I'm not going to go and rehash every single point that Hudson made in her article. Her points stand fairly strongly on their own, and I think her perspective gives them that much more impact. I can't possibly speak for female readers or fans myself. I can only speak as a male with what I'd like to think is a firm (if limited) understanding of what women might appreciate from their fiction.
I've heard the arguments concerning this, and I figured I'd address a few here. Forgive me if this gets sporadic, but it covers a few more points than the Superman article I wrote a few weeks ago...
"Women should be able to be portrayed as sexual beings. And they should be allowed to express that sexuality freely."
Hell, yes. I am more than in favor of that. But before you start reaching for the high five or making your pig noises, let me elaborate. This should be done as a further enhancement of characterization, not at the expense of it.
I have fought countless net wars defending She-Hulk's validity as a character and her honor versus the dreaded "s-word". Why must a woman be considered a slut simply because she chooses to have sex - and you know how the rest of that argument goes. Aside from the double standard, it's just a cheap, senseless joke to imply that being "easy" makes her less of a character.
But along similar lines, sexual freedom needs to be explored in a somewhat respectful manner. Dan Slott chose to cover She-Hulk's perceived promiscuity from a realistic angle, having her (and others) occasionally question her freewheeling activity as a sign of a potential problem. Of course, in the end, she still allows herself to engage in sexual activity, but within the context of the story(ies), there is a certain level of accountability. And really, it never even came up as much as people act like it did.
But my main point is that at the end of the day, the character isn't defined exclusively by their sexuality. You know, just like how it works in the real world.
RE: Starfire "Starfire is an alien. Why can't an alien have an alien view of things like sex?"
Again, yes they can. And I'd welcome a new, fresh, or even inventive take on a character.
But there should still be a character there. In particular, re-envisioned characters should have enough cues to appeal to their old fans while still offering something new to new readers.
What then is this new Starfire offering us in Red Hood and the Outlaws? T&A? All due respect, but that isn't a new thing. But on top of that, we get... well, very little else. What we were shown was a cold, detached, functionally disinterested woman whose only primary interests are wrecking people's #&*$ and having sex with the nearest available target.
That's nothing like the character that we have come to know and love. In fact, it misses one of the key elements of Kory's existence: passion. She has always been a passionate person. She fights ferociously, yes, but for her friends and for causes that she believes in. And yes, said passion translates into physical affection as well. But not as some half-interested, recreational tryst with the nearest appendage with a pulse.
To clarify this further, I'll cite the example of the Teen Titans animated series. The show made the choice to display the characters on the team as actual teens, most likely to be relateable to their target audience. But what's funny is that their version of Starfire still feels like Starfire. The core of the character, a positive, passionate, alien girl, remained and was, heaven forbid, entertaining. Heaven forbid any of the kids (or adults) that watched that show try to check her out in this new incarnation. They'll probably be left wondering what on earth happened to the character they thought they knew.
 |
| Remember that one ep where she bagged everyone in Titans Tower? Yeah, me neither. |
To add insult to injury here, this new comic version of Kory is literally a shell of how we remember her. According to the story here, Kory barely remembers her old teammates in the Titans as anything but a blur of memories, and looks at humanity in general as just a flash of sights and sounds. So she dehumanizes all of humanity, and then goes so far as to treat these unimportant, unmemorable life forms as sex toys. Man, that's compelling characterization.
If you really had to have an alien character fit a bill like this, why not use a new alien? Or heck, dig up Starfire's sister, Blackfire? She is literally the @-hole version of Starfire, and retooling her for this "team" would have made some sense. It would still be an empty, piss-poor character that I didn't care about, but at least it wouldn't be a mischaracterization of someone I do care about.
RE: Catwoman "Catwoman and Batman have 'done the deed' before. What's the big deal?"
An argument like this ignores the bigger picture. The issue of Batman and Selina's relationship isn't the problem here. It's more or less a matter of the presentation.
Unlike Starfire, I do see Selina as a bit more of an impulsive or sexual creature. So, in theory, if they wanted to "spice" her book up a little, then so be it.
But did we really need this? It's one thing to imply that Bruce and Selina have a sexual relationship. It's another to hint that it's a little kinky here and there. And it's another entirely to show them going at it, costumes and all, as the climax (pun intended) of her first issue. This isn't the time or place for this kind of explicit imagery. Especially not in a book that isn't specifically targeted to mature audiences.
I mean seriously, people. I usually have to turn off my Safesearch to find an image like this. But it's actually the last page of the book:
 |
| At least they were tasteful enough to leave out the prerequisite grunting noises... |
I've learned to overlook some of the larger oversights of the past decade. The killing and subsequent razing of the corpse of Sue Dibney comes to mind (again, all done without any sort of mature content warning). But as you continue to target older audiences, you alienate an entire younger generation that you could be reaching.
And that's to say nothing about the image you set in your books about females in general. It's like you either don't understand or don't care about the female demographic. What is a young woman... heck, any woman supposed to think when faced with what you present them with as an idealized female hero?
And forgive me, since I know there are likely many examples of less controversial and better rounded females making the rounds in some of your titles (more on this soon....). But are they being talked about right now? Are you even pointing to them as part of your press spin? Or are you trying to milk the "controversy" for as much publicity as you can?
"A new universe means characters should be allowed to be reinterpreted in new ways."
This is a reasonable point to make in some cases. The problem with this argument when used as a blunt force hammer is that it becomes a blanket statement for defending bad decisions with character choices. "It's a new world, so why can't people be empty, vapid shells of their former selves?" See? doesn't sound so logical and sensible when you put it that way.
I think the main issue that has come from the way females have been presented in several of these new titles is exactly what Hudson states: the women are not women. Yes, they've got the lady parts to prove it, but you know what I mean.
Let me speak on behalf of at least myself (if not what I would hope was a majority of the men on the planet) when I say that the oversexualized, free ranging image of a woman portrayed by so much of mainstream comics world (and specifically by DC in these titles) is not what I want in a woman. Not even a fantasy woman. And even if I did, I wouldn't necessarily want or expect that image to be displayed as the mainstream theme of a major publishing company.
At the end of the day, these are your characters belong to the company. They can and will do whatever they want with them. The readers, however, do have an attachment to them, and you as the writers, editors,etc. have an obligation to show them a level of respect.
There is a fine line between making things intriguing and making a spectacle of your stories just for the sake of doing it. All of the people touting how cool and great it is to see your characters whoring themselves out and mounting each other mid-page should not be the group you're attempting to reach in this new, dynamic universe you've been pitching. They will either get bored and abandon you or eventually force you to raise the stakes to the point where you alienate every other type of reader. Even if that remains profitable, wouldn't it be that much more profitable if you could appeal to both groups without completely abandoning one of them?
That's about all I have to say on the matter. For now, anyway. When I revisit this in Part 2, I'll talk about one of my favorite female characters, and why she somehow never seems to get the respect that she deserves. Seems to be a lot of that going around lately...
