Viva Forever

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.

The Gist of It: Fanworks are technically illegal. However not only do I think it shouldn’t be but the problems in itself is just ONE example of the law’s inability to deal with the concept of “information” as separate from its notions about physical property.

And now for the Too Long; Didn’t Read part.

Context and Definitions
I’ve never been one to heavily participate in any fandom; netwise, while I grew up around anime shrines and collectives I’ve never much been involved with it. I don’t write fanfiction, I don’t draw fanart. The closest is me maintaining a fanfic archive. However, I’ve always been a firm believer in there being something not quite right about making fanwork illegal, and for the longest time I thought it was legal (under some sort of “fair use” principle). But I’m wrong and hence this entry. Along the way, it helped that I had many an offline discussion with Tim on the matter (and related issues) as well as participating in similar discussions with Snark members.

When I mention “fanworks” in this entry, I mean media produced by fans of an existing genre of anything. This usually means fan ficition and fan art of existing movies, books, comics, etc etc. By “non-profit” I mean people who create fanworks and do not have them published to get money, i.e. entirely non-commerical. I am not talking about illegally downloading copyrighted materials such as music and movies. I think my arguments probably extends to, say, use of copyright images that get appropriated into layouts and web graphics, but to keep things tight, I’ll just be talking about fanworks here.

Further disclaimer: I barely known enough Australian law to get by as a law student, I know even less American law. Furthermore, very little proper jurisprudential research has been done by me, these are really just preliminary thoughts at best. Don’t be a moron and take the following as legal advice in any way.

Legalities
Fanworks are technically illegal. For an indepth reason this details why fanfiction is technically illegal in America. To sum up it seems that not only is fanworks most probably not considered “parody” and “fair use” but it’ll most likely contravene trademark laws too. For example, a fanfic on Harry Potter is illegal as it uses both copyrighted and trademarked characters without permission from the author. I believe such sentiments would probably be reflected in other Western jurisdictions too.

Of note, is that there hasn’t been a case where someone has sued another for publishing (non-profit or otherwise) fanworks. There’s been authors who publicbly denounce fanfiction, for example, like Anne Rice and threaten to sue. There’s also been a number of cease and desist letters sent to writers and fansites (a database of them is available at Chilling Effects) that threaten legal action. However, these fans would most likely be terrified of recieving such notices and fanworks would be removed and the matter settled. Therefore, without any case law to clarify and make certain the status of fanworks, I’m optimistic fanworks are only illegal in the strictest sense.

I would think it’s also arguably a very important factor when we’re dealing with NON-PROFIT, NON-COMMERICAL fanwork. Copyright/trademark owners do not lose anything, including profits, when someone writes fanfiction or draws fanart. The courts are generally reluctant to treat cases where there has been no commercial damage as a commercial case, but without any case law involving fanworks as precedent, this is also very unclear. For more information about fandom legalities, do visit my current favourite community, Fandom Lawyers.

Information =/= Physical Property
The problem is, currently, the law is trying to treat information as physical property. By physical property I mean tangible stuff, like houses, cars, paintings etc, things you can pick up and take away. If you pick up someone’s wallet and take off with it, you’ve deprived that person of their wallet. But information doesn’t work that way! This idea is best summed by George Bernard Shaw, who said:

“If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas.”

To again take Harry Potter as an example, after reading the book, I have the information about Potterness in my head. Yet I haven’t inadvertently deprived anyone of their Potter information. If I were to use the Potter information in my head to fabricate a picture or piece of writing, who has been harmed?

Some people would argue that the harm exists in the USE of the original media, which I suppose would mean even the very THOUGHT of Harry Potter one might have technically belongs to JK Rowling. Even if you didn’t write or draw anything, even if you were to say, talk to your friends about Harry Potter, aren’t you technically using a trademarked character/plot without Rowling’s permission? See the absurdity? It’s absurd to even consider information as a form of property because it information is NOT a physical object.

Circularity: Copyright Laws Are Justified because Copyright Laws Says So
Some people have argued that even outside the realms of legality, you shouldn’t use something that someone else has created. Original characters, stories, artwork etc are okay, but fanworks are not because you’re just taking someone else’s ideas and calling them your own. I’d say that’s a rather superficial distinction.

If I were to write a poem about a pretty sunflower, most would agree that that’s a pretty original piece of work. But isn’t that poem just a fanwork about a sunflower? Is there a difference between me having written a poem about a sunflower I own or a sunflower I saw in someone’s garden? If it’s the latter case am I “stealing” the information about the “sunflowerness”? If I were to draw a picture inspired by a bespectacled boy walking down the street, is that really somehow more original than if I were to draw a picture inspired by Harry Potter?

And therein lies the circularity of it. If we’re dealing with concepts outside of legalities it is roundabout to say that some things are original while others are not if you’re using legal definitions. That’s kind of like saying, “fine, if we’re not going to talk about the law, it’s still unethical to use existing media because the law says that media has a protected status”. It doesn’t sit right to say works about boys and sunflowers are okay because no one owns them; but works regarding Harry Potter and Stargate are not okay because the law says they’ve been tagged by someone already. Copyrights and trademarks are just identifiers of who got to the copyright/trademark office first, it does not have a significance beyond that. We live in an age of postmodernism when new ideas are built upon old ones. How is it fair to accuse certain works to be unethical and unoriginal if they use existing works as inspiration, while existing works are themselves based off older story themes (e.g. wizards, spaceships, vampires etc)?

Summing Up
If we’re not talking about making money, to illegalise and possibly punish those who make creative works based on existing media is ludicrous. The above arguments is still valid to cover appropriation of graphics and such that’s used on non-profit, non-commerical fan sites too. It is however a different matter if we’re talking about making money though. The market comes into play and I feel that’s where trademarks and copyright may still have validation; i.e. to protect economic interests. This is why there’s been quite a bit of kerfluffle over a new commerical fanfiction archive, fanlib.com. A great summary is available here and more about it in the Life Without Fanlib community. But that’s beyond today’s entry. Otherwise… fanworks all the way! Whoo! :D

There’s this online blog of a family friend that I occasionally read, though without the blogger’s notice. She’s a few years older than me and graduating from Psychology this year I think. The most interesting thing is that in almost every single entry, she’d talk about men. Not in admiration though, the vast majority of it was about how she’s so critical of the relationships her friends go through when they complain to her about their relationship problems. She’d almost always talk about a guy, then about how unattractive he is, or generalise about men and the perceived flaws they all have. Now the interesting thing is, she’s never dated before. She’d usually accompany said criticism with statements such as “I’m so glad I’m not dating” or “I never want to date, men are stupid, I might as well be a lesbian lol”.

And that just strikes me as being such a remarkably concrete example of cognitive dissonance. It’s just my theory here, but the way she is so preoccupied with men might be because she actually is just insecure about never being a relationship before and she feels she should be. So she might be putting down actual relationships and the other sex so to make her position seem justified. She’s also constantly putting down her own appearance (in a kind of “yeah, I know I’m ugly lol” kinda way) too. If I knew her at all I’d try to somehow convince her that she doesn’t need to dislike half the population, it’s simply perfectly okay to be single and doing your own thing, especially when so young and with years and years in front of her to persue her happiness.

She’s a psychology student so she must know what cognitive dissonance is… I wonder if she’s able to pick up on her behaviour? Which makes me a little paranoid… do I, unbeknownst to myself, behave in a certain way that belie what my true (though unconscious) feelings may be, but which might be really obvious to other people?

While I’m on the topic of relationships, here are two links that I absolutely ADORE and need to be linked for future reference:

• Hating Stuff to Make Yourself Look Interesting Is Not Interesting - I LOVE LOVE LOVE this picture. It’s a spot-on response to the ubiquitous “boys are stupid throw rocks at them” image. It’s just… wow, the Natalie Dee parody is so clever and zing-ful on so many levels that… I don’t think I have the words to describe how awesome it is.
• No More Mr. Nice Guy - Dee linked this on Snark and even though it’s a long entry, I thought it’s quite insightful. The writer makes a distinction between nice guys and Nice Guys that I’ve never considered before. I think most people kinda know of this on an intuitive level, but without it articulated, might lump nice guys with the more bitter/defensive ones. Now we know better!

For those who wear glasses (especially if short-sighted): If you ever have your glasses off while typing, do you find you make more spelling/grammatical errors than with the glasses? I have that problem and it’s not like I’m typing blind or anything, my vision is okay when close to the monitor. But for some odd reason, what is in my head and want to be typed out has the higher chance of being completely incoherent as opposed to when I am wearing glasses. Weird. Oh well, sometimes I can’t be bothered putting my glasses on (like right now) when I blog so… that’s my excuse for having badly worded posts. :P

For those who don’t wear glasses: … LUCKY!!!!!!!

On a completely different note, this short news clip about “outrage” towards NBC for showing the Cho Seng-Hui video just strikes me as WTF. It’s just… the double standard is so staggering. Yes, the victim’s families and the VTU students/staff are in mourning and shock and it is a really tough time for them. But what RIGHT do they have to complain about the footage being shown on TV, and furthermore what rational reason do they have for not showing it, besides “wow the video really makes the whole thing real”? YES IT IS REAL. Yes, the guy was a psychopath and ended up doing terrible things. But the American media has always, ALWAYS honed onto getting their claws onto anything juicy and sensational.

If the incident, for example, happened here in Australia, would Americans complain about showing of the video to be “insensitive”? No, I bet they’d be jumping over each other to buy the rights to air it as much as possible. America (and many Western nations actually) has an incredible morbid curiousity to everything (just look at all the gossip columns and stuff), it just makes me angry how not just the victims, but the police and others more emotionally distant from the event would even start admonishing NBC for showing the video.

Initiate gun control. Initiate gun control. Initiate gun control. Initiate gun control. Initiate gun control. Initiate gun control. Initiate gun control. Initiate gun control.

At a federal level. I don’t know how to make myself any clearer. No it’s not the fault of the video games, the education system, the parents, drugs etc etc… IT’S GUNS. THOSE THINGS FIRE METAL EXPLOSIVES AT INCREDIBLE SPEEDS INTO PEOPLE. Fuck the Constitution, Goddamnit America, get your act together, hold a referendum and change that bloody section. It’s killing people. Make people have licences before they can carry those damn things.

Ugh. How many more people needs to die before they realise that hey maybe, JUST MAYBE America is better off WITHOUT guns being so easy to acquire and that, maybe I dunno, it’s REALLY DANGEROUS?!