Caught Btween Racial Identity & Female Identity As Relates To A Cartoon

This stuff came up via conversations with some friends, well, vents more accurately put, about G.I.Joe: Renegades. It's an animated show, that combines G.I.Joe themes, with a bit of an A-Team plot and story hook. And after laughing my head off, having caught it randomly on channel and then watching two episodes and being intrigued, I hunted down some on demand sources and started watching from the beginning. And then, then I got hit in the face with some crap; squirm inducing, wincing, upset, wanting to fast forward through, crap. And so far it hasn't really been about race - so far it's all been gender.

In case you hadn't guessed? Here be spoilers....

*

*

*

Scarlett, is an emotional, obsessed woman, who when put in leadership positions manages continually to bring everyone into the utmost trouble or who somehow fails in some other way. When, however, she's in a support position; supporting one of the male character's decisions etc... then, she's right, solid, and good backup. On her own? Obsessed. And so far, the few times she's been right, haven't matched up to all the times she just plain... FAILS.

So here I am, all full of wee at the MALE PoC representation on the show. But feeling kicked in the stomach over how women are shown when Scarlett, Lady Jaye and the Baroness are the models.

The Baroness is obviously the underling of Cobra Commander and is shown quite knowledgeable in knowing her place . When a 'Firm Hand' is used to get her back in line, or reprimanded, it's by Cobra Commander himself, directly by him. She is HIS personal underling. So, a position of authority that is dependent upon a man.

Lady Jaye is initially shown as the military superior of quite a few men, who take her seriously. And that had me all a-squee, until things progressed and her role became a dual supporting role to two men. She's Flint's right hand in chasing down the 'Renegades'. And she's Duke's right hand in undermining Flint as needed. Sure she's sassy and all that, but she went in the space of the first two episodes, from superior officer to helpmate. And it does not help that Flint, who's her superior on the task force, makes comments about Duke being her boyfriend. It sets a certain tone; about who she is, how he sees her; as a woman, and a teammate and what her purpose is supposed to be.

Scarlett... Scarlett is the reason the Renegades are in trouble in the first place. She's so gunho about proving herself right, proving that Cobra is evil, that she plays fast and loose with regulations, orders, and other people's careers. The first episode is Scarlett being a flaming EVE to four ADAMS. And for me, it was painful. And I'm someone who's all reverent about BATMAN, who IS a vigilante! But of course, Batman, doesn't do vigilante things while wearing a military uniform and using military authority for his own ends and he is, as a character, usually shown to be very careful about involving others in his dangerous plans.

So here's Scarlett, a woman obsessed. And things happen, and go to shit. And I can't even admire her being right, or her being unphased about the outcome of things, because her focus is so narrow it comes across as dangerous. Worse, there's this undercurrent about her leadership ALSO being for shit. When she's in charge, THINGS HIT THE FAN. Almost always. When she's supporting another, a male, character's decisions, THEN she's right. And IN THE RIGHT. But on her own? It's wild and dangerous.

The thing is, if Scarlett were Scar, the character would still be dangerous. But it'd have a lot less baggage about women's leadership abilities. Scarlett is all intuition 'I just know!' / 'Trust me!'. And everything else flies out the window. Worse, I end up feeling like the only reason she's even survived as long as she has, is because she has Snake Eyes around to watch her back and clean up her messes for her (and considering, that despite what has been said, I think gaijin could apply as much to someone biracial as purely Caucasian so that's a MoC, running around looking after 'Miss Scarlett' and getting her out of her messes. And that goads. So. damn. much).

The other 'major' female character I've seen so far, has been Kimi/Jinx, Snake Eyes' student and part of his backstory. And she gets treated by one male as a trophy to be won or stolen back to suit his needs. Yes, she's a fighter. But her emotions are played and played and played again. And it could be her youth as much as anything, but with all the rest of the writing for female characters, I end up just shaking my head. Kimi/Jinx for all her spunk, is a damsel in distress. Agency is talked about around her, but she hasn't owned her own, and from what I've read up on, whatever she ends up having in the future is given to her.

Meanwhile, out of the PoC Males, there's a laid back, rock near heavy metal listening big, broad black dude, a Chinese-American Brooklynite, (Lady Jaye also looks Asian American to me btw, mentioned here before I forget), and a nickname giving somewhat daredevil black dude. And I like their portrayals. I so really, really do. If Snake Eyes is 'Hapa' (I think that's the applicable term) then he might be less 'white ninja' and that'll soothe and all that'll irk me is his lack of knowing any kind of sign language after how many years w/o a voice. It's a little upsetting to have a white woman interpreting what he says (on top of anyone else interpreting what someone with a disability really means or really needs).

But here I am, stuck, because wow, those male characters. And then damn on the women. At one point, in what I've watched so far, Scarlett can't find success and access she wants while pretending to be a lawyer or pretending to be a federal agent (I was left to ponder her opinion of small town people). But, playing a particular type of woman? Somewhat Jerry Springeresque? In short shorts and loose blouse and bra strap showing and pregnant - there she finds some success. And I winced. I just winced. Savvy disguise? Maybe. But of the three, the one that worked? It's the one that relied on 'feelings' / hers and the people she's trying to get past, vs any other sort of preparation; It's the one that relies on her presenting as female, presenting as female in a very biological way? Wince wince wince.

Other representations of women? Well, while I'm here, I am aware of the trope of, meek male, needs his 'woman' to be in true distress and then he'll 'man up' and do what needs done, and win the girl? The episode revolving around that, was also painful, not just because of the damsel in distress theme. But because that one act, to my mind, could not dissolve or undo the destruction caused by months/years of meekness. Finding his courage, fine. But did he have to get a prize for it? And that prize be a woman? A woman who, I'd hope in a more real life circumstance would consider the fact that her being in danger in the first place, imminently and then more broadly before the crisis point, had all been due to him NOT finding that courage? The message there, was that for one singular act that may or may not stick in his character he needed to be rewarded with herself? That's a message for kids? That's sick.

And speaking of acceptable feelings, rewards, prizes and gender bias - Scarlett haring off on her own intuition? BIG ARSE DUST UP. Duke on the other hand? Going it alone? His concern getting the better of him? He turns out to be right. He turns out to end up in the right place at the right time. He and the other males of the group, also turn out to feel more than Scarlett in general, about innocents that is. She's 'big picture' focused, obsessed. They want to stop and help the little guys.

Again I'm struck by if Scarlett were Scar; the character would be just as dangerous, just as obsessed, just as driven and focused, single minded, determined and having been right about Cobra's true face. But the baggage, of them not caring about others etc, would be very, very, different. Am I shocked at a female character who doesn't want to help general innocents? Or 'nurse', for various values of nurse (and that word is used deliberately) communities back to health? Maybe. Maybe I am. I'm influenced by the world as much as anyone. But the thing I pinpoint on, is that if Scarlett hates Cobra for taking advantage of people, for working at cross purposes to peace, unity and a peaceful Usian way - then, shouldn't she hate all manipulative bullies? Or at least consider the possibility that putting these bullies away means less possible future employees for Cobra?

Then again, I haven't watched enough to have seen if there's a specific reason she has it in for Cobra - though, maybe even then I'd expect some measure of empathy.--

-- And - Oh heaven. Oh crap. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, let Scarlett's lack of empathy not be some sort of underhanded lesson about what happens to a woman without a 'woman's natural empathies' to direct her. Please let this obsession with Cobra and all her risky behavior not be meant as a quiet understatement about what happens to women in leadership roles and all that associated bullshit. Let the writers just be clueless, privileged assholes. That's MUCH more preferable than a deliberate message to the younger generation.

And I know, know someone's going to wish they could comment to tell me that DUKE WAS ALWAYS THE LEADER. And uhm, I have watched a couple of G.I.Joe cartoons in my youth, ok? I felt a cold shiver down my spine when I heard about this century's live action movie (which I did not watch). I too thought Scarlett in the live action movieverse promos looked like nothing but cheesecake. And growing up? The bulk of the people I knew who liked G.I Joe? WERE GIRLS. G.I Joe slumber party. G.I.Joe birthday parties or just birthday cake, with Scarlett or Lady Jaye on the cover (and their action figures too). Running around the school yard playing G.I. Joe? Thinking up names and themes for themselves? Girls. I remember waiting with excitement for the G.I Joe movie (VHS) FOR that slumber party.

When the first episode of Renegades came on and I heard COBRA say "And knowing is half the battle" my heart leapt up in my chest and I thought 'OMG, that's TWISTED AWESOME!'.

So there, my itty bitty 'creds' as not a completely clueless female. WTFever. Cause 'creds' don't fucking matter, really, when it comes to what's going on in the here and now. Just like there's a generation who'll look at you one day and go 'Nick Fury was White??!!'. There's a generation now, that will know that Scarlett was introduced and often mentions the fact that she's Duke's superior officer. And yes, yes yes, she doesn't have his field experience. It's been mentioned. But field experience does not equal common sense (or rather her lack of it, or rather her complete obsession excluding all else including it).

So here I am. I want to know more about Tunnel Rat and Roadblock in this iteration. Hell Wikipedia says Nicky Lee is meant to be TRINIDADIAN CHINESE (or was). You think I don't want to be all up in that? And that it doesn't make me ponder hunting down the comic books? But how am I supposed to balance that squee, with the kick in the chest on how the female characters are treated? The same way I often end up walking away from things that have fine white female characters and PoC? WoC? Who's them? And until I know for sure about Lady Jaye, Renegades doesn't seem to HAVE, WoC, which earns serious cut eye.

I wrote out my thoughts to try and figure out things, to put my frustration down on 'paper', because it's been eating and eating away at me. And when I vent this much to people who care about me, they do tend to ask me why I'm still watching. Especially since they know I will walk away from media and people to spare myself/my life grief. This choice, however, or rather the phrasing of this choice (woman, or poc) is new. I haven't had to make this variation of the choice before / had to walk away from this variation of the choice before.

And it's really, really hard. Cause it'd be so easy, so easy to say 'Meh, Scarlett's just a stupid white woman'.

Wonder Woman's New Origin

Via OddityCollector

Excuse me while I laugh.

I mean, the 'solution' to Wonder Woman, is NOT to have a writer with an understanding of mythology, is not to possibly be having her fighting the paranormal, (couldn't ever be as much as I would dislike it personally, to tap into the HUGE Paranormal Romance and Twilight crowd with a truly kick arse heroine), it's NOT to have writer and artist capable of mixing in a little 'Percy Jackson & The Olympians' or 'Harry Potter' - the whole child of legend and secret hidden worlds and battles the rest of mankind never knows about.

No.

It's apparently to make WONDER WOMAN into Kevin Sorbo's Hercules: The Legendary Journey's.

I laugh.

There's speculation all the time that they (TPTB) have got no market research going on, no clue whatsoever about readership etc... But this? I mean, on the road from Jody Picult to THIS right here? It just screams 'IF YOU DON'T HAVE A DICK WE DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH YOU!' It's so perfectly obvious that they're doing the fannish stories that have lived in THEIR heads about the characters THEY liked as young boys and when it comes to female characters, outside the range of bed interest, they don't know wtf to do.

Even as I try to avoid it all, the news comes up and there in my face is yet another arsewipe move.

Really? The only way Wonder Woman can be written about, is if you (DC) focus it through the lens of a man? If you're obliquely telling a man's story about his daughter?

These are your bright ideas? Wonder Woman via Zeus (ZEUS) OF ALL DAMN Grecian Deities - I can smell the built in fail in any future intimate relationships Diana could attempt with male characters from here) and Supergirl via the lens of how she's not Superman? How different she is?

Wonder Woman, child of clay, gifted with life and talent from a host of goddesses (and more recently, Hermes) - that's the myth, you ignorants. That's the lore.

It's Not A Conspiracy. It's just Nostalgia.

Genderswitched Aang & The Gaang.

Toph: Exactly the same.

Or so says the artist (~carrinth). And that really annoys me. Because there's no reference in that to 'overprotected blind child of parents dealing with rampant ablism and who don't see child as individual with talents'. Is it some sort of pun, I guess to Toph's strength and demeanor and how delighted she was to be played by a Man in 'The Ember Island Players'? Does Toph being strong and actve make her less a girl?

And I guess the annoyance goes along with F!Zuko suddenly being part of an arranged marriage instead of being the heir who was disgracedn and now complaining about dying alone and a virgin. And my annoyance that F!Sokka suddenly just wants to settle down and find a nice boyfriend.

F!Aang is adorable, but is defined by her crush on M!Katara where it's also M!Katara who's out to save the world.

Are any artists who do such interesting gender switched art, thinking about how the story-paths for the characters change in their heads?

At least there was that bit about M!Katara unable to find any defenseless females.

*sigh*

Oh yeah, and Nickolodeon* wants only white Power Ranger Leads. *If you did buy the franchise back Saban, this is how you handle things?

...

That wooshing sound you hear in your ears is important and symbolic.

Not! Percy Jackson

Percy & The Olympians; The Lightening Thief

I am feeling some serious Recognition Rejection here. And it all seems so pointless. As if Hollywood is so married to particular formats it will Dr. Frankenstein any good story; any story already told and already liked (enough that a movie seems profitable), must be cut and resewn to fit their idea of what works.

Whether this has to do with a movie's advocates and producers (those who supply the money) I do not know. I just note that the LOTR Movie Trilogy does not seem to suffer this.

But even things that are not LOTR deserve respect in their adaptations. I'm not inclined at all to watch the destruction, from the very beginning of this AU universe (from book to movie) of the Percy Jackson myths.

Possible Spoilers for The Movie (And book).

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Percy Jackson is already a loving son of a strong, independent single mother. But he's the quiet introverted type, the inner strength type. Annabelle is bookish and reserved, a grand thinker. Grover is a dreamer, loyal friend and a touch of the idealist.

The movie shows us a cocky quipping Percy Jackson, one with apparently no survival skills for dealing with an abusive adult male asshole even though he'd been living with one for a while now. How does he not end up instigating said asshole's rage all the time, thus endangering himself and his mother? There's no point to having that cockiness except that it fits the accepted Recognition Glee of cocky white American teenage male hero.

The movie then proceeds to disappear Percy's mother. Considering the sequels she can't be killed off at this point. But rather than have her as the rock of his foundation, who's safe back at home, and waiting on him to complete his quest while she sorts out their future living arrangements - she's now a damsel in distress.

Patchworking in beside her in this macabre 'this is what a hero's journey movie is about' is Movie!Annabelle, who's apparently been merged with Clarisse (daughter of Ares). The moment I realized that she was the girl Percy meets by seeing her sword fighting with others (and what other girl would have Athena's grey eyes?), was the moment I knew that there'd been no attempt to show Annabelle as the complicated individual she is. Instead we get cardboard kick-ass. You know, bad ass in leather, yet has her hair loose with it getting into her eyes.

Gone is the bookish, quiet, intellectual who's not afraid to show steel when the situation merits it. Gone is the tactician. Annabelle says she's the daughter of a tactician but then proceeds to behave like Clarisse, taunting Percy in a sword fight and celebrating before the proceedings are fully over.

And speaking of those proceedings - the mystery of who Percy's father is and how that plays into not only his acceptance and his relationship with others at Camp Halfblood, but into the politics and struggles of the 12 Olympians is gone. The beautiful revelation scene is replaced with a brawny macho 'use the force' moment - that's plainly empty and pathetic. And he's not even in the water!

And then we come to Grover. My memories could be wrong, but I distinctly remember Grover as a faun, not a satyr. And the differences are clear if you have mental images for the two, with fauns as quiet forest musicians, and satyrs as girl crazy, boisterous pranksters. Even if I'm wrong, however, this is still not Grover. Where is the spiritual idealist? The seeker? Grover is being played by a black actor. So he's now a satyr and he's wild about Aphrodite's daughters (chasing the white women) instead of strange and/or unpopular due to his focus on finding Pan. Not to mention that he's now a white character's protector instead of him having used the opportunity to watch over Percy to have the chance to fulfill his own cultural/spiritual quest.

That's five characters that have been seriously changed in order to fit a pre-existing set of molds. It makes it unsurprising to learn that one review called it: "standard Hollywood product... unadventurous and uninteresting." After all part of fitting into the mold is the removal of any inner life a character might have.

On the other hand, there's plenty they've set up for Recognition Glee, which in my case makes the Recognition Rejection all the stronger ; the pen sword, the harpy/fury, Chiron, the importance of the Empire State Building, the asshole's stench, the minotaur, capture the flag.

That's where I stopped, however, when there apparently can't be more than one female character in the series, and when it was obvious they skipped the bonding of being raised by single mothers/the bonding of not knowing who one's father is, with macho sword play and cliches about combat.

I'm glad Rick Riordan got the money from selling his film rights - these days everyone needs as much cash flow as possible. But I won't be adding my dollars to the pot. This is yet another case of Hollywood changing the fundamentals of what made a property popular in the first place and replacing it with generic stand-ins to give the audience what they think the audience wants (with a dual dose of sexism and a side order of racism).

Additional Aside: Also by removing the concept of 'The Mist' they've fundamentally changed the plot as well.

It Ain't All Class

So a friend pointed out that this bit in a prior post, felt a bit like light sandpapering.

NB: No, WS, racism won't disappear if classism disappears. Racism took on a life of its own beyond being a new form of classism, more than 500 years ago. It's not going back in the box.

And in discussing it with them, I realized that while I remain extremely aware of how whiteness was cultivated as a higher status, a new and privileged class in opposition to dark skinned indentured servants and slaves - which has grown, festered and fermented into the racism of today; slavery & colorism, colonialism & imperialism, genocide & deforestation, appropriation, co-option & exploitation....; I didn't think anyone would ever think/say getting rid of classism would get rid of sexism, heteroism, cisism or ablism.


But as I thought about it, I realized some ignorant could. After all, once upon a time women (and children) were considered property. From that stand point women were a sub-class. And seeing them as a sub-class, having that as subtext in the formation and evolution of society could be seen as birthing sexism, obviously, but also heteroism, cicism and ablism.

In fact, the sub-class of being female can be seen as birthing all of them; Misogyny as an earlier branch off classism that went on to bear it's own fruit.

1. To be a woman is to be sub-class

2. To reject joining one self to a man for increased status and power is to be defective & sub-class [lesbians]

3. To be entered or penetrated or ever on one's knees before another male, is to be like a woman -> is to be defective & sub-class [gay men]

4. To be less than physically and mentally whole (according to society's dictates) is to be in need of Mothering (care/nurture/concern/ assistance); therefore to need Mothering as an adult is to be defective & sub-class; possibly twice over for need and for being like a woman (weak, in need of concern & forethought, etc). [pwd]

5. To want to be a woman, when one is currently seen as having the status & power of being male, is to be defective & sub-class. To do things to accomplish that goal is to accept the sub-class status. To want to be a man when one is currently seen as a woman, is to reach beyond station into delusion , thus defective & sub-class. To insist, act, believe that the sub-class status does not exist; that women and men are equal class, is to be defective & subclass. [trans individuals]

Class transgression; the insistence that that original sub-class is not immortal truth, does not need to exist, and in fact held fallacies. Action just by existing and holding on to even the smallest of triumphs; transgression via breath.

And yet somehow I doubt if sexism were annihilated or conquered tomorrow and misogyny was no more, homophobia, transphobia and ablism would just disappear with it; and it's not just because they've taken on lives of their own. It's because they've become so divorced from misogyny; and the movement to end misogyny does not hold to intersectionality, doesn't see the fruit from the branch.

Class is not a disease, far less one disease with many varied symptoms. There is no magic pill; movement, philosophy; that will suddenly have all human beings looking upon one another, each and everyone as complete and total equals, different but no more special for their uniqueness. Intelligence, beauty, athletic ability, fertility, artistic ability, green thumb, beliefs, spirituality - were the Crusades not a struggle of status?

Class isn't even one strain of dis-ease that split and mutated into different types.

Fear of lack due perceived finite resources - if someone has then someone else has not. If someone else has not then someone has more. If someone has more, then someone else will want it.

I think I need to study Marx at this point. The thought's just dangling there, but I can't quite weave it. Still, I think I can say while class may be a root/seed/spore, this is one heck of a big, multi-limbed, epoch/epic spanning...thing.

*_____ * _____ *
Aside: Dis-ease, disease, mutated, multi-limbed; suddenly isms seem an indescribable writhing [Lovecraftian] beast, always hungry and growing and budding.

Aside 2: Wanted this for a title, but it ended up seeming esoteric & then some - For Want Of A Nail.

Marvel - ONLY STRANGER RAPE IS REAL RAPE

Was it really only last night I told Kirk of Box In The Box that I'd have to stop reading him because OMG WTF VOMIT! Seems to happen anytime he mentions Marvel and Spiderman.

And tonight, I start checking my feeds, of which his journal is included automatically and boom tacka boom Marvel + Rape Culture = A OK!

So now DISNEY + MARVEL + RAPE CULTURE = A OK.

Don't believe me? Kirk has the scoop of Marvel writer, Frank La Vente saying:

My understanding of the definition of rape is that it requires force or the threat of force, so no. Using deception to trick someone into granting consent isn't quite the same thing.

Which is not to say it isn't a horrible, evil, reprehensible thing that Chameleon did. He is a bad man.

He insults paraplegics and dips people in acid too.

...


I'm too disgusted to list examples of what, apparently, this writer, this human being walking about interacting with real live human women, apparently doesn't see as rape.

Marvel = Rape Culture. It is succinct and explains much.

Apparently I'll only enjoy the Marvel Universe again when everyone currently working there drops dead. It seems this is not the superhero comics production generation that can learn and grow, mature and change.

And if there is such casual oppression and disregard for fifty percent of the population, then it seems I've been crazy to believe Marvel could do better on issues of race.

Regarding the victim in that plotline being a woman of colour by the way? All I can say is Sara Baartman.

Dear Chris of ISB

I mean, I know that she was originally intended to be female, and then changed because Capcom thought the American SNES-buying audience would be happier with a transvestite hooker than Mike Haggar actually piledriving a woman, and then replaced with two decidedly male characters for the American release, and the whole thing’s way more complex than it ought to be. Even this issue seems to have fun with it, with Cody’s “you’re not much of a lady” and her irate response, which could be taken a couple of ways.

Not that I particularly mind, you understand, but it’d be nice to know which comics I read involved cross-dressing prostitutes. My filing system is oddly specific.

Dear Chris of ISB,

Transvesite, Transexual and Transgender are three separate and individual words. They have three different meanings. They correspond to sexual identity, orientation, gender, civil rights and sexuality and sexual expression. Transvestite is the one that 99.9 percent corresponds to sexuality (the act of being sexual) and sexual expression (how one performs the acts of being sexual).

While I understand in POST RACIAL AMERCIA (which is apparently POST ISM AMERICA), it's all the rage to be a bigot big and bold, your words are incredibly crass and ignorant. I have a difficult time believing that in the comicbook blogsphere, you are unaware of non cisgendered, non heterosexual comic bloggers. Your little 'joke', hurt and aggravated two people I care deeply about and just PLAIN PISSED ME OFF.

It doesn't matter that CapCom has a hole in the corporate brain and a need to appease 'Americans who don't believe in hitting women'. It doesn't matter that the word Futanari (which is basically a third sex in Japanese art) does not translate well. This is Laura Framingham level 'research' and 'caring' here, that you couldn't stop and think of Posion as transgendered.

For the record, She Is. As stated officially by Capcom representatives, her pre or post op status depending on country being inconsequential. An operation doesn't make someone a girl, being a girl makes someone a girl. Just like the fact you have a penis, doesn't make you man, but instead seems to make you an asshole.

Fighting Cobra

I was originally just going to heads up some people - namely Kali921, because she's a professed GI Joe and more importantly, a Baroness fan.

The Baroness has no internal organs. Apparently the other female characters don't either, witness, Scarlett and Cover Girl.

It's been a while since childhood for me and a longer while since toys - but I don't remember female action figures looking so 'break like a twig' back then. In fact, I'm finding myself thinking of something I mentioned in the comments concerning the characters in Wolverine & The Xmen. Someone else has noticed just how skinny the female characters are in this new incarnation of Xmen on TV.

Stylistic choice or not, it is worth noticing, as they did, that Storm's hair is bigger than she is.

Also of note in the GI Joe toy packages, is that when Scarlett isn't pinched in at the waist, she's got a plunging neckline. Male characters? Exo-skeletons and body armor. Scarlett? V for... something.

I'm actually looking forward to the GI Joe Movie. It's one of the few things/enterprises of nostalgia I don't think I'll walk away from feeling as if they messed everything up (barring huge ass plot holes) - mostly because I don't remember enough about it. I was a GI Joe the cartoon series (with cartoon movies) fan girl when I was very, very little. Sleepovers involved watching the movies and shouting 'Go Joe!' and then playing out missions the next day. I remember my play missions more than the cartoons, you see.

But I think my childhood fascination with red hair may have started because of Scarlett (or maybe it was my Batgirl doll).

Anyway, it's not the movies that are likely to make me take a deep breath and pause and shake my head right now. It's the realization that once upon a time, Scarlett had thighs and didn't look as if she'd break if I made her do a roundhouse kick.

Well of course I played with action figures as a child, I'm a girl! [ /end sarcasm ]

I've also got a thing for Matchbox cars. (Hmm pretty cars in pretty colours with sleek, sensual shapes and incredible detailing....)

Hello Neo

This was originally posted in my personal journal, but some recent entries by various people on their blogs nudged my thinking that it should be reposted here. And I know I want at least one person in particular to see it.

Remember the Dove Evolution ad? Go on, youtube the words and you'll find it. Well I remember that it clued me in to the exact details of how models don't look anything like themselves in the final product. I had always had a general sense and then a bit more when it came time for me to do my own dabblings in photoshop, but this made it specific for me.

Then last night came PhotoshopDisasters. The next time I hear my sister mention working herself to the bone to exercise and stay fit and not be fat (she's taken after our mother in a serious way and is very petite but worries because Mom, is well, Mom) I'm going to point her to this site. Because it made me realize that as a whole, we the general public, myself included, no longer know what a real human body looks like. Specifically we don't know what a real female body looks like.

I caught some of the touchups after a few moments. But how often do people really stare at advertisements for several minutes? I tend to flick by them very quickly in magazines etc, unless something in particular has caught my eye. And I soon realized as I flipped through the site that if I wasn't already prepared, if I didn't already know things were screwy, I might have missed so many things. Which means in my head, I've begun to see the most distorted things as representative of the female form EVEN WHILE THINKING I WAS AWARE OF THE BIGGER DISTORTIONS.

It's been a revelation. Too skinny long arms, a little waist creation, body parts missing, everyone's wrinkles and sun lines and laugh lines (wrinkles of any sort) faded out, breasts the size of the model's head(Which came first? This feature in comics? Or comics copying photoreferences ? Who set the standard for this screw up?), plastic faces, something called 'monoass' where the asscrack has disappeared, bobble heads, impossible heights and more.

The link with the touched up faces but the untouched up reflections hit home to me just how much isn't done anymore with good lighting, good makeup and good angles. They don't seem to try and find people's good sides anymore, they instead create them. It blew my mind. A little created waist, change a face shape, remove shadows, remove life. One woman there had what I call in my head the 'hearty, healthy, slightly horsey British woman' look - that was completely morphed into smooth faced Hollywood leading lady, if not starlet. She looked like her own younger and less outdoor inclined younger sister (who happened to be born when their Mom & Dad could afford braces).

The whole thing, especially the stuff it took me a while to notice just started me thinking of when they do the photoshopping well and we, consumers, the audience, don't notice. And all of a sudden the phrase 'impossible standards of beauty' take on a whole new and deeper meaning. I remember growing up and realizing that it took hairstylists and professional make up artists, and someone picking out your clothes and good lighting and choosing the best angle to accent your best features, along with a photographer who knew what he or she was doing in order to look as perfectly laid out as possible. And even knowing all that, even being told that by women in my family, everyone still wanted to hope that they'd have a good day on that special occasion and get the perfect picture from the perfect angle and get to see themselves looking not just well, but radiant.

And even if they never reached their personal goal of dazzling, they still looked wonderful. I've had my moments where I thought I looked beautiful. Those were when I was younger. As I've gotten older, even though I'm comfortable with aging (it's a miracle to me I'm still alive and kicking), I feel beautiful less and less often. And I think that has to do with the fact that I'm not seeing people (particularly women - even more specific the few black women around) with character in their faces, caught in a way where you see their eyes glow and the soft curve of a lip and it all comes together to be attractive. That's more something I find myself doing as I walk along the street now, noting how someone's characteristics make them all of a piece. In the media there's just this soft focused perfection.

It's startling to realize that today they'd photoshop Nichelle Nichols. NICHELLE NICHOLS! Unhura the HOTTNESS herself. A woman who is still kicking ass in the beauty department today, would be fixed. You know how people talk about how Marilyn Monroe would be called a lard ass by today's standards? It goes deeper than that. Forget about mere photo 'retouching', Joan Crawford's nose and chin would get fixed today, virtual plastic surgery. Instead of being a commanding presence, who knows what role she'd get slotted into.

I can remember being disappointed when Isabella Rossilini was removed as the face of LANCOME. I'd grown up with her as such. I couldn't imagine any other spokesperson. And stubborn little me, never bought myself or my mother LANCOME again. Luckily, Mom felt the same way. Isabella Rossilini is a beautiful woman but of course she can't compete with younger models being molded like clay in post. They're even doing it with the men. No one's safe at all from this Barbie Plastic Perception of Perfection.

It occurs to me that my personal inability to see myself as a whole, may have been influenced by a culture that sees and promotes people as an assemblage of parts. If I'm unconsciously spending time trying to assemble the images I see into a whole person - it's no wonder I look at myself and try to assemble things in my head using the same process. And heaven help me because my limbs are never going to look that impossibly long, nor my waist or bust match the other impossible designations. Seriously if only people who have eating disorders are being made aware of just how BAD this crap has gotten - it's a damn shame. Because the rest of us are getting fucked over too.

And I haven't even begun to mention the erasures. One shot in particular, this one, for GAP I believe, caught my attention. The young black model? She was originally in the midst of the group, now she's solo, singular, out in the cold. This one is blatant. Other erasures are subtle in that one's eyes are likely to more easily believe a limb connects to the closest body even if that body already has all relevant parts. Some badly done erasures are freaky. But again, I'm thinking about the ones not on the site. The ones done well where we'll never know if the old man with the flowers had a WoC Wife, or a male partner for that matter. Where we never realize important officials really WERE at certain meetings and photographs were taken - they were just edited out for whatever reasons...

It kind of hit me the whole:

In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

We create our own reality

Just who is we? And what is it that 'we' is creating?

I don't think these are idle questions. They relate to so much, as much about fashion and self esteem and body image as politics and gender equality and gender and sexuality rights. What else beside real bodies do you and I no longer know how to recognize? If the game of the day is 'We Create Our Own Reality' - then doesn't it add a sinister shade to the original push against Prop 8? And doesn't it make the Yes on 8 folk seem that much smarter? They created a reality for others to vote against, and a reality under attack - even though neither one was the actual reality.

Who is We? And just what reality have they created? Just how different is it from what many of us experience every single day in our lives? Who's been getting airbrushed out? Who's been getting slipped in? Once upon a time wasn't it the accepted practice of a fascist regime, a fascist reality, to create reality? To dictate that things didn't happen the way the public remembered them happening? To decide that someone's name would be crossed out and their picture erased and the public was never to mention it or discuss it again? Isn't that going on now?

And please, don't go 'OBAMA'. This is the machinery he's been left to work with, with little rats burrowing in the corners holding tools, specifically wrenches, to gum up the works.

There's a man in Iowa, currently on trial for having manga the government deems objectionable. Some if it may be lolicon. Some of it may be yaoi. What's known for sure is that out of everything seized in a raid - a raid created because a postal worker decided that the markings on Christopher Hadley's mail were objectionable to his reality - Hadley now faces up to 20 yrs in prison for only a few images.

over 1,200 manga books or publications; and hundreds of DVDs, VHS tapes, laser disks; seven computers, and other documents.

Hundreds upon hundreds of images - but he could face prison time as a private collector for just a few. And his case has to fight not just the unjustness of everything that happened, but the reality being presented that there's no way police and law enforcement officials would arrest someone over comics, so there must have been something icky like child porn or worse.

He could go to jail because someone (not just the prosecutor) is creating an image of a reality, one that threatens the ideal vision of the community he, and Hadley and the jury are part of and he's pointing Hadley out as the threat to that ideal, as the weed to be plucked out to make everything better again. It's all smoke and illusions and bullshit, but a finger's pointing. A scapegoat has been chosen. Why think?

To add a touch more relevance to this because this is my sequential art blog, I've a thought on NuMarvel and Joe-Q and The New Marvel Reality sparked by this entry on PostModernBarney.

The contention arising among comics fans, and the discomfort people are feeling because of Quesada and NuMarvel (and possibly NuDC) is it because they're changing the reality of what Superhero Comics ARE. So on the surface it seems like old timers complaining who should just STFU and women whining, and OMG do black people ever shut up about racism. But it's all more than that. It's more than a partiality to stories of old or heroes of old. It's more than wanting comics to be BETTER. It's perhaps not wanting them to de-evolve. It's being able to remember, to recognize what superhero comics used to be and what they are now; what they're becoming.

Continuity is more than just keeping a record of the stories in some order. It's remembering and recognizing the REALITY of said stories; how the universe works.

But reality is being dictated and we are to accept the status quo, because we've been told that this IS the status quo - don't question it. So Norman Osborn in a group that includes Doom, Namor and Loki, is in charge because it has been commanded that this reality is the status quo. Love is war. Marriage is worth less than a Deal With The Devil. Badass is a man who seduced a teenage girl and impregnated her. Tigra is weak. The Hood is a good A-list villain.

Because they have Weapons of Mass Destruction.

It's not art, it's porn. It's icky porn with ties to no community standards.

Missing limbs and photshopped bizzarro anatomy in fashion and consumer ads is beauty.

Holy crap. Wasn't the Matrix supposed to come with a messiah and cool powers?

ETA: Philosophical Catfight

Cnt: From here

I just saw the perfect snippet (from a piece on Twilight 'the phenomenon') describing perceptions of women and for me, women in fantasy fiction societies, wherein the heroine alone gets to prove herself different. I disagree with the author's final conclusion - “If I can condemn vigilantism and stand up for due process while still enjoying 24 and Batman pictures (or pulp fiction like The Devil’s Advocate), then feminists can certainly enjoy Twilight.”

I'm not going into Twilight more than to say that I don't view it as female escape fantasy and I do not believe a man, the quoted speaker, should get to decide what female escape fantasy is - far less what feminists, womanists or gender equalitists can enjoy.

The quote, however, I find useful to the point of my previous post.

There are two main classic cultural myths of females, two false assumptions that have been used as the definitive excuses to subjugate and disenfranchise women for centuries in all manner of societies. The first is that women are devious and reckless creatures who tempt men who can't control themselves. As a result of these fiendish seducers, the weak but noble men do all manner of vice and corruption, deeds that without the temptation of the women they would not have even considered. But, wait, they are also weak-willed and emotionally fragile creatures that cannot care for themselves and must be protected from peril and shielded from emotional complication ('the fairer sex'). - (Source)

These descriptions sparked a flow of words and comprehension from me. I went "Of course! It's the Whore/Madonna Complex all over again" A simplistic title of my current thoughts, perhaps, but no less apt, I think. Fantasy fiction societies, particularly those in an ethnic fantasy ghetto do tend towards Vamps and whores and dangerous women of which the heroine is NOT one. Or good girls, Madonna's, virtuous if fragile women, of which, again, the heroine is NOT one. She is the Spunky Determined Girl! An option three squished in around the edges, though these days more likely firmly wedged in between to make the stereotypical depiction duo into a trio.

And yet, all the while the one main thrust of all these types of heroines is that they have to disdain other women. Disdain the good girls who never reach out and grab what they want; disdain the bad girls who never let things come to them for being selfless and noble or disdain both for not being (just as good as) a man with breasts and more open emotions.

And I think I understand better now why I associate the combination of world building with such underpinnings mixed with a fantasy ghetto to come from a white female author. History has shown far too many white female, self defined feminists, disdaining other women and walking all over them (or throwing them under a bus, or to the wayside) to get what they want.

PS: Do not mistake my thoughts to mean I will embrace, blindly, the hand of a white self labeled feminist who calls me sister. I'm pondering fiction & fictional representations, not indulging in a round of Be Stupid.

When The Plot Is A Philosophical Catfight

This was not originally going to be a post. But once I attempted to get it down to 140 characters I realized I did actually have more to say; The main thrust of which is that I'm sick and tired of white female authors writing fantasy books set in 'ethnic' fantasy lands where those ethnic societies believe a woman can't handle magic/can't handle power but now comes their heroine who will break the mold and prove them wrong.

It's patronizing.

It's not just the fantasy ghetto, where People(Characters) of Colour are limited to fantasy worlds that resemble their real world culture/analog. It's also a certain conceit about who is writing and what they're writing about. I get that there's a movement to get more female heroes, character role models in the world. But I think what jars the process for me is that the society's reasoning, no matter the fantasy cultural ghetto, is usually so damn WESTERN in origin.

Western and financially privileged.

The latest book and paragraphs to set me off are Eon by Alison Goodman. There's an exerpt up on the flash website here: http://www.eonbook.com/; There is also a first chapter up here in PDF.

Now I haven't read the book and I'm not panning Alison Goodman. I'm being honest about what set me off; what felt like a straw on an overloaded camel.

Women have no place in the world of the dragon magic. It is said they bring corruption to the art and do not have the physical strength or depth of character needed to commune with an energy dragon. It is also thought that the female eye, too practiced in gazing at itself, cannot see the truth of the energy world.

I just...

Am I the only one who sees something like that and gets a mental image of strong, broad backed women of colour who tend their gardens (farmland) and do hard working chores and are strong family matriarchs and the backbone of their family? And then go WTF?

An I the only one who ends up thinking, sure there were some rich white women somewhere who had servants doing the cooking and cleaning and child minding and spent their days buying material for dresses and giving teas and socializing, gossiping, gathering information on the moods of the circuits and whose family was having a weakness their husband could then exploit in business? Actually, that last bit might be giving those women a bit more agency than is often implied - what with the 'Treat a woman like a spoilt, rich, child' thing that tends to be the undercurrent in these kinds of fictions.

I'm not sure what angers me more, actually - the premise itself, or the fact that the premise tends to always want to put up one singular woman as an example that an entire society's way of thinking is wrong. It's... do they really mean to have the whole 'prove yourself' rigmarole intentionally mimicked in fiction?

The world just seems messed up to me when I'm looking at gender biased Anne McCaffrey and thinking that she at least had women doing dangerous jobs alongside men as a matter of course. Yes, one woman might be special because her dragon was a Queen - but she wasn't the exception showing what women could really do if they could just all be as brave and daring. There were women a dragback risking their lives and women in the fields in the ground crews risking their lives. And even Menolly's story revolved around music being deemed useless in a fishing village where there were women, like men, doing things to keep body and home together.

Anne McCaffrey!

Ms. Tent Peg Rape Can Make A Male Gay! (it's all about hormones in the anus - google it)

Anne McCaffrey brings to mind heroines who excel in a world where other women are already successful in their day to day lives.

I think perhaps that others have mentioned this before in variations - Anita Blake Syndrome, for example. Where the character is tougher than a guy, a better shot than a guy, has a stronger stomach and nerves of steel than a guy and earns their respect just by breathing.

But that's not quite the same as seeing what I saw and just knowing the author had to be white. Twelve mystical energy dragons kind of sealed it but the One Woman Who'll Risk It All, just put the neon sparkles on. One Women Capable Of Overcoming Innate Female Vanity & Selfishness.

Does anyone ever call these writers on internalized misogyny?

Then again maybe I'm missing something. Maybe I'm just too whacked in the head to understand how momentous the triumph of one female protagonist against a world that expects her to never dare or try or to fail if she does. Maybe I'm too busy thinking about books where the protagonist's sex doesn't have to be oppressed in order for her to excel. And where the authors aren't trying to say that Western Civilization is the end all and be all and look how well it's doing. Cause really? Someone needs to hold up a mirror.

(Cnt here)

Grant me serenity to accept the things I cannot change

My ass should be lying down, but I came online to check email for something, ended up looking through my feeds and saw two things that just had to be written about.

The first is about Comic-Con and how apparently there's no set Con policies on what to do or where to go to report harassment and or abuse. In fact there's no set policies against harassment or abuse.

"Don't point your replicated weapon at someone!"

But there's nothing there about not pointing your dick (or a facsimile) at a woman, not grabbing her ass, not encroaching on her personal space to kiss, hug and photograph her and there's nothing there to report some crazy ass fool who takes it upon himself to shout at and try to verbally degrade female artists.

All of this has left me thinking if I ever went to a Con, I'd get arrested. Cause some jackass fool would reach to touch my hair and I would commit grievous assault with my cane. I mention hair, cause I'm black and I have dreads and my roots are curly and some fool is going to be curious. And without clear guidelines and with seeing women's asses being groped and women being cornered without anyone official saying ANYTHING, or there having been a mention in some opening speech, or in the Con booklet - they're gonna think ""I was just paying her a compliment." and not understand why their gonads are whacked up into their body cavity and why my good foot kept kicking their ass - "Why is the black woman, who thus being black and a woman is worth less than a 'regular' woman so angry?! Why are my nuts gone?!"


Speaking of men without balls. There's this fool I've mentioned before. Some of you may remember when I wrote that.

Well Tom Brazelton has spoken - again. He's crying a river of tears and it's so full of bullshit the stench could kill Godzookie.

Basically, I decided that when it comes to matters of race, gender, disabilities or any other sensitive subject, I'm simply not intelligent enough to create comics that tackle the issues in a constructive way...

I don't consider myself to be racist, sexist or discriminatory in any way. I don't harbor ANY ill will toward anyone because of superficial differences.

However, I will admit to being ignorant and not often understanding the complicated facets of a given issue. As a white guy in my 30's, I'm not often forced to approach things any differently. I try to remain open to different points of view. But in my attempts to learn and eliminate my ignorance, I believe intent and context are shoved to side and what's left is an irresponsible cartoonist left to explain himself to angry readers.

You have to understand the kind of guy I am. I'm not the kind of guy who seeks to offend anyone...

To sum up?

Tom Brazelton Paraphrase 1:This sensitivity shit is hard! So instead of waiting for a bunch of angry _ insert minority here_ to come raining all over my parade. I'm raining on it myself. Cause you see, even though I'm aware I don't understand things, I"m not bothering to do the work to educate myself. It's MUCH MUCH easier to just say...

I don't feel like I'm kowtowing to the vocal minority by editing myself in this way. Truthfully, the reaction of these critics played only a very small role in my decision...I know some of you will read this blog and think to yourself "What's wrong with those comics? I thought they were funny!" If so, thank you. Sorry for wasting your time with this entry...So, moving forward, I think it's best for me to stick to what I know and resist the temptation to make an easy joke that might end up offending someone unintentionally.

Tom Brazelton Paraphrase 2:... Really the PC police and roaming hoards of rabid minority activists didn't scare me into this. It's just even though I have no idea why I keep putting my foot in it- I don't want to be shouted at anymore or make anyone mad at me. Also I don't want to...

... end up offending someone unintentionally.

Tom Brazelton Paraphase 2- Continued:...so I'm just going to avoid going anywhere near anything controversial or that might upset anyone at all. I am repressing myself.

Don't believe that's what he's saying?

I leave you with one last quote. Do note the emphasis is mine.

I feel sorry for anyone who might be legitimately offended by certain aspects of the film...

Because even if he's not making jokes, he's still sure that someone, somewhere who isn't a white, able bodied, able minded, cisgendered male, is oversensitive about something unlike the group over there who has a legitamate complaint.

I'd say heaven help us and preserve us all from fools like this - but then no one else anywhere would be getting any other kind of miracles.

Just Call Me Big 'Low

http://heidischnakenberg.blogspot.com/ - That is Heidi Schnakenberg's blog is now readable by invitation only.

Wow don't I feel dangerous and threatening with my bad WoC Self.

Well Spoken Blacks - We're Gonna Get You!

Ami?

I guess we know now why a certain 'Becky' can't dare risk signing on with an actual email or a link to her blog. Well Spoken Asians might Get Her!

WWS - Now In New Ultra Conservative Fear Flavour!

I feel like I need a cane, or at least more muscles and a white suit like movieverse Kingpin.

But why can't I have this kind of influence on comics creato - oh, yeah, I'm not going anywhere near the filthpool boards they swim in; smells like old gym socks.

ETA: Apparently a scary well spoken black woman just can't win. Schnakenberg is back. No cane, no theme music, no high tech toaster for me. Damn it. I am so behind in my scary, black person creds.

My Anger Is Valid, Your Running Away Isn't

There's a woman whose first name is Heidi who wrote an article about Feminism that was full of shit, in my opinion. This entry is not about her. It is somewhat about me going to her blogsite today because I came across a link that claimed she'd tried to clarify what she'd meant in her original article. Clarification #2. But there was also a clarification #0. So that's three entries to clarify an editorial put up on a news site. But this post also isn't talking about that.


The Point:

There's a community on LJ called feminist. On said community a certain bittercat posted a one-liner concerning Ms Heidi Schnakenberg's article. Her one liner was: "I thought this was a very good article on race and feminism". That's all she said.

Given that said article ended up needing three separate posts (not on the original news site even) to clarify itself, one would think that bittercat would have more to say about the issues, especially when people commented asking her what she meant by that. And was she planning to elaborate or did she NOT see the racism and classicism and a whole bunch of other mess going on in the article.

Two pages of discussion and bittercat only posted three times. Once to say thank you to someone else who'd written a long nuanced comment about what they thought the original writer of the article might have been trying to say and what they got out of it. bittercat's second comment, was a response to someone asking why she hadn't written, tried to write/explain herself along the lines of the commenter she was thanking. In that comment she made the claim she was in a hurry and she's not eloquent or a college level scholar and that she didn't respond sooner because she doesn't like to contribute to nurturing hostility. So even though people were clamoring for her to explain herself, she viewed their anger and upset and confusion as hostility.

She told folks to 'have a good day' and she left the community.

Which leads us to today. And me going to read Clarification #3. And scrolling to find Clarification #2 and see if it's the entry that I'd read before. And I saw someone responding to Schnakenberg as if they were indeed bittercat and this is what they had to say:

It was a LOT of women, and I don't know if they were WOC or not. I just know they were very angry.

I ended up leaving that community over that. Not because I am a coward, but because I was overwhelmed by the sheer negativity that came out of my post. I am very sensitive and don't react well to such hatred. I also, like yourself, did not know about the particular events--which your friend so kindly posted about--that led up to the current divisiveness.(Have not had time to read those links, but I am going to.)

I just can't be a part of a "Feminist" community that is so...hostile. I can't stomach the idea that, because I am white, to some women, my oppression does not exist. For me, all women's oppression exists, so the divisions along race lines are just foreign to me. I was not raised that way, and I will not play into it now.

I have linked to your blog from mine, because no matter how much I read on the subject of interesectionality [sic]--what it has become--I STILL agree with you.

I am an I-Feminist and an Eco-Feminist. We tend to--on the one hand--see every individual woman's struggles as equally valid--and on the Eco side, we tend to see the big picture--the global implications of the oppression of women and girls. Those philosophies are just not amenable to nor compatible with this "new" intersectionality. In EcoFeminism, intersectionality (the traditional meaning) is a given.

Bless you.
~Cyber_Hippie

If Cyber Hippie is not bittercat and is someone else from another community who posted the article and received a huge outcry in return; Then I feel a bit better about the state of things on the internet that somewhere else there was a huge outcry.

But if Cyber Hippie is bittercat then I'm wondering if it's perfectly functional for her brain and sensibilities to write out her thoughts and beliefs if a) she finds herself in a position of agreement, or b) she knows the person reading and replying to her is not a Woman of Colour.

I won't link to Schnakenberg's response to that comment. It's easy enough to erase up until the .html and read the entry and all the comments. But I do find myself wanting to say this:

"Calling something divisiveness and hostility doesn't mean you're not claiming reverse discrimination. And it certainly isn't being inclusive of all women when there's mutual patting on the back and indulging in WWS.

All women are NOT delicate snowflakes who've never faced opposition of any other sort in their life and can have the privilege of not engaging because it would nurture hostility. And this 'divisiveness'? It's not recent. Even in #2 (entry 3) of her clarification Schnakenberg does not bring up the WoC First and Second Wave Feminists she left out of her original article.

More importantly, maybe most importantly; The discomfort of white women when faced with the reality of WoC dealing with multiple oppressions is not more important than those oppressions. The fear of white women is ALSO NOT more important than those oppressions. Because what else could be it but fear to feel the need to pop up and declaim every ten seconds "But White Women Are Oppressed Too!" as if WoC will somehow leave White Women standing on the corner as they move forward to tackle said oppressions. We are the ones who got left by the wayside in all the beginnings. We aren't the ones who throw a problem overboard in order to get just what we want. We aren't you."

========
Steel Magnolia Note: Karen Healey's Post on the lack of WoC/CoC in Buffyverse? The ass showing in her forums was truly reprehensible. Karen and Betty might have missed some things but they fully recognized excuses, racist tropes and lack of critical thinking when they saw it.

The Romans brought devastation, but they called it peace

Following links surrounding the "BUT YOU CAN'T PUBLISH MY RACIST REJECTION LETTER!", I came across a beautiful gem from Betty Candy on The Hathor Legacy.

The essay is entitled; Why film schools teach screenwriters not to pass the Bechdel test. Wikipedia 'Bechdel Test' with 'Dykes to Watch Out For' if you need a definition. This essay is simply beautiful, simply brilliant but not for the obvious reason. You see this essay exemplifies to me the mentality of dominant comic book industry powers. And it's summed up beautifully in this part of the final paragraph.

There was no way Hollywood really believed what it was saying about boys who’d grown up with Ellen Ripley and Sarah Connor as action heroes, and so there was no way to change the system from within. I concluded Hollywood was was dominated by perpetual pre-adolescent boys making the movies they wanted to see, and using the “target audience” - a construct based on partial truths and twisted math - to perpetuate their own desires. Having never grown up, they still saw women the way Peter Pan saw Wendy: a fascinating Other to be captured, treasured and stuffed into a gilded cage. Where we didn’t talk. To each other. About anything other than men.

Why does Dust's niqāb and modest dress, incorrectly referred to in panels as a burqa, have to tug at her body to show the round fullness of her breasts against the black cloth, or pull against the curve of her ass or drape tightly near her waist?

Because Dust is an exotic female other.

Why do female superheroines wear bathing suits without even a modest skirt flap, or not wear pants, or like Misty Knight are portrayed as bra-less with ample bosoms drawn bouncing (despite her level of physical activity, her having been a former cop, or the pull against the flesh her bionic arm would have on her pectoral muscles)?

Because they might be heroes but they're secondary and they should be a bit of decoration and titillation while the real heroes, the white male heroes are getting things done.

Inconvenient and useless peepholes to the navel or chest? Fighting THONGS despite the factual reality of gravity and ride ups? Apparently male heroes think ahead enough to wear a cup to protect themselves in battle. But Wonder Woman, among others, has to stop mid-fight to pick her thong out of her genital cracks or misplace a kicking blow because something just pulled very uncomfortably around her nether lips.

More distasteful and painful for me, within this beautifully rounded theory is the realization that when these men were growing up, there WERE NO minority characters in prominence. So their continued fantasies don't include PoC, or homosexuals, transexuals or the disabled and certainly not anyone over a certain age. These are the fantasies of youth!

Batman Beyond was more ground breaking than I realized when I was watching it on Saturday mornings. Bruce was old but still extremely vital. As was Barbara Gordon! Max was black and female and a genius! Even if she was underused. Dana was Japanese. And even if I couldn't stand her - interracial relationship right there! And Epilogue shows she stayed with Terry to the end (quite possibly life became easier once he told/or she learned of the truth).

So it's not all of this old guard filled with perpetual Peter Pans. But it is enough. Enough that Vixen can't be dark skinned because dark skinned women were never in the youthful sexual fantasies of those now in power. And there's no need for them to pay attention to the message they're sending of "All black men look alike", when they make all the black male heroes bald and only discernible via their costume/colours. Because only politics is forcing them to include black male characters into their power fantasies as other than comic relief and lackeys. So black heroes get stuck in the background as scenery so they don't intrude into the fantasy any more than is absolutely necessary.

Gays? Nonexistent. They never fantasied about queers.

The disabled? Matt Murdock can see via other senses and Barbara Gordon used to be a librarian so she's used to sitting on her ass all day. Do note too that Barbara in a wheel chair didn't come alive as a three dimensional character until Gail Simone ¹ because her childhood fantasies sure as hell included a whip-smart woman and a whip smart woman wouldn't let her still functioning brain go to waste.

Transexuals? Please. They're only good for odd bodyswitching arcs for a good laugh. Cause 'eeewh'.

Polynesians? uhmmm What?

East Asians? Hey, we have kungfu masters! Ok, kung fu master who teach white guys! But they're there doing their job, giving the Western world a mystical edge!

South Asians? ...? What's a South Asian?

Middle Easterners? Aren't they always the enemy? We've got plenty of bad sheiks.

North Africans? Say what? Huh, Egypt's in Africa?? Well I guess we have a couple mystical Egyptian powers somewhere, granted to white folk. But that's all mummy's and crap. Oh, Morocco is in North Africa? They have all those women in the mysterious sexy clothing. Total scene background.

South Africans? This isn't a political comic.

Over at K-Box in the Box, Kirk's been keeping track of the sales of Brand New Day. They're not good. And there's talk pooled in corners of the blogsphere about the division growing in Spidey fans because one man got the chance to re-create from scratch his adolescent fantasy about his hero.

In a follow up essay, Betty Candy goes on in another brilliant piece of layered out thinking to discuss the perpetuation of biases and promotion of pro Anglo Westernism and how laziness and stubbornness prevents industry from mining profit from disenfranchised groups.

Laziness and stubbornness .... put them in a pot, stir them around what do you get? Fear of change.

I had someone anonymously comment to one of my recent posts that 'being PC is thought control and changes language by cutting out and forgetting words and phrases'. I'm summarizing, mind you because they sure as hell aren't getting a direct c/p for such tripe. Tripe, because languages change! English wouldn't exist if German and Latin hadn't changed, if Greek hadn't changed. Dutch wouldn't exist if German hadn't changed. The languages that don't change, DIE. Languages also die, because the people who speak it were ignored or killed. A living language often means a living people, non-stagnant, a growing, evolving civilization.

The language of film is stagnant at the core, around the edges, in independents and minority supported festivals it's changed and so lives and grows.

The language of comics is also stagnant at the core. Around its edges are small supported projects, trickles, where there's growth and diverging pathways, where new words are discovered and shared and with it new ways of seeing the world.

I can't help thinking about the fact that Rome fell. It didn't fall in a day. But fall it did and now we have what's left after the ravages of the Dark Ages took their due. There are monuments and clues and hints as to this great civilization and the amazing thought they had at the time. But then they stagnated; they dismissed and tried to ignore others, the need to change, the fact that some words, some concepts would need to be put aside in order for new growth,like a plant that needs pruning, Change was smothered; and while it struggled for breath, it was maybe even laughed at.

The world is changing. The audiences are changing and becoming more global. Film should change. Publishing should change. Comics, should change. They should expand and incorporate. They should be more than the old glory dreams of a priviledged few, who fiddle while it all burns around them.

_____

1. I am corrected by LurkerWithout, who's been corrected by Elayne   Re: Simone & Ostrander / ie Kim Yale (Ostrander).

I <3 my readership! I<3 that I have readership.