![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
I could have happily lived out the rest of my days without knowing about this. And I am quite literally forcing myself from breaking into a vicious and invective-filled rant about the sheer, grotesque double-standard that's being applied, here.
There are so many things I could say on this subject. So many things. And perhaps I will at a later date.
But I'll leave it with this. I'd much rather my daughter see this...
...than ever see that.
And, for those of you who consider such things, take a look at the banner on the Ms. cover. "Wonder Woman for President."
Do you really think it's a coincidence that Playboy chose this year, the issue for the month containing "Tsunami Tuesday," to run this particular pictorial? Do you really?
I can hear the WB wanks right now. "As long as it's tasteful...."
Bastards all. You've no idea the damage you've done. No idea at all.
- Mood:
very, very tired
Comments
I hope DC sues them.
That's really about it.
But I get the impression you're coming at this from another angle, one I'm missing- what exactly is "Tsunami Tuesday"? I've never heard of such a thing. Is it something US specific (I'm in the UK)?
I might be stepping over the line asking you this (and, fair warning, I'd take your answer to other blogs), but you've written this character so I have to ask. Does DC have any idea how much stuff like that hurts her credibility in her true target audience? That whole idea that she's a plaything for male readers and was created that way just makes it so hard to get women interested in her.
And do they realize that if her originally intended target audience took her seriously, she'd sell a lot better?
I honestly think DC/WB has no idea who her target audience is. I suspect, more often than not, they think she has none.
And as for those who say that Diana is a fetish character, 1) find me a superhero who isn't ("Spandex," says Mark Waid, "is a privilege, not a right.") and 2) how many of those people would burst a vessel, if not a vital organ, if Playgirl ran a similar cover/pictorial with a male, semi-erect model painted up as Batman?
I call bullshit.
Edited at 2008-01-15 04:32 am (UTC)
Hardcore DC fanboys. Oh, they're well aware.
Honestly, I can understand the outrage to a point but we rocketed past that point a while back. We have easily reached fanwank at this stage.
As a woman raised by a mother who owned tons of Wonder Woman comics, and kept Diana posters all over the house, I beg to differ. That awareness of Diana as being considered a "fetish" character did not enter my awareness until into adhulthood when I started reading research and meta on her character.
I know I'm not alone in this. She might have been considered a fetish icon early in the Golden Age, but to diminish her character with such a cavalier dismisssal and petty miscategorization is laughable. If I want to look at the core of the DC universe, the fundamental character that embodies heroism in the DC verse, I look at Diana. I don't look at Clark or Bruce. I look at Diana.
I saw that and...I got that aching, hollow sense of futility you feel when you realize that no matter how far women have come, no matter how hard you work to communicate effectively with the males of the species, no matter how much effort you put into written and spoken words trying to explain how something like this is really, really indicative of so much that's wrong with modern American society...
...it's pointless. Because it happened.
I'm a pro-porn feminist. I don't mind sexualization up to a point in comics. I never complained about Moondragon's costume back in the day when Jim Starlin was drawing her as wearing nothing but green dental floss.
But to take a feminist icon like Diana in an election year and sex her up?
FUCK YOU, PLAYBOY.
Yes.
Hey, you asked.
Yes, I did.
It's a fair cop.
(And don't talk to the audience.)
More and more, I wonder if they're right. Goddamnit.
Arrgh. I don't have time to properly think about this right now, which means I don't have time for a rant (or I'd be rabbiting on in my own LJ.)
I swear there are active elements in this country that want to put us back to the Dark Ages or worse, though. Another rant for another time, gotta get back to Shakespeare....
On one hand, you have a comic and character whose natural, inbuilt fanbase are women and men who like to see strong, intelligent women - who happen to be beautiful - kicking ass and taking names. On the other, you have all the marketing of the comic and character, which focuses on the fact that she's gorgeous. Advertise a sexpot and you attract people who want to see a sex-pot. The words' self-fulfilling prophecy' spring to mind.
Wonder Woman has the potential to be one of DC's biggest advantages when competing with Marvel for market share. Ask any layman on the street to name a male superhero and they'll list ones from both stables - Batman, Spiderman, Superman, Wolverine, maybe the Flash and the Hulk. But ask for a female superhero and what you get is Wonder Woman. There is no Marvel equivilant, no hero as deeply embedded in the public conciousness. The closest they have is Jean Grey, and she's not even the most famous of the X-Men.
Wonder Woman is a touchstone and a gateway for getting more people - more women - into comics. DC comics. She's a way to enlarge the pie, but that will only work if they stop trying to persuade the public at large that the title and character are all about catering to horny fanboys.
*sighs* I'm mortally afraid of what Warner Brothers will do to Wonder Woman in any big-screen appearances. Mortally. I keep having visions of 'Catwoman'.