A cover from upcoming Justice League: Generation Lost

[icon_uk]

Now, normally I'm a little dense in spotting some of the more complex or abstract forms of sexism. One of the benefits of being a regular here is that I hope I've gotten better at it...



However, in this case, even for me it's sort of hard to miss.

Courtesy of Newsarama



That's just.... all kinds of wrong....

Also a quote which reminds me why I have so little time for Judd Winick (though I know many do have time for him, and mazel tov to them)

Nrama: Another character who recently came into Generation Lost is Bruce Wayne. You've written both Bruce and Dick, and I know you've said before that Dick has a little more humor to him. How is it writing Bruce as part of the JLI, surrounded by characters who make readers laugh?

Winick: Something I've always said about Dick Grayson is that when he's fighting the bad guys out in the field, there's no joking going on. He's not quipping. As Batman, Dick Grayson knows the role he has to play. But when he's around his friends, people that he knows, he makes jokes. He's still Dick Grayson, and I treat him like that. I got to do that a lot in Power Girl.

But when Bruce shows up, it's a different thing. He's not much older than these characters, but for them, it's almost like, "Dad's home." They have reverence for him. They know what he's capable of and they know his dedication.

It's the "when he's fighting the bad guys out in the field, there's no joking going on. He's not quipping" that I think I take some issue with, Dick is still very prone to quipping IMHO, and that's as it should be; His Batman is the Batman HE created, not Bruce's Batman.

Though this is part of my dislike of Dick continuing as Batman, I'm not sure does the character THAT many favours. Aside from him having no unique identity, in groups shots of DC characters he now is less likely to appear, since two Batmen is confusing and Bruce has precedence.

Comments

[sadoeuphemist]

Seriously not seeing how this is sexualized. Batman is in a position of power over Wonder Woman, yes, but I am not seeing any sexual overtones in the picture.

[schmevil]

It's not just me who's seeing it. Something about the legs and hands? It's similarity to past sexualized bondage images? idk it's late and I'm past being able to brain at this point.

[sadoeuphemist]

Still not seeing it, sorry. I can't really see someone being tied up like that as part of BDSM, it just looks so ... sloppy. The position of her legs comes across somewhat as "helpless girly kicks" which is sexist, yes, but not particularly sexual.

[icon_uk]

As you say, "sexist" doesn't have to involve any aspect of "sexual" so BDSM doesn't really have to feature.

This is Wonder Woman in a very submissive position, against her will, and by her own unique signature superheroic accessory. It just comes across as... demeaning.

[sadoeuphemist]

I agree, I'm just curious why some people are attributing a sexual element to it.

warning, potential triggers discussed

[greenmask]

For one thing, sexism (which you seem to have agreed to in the comment above) extremely often leads to the objectification of women, the idea that bitches just be there for lookin' hot, that the point of a woman is basically how she can please you or others sexually before anything else.

If a woman is tied up, people will associate that (often through jokes) with bondage or rape. As we have seen in this thread. As we know from Wondy's origin - if she's bound by a man, she has no power. If a woman is found incapacitated, there is no guarantee that she will not be raped. See college jokes about drunk girls, see "the Central Park jogger". See a million years of woman-as-chatel, and kidnap victims being "fallen women". Rape may be about power and not sexual partnership, but it is about seeking power through sex and as such, is sexual.

Tying up a woman on a cover, having a very powerful man in control of her and showing her to not enjoy it, having her flail ineffectually - it is asking too much to not have a large number of viewers be reminded of all the horrible things they know about sexism, rape, sexualisation, and power differentials.

Re: warning, potential triggers discussed

[sadoeuphemist]

Well it sounds like you're saying that power differentials between men and women are inevitably going to be viewed through the framework of sex, that is, literal sexual intercourse. So sexism and sexualization are basically synonyms, that the presence of the first necessitates the latter. And I agree with that to an extent, but it doesn't really jive with the common usage of the terms, and - I haven't really thought this out thoroughly, this is just a vague feeling I have - it feels really, idk, nihilistic(?) to have to attribute sexual overtones to every scene where a man captures a woman, or ties up a woman, or whatever.

Re: warning, potential triggers discussed

[greenmask]

Common usage of terms are often a bit full of crap though, aren't they?

I mean, I haven't thought much yet on whether I do think that sexism and sexualisation are mostly BFFs, but it makes sense to me right now. I don't think it's inevitable, but I think power differentials being viewed sexually is very, very common, and especially in superhero comics where the men = muscular and the women = T&A.

I'll say though, that I'm not attributing it to every scene where a man captures a lady - just this one, right now. Something about this picture has galvanised these thoughts, and I think that that's valid.

Re: warning, potential triggers discussed

[sadoeuphemist]

Yeah, I don't think the answer can simply be, there's a man and he has tied up a woman, that's all. That's why I'm curious as to what it is in this particular picture that comes off as sexualized to people.

Re: warning, potential triggers discussed

[greenmask]

OK, how about, there are no de-sexualised markers in this image.

Re: warning, potential triggers discussed

[sadoeuphemist]

Huh, that's a pretty interesting thought, I'm going to go ponder on that.

One thing that does come across as de-sexual to me is, Batman's not even focused on Wonder Woman, he's just staring straight ahead.

Re: warning, potential triggers discussed

[greenmask]

Doesn't work for me. This is Bruce after all, Mister hide-my-emotions. Also, "I don't even have to pay attention to these babes under my power because I am just that much of a baaaad playbooooyyyy" is a long name for a trope that surely exists.

Re: warning, potential triggers discussed

[greenmask]

And also actually, he looks like he's steeling himself. "This is for your OWN GOOD, Diana"

Re: warning, potential triggers discussed

[sadoeuphemist]

I actually can't read the expression on his face at all, it just looks like he's hosed up or something.

Re: warning, potential triggers discussed

[greenmask]

Even worse! What could a hosed up Batman do??

It's just.. skeevy to me.

Re: warning, potential triggers discussed

[sadoeuphemist]

I'm trying to think what would constitute a de-sexual marker now. My first thought was if Wonder Woman was actively fighting against giant Batman, but it would be kind of odd to classify agency as de-sexual.

Then again, maybe it makes perfect sense, hrmmm.

Re: warning, potential triggers discussed

[greenmask]

You might be on to something there, actually.

Re: warning, potential triggers discussed

[sadoeuphemist]

It's very Dworkin, yeah?

I remember reading a quote somewhere lamenting the fact that we haven't managed a truly sex-positive feminism; if you manage one, the other is inevitably lacking.

Now I'm just depressed.

Re: warning, potential triggers discussed

[greenmask]

Don't worry, there's still time! In the universe!

I think it's possible to be a sex-positive feminist on a personal level, as in, how you manage your own relationships (let's discount the possibility of wishful thinking here, OK??), but massively hard to attain large-scale in the current world.

Still, the more we try and fail, the better guidelines we lay for tha keeds.

Re: warning, potential triggers discussed

[schmevil]

This is a great thread.

[whitesycamore]

Still not seeing it, sorry. I can't really see someone being tied up like that as part of BDSM, it just looks so ... sloppy.

Doesn't a lot of bondage porn feature people tied up in ways that would never work in real life? I'm not saying that this is supposed to be bondage porn, just that inaccuracy isn't exactly a mark against that possibility.

[sadoeuphemist]

Okay, bondage derail: one of the features of bondage porn is this intricacy to the bondage, what knots are used, what is tied to what, the specific position the person is forced into. Because it's about control, right, so it typically "micromanages." The cover isn't implausible, it's just boring. It's just the lasso looped around her multiple times.

[whitesycamore]

Because it's about control, right, so it typically "micromanages."

Oh, I know! It's precisely because I hear people endlessly complaining about sloppy knots etc. in *actual* bondage porn that I got the impression that inaccuracies were commonplace.

Me, I just tend to go "ooh, a tied up guy. Hot," and that's the end of it. But my interests are heavily skewed towards the DSM part of the spectrum, and the B is just mildly diverting window-dressing to me.

[angelophile]

You asked why people considered this image sexist. They've explained. You acknowledge it's sexist, but now start talking about questioning how it's sexual. The goalposts don't need to move. Many members are saying they find the image sexist. You acknowledge it's sexist. Continuing to argue the point or shift the argument can act as silencing to other members.

[sadoeuphemist]

Nnnnooooo, I'm pretty sure this whole time I've been asking why people think the image is sexualized.