us were well past it then too, but I'd say enough people weren't that it was justified.)

*Who the fuck wears a dress like that to a non big city club? And why in the world would Buffy choose pants and and an unflattering button-up shirt to wear to her first visit to the Bronze?

*Scenes in the caves: very cheesy. But the Master is kinda scary looking and the humor helps because it says "yes, we know it's cheesy looking. It's because our budget is small, not because we are stupid."

*I find it really interesting that they ended the episode with a Buffy in danger "to be continued." I'm sure that it was mostly because 45 minutes wasn't enough time for all the exposition and an actual plot, and it's best to end on a cliffhanger. But there's also something interesting about the fact that the show ends without us having not yet seen how powerful Buffy really is.

Thoughts on Childhood and Othering

Feministe guest blogger Roy has a post up ranting about people who say they hate children. His very good point is that making blanket statement about children themselves is othering and discriminating.

I wasn't terribly surprised to see this argument pop up in response:

My point is that childhood is a phase, not a permanent state. You cannot identify a permanent set of children and work to change their status, because they will not remain children. Children can’t be said to be discriminated against, because they aren’t permanent members of a group. Instead, they will inevitably leave that group and join the “other side.”

Pardon me while I digress for a bit.

Sophomore year of college the trustees hired a new President specifically to make financial changes. Needless to say we were not happy about a lot of them. One particular one was protested from the moment it was suggested. Candlelight vigils were held, letters were drafted and sent, etc. We were promised that this would not, in fact be one of the cuts.

Spring break comes around, and during that week - when everyone is off campus - that exact change was announced.

It's pretty typical of colleges to do this. I saw the same thing happen again at the University of Oregon when the President went back on his word and overturned a joint decision made by him and a committee of students and faculty. And he announced it during summer break. And they can get away with it because a significant percentage of the people they are screwing over changes about every four years.

Childhood, like being a college student, is a temporary stage, but the fact that children will one day be less powerless does not mean that they are not constantly screwed over the way college students are by their administrators. The temporariness of childhood is part of what makes abuse - both large and small - so heart-breakingly constant. It's certainly not a reason to fail to see a pattern in the abuse.

And the way our culture often treats children - especially once they've grown past the cute stage - is very much abuse.

My supervisor asked me just the other day if (in the near future when we have money for another person) I would consider dropping the children part of Youth specialist and concentrate just on teens.

I have to admit I was a little floored. I tend to feel like I'm drowning when I deal with the teens. I never liked being one, I never liked my peers when I was one, and I rarely feel like I understand them the way that I understand the younger children. And quite frankly the teens that come into the library drive me batshit insane on a regular basis.

But I've also noticed that most adults tend to treat teenagers as either oversized children or defective adults. Despite having been a teen at some point, there's often no respect or understanding for what they are going through, much praise less for their skills or compassion for their developmental limitations. We scorn teens for not yet being adults in a way that we rarely do with younger children.

The fact that todays teens will not be teens forever does not mean that teenagers are not among one of the most derided groups of people in modern society. Neither does it mean that their lack of power is not often used to abuse and neglect them.

It scares me and makes me very sad that I can considered to be a really good YA librarian just because I try to treat teens as people - and not defective adults or monstrous children.

Random Musings (when I should be asleep)

Why do so many people, during feminist arguments, bring up the idea that other people are going to "revoke their credentials" or some such nonsense?

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that such people are invariably arguing that other people are taking feminism too far or misapplying it. And therefore, while these other people are perhaps still in the feminist club, they're obviously no longer in the "rational people" club.

Which just screams projection to me.

****

Maybe it's because I identified as feminist from a relatively young age....

Or maybe it's because I've never actually had anyone say that I'm not one. Quite the opposite, in fact, it's generally when I'm doing what I feel are completely normal things that people decide to call me a feminist as if it's a dirty word....

Or maybe it's because I've had relatively few problems (I think) understanding the difference between judging people and judging actions......

....but it's just such a foreign concept to me.

Feminism isn't a club you join, it's something you believe in. And if it's something you believe in, then it's something you believe in. People can't decide for you if you do or not.*

They can argue about whether your actions are feminist. They can argue about whether or not you are a "good" feminist. They can argue about whether they agree with your definition of feminism. They can even argue about whether or not you really believe the things you say you believe. But they can't decide for you whether you believe them or not.

We can't kick you out of the club** because there is no fucking club in the first place.

It's your choice to be a feminist or not. It's your job to define what that means. And the fact the other feminists disagree with you about that definition doesn't mean anything other than the obvious fact that different people believe different things.

Acting otherwise is just the same as acting as if there'd no difference between calling an action sexist, and calling the person who did the action to be completely against feminism and all things moral and good.

********

*Which is part of why I've disagree with those who say men can't be feminists. When it comes to organized political movements, there's some validity to that argument. But I think that, in general, men can be feminists and define feminism. I just don't think that non-feminists can define feminism. And I don't think that we can completely define feminism for each other. So - guys who try to argue that feminists are misguided or are really hurting women, etc. are obviously full of shit, and guys that fuck up but keep trying are feminists - like us, while guys that don't really bother trying tend to be sexist assholes by default - on account of the patriarchy and all that.

**As always, there are huge exceptions. I very much understand women who are part of other non-privileged groups taking exception to American feminism as a political movement and choosing not to align themselves with us or feeling (sadly, often rightly) as though their voices are not seen as important. However, it's generally white, middle class women who act as if the choice to be a feminist or not is beyond their control. In my (admittedly limited) experience, the women who reject feminism in favor of more radical or more inclusive political movements tend to make it very clear that it was as much their choice as it was a reaction to the choices that others have made. And they also make it very clear that their rejection is not of the basic idea of feminism, but of a political movement that does not allow these ideas to apply equally to all women.

Because this is Important

(and I'm too tired to write a real post)

Melissa's had some great - but heart-wrenching - posts lately about rape and how it's normalized through humor. In her most recent post on the subject she responds in the comments to someone who makes the tired old argument that:

If I were wasted and walked down a city street with $100 bills sticking out all of my pockets, then got jumped you’d call me, at the least, irresponsible wouldn’t you?

Having responded to such arguments at face value before, without really examining how false the core of the argument is, I want to highlight the Melissa's fantastic reply, which boils down to:

Relying on the “guy getting mugged” comparison tells us two things, however. One: It shows how deeply ingrained the notion of women’s bodies as property is. Comparing a woman’s genitals to a $100 bill visibly dangling out of a man’s pocket is laughable in both practical and intrinsic ways, and yet the association was cited with not a hint of awareness at its patent absurdity. Two: It illustrates how far removed you are from the real threat of rape. Invoking a mugging is evidently the closest thing you can imagine to being forcibly subjected to an assault on one’s sex organs. That must be a lovely world in which to live.

I will be stealing that the next time I get into that argument with someone.

Huh? (with almost spoilers)

Now that I'm all caught up on my Buffy comics. I just have one question:











How did The First manifest as you-know-who?

It's Not All About You

(A recent discussion made me think of the story that this post begins with. I've shared it in comments before, but I decided it deserved it's own post, so here goes.)

One of the interesting things about going to college is the experience of having friends who are in Psych 101 do experiments on you. It's really fun to try and guess what they are really about, because of course they almost never tell you until they are done, because that would mess up the experiment.

First-year at college a few friends of mine read a story to me and some other friends of ours and told us that there would be a memory test at the end. The story was about a high school kid arguing with his English teacher about his grade. When the story was done we were asked all sorts of questions about what had happened. We only got one question wrong each, and it was the same question.

"Was the teacher a man or a woman?"

We all said "woman"....

....but the story never said.

Because, this being a liberal all-women's college, the experiment was not a memory test at all, but a lesson in internalized sexism.

We all do it. All of it. The sexism, the racism, the homophobia, you name it. If it exists, we pretty much all do it. It doesn't matter if we are male or female, gay or straight, rich or poor, black or white or any other color, we all do it. The only way to stop doing it is to recognize it and name it every time you see it. And even then, really, you never actually stop doing it, you just do it less.

We usually don't mean it. We usually don't see it. And we definitely usually don't mean to be unfair or cruel. But we all do it. And it usually is. Even if we don't see it. Especially when we don't see it.

So when you hear someone toss around terms like "male gaze", "the patriarchy," or "colonizing" or when someone says that something is sexist, racist, homophobic, classist, etc. remember that they may not talking about you any more or less than they are talking about themselves.

Drive-by Parenting - Special Bookstore Edition!

Now normally, I despise drive-by parenting. However, being no less of a hypocrite than everyone else, I am always ecstatic when I have an opportunity to engage in it and get away with it. (Except for the whole "kids being in danger" part that usually prompts it.)

I was meandering around in the bookstore the other night picking up massively huge piles of books that kids had left on the floor, on chairs, on the completely wrong display, in the so very obviously wrong section and from pretty much everywhere except a place where people would not accidentally step on it, when I heard some kid yelling something.

Now, kids yell all the time, so I automatically tuned it out. Until I realized that he was calling for someone. Since the kid looked to be about four and he'd been yelling for a good while already, this wasn't a good thing. So I stopped him and asked him if he was lost, was he looking for someone, was he with his parents....

Cute Kid: "Yeth. I'm looking for my thithter."

Me: (not his parents?) Your sister? What does she look like?

CK: (silence)

Me: How old is she?

CK: Six.

Me (SIX!!!!!! Fantastic, now I have missing parents and a missing kid and I can't do a Code Adam on the six-year old bc there is no way this kid is going to be able to give me a description. Shit.) How old are you?

CK: Five. I need my thithter.

Me: Well, why don't we go look for her ok? Let's look around the kid's section first , maybe you just missed her.

CK: (takes my hand) I already looked.

Me: Well, why don't we just look again. If we don't find her in here, we'll look around the rest of the store.

We found her just as we were about to leave the kid's section - she came walking back from having gone to the bathroom. On the other side of the store. Apparently alone.

Me: How old are you?

CK's Sister: Six.

CK: I told you that!

Me: Do you know where your parents are?

CKS: In here.

Me: Well, why don't we go find them.

So, I start walking around the store, a kid in each hand. We get about 15 feet from the kid's section when the kids turn around and I see this guy walking up all upset and confused. He tells me they're his kids. (Thankfully, it's usually really easy to tell if the people who say they are the parents are the parents bc of the way the kids act.)

I start to tell him that his kids were alone in the kid's section and that he needs to stay close to them and he cuts me off and says he was nearby.

I tell him that his son was yelling for his older sister for quite a while and he explains that he's partly deaf in one ear.

Me: All the more reason to keep them close to you.

I barely manage to not add "jackass" - partly cuz he looked so confused.

On that note, a few rules for parents, since with summer approaching, I predict that reminders will become necessary more frequently:

1) We are not a baby-sitting service.

2) If your kids do not behave, I will tell them to do so.

3) How nicely I ask them to do so will depend on their age. I will use my substitute voice on 12 year-olds that are doing things that preschoolers know are wrong.

4) I won't care that you are sitting right there.

5) Unless your kid is old enough to stay home alone, you had damn well better be sitting right there. And too distracted by your other children to have had a chance to tell the kid stepping on the books to stop doing so.

6) If you are not sitting right there, I will find you and tell you that your child needs watching. Even if they are fourteen. And do not argue with me about this one. My bosses will not fire me for making sure that your children are not destroying the store and/or are not kidnapped. They probably won't even care if I'm snippy with you when I tell you to do your damn job.

7) The children's section is not a playground. Do not let your children play tag or use the very unstable benches as launching pads. (Dancing on the stage, is however, permitted. Even if it's cuteness is directly disproportional to how aggravating everyone else has been that day.)

8) If you disobey these rules - even after I've explained them to you - I will kick you and your children out. The $3.99 you were going to spend on a Spider-Man 3 or Disney Princess paperback is worth losing if it means the company avoids a lawsuit from your kid cracking his or her head open.

Special note:

Your twelve year old is not in really in any danger of being carried off, so stop hovering. Older kids tend to kick up a fuss if people they don't know try to make them do stuff. So (except for semi-private places like the restrooms) your kid is just fine as long as you and he/she stay within earshot or within agreed upon areas.

Extra special note:

Your five -year old is in danger of being carried off, so keep him or her within your sight, not just within earshot. It's not statistically likely, but bad people who want to hurt kids know where to find kids - and our store is one of them. And until they are around seven or so, most (non-shy) kids will go along with any adult who seems friendly. Especially in public places with lots of strangers.

SQUEEE!!! (for real this time)

This is why I need to remember to read MangaBlog more often:

Meg Cabot’s magical Arthurian epic continues…manga style! TOKYOPOP, the leader of the Global Manga Revolution and HarperCollins Publishers, one of the top English-language publishers in the world, are pleased to announce the July 2007 release of Avalon High: Coronation #1: The Merlin Prophecy, the first installment of a three part manga sequel to Avalon High.

I haven't read Avalon High but I've read the first few Princess Diaries books and really liked them. Unlike in the movie, Mia's grandma is just so completely outrageous and stuffy and mean - and yet so obviously cares about her family. And Mia is still so very Mia. And Lilly is so very Lilly. And Michael doesn't mysteriously disappear after the first installment. They're just fantastic.

(and Ha! no wonder why I loved them, take a look at what's at the top of Meg's list of favorite romances.)

I'm not really liking the cover for the upcoming manga though.



Can someone tell me why all these books that, you know, use art to tell stories tend to have vastly lamer covers than the ones that don't? Don't the marketing people ever worry that people might say, I dunno, maybe: "I don't like the art on the cover, why would I pay money for the art inside?"

And can someone please tell me why so many people, when designing covers, think that they need to get all literal and/or try to tell half the story on the cover? Versus, oh, say just trying to catch people's interest and give them a taste of the themes and mood of the book?

There is a reason why the covers below are so very cool, after all, and it's not just because they are pretty.




I know that the cover designers are not the same people as the story artist. But I can't help but question how well the story inside is told when the cover art doesn't really do it's job.

And as I've stated before (I think in the comments on Kalinara's blog) this is especially important when it comes to graphic novels that are intended to expand the graphic novel reading audience.

Most people new to comics don't really understand how separate the inside and outside art are. Many would, in fact, be quite floored to realize how often even the illustrations on the cover are done by someone other than the story artist. Most non-comics reading people's experience with stories told with pictures is limited to children's picture books, and while it's obvious that cover designers are involved, it's also obvious that the story illustrator does the illustrations for the cover as well.

Quite frankly, that way of doing things makes more sense to me anyway. Cover illustrations aren't quite the same as the blurb. It makes sense to have a cover designer as well, but hiring an all new artist to do the cover illustrations strikes me as being more like the marketing people hiring someone to write a fake excerpt to put on the cover.

Not My Cute Bunnies and Happy Puppies Post

I told myself I was going to write about some of the comics I've read recently that I really liked, even if for no other reason than for Ragnell's sanity, but, like hippokrene, stupidity offends me.

But do you know what offends me more? That our culture has managed to link women with vulnerability, and violence against women with sex to such an extent that normally not stupid people are unable to tell the difference between this:

and this:
It makes me wonder if these same people cannot tell the difference between this:
and this:
How many times do I have to explain that it's not just that women always! = sex that offends me, it's also very much the fact that so large a portion of my peers finds the thought of me in pain to be sexually arousing and that this is considered normal! That's what disturbs and enrages me. That's what scares me.

It's really not the fact that (heterosexual) men like looking at sexy women that bugs me. It's really not even just the pervasiveness of it, nor even just the double standard that says that they are not for looking at. It's not these things alone that makes me look askance at the guys around me. It's also very much the fact that time and time again "regular" people prove that they can't tell the difference between "women = sex!" and "violence against women = sex!" that makes me wonder and worry.

Marvel Editor in Chief: Comics Are Neither Art Nor a Medium for Telling Stories

From Newsarama:

NRAMA: ....How about the Heroes for Hire #13? This has caused some controversy of its own, with some people likening it to a very unsavory recurring element in some more adult-themed manga?

JQ: This one I can answer to. First, I think people are reading way too much into that cover than was ever intended. I heard terms such as “tentacle rape” being thrown around when that in no way is what’s happening, nor does it happen in the book. Those tentacles are the arms of the Brood who appears in the issue and is a major story point, the Brood have tentacles, sorry about that.

Secondly, the concept for that cover, soup to nuts came from a female artist. Thirdly, not being a deep follower of manga, I have no idea what recurring theme people are referring to or concerned with. While I appreciate the sentiment and the feelings that some may have about this, I honestly feel that there is way too much being read into this cover.

Also, HFH is a book that features two strong, lead female protagonist who kick major ass; somehow folks have forgotten to focus on that.

NRAMA: Well, you correctly identified the “unsavory” element we were referring to…just one of those absurd phrases (though it exists).

Now, I should be upset that Joe

1) blames all this mess on someone else (a woman no less) instead of, acknowledging his role as editor in chief

2) implies that since a woman made the cover, it's a-ok

3) acts as if the fact that two of the women cringing on the cover are "two, strong lead female protagonist who kick major ass" makes it all better, rather than worse

And trust me I am.

But you know what really pisses me off the most? That it's apparently so important that he turn a blind eye the to sexism his company promotes that he is willing to insult every person who works for him or buys his products in order to do it. Yes, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, but not when the cigar is dripping white gooey fluid all over the nearly naked breasts of a group of women that show a remarkable similarity to terrified porn stars. The only way that people could be reading too much into this cover is if you argue that comics are not capable of anything remotely resembling allusion, metaphor, euphemism, inference, symbolism, puns, tone, or style. Which, quite frankly, is insulting to the artists and writers and fans that convinced me to give Marvel money in the first place.

Plus, the editor in chief of one of the two major publishers of american comics must be excessively undedicated to his work if he has never heard of "tentacle rape" before. How else, besides being barely aware that there are companies other than Marvel or DC selling comics in America, can you explain the fact that he has managed to stay completely ignorant of something that is just a google search away?

Why I Started Reading Romance

Yeah, I know, I promised this a long time ago, and unfortunately this won't be nearly as coherent or exhaustive as I had wanted it to be.

But I've been researching a bunch of stuff for a series of posts I'm in the middle of writing, and I ran across a review of the first Gossip Girl novel on amazon that I just had to share immediately because it's such a good example of what's been bugging me about all the arguments put forth by adults that see A Serious Moral Issue in their popularity:

This book is in the Young Adult Fiction section at the library. When I was a young adult, I was reading Tolkien, Piers Anthony...

Dear God. That was so funny I forgot to laugh...Piers Anthony as an example of good YA lit? Piers Anthony? Seriously?

...and those books that you could pick what was going to happen next,

wtf is that even supposed to mean?

these days young adults are being forced to become adults too fast. I heard about Gossip Girls from a talk show I listen to everyday. Glenn Beck the host, he was saying how he would never ever let his daughters read this book because it's not for children, and I do consider the 15-up age recommendation to include children.

First of all, a large number of people consider 15-up to be "teen", which would be the point of having YA, and not just children's, lit.

Secondly, regarding kids growing up too fast. One of the things I found really interesting about all the "smut" in the first book is the extent to which it's not only condoned by the adults in the book, but the extent to which it shows adult men putting girls in awkward situations.

Hmmmm.......seems to me that maybe the popularity of the Gossip Girl series is not so much an indication that we "let" kids grow up to fast, but that we are overly controlling of girl's sexuality (and not always in a protective way) and they are desperate for a safe outlet.

I read the book, and I have to agree, it's not anything a young girl should be reading because it has no lasting value whatsoever.

As opposed to Piers Anthony.

It doesn't teach a lesson, the story has no point to it, and the impressions it leaves are hurtful to young psyches.

This I disagree with even more than the Piers Anthony idiocy.

There is a special place in my heart for Piers Anthony, simply because his over the top (and pretty much always insulting towards women) sexual innuendos made it really hard for me to keep ignoring how completely not just male oriented but absolutely derisive of all things female the vast majority the adult scifi/fantasy I'd read was. So I stopped reading it.

About the same time, I started reading romance novels. The first romance novel I remember reading was Perfect by Judith McNaught. Which, if you are familiar with either the book or the author, probably says a hell of a lot about me.

When I first picked Perfect up from the floor in my mother's room (not the store bookshelf) I did so because I was at an age when I would read just about anything if I was bored and because I was curious about this piece of fluff my mom was reading. Most of her reading choices were either related to her work as a primary teacher or had the kind of stuffy covers that loudly proclaimed "real literature!"

Looking back, if it had been just about any other romance novel in pulication at the time, I likely would never have finished it. The first few chapters of Perfect, however, are pretty much all about Julie as a child - and Julie's childhood was like Annie meets Pollyanna meets Seventh Heaven. It was just that perfect mix of "the world is full of awful things!" and saccerine sweet "The Sun Will Come Out Tomorrow" type goodness.

And then, all of a sudden, it was all about adventure! Julie gets kidnapped by an evil guy - who we know isn't really evil because we are the all knowing audience - and is forced to try to escape! Which she does, but he ends up getting hurt in the process, and for some inexplicable reason she saves him. Then they end up having sex, which neatly distracted me from the big glaring plot-hole. Because, wow! sex! Hot, steamy sex!

Having read all of three (four?) chapters of the first Gossip Girl I will unequivocally state - to eveyone's shock and several parent's dismay - that sex! is one of the few redeeming features of the Gossip Girl books.

Needless to say, there's all kinds of other books I would rather girls read (with no small number of them being fantasy and scifi), and I can see how younger girls would get very little good out of it. However if I were asked which I'd think was better for teen girls, Gossip Girl or any Xanth novel, Gossip Girl would get my vote every time simply because it does not pretend that, when the question is sex, girls are there for boys enjoyment - end of story. The fact that it's also sex! told from a woman's perspective is, sadly, still so revolutionary (outside of romance novels and "chicklit") that I can't help but cheer whenever I see it

I think I'm one of the few people that likes that this is a teen book, and not just another adult "chicklit" novel. I honestly welcome anything for teens that does not equate sex with violence against women, because far too much of what many parents do consider acceptable for teens (and younger!) does. I'd like something with a little more depth and morality, but - for the moment - as long as it doesn't pretend that girls sexual desire is dangerous or invisible, that sex is always bad, or that violence against girls is sexy, I'm all in.

Anyway, back to the review:

PLUS it's the worst writing I have seen in awhile, I am talking 4th grade level grammar, sentences, and diction.

Finally, something we agree on. And yet, I would argue that this is almost a strategy, since if it was well-written literature, it wouldn't be so easily pooh-poohed and may even generate more controversy than it has. Such as, oh say, Judy Blume's Forever.

The whole book is about rich spoiled teenagers, who have a lot of sex, shop a lot, gossip a lot and have no character what so ever,

Again, I agree. But again, I think it's part of the point of the books. Like a lot of mediocre media for teens, teens aren't expected to see the characters as people, they're encouraged to see them as personalities to try on. A lot of the lack of character development is almost meant to keep all the characters blank slates to a certain degree.

if I were a parent and knew my child was absorbing all this nonsense and thought that maybe this was an okay way to act I would blow my top. What kills me, is that the book has sequels...many of them...and people are either buying them for their children without knowing what they are about which is bad parenting, or their kids are buying them and parents are just turning a blind eye to what is in their children's lives. .......(seriously this is like soft soft porn)

Gee, as opposed to my cousin's favorite show Top Model?

Please. Again, if I had my choice between my cousin reading Gossip Girl or watching Top Model, I'd choose Gossip Girl every time. And, especially in a world were everyone else is watching Top Model anyway, I'd want her to be reading or watching something that has female oriented "soft soft porn" in it, no matter what.

You can pretend all you want that the issue is that Gossip Girl is marketed to teens and Top Model is meant for adults and teens just happen to watch it, but you might want to see how well that argument went over when it came to Joe Camel (TM) before you do.

Things They Don't Teach in High School

When the teachers and the books were talking about the connections between the Suffragettes and the banning of alcohol...

(which, is it just me, or does anyone else feel like the vast majority of the reasons given in high school for the passing of the 19th Amendment was chalked up to either "men as benevolent leaders" or "women as moralizing whiners"?)

...why, oh, why were we never told that better statutory rape laws were advocated for and passed due to the hard work of the Women's Temperance movement? And that the age of consent before then was 10.

10!

No, I didn't learn this until today when I began reading The Body Project by Joan Jacobs Brumberg. Which I'm finding both frustrating (see below) and illuminating (see above).

Resolved, not to talk about myself or my feelings. To think before speaking. To work seriously. To be self-restrained in conversation and actions. To not let my thoughts wander. To be dignified. Interest myself in others more.

(from the diary of a 19 year old, 1892 - emphasis mine)

The one thing about the book so far that I really question is how the author keeps characterizing such statements as indicating that girls in the past cared less about appearance. This passage in particular seems to me to indicate that what has changed has been which part of themselves girls focus on cutting down to size, not that girls in the past were more focused on improving character than girls are now.

This may be true in the sense that there's less focus today on girls being good and on society being moral than there used to be, but when "improving character" is defined mainly as being selfless to the point of silence, it seems to me that the biggest change is the way in which girls are pressured to be objects, not in the reasons why girls do things.

Kalinara Needs to Stop

giving feminists a good name. ;)

(and making me jealous....)

A man telling a woman what she should or should not find sexist is proving he doesn't understand the meaning of the word.

....

The Mary Jane statue and the Heroes for Hire cover are sexist. They correspond with and promote sexist ideas. The people who can see that are not "misconstruing" anything. They're seeing what the creators, blinded by their own intentions, can not, and they are not wrong to be offended.

Some People

seem to have the impression that Heroes for Hire is not aimed at women.

If the follow-up to a comic that gets ball-cracking-feminazi Karen Healey's stamp of approval* is not "aimed at women" what the fuck is?

(And do you not get that by arguing that we are so invisible as to not even be worth considering when it comes to even comics like this that you are making our point for us?)

You may keep your tentacle porn for all I care, some of my best friends enjoy tentacle porn.

But for the love of baby Jesus and cute puppies everywhere, is it really necessary to turn this into this, much less this?

(I'd argue to keep the 'fing bondage and sexual violence away from rape victims - or at least be smart enough to not consider soft focused depictions of them a selling point - but that puts you in rather a conundrum now doesn't it?)

*well, ok, so the nipple thing. But that hardly contradicts the point. And yeah, H4H is not the same thing as DotD, but one would think that a certain amount of crossover between audiences would be the goal.

For Fuck's Sake

I'm not "looking out for these breaches of egalitarian principle."

I really, really, wish sometimes that I could just turn off this ability to see them. Ignorance is bliss and all that.

For every feminist out there who's giving things a fair evaluation, there are those who operate on assumption rather than evidence—tarring, feathering, and dismissing with a description that becomes so common that it begins to lose all strength: misogyny.

Misogyny kinda goes hand in hand with the concept we like to call "the patriarchy." When employed properly, it's (usually) not a critique of you, or even your work. It's a critique of the system, inasmuch as a hatred of all things womanly tends to go hand in hand with considering "male" the default. Unfortunately for all of us, "properly" does not necessarily equate to sparingly.

When they become especially attached to their role, it often takes some fierce discussion to convince them that they are not seeing what they imagine they are seeing. I'm gathering that a portion of the feminist (note: not female) comic-blogging atmosphere is suffering from such a malady.

In deep contrast to the blindness of privilige, to be sure.

Plus, I'm dying for some examples of the "fierce discussions" that "convinc[ed feminists] that they [were] not seeing what they imagine[d]." Simply because, in my experience, most feminists don't "imagine" that they are seeing sexism. Not so much because we're smart like that, but because it is so pervasive that it's like trying to hit a house from the street with a rock. The problem is more often one of not seeing the shape of sexism clearly enough rather than conjuring it up from nothingness.

I also like the "(note: not female)" bit. It's not so much that I can't see people conflating the two, it's that I can't see people who would conflate the two taking offense at dane arguing that (some!) feminists suffer from a malady.

One of the things that makes the reception of a creative work such a dicey proposition is that I see some feminists praising a specific instance in a book while other feminists revile the same instance. And both groups cite their feminism as the basis for their decision to praise or revile.

Well, knock me over with a feather! Feminists disagreeing - you don't say!

Well, obviously one group must not really be feminist then. Or possibly not thinking straight. It couldn't possibly be that there are several feminisms.

Honestly, I wish Dane all the luck in the world, and I'm fairly certain that the simple fact that he bothers thinking about any of this means that I'm significantly less likely to object to his story than half the crap out there. However, Dane, if you think I'm not going to give you as bad a time - or worse - for your mistakes (literary and otherwise) as I do Joss, then I'm afraid you're sadly mistaken.

But since I'm also fairly certain that you aren't writing your comic as a favor to all of us (since you've never struck me as dumb) I also don't quite get the point of the post. Do you think that unless we honor you the feminist of the year award that we aren't going to spend money on your comic and so it will tank? If so, huh? If not, huh?

Update on the Scary Swarm of Attacking Fangirls

When the writer who inspired this was informed that his post had been linked to by WFA(and I do mean nothing more than informed, "Here from WFA" was the title of someone's post - which, ya know, is generally considered the polite way to give the blogger a heads up) His response was to start out his post with:

Oh God, I got linked to. This will probably not end well.

The commenter addresses this (and other misconceptions) at the end of her response by saying:

Meanwhile, since I think I was perfectly polite, or so I would hope (and if you feel otherwise please do say so and indicate what you felt was insulting), I have to say I'm mildly irritated to be lumped in with a bunch of other people whose comments I haven't even read and who I probably don't know. I've also never Bingo'ed anyone. So ... thanks for dumping your persecution complex on me?

Our blogger's response is:

No, you didn't say I was the bad guy, but your initial drive-by was solely to point out I was wrong and to pose a leading hypothetical proposition. Surely not the best foot forward ;)

Setting aside for the moment the highly debatable merit of calling anything the commenter said in her first comment "a....hypothetical proposition" and noting that "drive-by" was first uttered by the commenter so we'll let than one slide for now.....

.....am I the only one who sees the irony of characterizing this:

Just a drive-by comment on one point: sorry, but you're wrong about the "comics were created for twelve year old boys" thing. Read the vintage Golden Age stuff and you'll see how many ads were aimed at women - I'm talking make-up and brassieres, not just gender-neutral stuff which happens to use women and girls.

Mind you, if anything, I'd think "comics are geared at 12-year-old boys" would make the issue more problematic, not less. Surely 12-year-olds need to be set good examples?

as "not the best foot forward?" Especially when the characterization is being made by a made by a guy who's complaining about other people complaining (through satire! no less). And does so with statements like

Yes, there's probably too much sexism in comics, but I find myself not caring too much one way or the other. Does this make me a mysoginist? I don't think so, but I'm sure that someone out there would lump me in with the Cult of the Oppressive Penis because am now blowing off an issue of grave social import. Whatever. As a white male I'm already constantly informed that I'm personally responsible for all the world's evils, have no culture of my own, and am in general a giant oppressive leeching privileged poopiehead. Now I'm sexist too....

Tip to those who would like to lecture others on how they debate with others - if you are going to routinely call for civility and extreme politeness, it's best to demonstrate such qualities yourself. Otherwise people tend to think you are just being an ass. And for good reason. You know, at least when Hugo talks about civility, he does a good job of demonstrating what it means.

But fear not, there's more.

Our first commenter continues the conversation in question by adding

At the very least, saying....."Oh, and people are going to crucify me for saying that because I'm a white guy!" and then waiting around to get yelled at is a tad on the disingenuous side.

The blogger's reaction:

Disingenuous, perhaps... but I didn't have to wait long, yes?

WTF?

There are exactly four people who comment on the post in addition to the blogger (on the blogger's own site - there may be more, such as myself - who responded elsewhere). One agrees wholeheartedly with our intrepid blogger. Another is one of the people he is responding to, so the WFA connection is invalid, and the actual comment in question contains no disagreement. Then we have the commenter already discussed. The fourth makes a total of two very short comments disagreeing with the blogger. And, please note, the anonymous commenter who disagrees with him did not show up until several hours after he made that comment. Which in WFA time, (esp. lately) is practically a news cycle later.

So, again, WTF?

Is this like that thing where people perceive a 50/50 gender split to be unbalanced in favor of women? 'Cause I fail to see any yelling, much less anything that would justify the first and last remarks made by the blogger in responding to rabican.

I kind of feared this would turn into namecalling, etc., but it didn't. Thanks for keeping it on the up. I have to admit that I'm kinda done with it at this point; it appears we've both made our case and I do feel enlightened a little more about the issues. Thanks.

I'm glad he's all enlightened now and shit. Let me know when he's enlightened enough to tell the difference between yelling, getting reamed, and people debating a topic that he brought up himself. I suppose I ought to add "waiting until he understands the idiocy of complaining about satire by using hyperbole as a rhetorical device" but my I think that may be expecting too much.

Random Things I've Been Meaning To Mention

- My niece's favorite song is currently the Blue October suicide song. She's three.

- I am still in denial about VM. (And therefore haven't watched the finale - so no spoilers.)

- Someone needs to get working on those hoverboards, bc they're in all the "not too distant future" stories. And that not too distant future is coming up fast. Plus, they are super cool.

- I am addicted to Ice Chai Lattes. Must. Find. Healthier. Drink.

- Nora Roberts has most definitely made a pact with the devil. I don't care that I don't believe in the devil, it's just not possible for someone to write that many books a year and have them be that good. Not without help.

- I'm really scared the HP7 is going to be disappointing. I have slightly better hopes for movie #5.

Well, duh - Beka must not be an Action Hero

Tim Liebe's comment over at designated sidekick reminded me that we really need to look no further than the way White Tiger has been treated to realize that Marvel is so scared and clueless that all they're really doing now is shooting themselves in their collective foot.

One online columnist recently pointed out that the only visible marketing for WHITE TIGER comes from my co-writer Tamora Pierce’s website!

Tamora Pierce is insanely popular among teen girls. She's one of the authors that the kids come in raving about and asking when her next book is coming out without any prompting from parents. The idea that one would not use the opportunity of a new superhero comic featuring a female hero co-written by the current Queen of female action heros in YA lit in order to try to expand your base is just.....seriously, I have no words.

I had assumed that some smart person had at least put ads in Teen People or something similar, as DC apparently did with Minx. How expensive would it have been to put up banner ads on myspace or google searches targeting people who listed or searched for Tamora Pierce or any of her other works? Her most recent hardback, Beka Cooper - which has been out since before Christmas - is listed at #7,180 in books. That's not that far behind the slightly more recent release of Vol. 2 of Runaways at #6,253. (For further comparison, the most recent Gossip Girl is #309 and the one that came out at the same time as Beka Cooper is now at #3,309. Both are paperbacks and cost much less.)

I wonder, if they even bother to come out with a trade edition, are they going to limit the run to those cheap digests and not even bother to do a dump for it? A co-written comic may not sell as well as her novels, but it will sell to teen girls - if Marvel makes sure they know it exists in the first place.

This is What We Mean By Rape Culture

First, you have all read Whedon's latest rant of excellence, right? Good.

Now that I've spent far too much time compiling the list below I'd like to talk about why I believe that the Twain quote about there being "lies, damn lies, and statistics" is never more apt than when it comes to discussions about gender, harassment, and the male gaze.

Amanda recently made the comment on her blog that:

.....I call bullshit on the simple-reversal thing.

For example, a scene: Woman in library reading by herself, man leans over her shoulder. vs. Man in library reading by himself, woman leans over his shoulder.

Simple equation, but most of us could more easily see the former being scary because we’re aware of how commonly men invade women’s personal space to harass them.

Experience isn't something that people need to get over, it's something people rightly use to make everyday choices. While we should never let fear dominate our decisions, ignoring our feelings because they are inconvenient is never good nor logical.

The two posts must hardly seem connected in most people's minds, however. Amanda's example is of man doing something that many women would find threatening, while most women would find Laura's example of a man looking at store displays featuring sexy women to be harmless everyday behaviour. Yet why is looking at objectified women in public considered to be such mundane behavior? Does it really carry no other meaning than "sex is good and healthy?"

Just like the image of the person looking over another's shoulder, we view the situation through the lens of our experiences. Just as we bring to images like the ones below the knowledge that men rape women exponentially more often than women rape men, we also bring the knowledge that men are allowed more freedom when it comes to sexual desire than women are. While the pervasiveness of all this often prevents us from seeing the big picture impact of everyday actions, it's also what contributes to the impact such actions have.

Every instance of such behavior is a reminder that not only men are allowed to look at objectified images of women, but they are often given the right to do so without reasonable boundaries, while women often barred from the same basic privilege. The amount of harm done by such actions is not limited to the crudeness displayed or lack of respect when interacting with actual women. No more than it's all about the way he's looking over her shoulder that makes the image frightening. It's also about the experiences of being denied similar privilege and being forced to participate in the same pastime of looking at objectified images of women, whether you like to or not.

The final score is not thirty-something to nine, it's thirty-something to a fraction. Because, like Amanda's example. mere gender reversal does not equate to equality. Whatever I may feel looking at person-shaped Spidey in peril, I'd imagine most (heterosexual) men see nothing sexual in it at all. Which means that the pairing of sex and violence is not present in those images the way that it is in even the image of Sue Storm being held captive by two men.




I don't dislike the Fantastic Four cover. I just think it carries different connotations than a similar image of a male superhero would. Especially the typical superhero, who would be built closer to a tank and than a movie star. And I think we can all agree that many of my additions to the "sexy men in peril" were highly questionable when it comes to the sexy part. Is Spidey in that cover really in any way sexy the way that Sue Storm is in hers? He's mostly just person-shaped and looking a little graceful and awkward at the same time. There's nothing really objectified about him. Sue Storm, on the other hand has a blank expression, "perfect" body, hands clenched together (not apart and in fists), and knees together as well.

Quite frankly, in some ways I find this cover more disturbing than the infamous Heroes for Hire cover. (With the exception of the needless injustices done to Misty.) Setting aside for the moment the rating of the cover, it is at least honest about what it's trying to convey. To a disturbing degree certainly, but, well, honesty counts for something. But images like the F4 cover normalize the intersection of sex and violence against women in a way that's needed for the HFH hire cover to become acceptable in the mainstream. How many people are going to look at the F4 cover and consciously think "sex! and women in pain!" and yet still absorb the message? What kinds of real life signals do guys miss because they are taught that her posture is womanly rather than deliberately vulnerable? Which brings us back to Dworkin and the question of how a culture that equates femininity with vulnerability and submission can ever properly define rape.

The guy who "can't take a joke" is now arguing that "sexism is a convention of the genre" - in the guise of "sex sells."

If it was just sex that sells, I'd be fine with it all. I'd imagine most of us would (leaving sex in kid's stories for another debate). But it's not just sex that sells. It's degrading sex that sells. It's sex that degrades women that sells. It's sex that lumps sex and violence against women together that sells, and that's something else entirely.

The male gaze does burn. Largely because, as the covers show, it's meant to.

I can't speak for other women, but I didn't buy Super-hero comics until recently not because I don't like action or super-heroes, but because I thought they were more of the "action hero saves damsel in distress" type of story - often with added objectification of women and sexual violence towards women. Other people (Ragnell, Kalinara, and yes Whedon) showed me that this isn't always the case, but I never would have been able to find the comics that don't do this without their help. And I'm still very, very torn between liking the medium, wanting a good adventure story, and wanting to avoid crap like this as much as humanly possible.

Blood is Cumpulsory, but it's Best if it's With "Love"

Let's count the number of covers up on Marvel's site that show women as being both sexy and in peril, shall we? Because this and this have put me in the mood to do so.

>One.

>Two.

>I'm including this this partly because I've always found the preponderance of Superheroines with unbound long hair to be nearly as silly as the number of exposed bellies and improbable shoes. O don't know who she is, but even if she's not a superhero - the artist included that flowing long hair for a reason, and it's not just to improve the composition. That makes Three.

>Yes, she's evil, but she's a sexy evil villain - and we all know why that is. Four.

>So, the other two X-Women look like they're kicking ass, but Rogue looks like she'd looking for a handy boulder. Five.

>I so want to count this, because she looks like she's about to fall, but I'll let that one slide.

>I get that there's men lying (dead)?) on the ground as well as women, but only the women are draped as well as mangled. Six.

>Wolverine may be the one with the claws in his neck, but she's the one who looks scared - and has holes in costume everywhere a normal costume would have more coverage. Seven.

>Again, why do Superheroines so often look like they are scared? Eight.

>Again! Scared! Why are the girls always the ones who are scared! Nine.

>No, I'm not going to count this - but it does rather look like she's expecting something other than what she's obviously getting. That ought to be it's own category.

>Oh, hell yes. Ten.

>I swear, it's like we never left the Victorian age and women are constantly swooning gracefully. Eleven.

>Twelve

>Scared again. Possibly surprised this time. But note how the gals look scared surprised and the guys are angry surprised. Except for the Thing, who just looks comical. Thirteen.

>It still counts when it's women doing the violence. Fourteen.

>This is simply because of the composition, but I still think it counts. Fifteen.

>I wasn't going to coountthis, but then I noticed how her knees are together and decided that it doesn't really matter if that's just her regular suit - because who makes the suits so form fitting? And is it just me, or wouldn't one think that breast armor would cover both breasts together, not each individually? Sixteen.

>They're all rotting away, but they keep enough of her so that we get to see all that nice exposed skin. Seventeen.

>Eighteen

>Yay! They're all scared. But only she's half naked. Nineteen. (I somehow lost the link to this one - I'll go back and find it sometime soon.)

>Yeah, 'cause I'd totally have that expression if I just got punched in the face. Twenty.

>Not that these count for either, I just found the juxtaposition interesting.

>I do not get what this is about, but Twenty-One.

>Could her mouth be open any wider, and could they have worked harder to show her breast and hint at her crotch, and again with the unboundhair - while he has a helmet. Twenty-Two.

>Aside from Spider-Girl, are men just incapable of making that :0 face - and women incapable of making any other? Twenty-Three.

>Twenty-Four.

>You know, if the wouldn't keep insisting on making so many of the female characters the token girl, they'd worry less about making sure people are sure she's a girl, and then the women wouldn't look any more scared or prettied up than the men. Alas..... Twenty-Five.

>It's really scary that this is really good compared to the cover for the next issue. Twenty-Six.

>Twenty-Seven.

>Almost missed this one. Twenty-Eight.

>Twenty-Nine

One female shaped person, and we see more of her face then all of the guys she's chained up with combined. Thirty.

>Dear God. Thirty-One.

>Scott's doing the :0 face - but again with the sexy hair. When their flowing locks are practically their costume, it has the same effect as their actual form-fitting costumes. Thirty-Two.

>Thirty-Three

>Thirty-Four

>Is this her second or third so far? Thirty-Five.

>I was looking at whats-his-name, trying to decide if he counted or not, when I realized that it's her butt that's blocking part of our view of him. Thirty-Six.

>Now this doesn't count, but it gets a very special honorable mention because it's for kids, and while the boys and older girl all look scared, it's the girl we focus on first and last because of her placement, posture, and sight-lines. Bad Marvel.

>I have of course, saved the best for last. Thirty-Seven. And it's rated T+: 9 and up. (Though I've they've changed it to 12+ but not all of the site is updated.)

Now, let's count the number of covers up on Marvel's site that show men in peril and looking sexy, shall we?

>Ok, maybe - maybe - we can count this. But since the guy in the dominant position looks far sexier, I vote no.

>Aha! One thing you can always count on LKH for is the save the handsome prince plot. That's pretty much the reason she's one of my guilty pleasures. Too bad the comic sucks and Phillips looks more creepy than sexy. The thought was there, though. One.

>I can't decide about this because he's outnumbered, undressed, and not too scary muscled - but he's also not only got that bigass gun, but his symbolic genitals scream power! not pain! And well, gee, if this is Ghostrider - isn't that him up above as well, or is the guy with the bigass gun someone else? Either way - he doesn't really look scared, does he?

>I dunno, partly because I have a hard time finding something with eyes like that sexy but mostly because we don't have a but shot.

>Barely I'm not sure it should, because of the dominating images of strength behind him negate the small amount to which he's sexualized, but ok. Two.

>Call me weird, but I think this counts. Spiderman is so very, very small compared to the image behind him, and he's in one of those awkward pseudo-graceful positions. Three.

>I don't think that there's enough of his ass in this picture for it to count, but I'll do so anyway. Four.

>The way his legs are spread alone. Plus, he's got the :0 face. A very distorted :0 face, but a :0 face nonetheless. Five.

>Meh. He looks as confident rather than scared, but ok - just because his clothes are shredding. Six.

>Spidey's problem is that we're supposed to always remember it's Peter Parker in there. Which means he's vulnerable and human-shaped. Plus he's a spider, so his mere four appendages must try to do the work of the normal eight. I'll keep counting them, but I'm fairly certain the sexiness part is mostly unintentional. Whereas women are pretty much always drawn intentionally sexy. It's the combination of sex and peril that I think isn't always consious. Seven.

>Eight.

>Scott has the face, but he doesn't even have eyes.

>I really don't have a crush on Spiderman, I promise. I think my gudging might be skewed by the fact that it's so refreshing to see an actual male-shaped body after all those tanks. Nine.

>The intent is here but that weird mask thing is just not scary enough.

Note that we can't count this.

Damn. Now I have to go back and count the total covers. And the number that have women on them at all. And the number that don't have men at all. (I remember about three.) And the number of them that have women in peril that aren't sexed up.

Well, for now the final score is Thirty-Seven to Ten. With about half of the sexy men in peril consisting of nothing more than Spider-Man being a spider, and absolutely none of them comparing to the worst of the Thirty-Seven. (Anita Blake wants to, but it really doesn't manage it at all.)

It's too bad I know never want to buy anything from Marvel again, because I like this cover.

Plus this freakin' makes up for a good chunk of those other covers, 'cause Little Red - the perpetual warning to all girls to "stay on the path" or else - looks like she's more than capable of decking that big bad wolf with her basket.

Although, please don't tell me what this 'cause I'm sure I really don't want to know.