It’s time. I’m a comic book reader with a Ph.D. and I am (are you ready for this? It’s about to get pedantic up in here) the preeminent Wonder Woman scholar of everyone I know. There are things that need to be said about DC’s relaunch that I can’t say in comments on other people’s blogs. I’m probably going to say them again at the National Popular Culture Conference, but most of the people here won’t be there. I’ve bolded the important parts throughout for you scanner-readers.
Let me start with a summary in case you’re new to, well, the world: in September of 2011, DC—one of the “big 2”—released a new line of major comic books restarted at #1 designed to combat waning sales with “reader-friendly back stories” (salon.com). According to Jim Lee of DC the point of the relaunch gives DC the opportunity to “show how this brave new world evolves into the DCU we all know and love. By seeing them band together as the champions of the world, you’ll see the world embrace them, and the coining of the word ‘superhero’ and establishment of these as iconic and inspirational characters” (salon.com). I want you to remember that last phrase especially: “establishment of these as iconic and inspirational characters.” That’s going to figure prominently later.
Now the main controversy surrounding this relaunch is over Catwoman and Starfire. Little to nothing has been said so far about Wonder Woman, Batgirl, Supergirl, Black Canary...you can tell by my use of the ellipsis that I feel unkindly about this. There will be a “part 2” about Wonder Woman and how she got jipped. (And why more people should be upset.)
Within this controversy claims of “objectification” have been leveled as well as “sexism” and “misogyny.” I’m going to define these words before we continue because everybody needs to know what these things mean.
Objectification: a) the process whereby a person is turned into an object generally through the use of specific body parts in place of the whole person. Why it matters: if you objectify someone then you don’t have to worry about annoying things called feelings. If I’m having sex with an object, it doesn’t matter what I do to that object. It’s not a person; it doesn’t matter if I spit on it, hit it, or—we’ll keep this g rated (eh, maybe pg-13) so you can imagine any manner of other things that could be done to it. When people are objectified in text—comic books, television, cinema, books, advertising—one of the consequences is the unacknowledged consequence of objectifying real people in real life. So, when people talk about Catwoman being objectified it is upsetting because Catwoman’s existence in the comic books is purely to be sexy as opposed to intelligent, interesting, or capable. <-- This is upsetting because when female readers read themselves into the text they learn that their humanity doesn’t matter as much as their body. That makes them crazy. Heterosexual male readers learn that women’s personalities are merely the unfortunate toll that must be paid to have sex with their bodies. That makes them abusive.
Everyone still with me?
Misogyny: hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women. Objectification leads to sexism which leads to misogyny.
I took the time to explain this not because I doubt anyone’s intelligence but because I want everyone to understand how I am using these terms. So many readers/listeners/viewers shut down at all that “feminazi” talk. If only I were exaggerating. Read the comments on the links at the end and see what I mean.
Now we get into the DC relaunch proper. Let me start by saying I’m not sure I think Catwoman is objectified. I’m not sure I think she isn’t either. Before people start calling me names I wanted to make that clear. The issue is the opening sequence of Catwoman #1. The reader is treated to close up shots of her chest and ass before they ever see her face on page 3.
Page 1
Page 2
And finally page 3
So maybe she is objectified. Except Nightwing gets the same treatment:
Page 2
“Ah,” I hear you saying, “Nightwing’s pectorals aren’t depicted in the glistening sweaty gloriousness of Chippendales!”
“You’re right,” I respond. So are they both objectified? Or is what is happening to Catwoman different?
While I think entirely too much attention is attributed to Catwoman’s lingerie, unclothed body, and leather-clad posterior, I think her humanity still comes through the page because it is her voice relaying the story to the reader. Furthermore, the opening sequence of seeing parts of the hero before the full page spread is a typical rhetorical move of comics. Seeing only the pieces of Catwoman’s body, therefore, doesn’t necessarily mean she’s objectified. Seeing pieces of her unclad perky-in-ways-only-comic-books-make-them breasts does. We see Nightwing’s face—even if only a piece—on page one.
As I said before, though, the imagery of her body is offset by the strength of her narrative voice. Especially when put within the context of Catwoman’s existence as a femme fatale I’m not sure depicting her in various stages of undress removes her subjectivity. Most importantly, following this debatable opening Catwoman is on every single page of her comic book fighting, investigating, and outwitting the other characters. That would seem to offset this opening sequence. Unless you take issue with the end: (spoiler alert)
That’s right. That is Batman and Catwoman GETTING IT ON. The fangirl in me cheers. CHEERS I tell you! I don’t find this offensive IN THE LEAST. And do you want to know why? Because Catwoman instigates it. She “seduces” the Batman (he didn’t really look like he took much persuading honestly) she’s on top dominating him, and if anything he appears powerless and at a loss in this image. The fingers curled into the carpet, the splayed legs—the Batman doesn’t even know what’s happening to him. So many of the arguments I’ve seen criticizing this image seem based on the claim that because the reader sees them having sex it is somehow denigrating to Catwoman. HOW IS MAKING SEXY TIME WITH BATMAN EVER A BAD IDEA?!
It could be I’m just not feminist enough when it comes to Batman.
My point here is that while I think the opening sequence of Catwoman is problematic, I think the choices fit with her character. I also think that seeing pieces of her body doesn’t necessarily objectify her. If she had no personality (*cough* Starfire *cough*) or was drawn in awkward, unrealistic positions (*cough* Starfire *cough) I would be happier to jump on bandwagon. But while the images are racy I am just not sold that they’re sexist. Girls get to like sex too. (Especially with Batman. Duh.)
But I don’t want people to think I disagree with the articles linked below because I don’t entirely. I think what they have to say has value and is true for them. (That “for them” part matters a lot.) At the end of the day if, as a reader, you feel objectified there’s a good chance you probably are. In this case, while I don’t agree with the criticisms of Catwoman #1, I ABSOLUTELY agree with the criticisms of Red Hood and the Outlaws.
Here’s what Starfire used to look like:
Here’s her most recent incarnation:
Oh yeah. Cause I’m sure this picture was designed to make a reader wonder what her favorite band is. Her personality and superhero status is CLEARLY primary in this artistic choice.
But, again, this isn’t as clear cut as it seems.
It objectifies her and ruins her status as a hero (go back and reread that Jim Lee quote now) because no one in their right mind takes this woman seriously. Based purely on the picture above and the one below
Who you gonna call when things get real? If you say Starfire you’re lying.
But the reason her depiction is offensive it isn’t a simple matter of misogyny; rather, I would say it is because Starfire also teaches men it’s okay to be used. Discussions of her inability to remember her sexual partners and easy willingness to jump in bed with everyone (seriously—99% of her dialogue is taken up with asking Red Arrow to sleep with her) as well as her blatant statement to Roy that he didn’t matter, she wouldn’t remember him, and nothing he ever did would make him special to her, change what is supposed to be an “iconic and inspirational” character into someone so detestable she isn’t even aware of who she’s saving let alone who she’s sleeping with.
When men get taught it’s okay to be used (so long as the babe is hot enough) and women get taught that they only thing important is being beautiful enough to use men, you end up with date rape, misogyny, anorexia, and “crazy.” Despite the protestations of self-proclaimed “bad asses” around the world it is the rare person who doesn’t actually need emotional attachments. The rest of us just fool ourselves into thinking we don’t care and never stop to notice why we’re treating other people like shit. (Oops, does that raise this to an R?) It’s called the bitter pill kids, and letting Starfireites sleep with you, forget you, and dehumanize you isn’t going to be nearly as much fun in the morning as you think it’s gonna be. Let’s take a minute to talk about men’s self-respect shall we?
I know there’s at least one dude reading this going “I wouldn’t mind getting used by Starfire” and I grant you, you might not. But you’re never going to get used by Starfire a) because you’re not a superhero and b) because the male superhero physique is equally as impossible as the female superhero gravity defying chest. This means that guys and gals alike are only actually getting used by people not nearly awesome enough to qualify for the job, disrespecting each other massively and generally growing up to be awful people who do awful things. You think I’m joking? Go to a college bar and watch the meat market. That’s objectification at work.
But I’m not going to stop buying DC comics. I’m not. I love comics too much, and I want to buy Batgirl and Supergirl and Batman. I tell myself that if Red Hood and the Outlaws included a racist character—had even one of them said “faggot” or “nigger” in a way presented as acceptable to the reader—I would have put down the whole line of DC stories. I have to recognize the possibility that I don’t want to be mad and that bias is shaping my response. Regardless, I refuse to write off all DC comics because Red Hood is offensive, misogynistic, and ridiculous.
I believe this is different. Maybe because I think comic books are still one of the best avenues for change in the world alongside romance novels. I do. Millions of people read them, love them, and learn from them. If we could just change the message enough, millions of people would start thinking about heroes, love, and sexiness differently. That would trickle down to young adult fiction. That would change television. That would affect movies. Suddenly people are learning to be what they are in less bifurcated man=tough/woman=nurturing ways. I believe it can happen, but not if I give up on comics.
And certainly not If DC Comics persists in producing CRAP.
Hear that DC? How about you hire some more female writers, fire some of your really, really crappy male writers, and generally aim for a more talented production staff?
Links referenced:
http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/09/22/starfire-catwoman-sex-superheroine/
http://io9.com/5844355/a-7+year+old-girl-responds-to-dc-comics-sexed+up-reboot-of-starfire
http://mssnarky.wordpress.com/2011/09/24/a-response-from-a-female-comic-book-fan/
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2011/09/22/no-more-mutants-52-problems-by-andrew-wheeler/
