I 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.
Recent Comments