Cute Sexy Blond She-Ra Amazon Fighter Girl Babe

That's the name of an auction listing. Actually the full listing title is "CUTE SEXY BLOND SHE-RA AMAZON FIGHTER GIRL BABE Action Figurine Figure Statue" -- because, ya gotta get all your keywords in there. Fine, whatever... but what I really found annoying was the photo he chose as the main one for the listing, the one you see in your list of search results:

I removed the seller's username and location because I don't think he needs any more attention.

It's a butt-shot. Of an action figure. /facepalm

Now, I could almost tell myself that he was doing this to show the Mattel mark on her back, except when I look at his other listings, and then narrow those using his keyword of "sexy" within the action figure listings, my search results look like this:

157 listings that are "sexy" *sigh* -- and that's just the action figures

...so I don't think it has anything to do with She-Ra's maker's mark. Scrolling down the first page of the results, there's even this tasteful photo:

The photos for this item are especially obnoxious...

A crotch-shot. /headdesk

Now I know some people are going to say I'm being too sensitive. That these are plastic toys and therefore I can't be offended by how he chooses to photograph his items for sale. And besides, he calls some of the male figures "beefcake" so there's equal sexualization:

40 results for beefcake and not one single butt-shot

Lots and lots of people have argued about the false equivalence inherent in the "males are objectified, too" argument. David Willis' Shortpacked! webcomic illustrates the point well. We could discuss the concept of the "male gaze" in various media from comics to movies to video games. But what it boils down to for me is this: he is selling a whole lot of action figures, and taking many product photos (which is a good thing for a buyer), but the ones he uses for the main photos that show up in the search list are really porny. In fact, a lot of the shots he takes of the female figures resemble a Penthouse photo shoot. The fact that he's taking so many shots of the female figures, and far less of the male figures (3-4 for the males, 6+ of the females) tells me that he knows very well that "sex sells."

The seller has a high feedback rating, and many sales. He puts time and effort into the listings; some even have that annoying automatic MIDI music in the background. The photographs are good, in-focus and clear (some have unfortunate shadows, but overall they're far better than most product shots on ebay). He hasn't broken any rules that I have seen. The listing titles are a little spammy, but there's nothing really wrong with any of the listings I looked at. I think his pricing is a little out of line for loose figures, but that's not against any rules, either. 

So if he's not doing anything wrong with the listings, and has better-than-average photos for those listings, what the hell is my problem? What makes it problematic (for me) is the focus on body parts and "hotness." Boob shots, and lots of 'em. Butt shots, likewise. Even Aunt May gets the sexist treatment: "SPIDER-MAN'S SEXY OCTOGENARIAN AUNT MAY HOT BABE CHICK GIRL Statue Action Figure." (No, really, that's what it says.) It's the overall tone of objectification (which, when you think about it is pretty impressive: he has objectified an object even more than it already was!) that rubs me the wrong way. Will I report him? Of course not! Walking the line of what is "good taste" is a completely subjective point of view. Will I give him any of my money? Nope! (Although it hasn't escaped me that by giving him any attention at all might generate more sales for him.)

What do you think? Porny, or just attention-grabbing? After all, it got mine!

Yes, Actually, My Gods DO Wear Spandex

Our Gods Wear Spandex: The Secret History of Comic Book Heroes
©2007 by Christopher Knowles
Illustrated by Joseph Michael Linser
Published by Weiser Books (I think it's worth pointing out that Weiser Books is an established New Age/Occult book publisher, not your typical publisher for books about superheroes.)

When I saw this at Half Price Books, I was pretty excited. I was taking the Gender Through Comic Books MOOC and this seemed like just another way of looking at comics. The problem is, this book just doesn't hit the mark.

This is my full Amazon review (2 stars):
I wanted to like this book. Unfortunately, it reads like it was excerpted from Wikipedia articles, and I never felt the author had any real expertise or serious knowledge of the subject. The work is superficial at best, and in some cases wrong-headed. (For example, he lists Batman as being a Golem archetype. I have no idea where he's getting that crazed idea, even after reading it. The Thing, the Hulk maybe, but BATMAN?? No.) The brief section on female superheroes focuses a great deal on two things: 1) Marston (who created Wonder Woman) was into bondage and a polygamist, and 2) girls don't really read comics. Even though he quotes from The Great Women Superheroes (Trina Robbins -- a must-read), I'm not sure HE read it with any real comprehension.

The connection to the mystic/religious is spare. He spends so much time discussing Madame Blavatsky and Aleister Crowley (and others) as well as various secret societies like the OTO, but never draws strong relationships from those mystic orders to the majority of the heroes he mentions. Superman is a Messiah figure. Hawkman comes from Egyptian mythology. But these assertions are not explored, examples are not given. I've had more in-depth conversations about these same characters in message boards.

Save your money and strike up a conversation with the folks at your local comic book shop.

It took me months to finish this book; it was just not at all engaging. Seriously, the "Amazons" chapter is a measly ten pages, and two of those are full-page illustrations. He wants to show our gods wearing spandex? He barely touches on Wonder Woman's close ties to the Greek pantheon before going back to bondage references. This paragraph beautifully illustrates why I don't like this book:

Whatever Wonder Woman's feminist virtues, the fact remains that she is a scantily-clad beauty taking part in stories engineered to appeal to bondage fetishists. To read Marston and Peter's Wonder Woman adventures is to confront stories that are absolutely drenched in transgressive sexuality and rendered in a style that betrays a distinctly decadent influence. And Wonder Woman's favorite exclamation is "Suffering Sappho," a reference to the poet laureate* of Lesbos. (p. 163)

He completely ignores so much of her history and creation to focus on Marston's personal life. And if he has so much bias and misinformation in discussing Wonder Woman, where else has Knowles glazed over history with his own beliefs? When I told my husband that he'd labeled Batman a Golem, he told me that he could see where Knowles came to that conclusion but that was really stretching it. Perhaps he's worked in the comics industry for 20 years, but he's no scholar, and his research and analysis are unimpressive.

The only thing I'll give Knowles a pass on is for not mentioning that Frederic Wertham's Seduction of the Innocent† was debunked by Carol Tilley at the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana. He gets a break only because Tilley hadn't yet published her paper, "Seducing the Innocent: Fredric Wertham and the Falsifications that Helped Condemn Comics" (Information & Culture, Nov/Dec 2012, vol. 47, no. 4).


_________
* Sappho was never a poet laureate of anywhere, as far as I know. Contemporary poets of her time were known to revile her.

† Seduction of the Innocent was the book that claimed comics were destroying youths, published in 1954, and was also responsible for the creation of the Comics Code Authority.

Fairy Tales, Marketing, and Heroines

I just finished an online class, a MOOC* at Canvas Network, called Fairy Tales: Origins and Evolution of Princess Stories, taught by Dr. Kevin Yee. This was a shorter course than the Gender Through Comic Books that I took previously, and not as in-depth as I would have liked, but it was only 4 weeks. There was some attention paid to the modern retelling of these stories through the practically ubiquitous Disney movies. In many cases, the Disney version is they only version people know well. I'm not a fan of the message that Disney is selling.

Here's my criticism of Disney, no matter who's at the helm of the company but primarily after Disney's death. Marketing has driven the direction of these movies. Marketing experts determined that if you "brand" your item as for girls or for boys, it will make more money. So instead of having wonderful movies for children (like The Rescuers, which I saw in a theater when I was 7), we have movies that are explicitly for boys or for girls. That brings us to movies that lack male or female characters, depending on which "brand" you're watching. In Planes, faster planes deride slower planes as being "ladies" because they're slower -- message? Being a girl is not as good as being a boy (or a man). If there is a female character in a boy's movie, then she's background only, or perhaps what other writers have called a "minority feisty" - an apparently strong female character thrown in so no one can say there are no female characters. I think this is also problematic of the princess genre movies, with a near-complete lack of male characters in some, and with his role being the most crucial one -- to save the princess, and the day (see Sleeping Beauty). The movie is about the girl, but she's still passive and in need of rescuing; another horrible message for modern girls.

The villain has more agency† than the supposed heroine of the story.
(Maleficent as the dragon, in Sleeping Beauty)

We read through some of these old stories, hundreds of years old: Sleeping Beauty, Snow White, Rapunzel, the Frog Prince, Cinderella, the Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast. They are fascinating to study and read, as well as entertaining, but their messages are not necessarily ones that should be taught to impressionable young children. Brave was important because it was our first really feminist heroine. And just like those of us who are clamoring for a Wonder Woman movie (15 live-action Batman and/or Superman movies, fifteen!), many of us would like to see more stories like Brave for girls AND for boys. That women can be strong and interesting characters is an important message for boys, using feminine epithets to insult other boys is not.

Pop quiz! Which of these girls has agency?

I believe that people who present things for the consumption of a young audience have a responsibility to those kids. Positive messages include things like working together, personal growth, keeping promises, being true to oneself... Why does everything have to be pink and blue?! You can have your message, tell your story, in a framework that is meant for all children, not just half of them at a time.

I have had some issues with Disney for years, before my daughter was born, but now I can see the potential damage of the same message of passivity/inferiority over and over again from them. And the gendered marketing juggernaut that is Disney just gets bigger and bigger.

StrideRite -- girls skip and twirl, boys are powerful;
blogger Margot Magowan is through with you.

I think what puzzles me the most is why so many people don't see what I see. I know there are other bloggers who do -- lots of them, in fact -- but the opposition to our opinions is harsh and swift. It's a backlash against feminist thought, and the "make me a sandwich" trolls abound. So many people are critical of those of us who bother to speak out about this. I was enormously criticized for daring to post on Target's Facebook page about the pink/blue pegboards in the toy department. People suggested I find better (more important) things to worry about. What's more important than our kids? It starts so small... indoctrinating that pink/blue dichotomy is the first step. When they're toddlers, we introduce them to Disney. Girls get the Princesses, boys get Toy Story and Cars (with active male characters). When they're older, they get Spider-Man and the Avengers. The message is repeated over and over, and eventually, some of those girls are going to believe the hype: girls are passive, boys are active. Do I blame Disney for this? Not entirely, but they have certainly played a large role in this. In their quest to make money, girls have gotten sold a bill of goods. It's one of the reasons I was so horrified that Disney purchased Lucasfilm... was Princess Leia -- arguably one of the modern age's best heroines -- going to be Disneyfied? She's already a princess, but are they going to make her a passive Disney princess? I guess we'll find out.




_______
* Massive Open Online Course
† Agency: when an individual is free to make choices and to act independently on them; Aurora lacked agency because she was "cursed" to find a spinning wheel and forced into that long sleep

Why I'm Irritated with Batfleck

It's not just that I think Ben Affleck is all wrong for Batman (I do), it's that Batman and Superman have already had so many feature films that it's ridiculous.

• Batman (movies, live action): 1966, 1989, 1992, 1995, 1997, 2005, 2008, 2012
• Superman (movies, live action): 1951, 1978, 1980, 1983, 1987, 2006, 2013

Sixteen in all, if you count the movie Affleck has been tapped for. And we can't get a single Wonder Woman movie???

/facepalm

Seriously, DC and Warner Brothers clearly do not have their fingers on the pulse of reality. Here's what Diane Nelson said about Wonder Woman, to The Hollywood Reporter in July ('13):

We have to get her right, we have to. She is such an icon for both genders and all ages and for people who love the original TV show and people who read the comics now. I think one of the biggest challenges at the company is getting that right on any size screen. The reasons why are probably pretty subjective: She doesn't have the single, clear, compelling story that everyone knows and recognizes. There are lots of facets to Wonder Woman, and I think the key is, how do you get the right facet for that right medium? What you do in TV has to be different than what you do in features. She has been, since I started, one of the top three priorities for DC and for Warner Bros. We are still trying right now, but she's tricky.  (full article)

 And here is a brilliant rebuttal by Alan Kistler:

And lots and lots of other people have weighed in on this: Mark Hughes in an article for Forbes ('Wonder Woman' Movie Will Deliver Big At Box Office For Warner Bros., 7/25/13)

...Warner Bros. needs to release a solo Wonder Woman movie instead of trying to spin her off from Justice League as if she’s not popular enough to support her own series. Ignore the recent wrongheaded Wired article insisting “we don’t need no stinking Wonder Woman movie,” the truth is we DO need a Wonder Woman movie, and soon.

Alexander Abad-Santos for The Atlantic Wire (Wonder Woman Can't Have it All, 8/21/13)

The real question is why this is happening to Wonder Woman. Part of the reason may be that comic books remain a sexist industry dominated by older white men. As DC's most iconic feminist, Wonder Woman is an outlier, and not always a beloved one.

Sede Makonnen and her 6 Reasons We Need A Wonder Woman Movie at BuzzFeed (7/23/13)

We live in society that A) desperately needs strong women in the media and B) really, really wants them. Wonder Woman, for all that she has a messy past, is a character that is recognized as a powerful female lead by people who haven’t read the original comics, people who haven’t read many comics at all.

Tim Hanley in his blog, Straightened Circumstances (Wired Says We Don’t Need A Wonder Woman Movie OR I Disagree Entirely, 7/23/13)

Wonder Woman needs someone who can take the best bits of her incarnations and create a modern, relevant, feminist take on the character, drawing from the past while injecting their own ideas as well.

The bottom line is, the comics and movie industries are sexist money-making machines. They will remake and reboot and make sequels to properties they're pretty sure will make them a lot of money, and rely on formulae they've used for generations, rather than step a little outside the box.

Unfortunately, the somewhat lackluster American sales for Pacific Rim tend to shore up the idea of sticking to the formula. It was an original idea, we saw something new and interesting from a passionate director, and yet what should have earned buckets of cash here, didn't. If Warner Brothers/DC were to write a check for a similarly passionate director for Wonder Woman, would we see the same mediocre box office numbers?

I don't think so. Women are hungry for a superheroine movie. And because Wonder Woman is so iconic (and since a whole generation of boys dreamed about Lynda Carter), I really don't see how a movie would fail... unless it was done poorly. None of us want a bad Wonder Woman movie, no one wants a repeat of Supergirl or Elektra. But we do want a Wonder Woman feature film -- not one where she's merely part of the team, but a heroine in her own right. All you have to do is watch the documentary Wonder Women to know just how much we want this.

Warner Brothers, DC: knock it off and get to work. Seriously. Quick dragging your feet and give us the Wonder Woman film we all deserve. (So long as Azzarello doesn't write the script.)

__________
Isn't it interesting to note how many of the voices calling for a Wonder Woman movie are male? Guess that should help dispel the idea that men aren't interested in a female lead in a movie, huh?

Marvel Heroines - A Novel Approach

The She-Hulk Diaries by Marta Acosta and Rogue Touch by Christine Woodward are novels published by Hyperion. Novels, not graphic novels, regular black-and-white-words-on-a-page novels. This press release from Marvel set the tone: 

The announcement was made by Hyperion’s Editor-in-Chief Elisabeth Dyssegaard. Of the deal, Dyssegaard says, “Marvel has had tremendous success with recent hit movies and we think it’s a great time to explore what happens to super heroines when they are dropped into traditional women’s novels.”

“It’s exciting to see Hyperion bring two of our most beloved female super heroes, Rogue and She-Hulk, to life in ways you’ve never seen before,” said Ruwan Jayatilleke, Associate Publishers/SVP, Marvel Entertainment.  “Whether you’re a long time fan of Marvel or new to our super heroes, these novels deliver exciting stories that will capture your imagination.”

Traditional women's novels... When I first heard about this, I was horrified. Chick-lit. Bleh. These are superheroines, not romance heroines. I was prepared to read them, and then shout to the rooftops how much they sucked. I had already made up my mind that they would suck, completely without merit or evidence. Then I read an interview with Acosta at Reel Girl -- and felt like a jerk. Felt bad enough to send an apology to the author, even though I hadn't written anything yet, just for having that unfounded, unfair knee-jerk reaction.

The She-Hulk Diaries

I bought SHD last week, but didn't pick it up to read until this week. You see, as long as I didn't read it, it didn't suck (a Shröedinger's Cat approach to books), and I really didn't want it to suck. I love She-Hulk, and a treatment of her as an angsty, empty-headed heroine would have broken my heart. But you know what? The characterization works; Acosta did a fine job writing Jennifer Walters.

Contains some spoilers:
The book is written, as the title suggests, in a sort of diary format, from Walters' perspective. When we join her, she really is having some issues: she's lost her job, she needs to find a new apartment, her love life stinks, and she has to see a therapist as part of a settlement with the Avengers for anger issues. She treats She-Hulk more like an obnoxious roommate who is the source of most of her problems, than a part of her. Shulkie is the one who gets party invitations (and then is embarrassingly featured all over the internet. Shulkie is the one that guys fall all over. Shulkie is the one who's made her lose jobs and apartments. And her irritation with She-Hulk makes sense. The issues that she's having in her life, things she's trying to fix with a set of Valentine's Day resolutions, make total sense. It never feels weird or contrived. It's believable that Jennifer Walters has these problems, and those reactions to them. These are the things we don't seen in comics, because, well... they're not action-y enough. This is the mundane side of being a metahuman, and it's definitely readable.

I like the twists in the plot, I like the love interest, I like the little side plots that get tied up fairly neatly. I like that she and Shulkie grow as people, and that she moves toward an integrated self. There are still unresolved issues, the book doesn't end with everything all tidily solved, but I don't know that it's necessarily because a sequel is in the offing. Even though there are places that the pacing is a little slow, I recommend SHD unreservedly. This isn't an adventure-filled romp through NYC with the Jade Goddess; it's a wry and thoughtful look at what it's like to be Jen Walters, who is sometimes She-Hulk.

I do have one complaint, but that's not Acosta's fault: I hate the cover. Green lipstick on a purple background... yes, please, let's make sure most men wouldn't be caught dead reading it in public. Thank goodness for e-readers...

For book nerds*: the Library of Congress info lists the book as 1. Women heroes -- Fiction. 2. Superheroes -- Fiction.  

______________

Rogue Touch

I had to order RT because my comic book shop only got in one each of it and SHD. They didn't know if the books would sell, so they were conservative with their order. Since SHD did not suck as I'd feared, I dove right into RT, and was not disappointed with Woodward's take on a 19-year-old Rogue.

Contains some spoilers:
The pace of RT is considerably faster than SHD, but that's part of the plot. This isn't the same sort of ordinary day-in-the-life story; Anne Marie is on the run, and she's on the run with someone else who is also running for his life. We see her really struggling with things that have happened because of her, particularly the fateful kiss with Cody that put him in a coma. In spite of the fact that Rogue's first comic appearance was back in 1981, this telling feels quite fresh and current, complete with a very contemporary distrust/loathing of financial institutions. (OK, that's been a problem throughout banking history, but still...) Frankly, the story is a bit of a crime spree as she and "James" try to stay a step ahead of the people who are after them. She struggles with the things she's doing, but tries to justify it in ways that are age appropriate.

Rogue's vulnerability and naïveté combined with a defiance and brashness make her a fully fleshed-out character. The worst thing that can ever happen to a character in a story is for the reader to look at them with apathy; you won't do that with Rogue. There's plenty of twisty bits, and suggestions of things yet to come, but really, this is a fast-paced and entertaining read. It took me less than a day to finish, where SHD took a bit longer. Different stories, different authors, different paces -- both are well worth reading.

The cover is much better for RT, and she appears to be wearing the leather coat described in the beginning. It's a poignant and yet dynamic portrait of her, and a much more active cover than that stagnant tube of green lipstick. Interesting, when you consider they were designed by the same company.

For book nerds: the Library of Congress info lists the book as 1. Young women -- Fiction. 2. Outcasts -- Fiction. 3. Identity (Psychology) -- Fiction. 

_____________

You can read excerpts from both books here. Please consider supporting your local comic shop and having them order you copies (if they don't have them on the shelf) before you get them online.

* I know I am not the only person who reads this stuff at the front of a book, who is not also a librarian. You know who you are... ;)

Girl Rising

Last night, I watched Girl Rising, a documentary about girls in various parts of the world. It was depressing to see that, here in the 21st century, a lot of the world is still treating girls and women very shabbily.

The message was one of education: Educate a girl, and change the world. Education changes everything.

Girl Rising journeys around the globe to witness the strength of the human spirit and the power of education to change a girl - and the world. Meryl Streep, Anne Hathaway, Selena Gomez and other acclaimed actors contribute voice performances to the film, which features original music from Academy Award winner Rachel Portman and Grammy Award winner Lorne Balfe.

It was a powerful reminder of just how damned lucky I am, on so many levels. And an equally powerful reminder of just how far we have to go. Before Girl Rising aired, Homeless: The Motel Kids of Orange County was on. One of the factoids at the end of that program was that California's budget crisis caused public education funding to be cut (and two teachers from this school for homeless children were laid off). So even here, in one of the wealthiest and most developed countries on the planet, we still are not properly valuing education.

For more information on when Girl Rising is airing, visit the CNN page.

Visit the Girl Rising website for more information and to donate.

Charley Davidson

Charlene "Charley" Davidson* was the only main female characters in the scifi cartoon Biker Mice from Mars (there were two other females, Carbine and Harley†, but they never got action figures). The show ran for three seasons, from 1993 to '96. Charley was voiced by Leeza Miller McGee. (There was a revival of the show in '06, but I've never seen it. Lisa Zane voiced Charley in the more recent show.)

What I really enjoyed about Charley was the fact that she was a grease-monkey motorhead kinda girl. She owns the Last Chance Garage, and is a mechanical genius. This is no girlie-girl. She's "one of the guys" even though Vinnie is romantically inclined.

Here's something else: cosplaying as Charlie would be easy and comfortable.

I need to revisit the episodes, but I don't remember a red shirt, ever.

I'm not sure what's going on with the action figure, don't know why the red shirt. Anyway, the shirt color issue aside, to be Charley, one would need a long-sleeved button down shirt, jeans, cowboy boots, a belt with an oval buckle, and a second belt with various pouches. (Not only comfortable, but practical!) I dislike the tucked-in pantlegs, but other than that this is a really easy look to achieve. I think I should rewatch the show, just to make sure I get it all right, though, don't you think? Watching cartoons... for research.§

________
* Ya get it, ya get it? "C-harley Davidson"? Yeah, I think it's kinda obvious too...
† Carbine was voiced by Leah Remini, Harley by Kath Souci; both characters were anthropomorphic mice, and were only in a couple episodes each (from the original series).
§ That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.