![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The friendly folks at Marvel have brought us this cover for the new issue of Heroes for Hire. I can't imagine hiring any of these women for anything, unless I should suddenly be in need of backup singers, but what do I know. Anyway, for all of you who loved the Mary Jane statuette but really wished there had been more crying and alien spooge, Marvel has got you covered!
In the comments to the post I linked, though,![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
nindulgence asked some really interesting questions from the perspective of someone, like me, who knows slash-fandom mores well and the comics universe only tangentially. Here's part of the text of that thread:
"do find it interesting that many of the arguments against common depictions of female characters in comics (e.g., infantilization, excessive victimization, sexual objectification, domestication) have also been made against common depictions of male characters in fanfic--and that some of the same responses have been offered by fanficcers when those depictions have been protested by male readers (e.g., we're not writing for you; don't read the fanfic if you don't like it; isn't it funny that you men are threatened by our sexual desires, etc.).
There are of course, huge differences in the fact that fans are rating their kinkfic and kinkart as adult and posting it in semi-private public spaces, versus the comics companies which are marketing theirs commercially as good clean fun for preteens...but I do see similarities in the kinks themselves.
Which makes me wonder--hypothetically speaking--if objectification of male comics/collectibles characters were offered in equal quantities and rated in the same way as objectification of female characters (e.g., if pleasure-slave Obi-Wan statuettes were just as canonical as and rated no more strictly than and sold side-by-side with slave-girl Leia), would that be a satisfactory outcome for female comics fans?"
First, the correlationsnindulgence notes are very real, both in terms of what our kinks often are and how we defend them, so what she's asking is a 100% relevant and reasonable question; I'm glad she asked it. She's also wisely anticipated the most obvious objection, the truth-in-advertising issue: we call our kinks "kinkfic," "smut," and "porn," where Marvel appears utterly oblivious that that's essentially what they're churning out. Within the thread, liviapenn also eloquently deals with the second-most-obvious issue, which is that "equal treatment" isn't necessarily equal treatment when there's no such thing as gender equality on this green earth, and that the issue of sexual violence in the real world is not gender-neutral. All of that's true and good and worthy of being said.
But I still found myself thinking about the hypothetical: what's the ideal? Possible or impossible to achieve, what would I like to see being done differently in superhero comics, from the POV of a feminist who likes superheroes and would like to like comics again? I spent a fair amount of time last night pondering the question, and as I usually need a concrete example to hone in on when I tackle something like this, I kept coming back to PleasureSlave!Obi-Wan and PleasureSlave!Leia -- so if I talk about them, please understand that I'm not saying anything specifically about those characters or Star Wars or whatever; it's just a way of thinking-in-things about these ideas.
My conclusion -- and I don't know how much within the fannish mainstream I am on this, but here we go -- is that I wouldn't want to walk into my Local Comic Shop and see *either* of those statues. I would find it skeevy not *only* on gendered grounds, but because both statues violate what I feel is a serious and important boundary between source material and fannish treatment of source material.
I *adore* kinkfic. Some of my very most favorite fics involve such fandom greatest-hits as aliens-made-them-do-it, objectification, humiliation, bondage, slave-fic, and a gorgeous rainbow of semi- and noncon stories. I own my kinks, including the ones that are socially and politically awkward, and I think that being able to read and write kinkfic is good for me.
But what I'm reading is fanfiction -- it is one fan's creative use of a pre-existing and shared canonical vocabulary (setting, characters, narrative) to explore some particular thing that interests the writer, and then putting it out there for me to love, hate, or ignore. By the rules of fandom as I understand the fannish game, there's a sharp divide between what happens in fanfiction and what happens in canon that boils down to: what a fanartist does in her work affects the mini-universe of that work, but not the meta-universe of the show. And that matters to me, a lot.
Part of what I understand to be deeply offensive about the Heroes for Hire cover is that it actually alters the canonical characters: they didn't use to look like that, and they didn't use to be deployed in the service of plots like the one that cover art implies. What Marvel has done by putting out that cover is to write what is essentially kinkfic into the source, which for most people means that the way they view the source now has to shift to accomodate these new elements. The women we see here looking like artfully bloodied Bratz dolls in chains used to be these women. But they aren't anymore, and that's canon. That's a fucking loss to everyone with any stake in that fandom, in a way that no fan use of their images and characters could ever possibly be.
What I'm saying is that part of the pleasure, for me, of PleasureSlave!Obi-Wan is that there is a "real" Obi-Wan (yes, he's not a real person; don't e-mail me. *g* The game of fandom establishes a distinction between what characters are "really" like and what they are "really" not like, and we rely mainly or entirely on canon to do so) who isn't "really" owned and used by any other person in sexy, sexy ways.
To go with our PleasureSlave!Obi-Wan statuette, let's imagine a theoretical tv show: The Padawan Adventures, where an eighteen-year-old Obi-Wan travels the galaxy with his master, and every week he is menaced by villains, who tie him up and rip his clothing and his skin so that we see him (in the show and, of course, on all the commercials and print ads) half-naked and glistening and splayed open and frightened and kinda hot before his mostly-inevitable rescue/escape. For me, personally? No, I wouldn't be pleased. I would think it was gross and exploitative and disrespectful, and I wouldn't accept "But it's on the Oxygen Network, so it's for/about women's pleasures!" as a defense.
Give me the same story, the exact same story, as an ongoing fanfic serial, and I would dig the hell out of it. Maybe that's unfair; I can think of several reasons I might feel that way, but I don't know that any of them are bulletproof against accusations of rampant hypocrisy. But if the question is "What would make you happy?", then there it is. Not canonizing your sexual kinks would make me pretty happy.
I can even think of some actual non-hypothetical examples of female media transgressing those boundaries in ways that skeeve me -- not in comics and television, which are just not diverse enough to give women space to be sufficiently skeevy (the skeevy glass ceiling), but in genre novels. Most of Laurell K. Hamilton's work skeeves me out, because I think what she does is create characters who are essentially blow-up dolls and plot points in order to orchestrate increasingly byzantine and unrealistic sexual situations rife with consent issues and exploitation. They would make perfectly serviceable fanfiction, but that's not what they are, and I find them appalling. On the slash tip, there's Poppy Z. Brite, whose work I think fetishizes pretty young male bodies in situations that conflate pain and homoeroticism; Brite is a better writer than Hamilton is, and some of her stuff I think does more than just that, so in some cases I give it a pass in spite of my intermittent deep discomfort. But my discomfort is real.
What freaks me out about Marvel's actions lately is that I can't read their sexual fantasies about Misty and MJ as merely their own private sexual fantasies; I have to read them just as much as a franchise whose desire to indulge their private sexual fantasies is increasingly taking precedence over any desire to depict the female heroes as genuinely heroic or their female love-interests as genuinely loved. That poisons the well for me in a way that no fannish endeavor of any kind ever could.
In the comments to the post I linked, though,
nindulgence asked some really interesting questions from the perspective of someone, like me, who knows slash-fandom mores well and the comics universe only tangentially. Here's part of the text of that thread:"do find it interesting that many of the arguments against common depictions of female characters in comics (e.g., infantilization, excessive victimization, sexual objectification, domestication) have also been made against common depictions of male characters in fanfic--and that some of the same responses have been offered by fanficcers when those depictions have been protested by male readers (e.g., we're not writing for you; don't read the fanfic if you don't like it; isn't it funny that you men are threatened by our sexual desires, etc.).
There are of course, huge differences in the fact that fans are rating their kinkfic and kinkart as adult and posting it in semi-private public spaces, versus the comics companies which are marketing theirs commercially as good clean fun for preteens...but I do see similarities in the kinks themselves.
Which makes me wonder--hypothetically speaking--if objectification of male comics/collectibles characters were offered in equal quantities and rated in the same way as objectification of female characters (e.g., if pleasure-slave Obi-Wan statuettes were just as canonical as and rated no more strictly than and sold side-by-side with slave-girl Leia), would that be a satisfactory outcome for female comics fans?"
First, the correlations
nindulgence notes are very real, both in terms of what our kinks often are and how we defend them, so what she's asking is a 100% relevant and reasonable question; I'm glad she asked it. She's also wisely anticipated the most obvious objection, the truth-in-advertising issue: we call our kinks "kinkfic," "smut," and "porn," where Marvel appears utterly oblivious that that's essentially what they're churning out. Within the thread, liviapenn also eloquently deals with the second-most-obvious issue, which is that "equal treatment" isn't necessarily equal treatment when there's no such thing as gender equality on this green earth, and that the issue of sexual violence in the real world is not gender-neutral. All of that's true and good and worthy of being said.But I still found myself thinking about the hypothetical: what's the ideal? Possible or impossible to achieve, what would I like to see being done differently in superhero comics, from the POV of a feminist who likes superheroes and would like to like comics again? I spent a fair amount of time last night pondering the question, and as I usually need a concrete example to hone in on when I tackle something like this, I kept coming back to PleasureSlave!Obi-Wan and PleasureSlave!Leia -- so if I talk about them, please understand that I'm not saying anything specifically about those characters or Star Wars or whatever; it's just a way of thinking-in-things about these ideas.
My conclusion -- and I don't know how much within the fannish mainstream I am on this, but here we go -- is that I wouldn't want to walk into my Local Comic Shop and see *either* of those statues. I would find it skeevy not *only* on gendered grounds, but because both statues violate what I feel is a serious and important boundary between source material and fannish treatment of source material.
I *adore* kinkfic. Some of my very most favorite fics involve such fandom greatest-hits as aliens-made-them-do-it, objectification, humiliation, bondage, slave-fic, and a gorgeous rainbow of semi- and noncon stories. I own my kinks, including the ones that are socially and politically awkward, and I think that being able to read and write kinkfic is good for me.
But what I'm reading is fanfiction -- it is one fan's creative use of a pre-existing and shared canonical vocabulary (setting, characters, narrative) to explore some particular thing that interests the writer, and then putting it out there for me to love, hate, or ignore. By the rules of fandom as I understand the fannish game, there's a sharp divide between what happens in fanfiction and what happens in canon that boils down to: what a fanartist does in her work affects the mini-universe of that work, but not the meta-universe of the show. And that matters to me, a lot.
Part of what I understand to be deeply offensive about the Heroes for Hire cover is that it actually alters the canonical characters: they didn't use to look like that, and they didn't use to be deployed in the service of plots like the one that cover art implies. What Marvel has done by putting out that cover is to write what is essentially kinkfic into the source, which for most people means that the way they view the source now has to shift to accomodate these new elements. The women we see here looking like artfully bloodied Bratz dolls in chains used to be these women. But they aren't anymore, and that's canon. That's a fucking loss to everyone with any stake in that fandom, in a way that no fan use of their images and characters could ever possibly be.
What I'm saying is that part of the pleasure, for me, of PleasureSlave!Obi-Wan is that there is a "real" Obi-Wan (yes, he's not a real person; don't e-mail me. *g* The game of fandom establishes a distinction between what characters are "really" like and what they are "really" not like, and we rely mainly or entirely on canon to do so) who isn't "really" owned and used by any other person in sexy, sexy ways.
To go with our PleasureSlave!Obi-Wan statuette, let's imagine a theoretical tv show: The Padawan Adventures, where an eighteen-year-old Obi-Wan travels the galaxy with his master, and every week he is menaced by villains, who tie him up and rip his clothing and his skin so that we see him (in the show and, of course, on all the commercials and print ads) half-naked and glistening and splayed open and frightened and kinda hot before his mostly-inevitable rescue/escape. For me, personally? No, I wouldn't be pleased. I would think it was gross and exploitative and disrespectful, and I wouldn't accept "But it's on the Oxygen Network, so it's for/about women's pleasures!" as a defense.
Give me the same story, the exact same story, as an ongoing fanfic serial, and I would dig the hell out of it. Maybe that's unfair; I can think of several reasons I might feel that way, but I don't know that any of them are bulletproof against accusations of rampant hypocrisy. But if the question is "What would make you happy?", then there it is. Not canonizing your sexual kinks would make me pretty happy.
I can even think of some actual non-hypothetical examples of female media transgressing those boundaries in ways that skeeve me -- not in comics and television, which are just not diverse enough to give women space to be sufficiently skeevy (the skeevy glass ceiling), but in genre novels. Most of Laurell K. Hamilton's work skeeves me out, because I think what she does is create characters who are essentially blow-up dolls and plot points in order to orchestrate increasingly byzantine and unrealistic sexual situations rife with consent issues and exploitation. They would make perfectly serviceable fanfiction, but that's not what they are, and I find them appalling. On the slash tip, there's Poppy Z. Brite, whose work I think fetishizes pretty young male bodies in situations that conflate pain and homoeroticism; Brite is a better writer than Hamilton is, and some of her stuff I think does more than just that, so in some cases I give it a pass in spite of my intermittent deep discomfort. But my discomfort is real.
What freaks me out about Marvel's actions lately is that I can't read their sexual fantasies about Misty and MJ as merely their own private sexual fantasies; I have to read them just as much as a franchise whose desire to indulge their private sexual fantasies is increasingly taking precedence over any desire to depict the female heroes as genuinely heroic or their female love-interests as genuinely loved. That poisons the well for me in a way that no fannish endeavor of any kind ever could.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-24 08:31 pm (UTC)From: (Anonymous)Here's my rather unpopular opinion:
Enjoying evil is wrong. Enjoying the thought of evil is wrong. Yes, even if it's just a fantasy in your head. Getting off on oppression of people, or of yourself, is wrong. And a lot of things that people might not realize are oppression, are.
Practically all societies condition their members to get off on oppression. Sexualization of oppression is instilled in practically everyone, such that it becomes difficult to imagine a sexuality free of oppression. It is a sickness. You and I and pretty much everyone are conditioned to get off on oppression, though what sort of oppression, and whether it is your own oppression or someone else's, and such details, vary widely.
The best course of action is for us to work on healing this conditioning. Escaping from it.
Stephen King has an essay where he talks about the "alligators" in the human psyche (our dark impulses and feelings, etc). He says that some horror stories are a way of "feeding the gators" so they don't get mad and break out of the dungeon in our minds where they are kept.
I totally disagree (though I am not against all horror stories, just the ones that feed our evil impulses). Feeding the gators is bad. Repressing your dark impulses is just as bad though. Of course if you just repress them they will grow down there in the dark and eventually break out. People talk as though the only choices are repressing your feelings or indulging them. What about changing them? Of course it will take a lot of time and work -- all the more reason to start now.
Although I think that feeding the gators is bad, that doesn't mean I think feeding them will cause you to act on them. Most people do have various mechanisms in place that keep them from doing bad things. Fantasizing about torturing people won't make you more likely to actually do it. That's not why it's bad. It's bad because of who it makes you become, inside. It cripples your spirit, mangles it, makes it ugly.
You know, I have heard some people actually claim that pursuing and getting off on the types of trauma they have previously experienced in their lives is good for them. For instance, a person who was verbal abused, demeaned, and humiliated as a child might start to have sexual fantasies about humiliation, etc. They might embrace this, and come to believe that it helps them to "deal with" their trauma.
It's true, adapting to stresses (pain and evil certainly count as stresses) is a natural human survival response. Stockholm syndrome is an extreme example of this. And it works--it can help your DNA to survive. But adapting to evil will cost you your spirit, and often you won't even realize that it has happened/is happening. I mean, it's not like you'll become a totally incapable of compassion or be utterly heartless. The harm to your spirit will likely not outweigh your positive qualities. But I don't believe any amount of damage is acceptable. Adding to the confusion is the way that enjoyment of evil is mixed with (or even tied to) enjoyment of good things and neutral things. For instance, some people enjoy playing a slave role in the bedroom in part because it's the only way they can access feelings of trust, emotional openness, etc. Then there is the physical enjoyment of adrenalin.
Yes, the game is stacked against us. Getting free of societal, psychological, and biological influences that encourage us to enjoy evil and oppression is difficult. Even if you work on it your whole life and you live to be 100 you won't be totally free. But a measure of freedom is possible and it is the right choice. The first step is deciding to do this work for the rest of your life. The second is to stop working against yourself by indulging in harmful kinks.
Getting off on evil is wrong.