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

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.

Re: warning, potential triggers discussed

[greenmask]

I enjoyed it too!

Re: warning, potential triggers discussed

[whitesycamore]

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.

Oh god, so truthy.

I totally get what sex-positive feminism is *trying* to do, but it's most vocal proponents so often come across as a privileged minority who are far too keen on dismissing the unpleasant experiences of others.

And I say this as a lady who is very, very into sex and men and rock n' roll and all that jazz...

Re: warning, potential triggers discussed

[greenmask]

I find it's often hard to tell if sex positivists (who label themselves as Sex Positivists, specifically) are just in favour of sex, or in favour of people being at peace with their own sexuality (which may be conservative, or vanilla, or sparse, or something that is a private matter). I'd imagine that, like feminism, it's a term that means way different stuff to different people. Stupid language!

I get that people who like to have more sex than is considered average, and outside traditional guidelines will likely have more investment in the political idea of sex positivity, of course. But.. yeah, it's suuuuuper tricky to set down guidelines that can cover EVERYONE when "society" as a whole is so varied and mired in all that historical blahblahblah!