Now That's What I'm Talking About!

ComicCon.com has an interview with Tony Beddard about his run on Supergirl.

It includes images.



WOW.

First Alex Ross's Power Girl, and now this.

It could almost seem like DC is listening to its women readers.

::crosses fingers::

Pleasepleasepleaseplease...

It's like Christmas come early!

Point...Counter-Point

Hello, Stapler Fans!

I apologize for the radio silence. I was in New Orleans visiting my recently-relocated brother and getting my nerd on.

Interestingly, those two things are what I'd like to write about today.

While showing off some pictures to my brother's coworkers, I said something to the effect of, "We may be a bunch of nerds, but we bring it to the table when it comes to costuming for a Masquerade." (This is New Orleans. They take their Masquerades seriously.)

A moment later, my brother and I left for lunch. As we were heading out, he told me that I shouldn't refer to myself, my friends, or my pastimes as nerdy, as "it sends the wrong message."

"You're cool, and your friends are cool. You're not nerds," he said. "When you do that, it sounds like you're on the defensive."

He then likened it to black people referring to themselves with the N word.

A little extreme, I thought, but a point interestingly made.

Going in that line of thought, I definitely feel that words like "geek" and "nerd" have been "taken back," as it were.

I spent much of yesterday mulling this over, so you can imagine how I felt when my best friend picked me up from the airport and started saying things like, "How was your nerd-con?" and "They seem pretty cool for a bunch of Harry Potter nerds." (Note: I am in no way saying this N-word is like *that* N-word, so trolls, take your wank elsewhere.)

Until my brother had said that, I would have been the first person to say I was at a nerd convention, and that the people I'd met were pretty cool for a bunch of nerds.

Heck, even Warren Ellis calls San Diego Comic Con "Nerd Prom." Is he winking at his readership, or alienating them?

I proudly call myself a geek, and enjoy my geeky hobbies. I feel weird that geek culture is becoming more and more mainstream. I was supremely weirded out when, during my tenure at a local comic book store, a group of Mean Girl types from a school where I'd been a social outcast stopped in. To my further shock, they left with armfuls of manga.

Not only have the terms "geek" and "nerd" been taken back, but the cultures they describe are becoming more and more mainstream. Most people may not go to a Harry Potter convention, but it's a safe bet, going by numbers alone, that most people have read Harry Potter.

When I use nerdy or geeky to describe something, it's an adjective without a value judgement. Or, if there is one, to me, its value is positive.

I proudly announce my attendance of genre conventions, of SCA events, etc. They're fun hobbies. I've met some of my best friends because of these interests.

And really, if the geek culture hadn't embraced itself, items like this would not exist:


A shirt I have always wanted.

I don't really know the answer to this question. When people identify themselves as a geek or as queer, they are taking a charged word and using it to describe themselves, without a negativity, but with all the descriptive association those words can mean. "I like genre books and movies." "I am not heterosexual."

If we enjoy what those words mean, why not use them?

If someone accused me of being a geek, the only thing I could think to say back would be "Really? You only just noticed?"

This is What a Feminist Looks Like

YES.

Feminism and Comic Books: Chocolate and Peanut Butter? Or Sauerkraut and Whipped Cream?

Ragnell made a moving post last night about the illusion of a "unified voice" of feminist comics crit. Her point? There is no unified voice. There's discussion, dissention, redundancy (especially lately), agreements, outrage, and praise. But it's not all the same.

That's nothing, however, to the people who go through the links and think that there's a swarm a drones following some Alien Amazon Queen in her outrage. The communities doesn't work that way, not on this scale.

Exactly.

One of the Feminism and Comics Bingo squares is "Don't like it? Create your own!"

The truth of the matter is, there are a LOT of women comics creators. More than you'd think. Some of them are very talented. Some of them aren't. Some have good narratives, some of them don't--just like any other community of creators.

But they exist, and I am tired of that fact being ignored.

Which brings me to another point.

Most of the most intelligent, bad ass, talented, feminist-minded, and awesome women I know read comics.

Another large portion of that number are involved in the industry.

Another portion of that work for DC or Marvel.

These women ARE there.

I'm kind of stunned that there seems to be such a "Bah, GIRLS don't read COMICS!" sentiment, when so many women work for the mainstream companies. And as Editors! And Writers! And Artists!

I challenge anyone to disregard Amanda Conner's work.

I challenge anyone to disregard the impact Gail Simone has had on the DCU.

I challenge anyone to disregard Devin Grayson's impact on the DCU.

Joan Hilty. Alison Bechdel. Liz Baillie. Miss Lasko-Gross. Ariel Schrag. Diane DiMassa. Lynn Johnston. Cathy Guisewite. Raina Telgemeier. Trina Robbins. Colleen Doran. Jill Thompson. Heidi McDonald. Karen Berger. And dozens and dozens of others.

THESE WOMEN ALL EXIST AND WORK AND CREATE COMICS.

They are here. And I'm not sure what needs to be done to show the "Comic Book Club Tree House" that we're here, dammit--and women are creating the stuff they seem to think we don't love, too.

It would also help, if even a little, if we redirected our energy from being angry at what women aren't doing in comics, to copious and visible appreciation of what we *are* doing.

Something Silly

Tom Spurgeon linked to this today: The Flash vs. A Lesbian

To me, this was the most offensive part about it:


What?!?

A woman that big would NEVER be a jammer!

::eyeroll::

If you're going to mock a sport, at least do it correctly...

Sheesh.

Airing The Comic Journal's Dirty (Mary Jane) Laundry

A really nasty send-up of the Mary Jane statue criticism, and arguably, all feminist comic crit, can be found here. (Scroll down to "Comics Culture.")

After dismissing the anger about the statue, because it is more "Bettie Page than Larry Flynt," we are then told we are merely being strident fangirls who should STFU.

A scroll through the last few days of When Fangirls Attack links reveals less a collection of feminist criticism than a sloppy combination of knee-jerk outrage and reactionary herdthink with which the Attacking Fangirl contingent has gotten embarrassingly comfortable in recent months — sort of a distributed John Byrne Forum for she-nerds every bit as engorged on their own inflated sense of entitlement and inability to see past gender assumptions as the goofiest he-nerd on the Internet.

Okay, folks.

This has turned into one big internet wank session from all corners, from all sides of the argument.

I realized, though, why this statue has become a lightning rod for all this ire:

It is itself. There are no trades to read, no panels to analyze in order to "get it." Even if you know nothing about Spiderman, or comics at all, the offensiveness of the piece is evident. I also feel that the "sassy vs. self conscious" dichotomy between the original art and the statue also are evident, without knowing anything about the character depicted.

As a rallying point, the statue sucks. While it is undeniably offensive, there are too many opinions on why for it to be of any use. The fact that I like the Hughes art alone can be used against me. (Whatever. I like it. ::ptthhhbb::)

It's unfortunate that the problems with Supergirl are so textual, because she would be a fantastic arguing point. To be fair, she is often cited, but the references to issues and panels and the like keep her out of reach of many. (I happened to leaf through a trade over the weekend and be unlucky enough to see the "But that was my first kiss..." moment with Poison Ivy.)

Obviously, to make good arguments, one must do the research. That said, this statue has given even non-readers a chance to say, "Ein minuten bitte...hay un problemo...avec disse religione...."

MJ, and Pete's Laundry: A Comparison Story

By now, many of you have probably seen the Sideshow Comiquette of Mary Jane Watson-Parker washing the Spidey-Suit.


The offending statue, in all its glory awfulness

If you read most comic blogs, and even some feminist blogs, you've probably seen this already.

You've also probably seen the crit. I agree with a lot of it, so I'll let that lie for now.

Here is the Adam Hughes drawing it's based on:


Look at that smirk! Sassy!

Full disclosure: I really love Adam Hughes' art. His women are attractive, and very real-looking. The drawing of Power Girl used for the Power Girl Bust actually looks a lot like a friend of mine. When he draws women, he draws realistic, if very attractive bodies.

You don't look at the women he draws and think that their spines couldn't possibly support the breasts, or wonder where their internal organs fit, or want to feed them a sandwich. They're slim, fit, women, who look real.

Which Sideshow promptly fucked all up.

On another blog, I read a fantastic commentary on the Hughes art: "I really don't mind the original concept art so much, because MJ looks cute and human and a bit goofy, and I can imagine she's just teasing an unclad Spidey who's just out of frame."

YES. I can totally see, and agree with that.

I have been disappointed by Sideshow's figures before.

The sculpts on their Buffy figure line are notoriously awful. The only sculpts they got right were the vampires, and I can only assume that's because they shrunk down the dimensions from the original mask designs. I may not be a Buffy watcher, but I do know what Sarah Michelle Gellar and Alyson Hannigan look like...and it ain't that.

But this goes beyond bad sculpting.

This is taking the subtext from a moment, and removing it entirely. There's a confidence to the Mary Jane in the drawing that just doesn't seem to be there in the statue. The look on the face on that statue seems to be "Do you see me doing this? Are you watching, Peter? Am I sexy enough here?" She just seems so...self conscious.

Which is, absolutely, the last thing Mary Jane Watson is. (Let's not even discuss the ego shredding she receives in Spiderman 3.)

To sum up...

The disappointing thing, to me, about this figure isn't just its awful chauvanism. It's that the designers took a fairly awesome, sexy image, and turned into mysognist crap.

Weak sauce, Sideshow. Weak sauce.

Women As Incubators! And Nothing More!

Over on Jane Galt, I have been engaged in a discussion about why, precisely, polygamy is a bad idea.

Being the shit-stirrer I am, I opened the discussion a bit further to include polyamory.

This of course, was at first ignored, then targeted.

I was asked: What possible reason would a woman have to marry many men?

Slut-shaming is then brought into the equation:

Men dislike sluts for cuckoldry reasons - the possibility that they may marry a woman who carries children not of his own genes, which imposes a huge fitness cost on him. Cuckoldry factors would expand exponentially in a Woman-man-man-man relationship. In such a relationship men would not know if the children they were raising were their own, in a man-woman-woman relationship each woman would know that their own child IS THEIR OWN. So which is more likely?

This is clearly a man who doesn't even want to try and understand the dynamics of polyamorous situations.

My favorite part of the comment, however, was this:

Read some evo-bio.

Ok, so because animals operate on a purely procreative basis, humans do, too? Because in the animal world, only the Alpha Male gets to have multiple partners, it has to be the same for us?

I beg to differ.

The "because it's that way in the animal world" argument really makes me mad. I've seen many arguments in discussions that hinge on being "civilized" and how evolved the human race is, and all sorts of other things.

However.

You do not get to say we're better than the animals in one argument, and then use it against women in another.

Ah, he just replied to me again.

My point was - why would a man want a woman who has multiple partners? Ie. why would a man voluntarily participate in the raising of a child not of his own genes?

Wow. What an unenlightened view.

I like how he also assumes that children will be involved. Though, given the assumption of children, I guess I shouldn't tell him about the polyamorous family I know, and the children they're raising together.

His arguments are so based in pure base instinct, and have nothing to do with the real world or real situations, or even, I'd wager, real women.

And all this was because I asked:
The only conceivable legitimate argument against legally-bound unions of polyamory is the burden of insuring more than one spouse of the insurance holder.

If anyone can name another one- that's not based in religion or "that's icky"- I look forward to reading it.

Friday Photo Blogging!

It's Spring in New York, Stapler Fans!

I love Spring. I love taking pictures of the new green things all around, too!


Park Avenue has pretty trees


I love the tulip beds on Park Avenue.


More tulips!


One of these things is not like the other...


I love trees that have flowers!

Justice Has Been Served

OH SNAP!

I'm glad Palmer & Dodge rescinded their offer on that jerk.

I have a relative who works for that firm, and I'd be really unhappy knowing she was working with someone like that.

In short: I'm glad to see that someone's lack of moral fiber cost them something as important as a job. That doesn't happen enough these days.

Hmmph.

Empowering Women, One Lipgloss at a Time

Tonight! At Lolita Bar on the LES, The Lolita Debates tackles a tough one:"Does the Beauty Industry Oppress Women?

Arguing the Yes Position: Comedian and Model, Jen Dziura!

Arguing the No Position: Charles Star!

Bonus: You get to meet me, Red Stapler!

Extra Bonus: Did Todd Seavey's rant on feminism piss you off mightily? If so, come on down, he's looking forward to informally debating his points in person at the bar, before and after.

The Lolita Bar is on Allen and Broome, and has a tasty selection of beers, scotches, and wines!

Be there or be trapezoidal!

I'm Addicted to Heroines

As I said in this post last week, I am a big ol' comics nerd.

Today, I'm going to talk about my favorite Superheroines.


Power Girl...kicking ass as usual!


She Hulk...that pose looks familiar!

I said in a comment at Dick Hates Your Blog:
Power Girl and She-Hulk are my favorite superheroines.

While both are depicted with exaggerated -ahem- features, the writing for both of them focuses heavily on their identities, both related and unrelated to their appearances.

In the Power Girl graphic novel, there is a lot of discussion about her personality, her past, etc. While her appearance is mentioned, it is usually discussed under the framing device of "I want to be seen as more than these boobs."

The entirety of the Dan Slott She-Hulk series is Shulkie trying to reconcile all parts of herself. She wants to be seen as a superhero, a lawyer, a woman, and a sexual being. Sadly, she keeps running into walls with all of these issues.

A recurring theme that just about breaks my heart is that she wants to be as free with her sexuality as her male comrades, but keeps getting derision for it.

Most importantly, to me anyway, is that while both characters have incredible bodies, they don't have the Michael Turner "superwaif" look. They are brickhouses, in every sense of the term. Thankfully, most artists who depict them understand and respect that.

I confess, I'm behind on the latest JSA series. However, it seems worth noting that after the latest Infinite Crisis and all that shenanigan, PG was appointed the leader of the JSA. Characters whose entire purpose are T&A aren't given leadership roles.

I also admit a special affinity for Power Girl. The Amanda Conner-penciled series in 2005 came out at a point in my life I don't miss at all. Much like Power Girl, I found myself desired for all the wrong reasons, by a lot of wrong people, and very confused about who I was supposed to be, and what I was supposed to be doing with myself. These are all questions PG asked in that series.

Power Girl and She Hulk are two characters often cited for their cheesecake factor. I thoroughly disagree.

They are drawn the most realistically of most superheroes- regardless of gender or Universe or publishing company- and the problems they deal with can be applied as allegories to many real-world situations. They are never drawn as skinny "where-are-their-organs-supposed-to-go?" waifs, and they handle themselves with grace under pressure.

Why would anyone count these fictional women as anything but positive role models?