scans_daily | Catwoman's Origin: Also Multiple Choice (but some choices are better than others)

Entry tags:

Catwoman's Origin: Also Multiple Choice (but some choices are better than others)

Recently, the issue of Catwoman's origin came up. Specifically, the post-Crisis Y1 retcon that she was a prostitute, inspired by "real man" Batman to dress up like a loony and follow in his footsteps, or something; the subsequent Zero Hour retcon to something much better; and the innumerable other retcons that ignored the Zero Hour retcon in favor of Miller's take, only more XTREEM, adding rape, underaged victimization, etc etc.

And since everything is more clear with scans, I thought I'd post those two different takes, so everybody can see the contrast for themselves.

Here's the first we see of prostitute!Selina, in the ever-famous BATMAN: YEAR ONE.

Bruce doesn't do totally awesome and Holly and some of the other girls join the fight, causing Bruce to whack Holly, so Selina jumps in. Literally.

That's all we get of her there; Bruce runs off and Selina doesn't show again until two issues later.

Selina and Holly show up at the scene to rubberneck, while Batman and a siamese cat hide out from the cops. Bats fights his way out, clobbering a dude for shooting at the cat. It's unclear how much of this Holly and Selina see, or what they think about it - the extent of their presence or commentary is this:

A month later, Selina decks a guy who's probably supposed to be her pimp (the same guy who was authoritatively hassling Holly earlier when Bruce interfered).

Then a month after that, she jumps inexplicably out a window.

... why on earth did Brubaker like Holly?

Quite some time after that, Selina is inexplicably contemplating possible wealthy targets for theft.

The place she decides to hit, Batman is already at for recon. For no clear reason, she just hops around out front clawing the shit out of people until everyone is down, which is significantly more showy and wasteful than simply scratching one guy in the privacy of his room in proper cat burglar style.

(That's Batman on the roof she's seeing there.)

The only fallout we see:

"Cat burglaries"? Yeah, no. Beating the shit out of everybody in the entire place and then walking out in broad moonlight with valuables under your arm is not "cat burglary," by any stretch of the imagination.

Aaaaand.... that's it. That's the full extent of the New Origin Of Catwoman.

Um. The hell, Miller? In what universe was that Selina? I mean, besides yours, obviously.

Now, Selina as a prostitute is really problematic in and of itself; that's my feminism-informed opinion there. You will find many other feminsts out there who strongly disagree (though the question of being wholly inspired by Batman remains). Sex work, and the portrayal thereof (particularly by people not involved in the trade), is one of the messiest tangles in a messy, tangled movement.

However, here's my biggest thing about this. Even before I'm a feminist, I am a storyteller - and on that count, even above and beyond the gender issue of it, Selina as a prostitute is utter fail because it is simply bad storytelling. It does not make sense! Selina is a cat burglar. Prostitute to cat burglar is no way a logical shift. (And make no mistake, it is very much a shift - she stops being a prostitute and starts being a master thief. This is not an addition to her life or expansion of her habits, this is a complete track-jumping reinvention.) What the hell did seeing Bruce inspire her to change about herself? To step outside the law? Little late for that. To go ahead and take what she wanted from the world, openly expressing her contempt of those who possess the riches she can easily pluck from them? From what we see of Miller's professional domme, she's got that more than covered with her day job. To do something expressive and physical and active with her body? Come on! Even Miller's weirdass take on her here where being Catwoman is all about getting to claw people's faces or some stupid shit like that isn't anything her S&M clients don't offer.

Selina is a sassy, independent thrillseeker and lover of luxury who believes she deserves what she can earn with her unique skills, regardless of what the law says about it. What part of that profile, which of those needs was not already being met by her sex work that being Catwoman was a remarkable improvement on? Assuming, of course, the most favorable interpretation of Miller's prostitute!Selina. If she was freer, safer, and more in control of her life as Catwoman than as a pro, we're right back to indisputable sexist "sex crime victim fights back" tropes (which we were anyway post-Miller, of course, but I'm trying to be thorough, here).

And then there's the skillset itself. Selina's, so impressive and masterful that it can only have been a lifelong effort, is that of the thief: stealth, lock- and pocket-picking, acrobatics, specialized tool use (crampons, glass-cutters, d-cel), and, at this point in her canon, big cat taming - things that one learns for the express purpose of theft, develops through a repeated reliance on theft, or turns to theft as a result of possessing. None of which makes any sense from prostitute!Selina, who never needed or intended theft to be her main source of income and self-satisfaction prior to seeing Batman and most assuredly did not possess the time or resources to master between first seeing Batman and becoming the Catwoman who so easily vexed him.

Not to mention what it does to the romance - nothing says "equal partner" like "would never have found my true calling without following in your shadow," amirite?

To our rescue, though, thankfully, comes Moench and the post-ZH retcon. He starts, appropriately enough, with Selina's early childhood.

Selina is a bit of a problem child, unsurprising from a girl whose mother commited suicide and whose father has not really ascended from his drunken haze since. Her teachers stress that she's smart, and loves gym class (particularly acrobatics), but just doesn't make an effort or engage with anyone.

Her dad doesn't care, exactly. He basically can't. Eventually, Selina finds him dead too, and just walks out of the house, leaving the door open and letting the dozens of cats scatter to the four winds.

She gets caught within a week.

Shockingly, she does not adjust her attitude. She does sneak around a lot, though, and learns the alarm code.

She gets strapped for that, then chucked in solitary confinement in the attic. Which is not even remotely an obstacle for young Selina, but does manage to piss her off.

The director hasn't been finessing the finances so much as cheerfully and blatantly butchering them, putting less than forty percent of the hundreds of thousands in funding from the state to the actual institution and pocketing the rest. Selina confronts her with this knowledge... in very adolescent style, with no clear plan, just a sort of thoughtless implied blackmail. This gets her chloroformed and dropped in the river.

Doesn't stop her, though.

She takes the director's ill-gotten expensive jewelry, turns off the alarm and tells the other kids to scatter, and sets off into Gotham, alone.

(I like how Moench takes a moment here to try to reconcile that Miller scene a bit; the visual of those panels specifically has a lot of traction and has been repeated often, and incorporating instead of trying to bury it was a smart move. Not effective, sadly, but still smart.)

She goes on to have a few tussles with Batman, who can often styme her thefts but never manages to bring her in, and the story finally catches up with the present day, and a Selina who is everything her younger self wanted to be; comfortable, rich, sought after more than seeking... the ultimate cat.

See, now that actually makes sense as a Catwoman origin, and I'd ask where all the sexism went, but you know what? I don't really miss it.

Cooke, Moore and Brubaker did, apparently, but that's a different story, which I have no stomach for telling. Y'all will have to get someone else to take on *that* particular headache.

Scans from BATMAN #404-407 (collected in BATMAN YEAR ONE of course) and CATWOMAN #0 (eight and a third pages of twenty-four).

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only | Expand All

HOMG. I had actually just scanned some Y1 bat/cat "moments" and here you go posting it.

Frank Miller's Catwoman origin. Here's the thing. It's not bad that she's a prostitute, I for one am certainly not offended by that, however, what offends me is that that's Miller's way of doing dark and bad! femme fatales. It's that idea that she sees Batman and it "saves" her from her life of prostitution. I just have problems with Miller's idea of women. (This notion that bad grrrl = prostitute (see Sin City)). You don't get very many Carrie Kellys in the bag.

Sex work, and the portrayal thereof (particularly by people not involved in the trade), is one of the messiest tangles in a messy, tangled movement.

So definitely agreed.

However, having said that, I do think she fits very well as a domme or a Madam coz, well, she kinda is a dominatrix.

But I don't think it's anti-feminist that she's inspired by Batman and decides to don her leather outfit and whip, as we see in the other origin. I mean, he's a "hero", many people in the Batuniverse are inspired by him. I think it further clinches the tie between them.
(Those are my jumbled thoughts and I know you never said it is anti-feminist for origin 2, but just differentiating btwn the two, if that makes sense).

What ameliorates the MILLER!ORIGIN! for me on this point is the role they play in each other's costumed beginnings. It's after tangling with Selina and her pals that he sits in front of the window, wondering how to make his enemies fear him, then it's after seeing Batman that Selina is inspired. Still problematic, still too much Frank Miller REAL!MAN!, sure, but forming a story-bond between them and having the future Catwoman be part of his origin in a subtle way. Year One is full of Miller's best and worst tendencies as a writer, I shall go on about this sometime and place it's a-called for. ;)

That's the thing: there has to be a way that Bat and Cat are intrinsically linked to one another. Is Miller's way the right way to do it, though?

While I am a huge fan of Year One on it's own, as an artistic achievement that showcases his best and worse tendencies as an artist? No. It's not a good way to do it. But it's a way, it's interesting, and it's something. (Also, the bit with the cat is great, will talk later on this, put it down on your calendar;) ) I do however LIKE that his scrap with Selina made him put on the costume, but she could have been a little less slavish in her own costumed Miller beginnings. ;)

Gah, so torn on this topic and so, so hazy today. Very much seconding that I do not see Selina as a sex worker as a problem in itself but I have a various load of problems with how it's been HANDLED. (Frankly, more than Miller's straight up I find the Cooke take on it in Selina's Big Score absolutely awful, and Mindy Newells utterly execrable Catwoman Mini collected as Her Sister's Keeper is a story I can only discuss in screams)...

will talk later on this, put it down on your calendar;)

Baby, just tell me what date to save!!

But I don't think it's anti-feminist that she's inspired by Batman

Yeah, for me it's the subtle difference between "inspired to be Catwoman" and "inspired to be Selina." In the ZH story, she puts on the mask and sort of steps into Bruce's world because of his example... but it's not her changing her entire life around, you know? If there had never been a Batman, she would still have been a world-class thief. She already knew who she was and she was already doing (and excelling at) the thing she loved and living a life that satisfied her; Batman changes the way she does what she does, and maybe how she thinks about it, but he doesn't change who she is.

Meanwhile in the Miller take, she just makes this dramatic ninety-degree turn in her life because of him - she would *never* have been anything like the person she was destined to be if not for Batman. That makes their relationship very, very different, and not at all one of equals.

It's like, there's growing up knowing you love animals and want to work with them, and then you meet a guy in college who works at a zoo, so you decide you'll be an animal nutritionist instead of a small animal vet like you were planning... and then there's growing up thinking you love architecture and then you meet a guy in college who works at a zoo, so you decide that you'll be an animal nutritionist instead of becoming a civil engineer like you were planning. The first makes perfect sense and is actually a very good start for a love story, the second starts tripping alarm bells.

I agree with you, and I like the second story much, much better. The second feels like Selina to me, the first... well I don't know who she's supposed to be but she's not the Catwoman I know and love.

That said, however, I have to agree with the above poster who said that dominatrix and madam are roles that make sense for Selina, though I must add that they fit as side ventures not central to who she is or what she does. And handled correctly, I think that element can not only not diminish her feminist credentials, but instead enhance them.

How so? Because a prostitute or call girl is paid to pleasure men or allow them to use her for their pleasure, and that's something I cannot see Selina allowing to happen to her. Same with the concept of her as a rape victim, it doesn't work because she'd be a corpse first and probably so would be at least one or two of her attackers --it would take more than one, that's for sure. She'd fight to the death before allowing a man to take power over her and her body.

A professional Domme, however, is something else entirely. A Domme is paid by men to tie, beat, torture, and humiliate them, and aren't allowed to even touch themselves without express permission. The power is completely in the hands of the woman, and often there isn't even sexual contact involved. If the Domme chooses, she might have the man service her, but that's at her discretion and it's always with the male in the subservient role. If she touches pr pleasures him at all, it's in a context akin to petting a good dog or giving them a treat for performing a trick on command. She is the Mistress, he the slave. The power dynamic is one way only.

That's a role I can see Selina taking as a hobby, a side source of income that allows her to take out her aggressions on willing males who pay her for the privilege of her hurting and humiliating and dominating them. It makes sense for her. Likewise, I can see her taking the role of madam for the simple fact of recognizing that prostitution is always going to take place, and that someone could do a lot of good by providing a place where the women are protected and their interests looked after. Much like the progressive attitude on teen sex is "well if you're going to do it anyway at least take this condom and be safe", her attitude on prostitution is "well if you're going to do it anyhow, do it here where I can keep an eye on you and prevent trouble".

In those scenarios, she's in control. Men are her mice, and she's the cat. And that's how it should be.

How so? Because a prostitute or call girl is paid to pleasure men or allow them to use her for their pleasure, and that's something I cannot see Selina allowing to happen to her.

All right. Please excuse me for being hazy and rambling today, but I feel like jumping in on this. While in a lot of ways I agree that Domme-on-the-side is probably the BEST way to view what Selina was doing in the year-one era, Miller's text aside, (Though you can read it around the cracks), while I do think it fits her personality to be a sometime pro-domme and a cat-burglar in the making, other forms of sex work shouldn't necessarily be interpreted that way. And really, there is nothing in Miller's take besides MILLER'S WRITING THIS to indicate she's anything besides a pro-domme. But even if she was? Whatever your own views on sex work that involves "actual sex", that sex workers are paid to "be used" while pro-dommes are taking on another role is problematic. Pro-dommes are being paid to pleasure by those who want that service just as other sex workers are. Sex workers are individual human beings, and many of them, ALL of them that I know personally? Do see their work in far more independent terms. It's a complicated topic in feminism, but I think it's important to add that sex work need not, I strongly think SHOULD not be viewed as the users and the used in such a manner. And I don't think I'd necessarily put that out of Selina's purview. And even not as work she'd actually see as cat and mouse in just that manner... BUT! That's me, that's my view of and my personal knowledge of many sex workers as very independent, intelligent women who are fetishized, dealt with as victims even when they don't see themselves that way, treated as all sorts of things but rarely as just human beings, who have a job like everybody else. It's not something I really want out there and want to be seen dealt with in the hands of a typical fetishizing comic writer.

And in fact that's what really bothers me about the Cooke take. That she was ashamed, that she felt being a pro-domme was all beneath her DIGNITY. (And a big strong man took her out of it!) She could easily see it as the same cat and mouse game, and it COULD be viewed that way. But I'd say avoid it and keep it out of the hands of comic writers, because god it's been a forest of various wrong. ;)

And really, there is nothing in Miller's take besides MILLER'S WRITING THIS to indicate she's anything besides a pro-domme.

Well, apart from the pimp she punches out, while surrounded by other women strongly implied to also be beholden to said pimp, who are strongly implied by dress, pose and location to be streetwalkers.

Yes, though I'd argue she actually isn't implied in Y1 to be "On that streetwalker level" in her position and demeanor (which is problematic in itself, actually...) She really does read to me more as somebody with space on that street turning a dominatrix trade and paying for protection/space from somebody who also has a stable of streetwalkers, even in Miller's text.

Hm, y'think? I'm not sure I'd get that from this, though admittedly that's more my sense of "what Miller intended" based on his... Millerness. It seems like a read against the grain, much the way, say, Babs/Dinah is - the evidence may perfectly obvious to someone who knows or cares what a queer relationship is like, but it's Dixon, he meant them to be friends. Similarly, my sense of Miller's concept of prostitution (oy, SIN CITY) suggests that even if he portrayed that nuance, his intent was otherwise (and of course subsequent portrayals by other authors who followed his lead further reinforce the stereotyped streetwalker take).

(no subject)

zhinxy.insanejournal.com - 2009-05-01 20:49 (UTC) - Expand

I can't say I entirely disagree with you, you definitely make some valid points. And the very fact that men are willing to pay money does speak to the power the women hold sexually, but the fact remains that they're being paid to be used and to service men. They're being paid to submit. And while I'm sure there are plenty of women who have no problem with that and some who even enjoy it, just as there are those who enjoy being slaves or submissives, neither at all fit Selina to me. In my mind, for Selina it's Domme or nothing.

I did mention her being a madam / proprietor because I think she'd probably feel much as you do about other women doing "submissive" sex work, and be inclined to benefit women in the industry by providing them a safe place to work. Nor do I think she'd look down on them, per se, and certainly wouldn't treat them poorly in any way, but she would probably harbor a personal distaste for it and never want to do it herself.

To clarify, her attitude towards conventional prostitution is probably similar to my attitude towards sex with men -- I find it personally distasteful and something I'd never do, but I understand there's lots of people who quite like it and I'm obligated to respect their choices.

Hope that makes sense.

Actually, I find that women who are owners/operators,whether they've worked themselves or not, tend to have very little invested in taking care of the girls and much more interest in making money. There are benefits to working within a house or an agency, but there are plenty of others to going it solo.
The fact your draw differentiation between Pro-Domming and being a Madam and all the 'dirty icky whores' just shows you think hookers are degraded by default and you're trying to "elevate" Selina above that.

Your first paragraph drips of the most nauseating whorephobic slut-shaming woman-hating.

"Submissive" sex work - good god. There IS a benefit to doing your research before taling you know.

As for your comment - OBLIGATED to respect our choices? Then you obviously don't. And please don't flatter yourself we want your "respect" when you obviously think so little of us anyway.

but the fact remains that they're being paid to be used and to service men. They're being paid to submit.

A pro-domme is being paid to service TOO. And frankly, this is a very problematic distinction here. Heck, there are women who hire themselves out as professional subs without intercourse too. Does that fit the neat little bundle? It happens. To say that any women are always submitting and being used is VERY othering, and to act like no workers combine services, deal with a variety of clients who want a variety of things, as if trying to "elevate" Selina over it, or pro-dommes over it is actually a big part of the reason I just throw up my hands and don't want it dealt with in comics. It's always going to be some trashy part of her past, or something, because it can't be seen otherwise. There's always going to be screaming over it or this is fine but that is bad and icky icky icky. And who wants that noise. Even if Selina as a sex worker is fine and dandy with me and fits her character, I just can't stand how it's handled.

Even if Selina as a sex worker is fine and dandy with me and fits her character, I just can't stand how it's handled,/q>

EXACTLY. I think this is what we should be talking about and focusing on.

It just reminds me of male writer comes in, saves the woman, and it's all concluded with ice cream a la Full House. (Also see Harley's series...)

(no subject)

bluefall.insanejournal.com - 2009-05-01 22:15 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

lovedatjoker.livejournal.com - 2009-05-02 20:27 (UTC) - Expand

And really, there is nothing in Miller's take besides MILLER'S WRITING THIS to indicate she's anything besides a pro-domme

What about those sex workers who combine services, like me? Since I'm trained in BDSM I offer it as an optional extra. I always figured that was Selina's game.

I always figured that was Selina's game.

I actually never quite got that from the Y1 text exactly, though it's open to that interpretation and totally works for the character. I always kind of felt that Y1 did mark her out as a domme differentiated from the other workers, or seemed to, and is more problematic for it. Looking at Miller's other work, probably not, but just the text itself, not sure.

In all honesty, all I want to do is scream a torrent of abuse and vitriol at you and the crushing ignorance and prejudice you demonstrate here, but I'm going to try and keep it together.

You obviously have no idea how devtastatingly offensive what you've written here is. You also very painfully and obviously have absolutely no idea how the sex industry works.

As a hooker - I have been a pro-domme, a stripper, a peep show girl, a phone sex operator as well but right now I am someone who exchanges traditional sex for money - I NEVER, EVER "SUBMIT" TO MY CLIENTS. GOT THAT? NEVER. I don't care how many episodes of SVU you've seen or how many Sheila Jeffreys essays you've read, IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY.

Sex work is an exchange. It is a negotiation. We discuss with our clients what service they want, we make a decision, we receive cash and then we provide that service, depending on our personal boundaries. WE ARE IN CONTROL.
Within the room, we are ACTIVE, interactive and proactive. We guide the action. We never just "do" or "obey", unless it's in a specifically negotiated roleplay and then IT'S A ROLEPLAY. FFS.

Sex workers DO NOT ALLOW OUR CLIENTS TO TAKE POWER OVER OUR BODIES. We exchange a SERVICE. THAT'S what we sell. A SERVICE. Not our bodies. Not our souls. A SERVICE. That service can look like more things than you can probably imagine, from traditional sex to whacky sex to conversation to cuddles. In less than three hours I have a two hour booking with a paraplegic with whom I will not only have sex but talk, laugh, cuddle and kiss. It will be MY PLEASURE to spend time with this lovely, gentle, sweet-natured gentleman who values my time and company and who happily pays me for the service I provide.
That? Is the MAJORITY of experiences I have with my clients.

The power dynamic is NEVER one way, in ANY interaction. It's always an exchange, and no matter what BS you have been fed? In ANY form of sex work, the majority of the time the power is tipped in weight to the worker. We provide sex because that's what we agree to do. There is no loss of power in that, not inherently. That you think there is is supremely whorephobic and even anti-feminist and woman-hating. Please, for the love of God, muster up some respect and empathy for the people whose experiences you presume to speak for before mouthing off.

Woah, woah, woah. The very fact that you're tempted to "scream a torrent of abuse and vitriol" might be an indication that you're posting in anger rather than providing a calm and balanced rational response. And to call me "whorephobic", anti-feminist", and "woman-hating" is quite frankly insulting. If that's not what you consider "abuse and vitriol", I'd be curious to know what is.

And you're just plain wrong when you say submission has nothing to do with it. I am in the service industry myself, not as a sex worker, but regardless, the very definition of a service is something you submit to do for another person. Every time I show up for work, I submit to what my managers want AND what the customer wants. And I do it because I'm compensated for doing so. If I was not submitting and instead under my own power and discretion, there's surely better things I'd be doing with my time. But I need the money, so I parcel out a portion of my time to practice this submission in order to receive the monetary compensation. If I was doing it for my own desires, I'd be a volunteer and not an employee.

That's why they call it work. And while it seems obvious you've dealt with a lot of people who are genuinely "whorephobic" or whatever other slurs you've used for me, I'd quite appreciate you not transferring your offense with them onto me simply for recognizing that fact.

Do. Not. Project. YOUR. Experiences. Of. The. Service. Industry. Onto. Me.

You have never done my job YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT IT INVOLVES.

Get it? You do not know.

And you are whorephobic. Everything you say drips with it.

Also:
http://www.derailingfordummies.com/#angry

Congrats!

(no subject)

kitty_tc_69.insanejournal.com - 2009-05-03 01:55 (UTC) - Expand

Mod Note:

schmevil.insanejournal.com - 2009-05-03 13:55 (UTC) - Expand

When having a disagreement with a member of a marginalized group, it is not appropriate to assert that they just don't get it. Please refrain from dismissing others' positions and opinions.

Submission is about a mindset, not an activity.

Learn what words mean.

(no subject)

kitty_tc_69.insanejournal.com - 2009-05-03 23:24 (UTC) - Expand

no matter what BS you have been fed

That you think there is is supremely whorephobic and even anti-feminist and woman-hating.

You need to respect the positions and opinions of others, even when you profoundly disagree with them. Do not dismiss other members' positions as 'BS' or 'mouthing off', or call them 'woman-hating', which will, in all likelihood, be read as an attack, and an attempt to shut down conversation. Do say: "I disagree with your position, and think it verges on anti-feminist territory for these reasons."

Batman changes the way she does what she does, and maybe how she thinks about it, but he doesn't change who she is.

Exactly.

Meanwhile in the Miller take, she just makes this dramatic ninety-degree turn in her life because of him - she would *never* have been anything like the person she was destined to be if not for Batman. That makes their relationship very, very different, and not at all one of equals.</>

I don't know if equals is the right term here, b/c it's somewhat implying prostitute = unequal from rest of society (which of course we all know the unfortunate side is that yes, society does look down on prostitutes), but on the other hand I get what you are saying, that their relationship should be one that has commonality.

Not that they're not equals because she's a former pro, but that they're not equals in the way a parent and child or mentor and student will never be equals. If his influence causes her life to change completely, while her influence causes him, at best, to refine the path he's already been on his entire life and will continue to be on for the rest, that gives them an uneven power dynamic that's really unrelated to the particulars of what either of them were doing before and after.

But you're right, perhaps not the clearest choice of words.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only | Expand All