Comics and Feminism: Two Case Studies
Anime/Comics, Musings, Rants, World July 13th, 2007I do NOT have a history of reading comics. I’ve read a lot of manga in my life, but not comics that are produced in the US, for example, by the likes of Marvel and DC. The only comic I’ve read is the three volumes of Spider-man Loves Mary Jane which so freaking awesome and adorable. The only other contact I have with comics is via movie adaptations such as the Spider-man trilogy, The Fantastic Four etc. However, lately I’ve been lurking extensively in the wonderful world of comic fandom and then invariably feminist discussions, thanks to two fandom kerfluffles that have occurred (months ago actually, but I’ve had this typed up partially for a while now and have only just completed it). Hopefully I can use these two examples to illustrate the importance of choice when it comes to deeming things as misogynistic or not.
#1 - Mary Jane Statue
On your left is a statue produced (and subsequently sold very well) by Marvel, of Mary Jane from Spider-man. I first saw this image linked from fandom wank and even without reading the comments, I definitely winced. Many outraged comments from both communities echoed my sentiments. There she was, impossibly bent over, g-strings showing, bending very provocatively over a washing basin. It just seemed to scream “objectification! misogyny!!” While Mary Jane from the movies was by no means a strong woman, she seemed independent in her angst/teary way. And here she was, portrayed as some sort of oversexualised, out of character and completely one dimensional object.
However, further perusal of the comments revealed a small but persuasive camp, mainly people who’ve read the comics. I found out that comic book Mary Jane is nothing like movie Mary Jane. Doing a bit of research I found that comic book Mary Jane was a brash, confident woman who was an actress, a model and a go-go dancer. This camp of people argued that in such a context, it’s not so surprising that this Mary Jane would dress provocatively. She’s a woman who’s in control of her sexuality and circumstance. I could see that the statue representing a woman who may flirtatiously says to Peter Parker “face it, Tiger… you just hit the jackpot!” while pretending to be washing his costume. It’s plausible that the statue’s sultry looks is implicitly a well-practiced one, and the scenario suggests something kinky rather than servitude.
The key to all this is choice. Is it believable that movie Mary Jane would dress up like that? Not really. She’s an aspiring actress, trying to “discover herself” I suppose, who is still unsure of herself whilst struggling for independence (and stardom). Interpreted in such a way the statue is a failed forcing of superficial sexuality on a character whom do not have these traits at all. There stems the idea that women, no matter what their personality or approaches to relations with others, would love to dress up as a barefooted housewife in a g-string, mechanically grinning while doing household chores to please her husband. There is no realm for choice. This would be pure sexism and infuriating misogyny.
However, the context proves to be vital in this case. This is a statue of comic book Mary Jane. She’s a go-go dancer and model with a confidence of her sexuality to boot. Being in revealing clothing and a g-string would be something she could be comfortable with. Giving Marvel the benefit of the doubt, it’s much easier to conclude that such a pose could be something that comic book Mary Jane chose to do. The statue has the smirk that alludes to confidence. The more plausible presence of choice here makes claims of sexism much weaker.
I firmly believe that if women want to be go-go dancers, or if they want to dress up as housewives (or even be housewives), or conversely, that they strive for total independence etc, they damn well should. Feminism is not and should not be about women HAVING to be the opposite of what they were traditionally seen, that they HAVE to appeal to traditionally “masculine” traits. As Simone de Beauvoir proposed, women aren’t “abnormal” creatures that need to strive to be more “normal” like men, but that women are capable of choice and hence capable of choosing their own brand of freedom, whatever that may be (note, I admit, beyond wiki I don’t really know much more about de Beauvoir, though I would like to get to know more about her philosophy).
Does this mean comic book Mary Jane HAS to dress and act like that just because she has modeling and go-go dancing as professions? Absolutely not. But it’s to my knowledge that she CHOSE those careers and her personality would suggest that she could very well do something as cheeky as that which the statue implies. Does it mean that movie Mary Jane isn’t capable of doing something kinky? Also no, but it’s just implausible from how the character is portrayed so far. Every step of the way, we need to keep in mind the choices of people based on who they are as a person, not what gender they are. While the comic book industry isn’t known for their enlightened feminism, knowing the context, I don’t think this particular artifact is as sexist and objectifying as many people claim it is.
#2 - Heroes for Hire Cover
Also first seen on Fandom Wank. Thought it was sexist on first view and still do. How is this different from the above case? Well firstly, all the women (all superheroes by the way) are tied up yet drawn incredibly provocatively. For some reason their suits are zipped halfway down, they appear to be in weak distress (facial expressions) and their wrists are limp. A much better analysis is found here.
But heroes get into risky situations all the time, you might say. But this is the COVER, the selling point of the comic. Sure comic covers use images of heroes in danger to evoke curiosity all the time. However, I don’t think that the comic artist was merely evoking “curiosity” in the viewer of the heroines’ fate, it’s not difficult to conclude that the heaving, half-exposed bosoms and all the other signs point to the other obvious aim of the cover; to titillate. To sell their wares, Marvel have sexualised an image of women being potentially assaulted.
I would have less of a problem if the women were looking more fierce or actively distressed. Rather, they look defeated and weak WHILE looking highly sexualised. If they chose to look like this (e.g. some sort of consensual bondage activity; this is highly unlikely) and contextually they were like that then I would have less of a problem with it. However, they’re not. They are heroines, not models or porn stars. They save people, they are supposed to be role models. Yet this cover has made a mockery of all that, swept it away and instead Marvel had decided that objectification via sexy strung up women is a better message to send out than heroes in trouble who just happened to be women. The cover says that no matter what traits or personalities you have, if you’re a woman, you’re there to titillate. It doesn’t even matter if you want to save the world or help people, or don’t want to rely on your appearance and sexuality at all, you’re really only good to look at. You don’t really have a choice at all.
Of course, not all comics are that bad. But that particular cover… I don’t see how its redeemable unless there’s some completely different context that I’m unaware of. Incidentally, the artist of the cover is a woman. However, I don’t think women are necessarily any more or less sexist than men could be, so I think that’s a moot point.
I find it sad that some women out there would call themselves “feminists” while insisting that women SHOULD be a certain way. There are “feminists” out there that insist that if a woman is anything but a completely independent, corporate-ladder climbing person that they are somehow worse than those that are like that. The opposite also exists. There are some feminists that insist that women should indulge in their sexuality whereas others say that that self-respect come from dressing and behaving more conservatively. When are we going to reach that middle ground that happiness and proper freedom from gender-shackles come from choice? That whatever a woman wants to be, whether to be a housewife or a CEO or a model or a superhero, they should have the freedom to choose without backlash? That if they don’t want to dress skimpily that they aren’t considered some sort of “prude” or if they want to dress/act more explicitly sexuality that they aren’t negatively branded as a “slut” or a “ho”? It’s amazing how many people still think women “should” be a certain way (in a traditional or more modern sense) just because they are female and any derivation to their standards is some sort of terrible flaw. And I guess more generally, why do people cast judgment on people who do things that make them happy, just because they behave in a way that is different from your own?
My research into feminism and my own thoughts on it are still somewhat in its infancy. I’m learning (and thinking!) more every day about this fascinating topic. And yet, in a different sense though, gender really isn’t as important as it currently is held to be yet.
But anyway, I’m getting off-topic. Here’s the last bit of gender related tidbit that I thought was interesting; Men are just as chatty as women.
16 Responses to “Comics and Feminism: Two Case Studies”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
You know, the comics industry in the U.S. is apparently notorious for being especially sexist… And I’ve seen threads on LJ where women discuss how they’re not comfortable being in comic book stores because “it’s a boys’ thing.” I’ve effectively been driven out by my hometown comic book store because I feel uncomfortable there, and I want to like comics and spend money there!
So, yeah. The comic book industry over here really needs to shape up a bit. @_@
^ Mmm it is! What I’ve written here (as long as it is) barely scrapes the top of the barrel of problems involving sexism in the US comic industry. Here’s two good links that I keep up with written with a more feminist spin on the whole comic scene:
- Girls Read Comics - Some pretty hilarious and insightful articles
- When Fangirls Attack - Many links out to other articles
Oh wow, you really DO keep up with this stuff! Thanks for the links! Maybe it’ll revitalize my interest in comics if I keep up with its feminist issues…
Ah, but that’s just the thing, see? Mary Jane didn’t choose to do anything, because she’s a fictional character. And a fictional character (predominantly) written by men; this is the problem.
People get it confused, but what’s really got their goat up about this statue is not that it portrays a woman in an objectified way (she’s both domesticated and sexually available) so much as it’s a man depicting a woman in this way. Mary Jane herself has no choice in anything; she is a completely blank canvas for whatever the writers want to do with her, and it was the writers who chose to make her a slutty bimbo whose main purpose in life is to fall off a bridge and make Spidey emo. In other words, her sole existence is defined by what she can do for men — the writers, the readers and Spidey himself. She’s an ‘ideal’ girlfriend; sexy and ‘confident’ but kind of a doormat whose self-worth is defined by what men think of her body.
This is what annoys people. Also the implicit assumption that there is nothing wrong with this kind of depiction.
As for the H4H cover… well.
The thing is, comics are notoriously sexist; if these two incidents were the only sexist things in the fandom, people wouldn’t be so loud about it. But they’re not; not by a long shot. However you won’t get it as much reading stuff like Spider-Man Loves Mary Jane because that comic — which is set outside the ‘regular’ Marvel-verse — is deliberately attempting to target the romance manga-reading teenage girl market. Ironically, the thing that first exposed me to the slavering underbelly of comics was picking up a copy of Wizard. Admittedly this was circa 2000, but the drooling fanboyishness of that publication was what turned me off the mainstream comics market for the next seven years. >_>
Incidentally, what you’re talking about in the last(-ish) paragraph is the difference between a sex-positive feminist and, uh, one that’s not. The (very potted) history is thus; second-wave feminism emerged at the tail end of the civil rights movement in the 1960s and 1970s. Stuff happened, sexual liberation occurred. Some feminists started to take a step back and say, “Hang on a minute! All this so-called ’sexual liberation’ means is that women are expected to be sexually available to men all the time.” And started to see it as still being a kind of misogyny (you occasionally hear it being referred to as the virgin/whore complex). The problem other feminists have with a lot of traditional sex-positive feminists is that when they define ‘female sexuality’ they usually still define it along male lines; that is, women are ‘expected’ to have the sexuality that men depict them as having (e.g. in porn), and any deviation from that — asexuality, lesbianism, enjoying slash, whatever — is considered to be abnormal or, worse, frigid.
And that’s four years of PolSci talking. You wanna know about the feminist response to globalisation? Yeah, I studied that. No joke. >_>
I dunno, I don’t subscribe to the idea that just because men write a character a certain way it may be sexist but not if a woman wrote it. I believe both men and women are very capable of being sexist. Would it be any less sexist if it was a woman who portrayed Mary Jane like that?
It’s true that a statue can’t choose nor can a fictional character. I guess I meant “choose” in the sense of how likely a character as portrayed would make such a choice. However, the kerfluffle had involved the statue, not Mary Jane herself. I’m saying that the statue is not sexist given how Mary Jane is portrayed. But the sexism involved in the creation of Mary Jane character herself? That’s a whole new kettle of fish that goes beyond the statue.
The motives of the writers are certainly important. Given the general sexist history in the comic book universe, I’m partial to the idea that whoever came up with Mary Jane probably did have a seedy intention. As I said above, I have nothing against Mary Jane as a sexual character but what bothers me is similar to what you’ve said; that she’s the mere “ideal” girlfriend. Her lack of character development (outside of Spider-man Loves Mary Jane) smacks of “she’s a model because that’s hot!” rather than any extrapolation to her mindset and development.
Many other characters, both major and minor usually have some sort of express development to why they’d be such a way. Spider-man didn’t just become a super hero “because that’s cool!” but he went through much development to get to where he is (though he IS the main character, but I digress). Mary Jane as a character seem no better than those comic book villains of old whom are just there because they’re evil and want to take over the world, and MJ is there because she’s hot. It seems to me that there is laziness and negligence on the part of comic book writers in creating solid female characters, and it does speak volumes of the sexist mentality existing in the industry. Comic artists definitely have a hand in it too, for example, with still existing techniques of porn faces by the likes of artists like Greg Land. However, there are some changes in some comics to develop realistic and multi-dimensional female characters, we just need to see more of that.
Ah I saw that retouched H4H cover before, I thought that’s MUCH better. :D
I’m not at all familiar with feminist history so what you’ve said has been quite informative. I’ve studied a tiny bit about feminism and jurisprudence but I don’t remember it being particularly enlightening. I’m the first to admit there seems to be a lot of very shitty feminist ideas out there but it seems to me that in the recent years there has been some sort of push away from “shoulds” and “shouldn’ts” (explicitly or implicitly) to how women behave and think, but there is an increasing focus on acceptance? At least, that’s what I hope is true.
First of all, hi! I’m Leslie, and I arrived here from When Fangirls Attack.
I saw the controversy over the MJ statue evolve from the beginning, and while I can really only speak for myself, I don’t think most of the criticism about the MJ statue was just that she was sexy. The artist who designed it, Adam Hughes, is rather famous for drawing sexy women, and I myself defended his work for years.
However, I think that this statue is problematic in the context of a medium that frequently oversexualizes images of women. But that alone wasn’t what made the criticism get out of hand. The criticism spun out of control because of Marvel’s and Sideshow Collectibles refusal to engage with the criticism. Letters were ignored, comments were deleted on Marvel websites and the Sideshow website. Meanwhile, comments like “Pearl necklace! LOL! Naughty!!!” were perfectly acceptable. While us feminist fangirls were used to this kind of treatment, keep in mind that many of the critics were like you: people who aren’t necessarily regular comics readers, who would never be the market for a $125 statue of a comic book character anyway but were casually browsing on the outside and this is what they saw.
As for Adam Hughes himself, most of the criticism wasn’t even leveled at him until he was interviewed and said that real feminists always like his work and if you don’t then you’re a “feminazi”, that acknowledging criticism of your work is censorship, that an artist’s work can only mean what they intend it to mean and that white people are oppressed because the can’t say the n-word like Dave Chapelle can. Hmm.
So yeah, I don’t think the issue here was choice or if MJ should have the choice to wear sexy clothes or not. It started off as an image that was merely problematic, and grew worse as valid criticism was not only ignored, but silenced.
I’ve always wondered how WFA track articles all over the net… this was only published yesterday! Anyhow, hi Leslie!
Mmm I saw in passing about how some people were pissed off at the dismissive attitudes of Marvel and Hughes’ subsequent defence of his work. I have to admit, I didn’t really read into it (though I did love the “you’re interrogating it from the wrong perspective” meme that followed) I didn’t realise the extent of the matter. Tsk, bad moves on part of Hughes’ and Marvel. =/
Though I dunno… it could be just Marvel is bad at handling negative criticism. If the matter wasn’t a sexism issue (for example, some Marvel comic made a character incredibly out of character, or racist, or some how offensive) it’s plausible that they would also moderate fan opinions heavily. I don’t know enough about Marvel history to know how responsive they are to fans in general.
You might be very interested in ifeminism, which does emphasize choice for women.
In any case, I pretty much agree with your observations. There’s a lot to dislike about the MJ statue, but I think most of my objections would stem from the fact it’s just yet another oversexualized depiction of a comic book gal and I’ve just seen so much of that, even without reading many comics at all. I actually like the original intent behind the statue, with a MJ finding the costume snuck into her washables and giving Peter a “oh ho ho, you think you’re funny” look. Because that’s cute couple stuff and sort of makes fun of the woman doing laundry thing.
There’s nothing redeemable about the H4H cover, though, but the combination of the two makes me think that because so many minor things, like the MJ statue, are considered the norm is EXACTLY why no one questioned publishing that cover. If you don’t object to things that might be on the line, how can you send the signal to companies where the line is?
I’m quite tired and don’t have much of substance to say in terms of commenting but, I really like this post. I don’t read comics and thus, I don’t know much about them but the Heroes for Hire cover is just ridiculous.
Personally, I’m all about gender equality. If a man is into domestic things and doesn’t want to work and doesn’t have to - more power to him. It’s great if he stays home and takes care of the kids or whatever. I don’t know a lot about sexism and sexist things but, researching it even to the pitiful extent that I did left me rather sensitive to gender issues and language. Nothing annoys me more than hearing someone say, “Be a man!” or “Don’t act like a pussy!”
To Megs Thanks for the link! From what wiki said it sounds exactly like the kind of feminism I’m rooting for!
To Chantelle Yay gender equality. I too don’t like the whole “be a man” thing… it’s so vague! What’s “being a man”? Having to watch sports, drink beer and love cars?
Lol, I think marvel was trying to attract more guys to buy the comics. They assume guys like looking at porn-like pictures. They would probably assume there are more pictures like this in the book and buy it. I’d say it is to entice guys to buy it without second thoughts. XD … = =”, so desperate to sell them comics. >
Oh I forgot to add. This one special person that I adore do talks a lot more than I do, so that article is so true! XDDD
I’ve always been disgusted with the perceptions of women, especially, actually, due to feminists. I once read a book that talked about how women in some countries are astounded and somewhat appalled to see that the feminist movement has discouraged any thread of femininity in women. Suddenly if you wear a skirt, you’re “selling out.”
I do acknowledge that the comic industry sexualizes women waaaaaaaay too much. But when you look at media in general, people are rarely portrayed the way they really are. I mean, just watch commercials to know what I’m talking about. Any commercial relating to beer is geared toward men. Any commercial relating to cleaning supplies is geared toward women (mostly mothers). This isn’t what reality looks like, but we accept it without question most of the time.
We as women often lump men into our own little dangerous stereotypes as well. Men are perverse - they only want sex - everything they say has a sexual undertone - if they talk to you, they only want to get in your pants. We give these stereotypes to men where they don’t belong, and we, in our own, different way, often perceive men in an incorrect sexual way as well.
I understand the comic industry is in the wrong here, and I can’t stand the oversexualization of women just as much as the next person. I’m just getting off track (as usual). :D
Better late (reply) than never! ^^”
Not at all, and that’s not really what I said. Women can (and often do) objectify other women.
Have to admit I beg to differ. This is somewhat subjective, of course, but I find the notion of the ‘naughty housewife’ (as well as MJ as an object of W.i.R Syndrome) somewhat noisome in general. I get the argument that the sculptor didn’t intend it to be sexist but that’s kind of besides the point.
Stan Lee (he’s the guy who stops Spidey in the street and says some tripe like “See, one man can make a difference!” in the most recent film). :)
Actually, my ‘problem’ with MJ is linked to my problem with Spider-man (specifically, though it can apply to almost every comic book character coming out of that vintage) in general; in a nutshell, it’s a pure, unadulterated teenage nerd wank-fest. I mean, he’s this dorky unpopular smart kid who gets super-powers and a hot girlfriend. Gee, forgive me if I’m wrong; but I wonder if this comic is written by and aimed for dorky unpopular smart kids who wish they had super-powers and hot girlfriends. And while I’m not 100% against a bit of vicarious wish-fulfilment in literature, it does kind of grate that essentially ‘the girlfriend’ is reduced to the status of ‘the powers’; that is, as a concept that solely exists for the use and gratification/glorification of the male lead.
Once would be annoying. But 40 years… Hrm.
The mistake that most people make when they talk about ‘feminism’ is thinking of it as one cohesive -ism. It really, really isn’t. Different schools of feminist thought can’t even agree on what the definition of ‘female’ is half the time (it’s a mental-gender versus biological-sex issue), let alone anything else. And it’s true that there are a lot of ideas in certain streams of feminism that can seem a bit… crackpot when taken out of context. In-context, they still seem pretty crackpot but you can start to see where they came from. There’s also a lot of feminist critiquing of feminist ideas, which doesn’t get mentioned a lot when people are mounting a “lawlz feminists!” attack. So… yeah. :P
Both this entry and the follow-up comments were really interesting to read - I only wish I had any inkling about feminism/comics/etc to contribute. Personally I just get on with life and let others do the same & make their own choices - it’s much easier.
interesting. I’m personally not offended by the statue. than again, I’m also a sequential art Major at SCAD, so I see that sort of thing all the time. also, I wanted to bring up, everyone keeps pointing out the problems w/ sexism in American comics, but it’s not actually as bad as you’d think, especially in recent years….In fact, I think Manga, or japanese comics, are actually more sexist, more of the time. I mean, when do Japanese comic artists NOT use panties or boobs to attract readers??? Not saying they aren’t good, as I am an avid fan of both manga and American comics, but still…