Supernatural: Se2 Ep 5 - Simon Said

Spoilers ahead, plus discussion of non-consensual sexual relationships and invading people's privacy with telepathy.
I am discussing the episode not from an in-story viewpoint, but from a real world viewpoint, looking at the mechanism of how things were filmed and the culture of the show and TV industry at the time.
.
.
.
.
.
In this episode the brothers meet another psychic kid, Andy.  Andy is portrayed as a good guy. He's totally average, has friends, doesn't stand out at all.  In a high school show he would be the nerd loser type, with a couple of close friends, who never gets the girl but is fundamentally a decent person.  A bit like Buffy's Xander, but less good looking.  Compared to the Brothers Winchester he's short and scrawny, he has none of their charisma and glamour.  He's got a van with a painting of a Barbarian Queen riding a polar bear on the side.  He's that sort of dude.

We find out he has telepathic powers - he can make people do things.  For example, give him their coffee, let him into the police records department, borrow their car (Dean's car, for reference), and tell him whatever is on their mind.  Sam is the only one immune to his powers.  We see that Andy reads philosophy, he talks about the ethics of telepathy (a bit), he says he has never used to harm anyone and that he has certainly never used it on his possibly-girlfriend, Tracey. 

Andy has an evil twin, Webber, who is using his power to force people to commit suicide, in order to persuade Andy to become close to him.  Webber is clearly the bad guy, and Andy is positioned as the friendly telepath who harms no one.  He's certainly not positioned as a danger to anyone.

Now here is the start of my point.

So, with all that in mind, I find it interesting that in the first scene where we see Andy, he's leaving an attractive woman's flat in the morning, with the implication that he has had a one night stand with her.  It's not explicitly stated that is what has happened, but given the show's attitude to sexual relationships (hello Dean), and our cultural understanding of a bloke leaving a woman's flat first thing in the morning, wearing a happy grin, I think we can assume that Andy and unnamed woman had a lot of sex.

Andy is presented as a sort of lovable loser.  An everyday guy who becomes the secondary hero in the episode (the Winchesters being the heroes obvs).  All the cues indicate that this sort of guy is not usually successful with women.  So how did he have this one night stand?  I guess we assume that he used his telepathic powers to get this woman into bed.

That's a bad thing.  That's rape.  If telepathy were real, there would be laws about it, stating that using telepathy to get sex is rape.

Now my point.

Given that Andy is portrayed as the good guy it's astounding/interesting to me that this particular opening scene with him was filmed in the way that it was.  The episode goes to such pains to show us that Andy is basically a good guy, using his power in a harmless way.  I wonder if no one picked up on the implications of the one night stand scene, or if someone did but was ignored.  It just screams of everyday sexism and this stuff just not being on the writer's or director's radar.

It was filmed in 2006, I don't feel that there is much excuse for being ignorant of gender politics back then, but I accept that many people were.

I think of how the supporting women in season 1 were portrayed, how they were mostly supporting characters but were given agency, proper roles and were treated with respect, as characters and actresses.  I see that changing in season 2, mostly due the show moving away from a monster of the week episode, but that we get recurring female characters in the form of Ellen and Jo (who in my opinion are truly magnificent).

I wonder what sort of atmosphere it was on set, I wonder how the women involved in the show (n any capacity) felt.  Was it noticed and ignored, did it feel like yet another micro-aggression, did any of the men notice it and feel uncomfortable with it.  How did the set culture compare to other American TV shows being filmed at the time.

I have no answers, I'm just curious.

Note - I feel it needs to be said that the episode, and to some minds the whole show, doesn't examine the abusive nature of telepathy - in that most sensible emotionally literate people can figure out that using mind manipulation powers on other people is a pretty awful thing to do.

Sexist, lazy bullshit music reporting on BBC 6 music

So right now there's a programme on the radio about Sleater Kinney.  It started 3 minutes ago and I'm already furious.

The presenter described Sleater Kinney as a band who have transcended gender.
Edit - it's bloody Gideon Coe who is presenting!

*Rage flail*  No.  Just no. Sleater Kinney have not transcended their gender.  What you mean is you, a male journalist, have deigned to overlook the fact that they are women and decided to pay attention to them.  You have decided to grace them with your esteemed musical criticism.  Sleater Kinney have just written, played and recorded music.  You are the dick that has trouble seeing past their gender.

*You* have transcended their gender, not them.  When was the last time the music press described a male band as transcending their gender?  I'll bet never, that's when.  Because male bands are seen as the default starting block and women bands are seen as a bloody aberration that have to prove they are good despite there femaleness.

Female bands don't hide, or move beyond their gender, It's the male music industry that has to do that.  Except that they don't because it seems that 99.9% of articles about female bands talk about their gender and want to talk about what it's like being a female musician .  The music industry is bloody obsessed with gender, there's no transcending it.

Sleater Kinney have never tried to move beyond their gender, or ignore it. They are feminists, They are female.  This is an important part of their work.

Gods save me from male journalists who think they are granting us a favour by saying that female bands have transcended their gender.

Visit Sleater Kinney's website here.

Lateral thinking puzzles and cultural awareness/norms

A friend gave us this lateral thinking puzzle on Boxing Day.  I'd heard it before but it took me half an hour to remember the solution.  The next day we asked my boyfriend's mum and partner it, and we asked another friend.  Some people got it within 20 seconds, others couldn't get it.   The puzzle is this:

A man lives on the 20th floor of an apartment building. Every morning he goes to work, comes back in a limousine, and gets in the lift to his apartment.  Some days he gets off at the 12th floor and walks the remaining 8 flights.  Other times he gets off at the 20th floor and goes straight into his apartment.  Why does he sometimes get out at the 12th floor?

Scroll down for the answer.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
He is a dwarf (or little person - a quick google search says little people may be the correct term, but I feel awfully patronising saying that, however I realise that's my issue and if anyone who this affects is reading this I'm sorry if I'm causing offence) so he is too short to reach the button for the 20th floor.  He can reach as far as the button for the 12th floor though, and if other people are in the lift they press the button for the 20th floor for him.

Before I start waffling on about cultural norms, the pedant in me would like to ask whether lift buttons are always in one long vertical line, or if they are in sets of three or four vertical rows?  Because, this whole lateral thinking puzzle only works if the lift buttons are in one or two long vertical rows.

Right, cultural stuff.  For people who didn't get the puzzle straight away they went through tons and tons of ideas about why the man would get off t the 12th floor, all based around things they'd do.  E.g.  He had a girlfriend or lover on the 12th floor. There is a restaurant there  He liked the exercise.  There is a launderette on the 12th floor.  The lift was broken.  The limousine had a ramp to the 12th floor (that was my idea, no, I don't know why I said that either).  People who didn't get it were very surprised when they heard the answer.  I knew that the numbers of the floors were key, but I thought it was more of a numerical answer, rather than a physical capability answer.

Which led me onto thinking, that if we were all more aware of different abilities and disabilities would we get the puzzle earlier?  The answers that people gave were within their life experience, based on what they'd do, they was a certain amount of putting yourself into someone else's shoes, but not into something too different.  When I was trying to solve it I was thinking of cold hard data.  Logic.  I guess that's me not understanding the puzzle - lateral thinking isn't the same as logic.  The bloke who got it immediately is also quite short - about 5 ft 3, perhaps that helped him think outside the box?

Then I think what is the box? It's just the cultural norms that we operate with.  The way in which we think of certain body types as the default.  Men for instance.  Able bodied people.  White people.  I guess I'm saying that this puzzle really illustrated that for me.  How much does this type of thinking impact on all the other decisions and viewpoints we hold in our life?

I googled the puzzle and found this page which also has these puzzles:

2. Acting on an anonymous phone call, the police raid a house to arrest a suspected murderer. They don't know what he looks like but they know his name is John and that he is inside the house. The police bust in on a carpenter, a lorry driver, a mechanic and a fireman all playing poker. Without hesitation or communication of any kind, they immediately arrest the fireman. How do they know they've got their man?

Answer - the carpenter, lorry driver and mechanic are all women.
(my question - were they all there dressed in their workclothes with their work equipment on show as well?)

6. A man and his son are in a car crash. The father is killed and the child is taken to hospital gravely injured. When he gets there, the surgeon says, 'I can't operate on this boy - for he is my son!!!' How can this possibly be?

Answer - the surgeon is the boy's mother.

I'm ashamed to say that I didn't get either of these before looking at the answers (I only gave myself about 5 seconds but let's be honest here).  That sexist programming is still in full force.

This post is yet another example of me having half formed thoughts and wanting to get them out on the page for no other reason than to clear my head!

A little trip to Lille

I went to Lille with work a few weeks ago and I took photos.

Lille is a strange little city. It's grey and concrete and a little bit grotty, but nonetheless has a certain charm to it that makes me rather quite like it.  I didn't get to see much of it because I was there at a work conference.  We stayed int he world's shittest hotel - it smelt of smoke, it was noisy, the temperature control was just bizzare and the sliding door to the bathroom broke so I had to really struggle with pushing it open and closed.  The shower was a tray with a curtain and at the end of each shower the floor was sodden with pools of water.  When I arrived I found this delightful towel on the bed:

It doesn't make up for the shitty hotel.  We went out to a cafe for the breakfast each morning - croissants and coffee - which was alright.  The second morning I got some street harassment - it was 7.30 am and a bloke in his 20s/30s starts walking beside me and asking me questions.  Fuck off.  I thought he was going to follow us into the cafe at one point, but thankfully he didn't.

The conference had some good stuff:

Mmmm delicious French pastries.

Artisan lemonade.  They also had pink and yellow stuff.  It was tasty.

Being so close to Belgium there was good beer:

And food baked in beer:

This was the sweetest stewed beef I had ever tasted.

We also briefly visited the Christmas market before we left:

It sold tat.  Made up gifts that only exist to fill the consumerist clamouring in our capitalist souls.  I didn't buy anything.

There was this ferris wheel.  If you look closely you can see that the cars are painte dliek Christmas puddings:

I read Raising Steam while I was there.  This page reminded me that the romantic relationships I want in fiction are those where the couple has been together several years and are comfortable with each other and still deeply in love, but also have lives outside of the relationship:

In summary, if you can visit Lille, do it.  Also read Raising Steam.

Link time!

I keep seeing cool things I want to talk about but not finding the time to do a proper post.  So here comes another link list:

 

Lesbians in Archie comics discussing the stress of a closeted relationship:

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2013/11/20/and-now-americas-typical-teenage-girl-is-a-lesbian-thanks-to-archie-comics/

 

Advert advocating engineering toys for girls!

http://www.upworthy.com/if-3-little-girls-did-this-to-my-house-id-do-everything-i-could-to-get-them-full-rides-to-stanford?g=2&c=ufb1

Or rather, trying to sell engineering toys for girls.  It’s an ace advert, go watch.

 

How to submit writing samples to comic publishers:

http://www.comicsvanguard.com/2013/11/how-do-i-submit-writing-work-to-comic.html?

 

Steampunk variant covers for DC:

http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=49023

 

Fantagraphics kickstarter:

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/fantagraphicsbooks/fantagraphics-2014-spring-season-39-graphic-novels

Loki meets some school kids and pushes one of them off her seat:

http://metro.co.uk/2013/11/05/watch-loki-push-a-kid-over-after-she-says-thor-is-better-than-him-4174587/

 

New Ms Marvel:

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2013/11/05/ms-marvel-the-muslim-teenage-jersey-girl/

I’m dead excited about this.

 

DC moves to the west coast:

http://www.newsarama.com/19425-dc-comics-moving-to-burbank-to-join-dc-entertainment.html

I feel sorry for the staff who now have to choose to relocate or lose their jobs.

 

Marvel animal variants:

http://marvel.com/news/story/21532/take_an_exclusive_first_look_at_marvel_animal_variants

A write up of the kid book group comics discussion from last week:

http://didyoueverstoptothink.wordpress.com/2013/11/15/comics-kidbkgrp/

 

Sexual harassment in comics

Over the last few days I have seen a few posts by women comic creators discussing their experiences of sexual harassament in the comics industry.  You can read them here:

Tess Fowler
Anne Scherbina
Mariah Huhner

Rantz Hosely gave his experience of seeing harassment towards women.

Rachel Edidin then offered her support for every con she goes to.

I've now just seen this post by Jamal Igle.

I was reading these women's accounts of harassment and they made me really sad.  Sad that women go through this.  Sad that men don't see how intimidating and scary their actions and behaviour is.  Sad that the women feel guilt and shame for something another person did to them.  After I'd read Mariah's story I talked to my boyfriend about it.  I recounted the times I've been harassed on the street and at work.  We talked about how I've never felt in danger when I've been drunk and walking home blitzed out of my mind.  My harassament stories all happened in broad daylight, in public spaces.  I won't recount them here.  I still feel shame at one of them, which I didn't talk to the boyfriend about, because it still makes me uncomfortable.

My boyfriend was quite shocked at Mariah's story.  At the email she'd received.  Remember that these are fellow professionals, colleagues, acting like this.  If someone in my work sent a sexually explicit email to someone else they'd be sacked.  Why is it different when someone is freelance?

As I was reading these stories and talking them through a few things occured to me.  This behaviour is not peculiar to the comics industry. It happens in all male dominated industries, and probably female dominated or equally balanced industries too.  For example, I believe that sexism is rife in the City - the financial people.  Blaming it on comics is not helpful.

This behaviour will continue if people continue to keep it quiet. I don't mean that the harassed women should be the ones to speak up.  I mean that people in the same circle who know that someone's behaviour is not on, is wrong, makes women feel intimidated, they should speak up.  When they see harassment occur they should tell the harasser to stop it. It is especially important for men to to do this because women aren't believed.  We are sidelined and dismissed.  When men think that other men approve of their behaviour they keep doing it.  We know this.

I know there are issues with speaking up and risking your professional career.  I would never expect the women going public with these stories to name names - that could be career suicide.  I understand how it's difficult to stick your neck out.  But, there have to be ways to deal with this effectively.  Maybe I'm in a third sector bubble. I know my working environments have on the whole been respectful and I've had next to no problems over the years.  Maybe at every publisher all the managers are dicks and engaging in sexual harassment.  I can't say for sure.  But unless people speak up about it and unless they back this up with their actions, women in the industry will never know who to be trusted.

If you know of a person in your circle who acts badly - tell other people.  Tell women. Warn them.  Tell a senior manager that you are not comfortable with what so-and-so did.  You don't need to issue a formal complaint, or bring up harassment charges.  You need to vocalise your feelings.  Add to (or start) a chorus of voices that says this is not acceptable. Start with throwaway remarks.  That's how cultures change.

I don't really want people to stop buying Brian Wood's books (or anyone else's).  If you want to, if you feel you can't give him money anymore, that's fine, that's your choice.  But I don't believe in mass protests like that.  It won't change his attitudes (if in fact they haven't changed since the incidents anyway) and it won't help the women he harassed.  I will add that I haven't seen anyone call for a boycott, and I haven't seen anyone sending hateful messages to him.  But I am concerned that this may happen, because it seems to happen a lot on twitter.  I just think that two wrongs don't make a right.

I am not excusing Wood's behaviour.  Of course I'm not.  I have less truck with Igle saying that the truth lies betwene both parties' version of events.  The truth for both Tess and Anne is what they experienced, let's not deny that.  Wood's truth is probably different.  That does not invalidate Tess and Anne's truth, and quite frnakly I have far more sympathy with them than I do with Wood.

I think that most harassers do not know they are being intimidating.  I think most think they are just being friendly or flirty.  But women are brought up to be scared of the rapist in the dark.  We are taught that we may get raped everywhere we go, and that it will likely be our fault, but nevertheless we can probably prevent it.  So when someone moves into our personal space, gives a strange remark, says something suggestive, looks at you funny, you get scared.  You don't shout back.  You make excuses, you stay polite, you go somewhere safe.  You hide.  We do this because if someone is already being threatening (whether they mean it that way or not) we do not know what else they are capable of.  Having your breast stroked, your bum or groin grabbed is not harmless. It's assault and it's scary.

What I don't want to see now is people derailing these women's conversations and talking about how people change, how they don't see sexism in comics, how the truth is somewhere in the middle.  I don't want to see people excusing Wood's behaviour.  I don't want to see tone policing.  I want us to listen to women's experiences and then improving how we react to sexism and harassment when we see it.  You don't have to be all high and mighty about it.  You can just say actually that's not on.  Or hey, don't do that.

What I don’t want to see is people feeling like they need to defend the comics industry, to say it isn’t all like that, that these are isolated incidents.  When this happens, it seems to insinuate that the women talking about their experiences are somehow outside of the industry, that their experiences aren’t valid and real.  It sets women against the industry.  Women are involved in the comics industry and they are being harassed.  I am sure there are plenty of people do stand up against harassment and casual sexism, just like there are in other sectors.  That doesn’t mean that there aren’t problems.  I am concerned that there will be a closing of ranks.  An us and them approach.  That sort of thing is useful to no one.  There must be a way to talk about sexism and harassment that doesn’t make the women who have spoken up feel like they are being dismissed.  When that happens, (anywhere, in any industry), it encourages the feeling that you can’t speak up.  That people won’t take you seriously.  That in turn means that sexist remarks and actions keep happening.

The women that spoke up are incredibly brave and I think it must have been really difficult for them to write those articles.

Wonder Woman 19 - WTF cover

It is shown at Newsarama here.  Click the small cover picture to see the full gatefold.

Then go to the Newsarama facebook page and read all the comments about this.  I'll copy the relevant comments into the end of this thread.

People are saying that they think WW is cheating on Superman... why? Because of one kiss?  How do we know she didn't break up with Superman before hitting on Orion?  Assuming that is what is happening.  Then people are calling Diana a slut.. There are references to the Superman 19 cover, which is Supes punching Diana... because in an adult relationship the men must fight over the woman, like she's a piece of meat... Ugh.

It's too early in the morning for this much misogyny.

Then folk are commenting on the butt slap from one issue ago.  It infuriates me.   I wrote about this at the time.  You can't take that panel in isolation, it flows with the rest of the story.  Diana has bigger problems to deal with.

I just don't want the WW/Supes romance to spill over into Wondy's book in any way.  I just don't care for it.

There are some other interesting comments about continuity in the DCU.  I certainly feel that the WW book is very different from the rest, so I guess I can make it my own continuity?  Until Trinity Wars starts.. *sadface*

Relevant comments copied here:

Samuel Lee Smith I think that the Wonder Woman book isn't exactly in the same continuity as the rest of the New 52 at the moment.

Scott Gregson Aren't these characters supposed to be "people"? I'm pretty sure most "people" have had relationships that started out as a good idea then got kinda lame, where someone else has come along and taken your interest in a way that you would never have thought possible. Everyone calls out that comics need to be more "real" and not have a "status quo" but then writers who change things get labelled as jerks and people start calling Wonder Woman a SLUT! Two outsiders who have no human connections outside of a few people who fly around beating up bad guys find each other and realise they don't need to hide who they really are from each other. With both Supes and WW being as young and inexperienced as they seem to be played in the New52, I'm not really surprised by them hooking up. But then WW - who is a warrior princess, first and foremost - meets Orion - who is a warrior prince, really - and sparks fly on a much more primal level. Superman has never had a relationship before (outside MAYBE Lana Lang, idk) so he's going to react pretty badly to the girl he likes either cheating on him or just flat out dumping him. Give WW a chance to realise she made a mistake (and that mistake could be dating superman, or kissing orion, whichever way the story pans out). But I think, long term, BOTH relationships are flawed, both of them relying only on one aspect of WW's character. Lonely outsider (for WW/Supes) and Warrior Princess (for WW/Orion). Much like how Superman WILL eventually come back to Lois because the Lois/Clark relationship is far more healthy and all encompassing than the WW/Superman one. But for the love of Highfather/Arceus/Odin, let the stories play out. Let the writers tell their stories. Let the characters develop and come to the understanding in their own way and in their own time. Like, I dunno, real people. You want real characters and real stories in your comics or do you want rehashed silver age stuff? Cos they have collections of Silver Age comics for you to buy. Just go read them and let the rest of us enjoy these New Ideas - which may or may not be superior to the Old Ideas but are at least different.

Wayne Wonder:  Maybe that's why we get this: http://i.newsarama.com/images/Superman-20.jpg  

Vince Gattuso I guess it wasn't bad enough that Azzarello has sullied Hippolyta, the Amazons, and Hermes but now it appears he's having Wonder Woman cheat on the Man of Steel with the Dog of War. 

Eric Reese They had more chemistry in six panels of one page than Wondy & Supes have had since New 52 JL started. 

Vince Gattuso A butt-slap is chemistry? Diana should have put Orion's head through a wall after that. 

Joshua Shifty Schiffman If you don't like it don't fucking read it you assholes. Jesus Christ people as Ive said before if you don't like the New 52 don't read it. Personally I love the idea of Orion and WW having an affair. She'll end up with Supes eventually(Kingdom Come in my opinion is how its going to all turn out).

Shannon Luchies Ugh. This is the guy who SLAPPED HER ASS. She shoulda taken his head off then. 

Alfred Day I love it! Especially with her as the aggressor. And if anyone has read any of the April Fool's issues, it's pretty clear they are mostly April Fool's tricks where the incident on the cover is not as it immediately seems inside. And I am digging Azzarello's Wonder Woman which is weird because I generally haven't liked anything else of his except 100 Bullets.

Kareem Yasin Supes punches Orion on another cover, so combined with the butt slap...

MeMyself Kris Wonder Woman cheating, Lois and Superman becoming parents, seems to all be working out for the WTF Certified idea. 

 Don Rychlick not good to show kid it ok to cheet on your boyfriend! 

Patrick Gerard The Superman relationship is kinda forced and most likely a setup for them to be exes during Trinity War.

Dion Nellist Slut  

Jacob Dougherty Makes a lot more sense in a story context (if you're reading WW) than the Superman/Wonder Woman relationship makes. Supes/WW felt when it was introduced and still feels like a gimmick that has no justification story-wise, especially since it's never even been brought up in Azzarello's WW.

The gym, the gay best friend, and performative sexuality

So. I'm still going to the gym.  I'm enjoying it again and I'm going regularly.  Tonight I went to a new class, Sh'bam.  It is described on the Les Mills website thusly:

Featuring simple but seriously hot dance moves, SH'BAM™ is the perfect way to shape up and let out your inner star - even if you're dance challenged.
Set to a soundtrack of chart-topping popular hits, dance music that is heard in the hottest nightclubs around the world, familiar classics remixed and modernized Latin beats, SH'BAM™ is the ultimate fun and sociable way to exercise. Each 45-minute SH'BAM™ class is vibrant, unique and varied - and like all the LES MILLS™ programs, a new SH'BAM™ release is produced every three months with new music and choreography.

I thought it might be fun.  It was on at a time that suited so I went.  Now it probably isn't for me, although it was a decent workout, but there were a couple of things that really stood out for me during the class, that aren't what people would associate with a gym class.

The instructor we had is either gay or straight and camp.  For this discussion it doesn't matter whether he is gay or straight, what is relevant is how people read him.  Now, I've had a few male gay friends over the years.  I've read women's magazines, I've seen the films and the TV shows and I've seen how people react to men who read as gay or camp.  There's this concept of the 'gay best friend'.  In popular media the gay best friend is usually a supporting character, who helps the straight woman out with her romance problems, is flamboyant, a great dancer and dresses well. Often they are seen as non-threatening and just like a woman, but better because they are a man.

Then I see straight women in real life around gay men.  And the gay man is perceived in a certain way, they are perceived to be the same as the fictional characters on the telly or in the books.  And it strikes me that the women are treating the gay man as a commodity.  As an idea, not as an individual.  They all want a gay best friend, and they want them to act in a certain way.  They don't care about the individual.  They want the concept.  And sometimes it seems like they are fawning over the gay man, and vying with each other for his attention.  And I wonder why is a gay man afforded more (temporary, assumed) status than a straight man, or a straight woman, or a gay woman?  Or a bisexual woman or man.  What is it about the gender relationships and power balances that drives some women to want a gay best friend as opposed to a friend?

The whole thing is insulting it commodifies gay men and reduces them to their sexuality and an idea, a package.

And I see the women in the gym acting in this way with this instructor.  And it frustrates and saddens me.  Now this is not to say that the instructor is displeased with these women.  It's not to say that they aren't genuinely friends.  But it still saddens me because I think the relationship is riddled with subtle homophobia.

As for the performative sexuality part.  Well, the class was opened with the sentence, 'what happens in sh'bam, stays in sh'bam'.  I wasn't aware that I was signing up to a secret soriety, but that sentence seems to put forward an idea that the class is an exclusive club.  Then throughout the class there were women posing and strutting and checking themselves out in the mirror.  Now, the class is meant to be fun, and silly, and it is based on 'the hottest dance moves', but what I didn't anticipate was something which was encouraging us to shake our arse, our boobs and act like we were the sexiest things on the planet.

And that's what I mean by performative sexuality - I don't want to do that in the gym.  I'm there to work out and to get fitter.  I'm OK doing all that in a club (especially if I'm drunk), but at the gym I don't want it.  I'm not comfortable in an atmosphere that encourages you to perform sexuality, unless it's in a club, and even then sometimes I just want to cut loose and not give a fuck about being hot.  I don't want to have sex and sexuality creep into every area of my life.  I'm not a prude for saying that, I just think that there is a time and a place, and it is not in a gym.

A few months ago I was waiting to go into a CX Worx class.  It's to strengthen your core and improve your abs.  It's good, but it is bloody hard work.  Anyway, before this class there was this 40 something dude and his mate also waiting.  And 3 women in our 20s/30s.  The 40 something dude started the conversation by commenting about the Les Mills name - he doesn't know how to pronounce it. But he was leering, and insinuating that pronouncing it 'Lez' (not 'Lay') would be funny, and why would anyone have a name pronounced 'Lez'.  Which is incredibly childish.  He seemed to want us to join in with him.  We didn't.

One of the women explained how the class worked, what it did and why it is good.  Then he started saying that all of us lovely women didn't need to to work out, and he doesn't think any of the women here need to exercise hard.

I'm sure he thought he was complimenting us, but what he was actually doing was commenting and judging our bodies.  I don't want my body judged at a gym.  I don't want it judged by a  stranger.  I don't want it's attractiveness measured up.  The only possible way I want my body measured at a gym is to discuss how to get bigger muscles.  The other women were either giving nervous titters by this point or just doing half smiles.  I was probably glaring.

The thing is, he asked about the class, but really wanted to talk about our bodies.  he wasn't interested in what the women were saying, just in his own views.  Prick.  I was very pleased to see that he didn't cope very well with the class.

And that's my gym update.

Women in politics

Responses to the Australian PM, included in the following linked article, calling out misogyny in her Parliament have led me to conclude that it’s ok for men to play the gender card, but not women.


http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/catcalls-cuties-and-blow-up-dolls--a-womans-place-in-politics-8213117.html

Fuck that.

#EverydaySexism

I went to buy a new rucksack a few weeks ago.  I needed something fairly small as I don't want to strain my back and I use a pannier on my bicycle for big things.  I headed into the local Cotswolds shop and found their only small rucksack.  It was purple.  Well that's ok, thought I.  Purple is quite nice.  then, whilst searching for the price, I found the description.

What? Whaaaaatttt?  It's a fecking rucksack.  There is more:

The blurb says:
This women's specific rucksack makes a great companion on the hill, whilst the internal organiser makes it ideal for commuting to school, the office or the gym.

The internal organisiser is a useless bit of material separating the main space from the back of the rucksack.  The internal pocket is non existent.  I feel patronised and fooled because I've bought an inferior product (inferior because of the stupid non existent internal pocket).

For reference, this is what it looks like.  It's by Berghaus:

 Arrrggggghhhhjjjj!


(Title is hashtagged for the benefit of twitter)

Hormone power

If your power is to produce hormones to make men (and only men, not women, it stated that in the text) crush on you and do your will, then why would you dress like that?  You could wear a bin liner and your power would still work.

Bad logic comic costumers.

The all new Harley Quinn

Spoilers for Suicide Squad 7.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
You know, I'm pretty sure the old Harley Quinn had agency. I've just Suicide Squad 7 and the new Harley was made by the Joker.  He pushed her (unwillingly) into a vat of the stuff that turned him white and she turned white skinned and blue/purple haired.  And most of her clothes (but not her underwear) were shredded.

I call bullshit.


As I write, twitter folk are reporting from Wonder Con that DC's answer to why Waller is now slimmed down, is due to diet and exercise.

Again, I call bullshit.

The old Waller didn't care about that shit.


Don't read Suicide Squad.  It's crappy and boring.  And sexist.

Women's introduction in the new DCU - the conclusions! part 3

Phew.  Nearly there.

As a reminder, you can read the introductory post setting out what this mini project is about here.
You can read the findings, i.e. the nerdy numbers, here.

My first reaction upon looking at the numbers was one of pleasant surprise.  45% of women were introduced without reference to their sexiness and without establishing them as a love interest.  This is pretty good.  This means that the women  are introduced as just another character, and their gender/sexuality are not relevant to the story (at that point).  It would be nice if the percentage was higher, but actually it's not too shabby.

It's important to remember that these numbers don't tell you anything about the quality of the book, and certainly don't tell you anything about whether the depiction of the characters is sexist.  For example, the Wonder Woman book featured Hera in a cloak, clearly naked underneath, and also 3 party girls who served as Apollo's Oracles.  The Flash introduced Iris leaning over a hole and the image is all boobs.
The depiction of these are not sexist at all, but when you contract them with Catwoman or Starfire in Red Hood, you can see that those books are clearly sexist.  Yet each book gets a yes for drawing the woman sexually.

Having a woman introduced as a love woman is also not necessarily sexist, given that stories about human relationships are pretty important in the grand scheme of stories.  The problem (in my mind) would be if all storied about women put them as love interests.  But clearly that is not the case here.

The data also doesn't tell us about the ratio  of male characters to female characters (something I regret not asking about actually).

The data also doesn't tell us if the women were introduced with other roles as well as love interest.  Also something I regret not asking about.

Right now it feel that my conclusions are mostly about what the data doesn't tell us.  Hmm.

What do you all think?  What conclusions can you drawn from the data?  Is there any other way you'd like to see the data analysed?  Do you think I've missed something?

Let me know!  Let the discussion roll!

Women's introduction in the new DCU - the findings! part 2

You can read about my goals with this mini project here.  I recommend you do read that post as it will explain exactly what we were analysing, and without reading it, this data won't make sense.

Now, what did we find out?
We've got 52 titles..
In which there are 97 female characters (including one kid)...
Looking at the titles -
27 of the titles feature female characters that look sexual, either by their clothes or because of the way they are drawn.  That's 51% of titles.
29 titles introduce female characters as a love interest.  That's 55% of all titles.
Combine these, and there are 33 titles that feature female characters that are either drawn sexually, or are a love interest.  That's 63%.  Some characters are drawn sexually and are love interests, some are love interests but not drawn sexually, and vice versa.


Of the female characters themselves...
41 are drawn sexually, that's 42%.
41 are love interests, again, 42%.
53 characters are drawn sexually and/or are a love interest.  That's 55%.

4 titles had no major female characters in them (Batman and Robin, Detective Comics, Justice League and Men of War)
No women were introduced as the love interest of other women.

I looked at the ratio of titles per subgroup and female characters per subgroup.  You'd hope that if there was an even spread of female characters the ratios would be roughly similar.  They aren't.  Instead we have:
Subgroups: Batman:Green Lantern:Justice League:Superman: The Dark: The Edge: Young Justice
Titles per subgroup: 11:4:11:4:7:9:6
Female characters per subgroup: 14:5:20:6:15:15:19

So, no correlation between female characters and subgroups.

Justice League Dark, Suicide Squad and Legion of Superheroes all have 3 female characters that are drawn sexually.  No other comics had a higher number of sexually drawn characters.
Justice League Dark had 4 female characters as love interests, this is more than any other title.

As for subgroups:
The Justice League books had the most number of female characters (20).
The Green Lantern books had the least number of female characters (5).

As for which books has female characters drawn sexually and/or as a love interest.. here is the list:
Subgroup         Title                                   Sexual?     Love interest?
Batman             Batman: The Dark Knight    Yes           Yes
Batman             Birds of Prey                      Yes           Yes
Batman             Catwoman                          Yes           Yes
Batman             Nightwing                           Yes           Yes
Batman             Red Hood                           Yes           Yes
Green Lantern   Green Lantern Corps          Yes            Yes
Green Lantern   GL: New Guardians            Yes           Yes
Green Lantern   Red Lanterns                      Yes           Yes
Justice League   Aquaman                           No            Yes
Justice League   DCU Presents                    Yes           Yes
Justice league    Green Arrow                     Yes            Yes
Justice League   JLI                                    No             Yes
Justice League   Mr Terrific                        No             Yes
Justice League   The Flash                          Yes            Yes
Justice League   Wonder Woman                Yes            Yes
Superman          Superboy                          Yes            Yes
Superman          Supergirl                           Yes             No
The Dark           Animal Man                       No              Yes
The Dark           Frankenstein                      Yes            Yes
The Dark           Justice League Dark           Yes            Yes
The Dark           Resurrection Man              Yes            Yes
The Dark            I, Vampire                         Yes            Yes
The Edge           All Star Western                 Yes            Yes
The Edge           Blackhawks                       No                 Yes
The Edge           Stormwatch                       Yes                Yes
The Edge           Suicide Squad                    Yes                Yes
The Edge           Voodoo                             Yes                 Yes
Young Justice    Blue Beetle                          Yes                 Yes
Young Justice    Legion Lost                         Yes                 Yes
Young Justice    Legion of Superheroes         Yes                 Yes
Young Justice    Teen Titans                          No                   Yes


Titles with no female characters drawn sexually or as a love interest:
Subgroup          Titles
Batman               Batgirl, Batman, Batwing, Batwoman
Green Lantern     Green Lantern
Justice League    Captain Atom, The Fury of Firestorm, The Savage
                          Hawkman
Superman          Action Comics, Superman
The Dark           Demon Knights, Swamp Thing,
The Edge           Deathstroke, Grifter, OMAC, Stormwatch
Young Justice    Hawk and Dove, Static Shock

Next post will feature my thoughts and musings on what this all means.  Or as otherwise known, the conclusions.

A note:  This may well make you lose faith in the entire thing, but I figure I should confess - my maths isn't very good.  I've gone over and over the figures (done using excel - it's a godsend) and I think that mathematically speaking, they make sense.  But now my brain is a bit fried so if you notice a glaring error in the results please tell me!  Then I will redo them.


I can send the findings as put into an excel chart to anyone who wants them.

Analysing the role of women in the new DC Universe - part 1

All the furore about the treatment of Starfire and Catwoman in the  DC relaunch got me to thinking about about how female characters were presented in the new DC Universe.  If you only read the reviews of Red Hood and Catwoman you’d think that the DC books were a hotbed of misogyny.  I started pondering if this really was the case – certainly the books I read seemed to treat their female characters fine. 

Then the thoughts expanded and expanded and lo and behold, I came up with an idea of doing a bit of research onto how women were introduced in the new DC 52.

NB: I couldn’t have put this together without the help of Eyz, theyallfalldown and JimmyMcG.  Major major thanks to these guys who re-read a lot of comics for me and answered my questions about the women in the books.

So, onto the work.  I summarised the research project thus:

“Basically, what I am interested in finding is how the major female characters are portrayed in their first pages of the new comics (the number 1s), mostly centring around whether they are presented sexually or not”

I asked my co researchers to report on the following:

A description of how the major female characters are introduced in every new DC book.

I am looking for things like -

State of dress

Style of art (tits and ass aka Starfire vs normal proportions aka Power Girl or Wonder Woman)

How they are described by other characters (If applicable)

How they describe themselves (if applicable)

If they are introduced as being in relationship, flirting or something else romantic/sexual.

I wanted to know if the characters were drawn overtly sexual as I feel that could indicate a sexist treatment.  I also wanted to know if they were introduced with a reference to their physical looks, or as the partner of another character, because if they all were introduced like this, it would indicate that women in the new DCU exist to be primarily sexual beings and linked romantically with men (or women, I’d be interested in seeing if any women were introduced as lesbians too).  I term this phenomenon, the 'love interest'.

I requested that the reporters look at only how the character is presented on the first page they appear, not in the rest of the book – I believe this is important because the first impression we get of them generates an image of the character that is difficult to shake off in later times.  Considering that this takes place in a relaunch, it is entirely reasonable to suspect that DC wanted the readers’ first view of a character to be the thing that hooks you in, that scene that tells you all about them and who they are.  I think the way the character is represented in their first scene is indicative of how DC views them and their role in the new status quo.

I specified major characters and I explained that major should be taken to mean:
Female superheroes and supervillains
The women who have historically been partners of a hero/villain (e.g. Iris West)
Any notable female sidekicks (whether new characters or old)
Plus those women we know from the old DC who may only have cameo (like Power Girl in Mr T).  Basically this equates to every female character excluding those existing in the background with a non speaking role, such as being a face in the crowd.

I gave examples of the following:

Selina Kyle was introduced by her breasts on the first page of her comic (very sexual)

In Teen Titans, Cassandra Sandsmark was introduced by Tim describing her as gorgeous (not sexual, but definitely introduced with an emphasis on her looks).

In Mr Terrific, Power Girl was drawn normally, but wearing just a t-shirt in Mr Terrific's apartment, implying she's been intimate with him (i.e. introduced as being in relationship/fling)

In Wonder Woman, we first saw Diana in bed, naked (but I don't think this was done in a sexually ogle-y manner).

After some queries I sent all reporters the following:

As a reminder about what I want - I am not so much interested in the value judgement we put on the images, e.g. whether or not they are sexist, more about what they show, as I mentioned below.

Your reports don't have to be really long - a  few lines will do, but if you want to explain your reasoning that's also fine.  Basically I am looking to discover what the DCU says about women, not assume I know what it says and then try to prove my hypothesis.  So, we need to look at the books with an open mind.

What I want to do is look at how the women are presented and then extrapolate about what this means for representations of women in the new DCU.   i.e. are they introduced as sexual/romantic beings, is the emphasis on their looks and/or their sexual relationship to them men around them. I intend to make generalised commentary and possibly do some statistical work too. 

I realise that the methodology isn’t completely robust, there’s a lot of human bias coming into play in everyone's reports.  This skews the results so without a really strict marking scheme and formal framework in which to work in, the reports from each person aren’t completely comparable.  However, if someone would like to take the findings and build on them to do a better study, please do!  Just let me know what you find OK?

The reason for asking other people to help was because I a) couldn’t afford each new DC title and b) didn’t have the time to report on all of them.

The type of reports submitted varied in style, some reports gave me a bullet point list, others gave me prose talking specifically about how the women were presented, others gave me mini reviews of each comic.  I tried to extract the relevant information from each report and put it all into an excel table where I then did some nifty sorting according to group of titles and the results of each question. 

N.B: Stating that the introduction of women has a sexual or romantic overtone, does not mean they are misogynistic or sexist.  It is perfectly possible to portray a female character in a relationship with someone else and not have it be sexist, and it is perfectly possible to portray a woman in sexual manner without it being misogynistic.  Determining whether or not the introduction of women was sexist or not wasn’t the point of this study.  What I wanted to discover was if there was an overarching similarity in the way the women were introduced in order to find out what the cultural discourse surrounding women new DCU is (and see if there is a set discourse).

So, onto the findings!  Or, see next post. Conclusions coming up in a third post. :)