glaurung | Entries tagged with feminism

So, I came across a post about queer themes in Wonder Woman, Wonder Woman's war-era sidekick Etta Candy, and Dr Wertham. Which was so riddled with errors that I just had to write a post of my own (because comments were not enough).

Wonder Woman started out as feminist propaganda. Kinky, queer, bondage-obsessed, with a very different from modern ideas 19th century kind of feminism (women are not equal but different from men and women should be in charge because they will do a better job), but nonetheless, feminist propaganda. The queer kinkiness was filtered and coded of course by being published in comic books for children in the 40's, but it was still undeniably there.

Wonder Woman's sidekicks and Diana Prince's friends were Etta Candy and the girls of Beeta Lambda sorority at Holliday college. They were part of that propaganda message - promoting women's colleges, women's education and independence, and the idea that any woman can be a heroine like Wonder Woman if she puts her mind to it. Etta and her girls were also (coded, filtered) gay or bi characters, modelled on women that Marston's bisexual partners had known in the women's colleges they attended and the women's college sororities they had belonged to.

However, Etta was never Wonder Woman or Diana's girlfriend, even in subtext. From day one, the Wonder Woman comic adopted a genderswapped version of the Superman-Lois Lane dynamic, with Diana infatuated with Steve Trevor, who was infatuated with Wonder Woman.

Marston and his female partners co-created Wonder Woman and co-wrote each story, but sold them under Marston's name. When Marston died, the editors at DC refused to hire his uncredited women co-writers, and instead handed the comic over to Robert Kanigher, a typically sexist man who had no truck with all this feminist stuff.

Kanigher jettisoned the feminist messages that had appeared in every story, jettisoned most of the bondage themes, and jettisoned Etta and her sorority sisters. He kept (and enhanced) the eclectic, magic-meets-sf-meets-mythology-meets-fairy tales setting of Paradise Island, and kept the Diana-Steve-Wonder Woman love triangle. Because the love triangle was boring as fuck, he set a lot of his stories on Paradise Island. Without Etta and company, and without queer women co-writing behind the scenes, the comic became completely heterosexual, despite being often set on an island populated only by women.

Fast forward to 1953, when psychiatrist Fredric Wertham published a screed against violence and sexuality in comic books (expanded into a book the following year), which he felt were the root cause of juvenile delinquency and of the sexual irregularities of his child patients. Wertham's primary targets were crime and horror comics, but he did devote a little space to superhero comics like Batman ("a wish dream of two homosexuals living together") and Wonder Woman ("for boys... a frightening image. For girls... a morbid ideal"). Wertham's book states that it's based on seven years of research, which might explain why he called out the Holliday girls in Wonder Woman, as "gay party girls, gay girls" - despite the fact that Holliday college had been dropped from the comics for six years by the time his book was published.

Wertham was successful in virtually exterminating crime and horror comics, but he didn't actually have all that much effect on superhero comics - Bruce Wayne and Dick Grayson continued sleeping in twin beds in the same room together long after Wertham, and in the case of Wonder Woman, the censoring of gay themes had already been done several years before he came along.

Sources: Seduction of the Innocent, The Secret History of Wonder Woman (both on my shelf), various comic nerd web sites, and my own personal knowledge from having read tons of Wonder Woman comics, including reprints of dozens from the war years and a few from the post-war, post-Marston era.

This was the first feminist anime I downloaded and watched. I did a writeup back in 2016 for an email list I'm on, but I forgot to post it here.

( Read more... )

All in all, it's good, and I am glad I watched it, but I will not ever be re-watching it. Semi-recommended.

The Library of Congress recently announced it had digitized all of its collection of the surviving newspapers published (and largely written by) Frederick Douglass.

One thing they call out in their announcement is Douglass's editorial in support of the 1848 Seneca Falls convention on women's rights. Douglass was one of the signers of the convention's "Declaration of Sentiments." There's a speech he gave in 1888 in which he talks about the Seneca falls convention forty years prior, where he says

"There are few facts in my humble history to which I look back with more satisfaction than to the fact, recorded in the history of the woman-suffrage movement, that I was sufficiently enlightened at that early day, and when only a few years from slavery, to support your resolution for woman suffrage. I have done very little in this world in which to glory except this one act—and I certainly glory in that. When I ran away form slavery, it was for myself; when I advocated emancipation, it was for my people; but when I stood up for the rights of woman, self was out of the question, and I found a little nobility in the act."

It's hard for me to tell if Douglass's excessive downplaying of his accomplishments was just the modesty that was expected of public speakers at the time, just the modesty he himself actually possessed, or if he felt he had to downplay his formidable resume because otherwise white society would regard him as a grandiose negro braggart.

I could not find a transcript of Douglass's 1848 editorial online, so I created one from the library's scan. I proofed this as well as I could. Original scan here.

Brace yourselves - pre-telegraph era prose style ahead.

The North Star
Rochester, July 28, 1848.

The Rights of Women.

One of the most interesting events of the past week, was the holding of what is technically styled a Women's Rights Convention, at Seneca Falls. The speaking, addresses, and resolutions of this extraordinary meeting, were almost wholly conducted by women; and although they evidently felt themselves in a novel position, it is but simple justice to say, that their whole proceedings were characterized by marked ability and dignity. No one present, we think, however much he might be disposed to differ from the views advanced by the leading speakers on that occasion, will fail to give them credit for brilliant talents and excellent dispositions. In this meeting, as in other deliberative assemblies, there were frequently differences of opinion and animated discussion; but in no case was there the slightest absence of good feeling and decorum. Several interesting documents, setting forth rights as well as the grievances of women, were read. Among these was a declaration of sentiments, to be regarded as the basis of a grand movement for attaining all the civil, social, political and religious rights of woman. As these documents are soon to be published in pamphlet form, under the authority of a Committee of women, appointed by that meeting, we will not mar them by attempting any synopsis of their contents. We should not, however, do justice to our own convictions, or to the excellent persons connected with this infant movement, if we did not, in this connection, offer a few remarks on the general subject which the convention met to consider, and the objects they seek to attain.

In doing so, we are not insensible that the bare mention of this truly important subject in any other than terms of contemptuous ridicule and scornful disfavor, is likely to excite against us the fury of bigotry and the folly of prejudice. A discussion of the rights of animals would be regarded with far more complacency by many of what are called the *wise* and the *good* of our land, than would be a discussion of the rights of women. It is, in their estimation, to be guilty of evil thoughts, to think that woman is entitled to rights equal with man. Many who have at last made the discovery that negroes have some rights as well as other members of the human family, have yet to be convinced that women is entitled to any. Eight years ago, a number of persons of this description actually abandoned the anti-slavery cause, lest by giving their influence in that direction, they might possibly be giving countenance to the dangerous heresy that woman, in respect to rights, stands on an equal footing with man. In the judgment of such persons, the American slave system, with all its concomitant horrors, is less to be deplored than this *wicked* idea. It is perhaps needless to say, that we cherish little sympathy for such sentiments, or respect for such prejudices. Standing as we do upon the watch-tower of human freedom, we cannot be deterred from an expression of out approbation of any movement, however humble, to improve and elevate the character and condition of any members of the human family. While it is impossible for us to go into this subject at length, and dispose of the various objections which are often urged against such a doctrine as that of female equality, we are free to say, that in respect to political rights, we hold woman to be justly entitled to all we claim for man. We go farther, and express our conviction that all political rights which it is expedient for man to exercise, it is equally so for woman. All that distinguishes man as an intelligent and accountable being, is equally true of woman; and if that government is only just which governs by the free consent of the governed, there can be no reason in the world for denying to woman the exercise of the elective franchise, or a hand in making and administering the laws of the land. Our doctrine is, that "Right is of no sex." We therefore bid the women engaged in this movement our humble God-speed.

More revolutionaries. ( Read more... )

I stumbled across this meme and got rather annoyed with the use of movie images for delivering the message. Surely, I thought, there have been enough awesome real life troublemakers of history?

While I was at it, I decided the heroines of that meme were far too white for my tastes. Not being musically inclined, I did not realize it was a quote from a song, so I changed the wording from good girls to nice girls because all my chosen heroines were good, but none of them are nice.

( Without further ado )

Feel free to steal high res versions from here

oursin likes to remind her readers, "secret history" is an overused marketing term for "actually quite well established history that people buying the book were maybe not acquainted with," but in this case it's definitely appropriate, as the history of Wonder Woman is inextricably tied to the polyamorous union of four adults who created her, and who did everything they could to keep their relationship an utter secret not just from the world but from their own children.

Various histories of Wonder Woman written by comics fans in this century have included details about William Marston's unconventional family and his fetishism for bondage, but all of them are frustratingly superficial and give little or no credit to his partners as co-creators, or to the political and social movements that influenced their creation of Wonder Woman.

Jill Lepore's book reveals that Wonder Woman, like all the writings attributed to William Marston, was a collaborative effort between Marston and his three partners, all feminists and suffragists like himself. Clues from college yearbooks and the like suggest that Elizabeth Holloway, Olive Byrne, and Marjorie Huntley were all bisexual and that the Marston family was not just polygamous but fully polyamorous. ( It is a truth universally acknowledged that bisexual women in want of children should find themselves an agreeable donor )
Overall, an excellent history not only of Wonder Woman, but also a look at one slice of the history of feminism in the years between the passage of suffrage and women's liberation, showing how there was never actually an end to activism and the push for greater equality. Recommended.

I sometimes drop into the

feminist community, trying to decide if I want to join it or not. Recently they had a huge discussion over there of BDSM -- the usual go-round of whether or not it's sexist for women to bottom to men, whether or not the sexuality of kinky people is politically incorrect, etc. Something said in this comment made me annoyed:

It is not anti-sex to wonder if ALL sex can possibly be good sex. I'm not being bigoted here; I like being dominated by my partner. It could just be that that's what I like. It could ALSO be that for some reason society's conditioning about women's place has made it into my bedroom. I think WHENEVER violence is being used, even if it's consensual, we have to question it. Maybe the answer we come up with is that it's totally fine, that it's individual preference, whatever. I just think that it would make things so much easier if we could at least agree that it's ok to look at the ways society affects our sexuality and to understand that very often our personal decisions about sex are influenced by society and can in some instances influence society.

Why is it that people think SM involves violence?

True, SM sex can get out of hand. In that way, it's just like vanilla sex. A fucked up person can start out making love and end up hurting or killing their partner. It's not the way they were having sex that's to blame, it's the fact that they were fucked up. Also true, SM relationships can involve emotional and physical abuse. Well, so can relationships between Quakers, or between Jainists. It's not the philosophy that makes a relationship abusive, it's the fact that the people in it are human beings, and human beings can be incredibly cruel to the people they love.

All that being said, I think SM is one of the most completely nonviolent activities humans engage in.

When someone stabs another person, that's violent. But when a doctor cuts another person's body open, that's nonviolent: it's medicine. Yes, it looks like violence, which is why many people, including myself, find it hard to watch documentaries of surgery, or scenes in movies that depict surgery (and why movie depictions of surgery are usually far more bloodless than the real thing). Likewise, falling on a sharp object which impales you is violent. But getting a body piercing is not violent, even though it involves being impaled by a sharp needle. Attacking someone with a razor is violent, but scarification is not. We know that there's a difference between unwanted physical injury and injuries that are wanted.

Prisoners of the American military whose feet get stomped on are the victims of violent torture. People who choose to wear high heels because they think it looks sexy may suffer just as much pain, and in the long term their feet may be just as damaged. We know there's a difference between unwelcome pain, and pain which we choose to inflict on ourselves because we see the benefit as worth the cost.

Rape is violent. Movies that depict rape are depicting violence. But what happens between the actors who create depictions of rape is not violence, and even if the depiction was done in one take, rational people don't accuse the actors of committing a violent act. Because rational people know the difference between real violence and pretend violence.

SM may pretend to be violent, but it actually isn't, because the injuries that happen in it are wanted and asked for, and the pain inflicted by it is chosen.

Current Mood: annoyed

We watched Alexander the other evening. An excellent movie. Not perfect, but certainly worth seeing.

morgan_dhu was trying to figure out why it had gotten so much bad press, and looked up some of the reviews from when it came out in theatres. And the reason turns out to be that while most American reviewers said they were OK with Alexander being portrayed as bisexual-on-the-gay-side, they had a big problem with him being so emotional. Men can fuck other men, it seems, but they can't cry, or be vulnerable. That's not manly, and God forbid that a great conquerer like Alexander should fail to be MANLY.

Never mind that having Alexander weep and show emotion is historically accurate (Plutarch did, after all, say "Alexander cried when he heard Anaxarchus talk about the infinite number of worlds in the universe. One of Alexander's friends asked him what was the matter, and he replied: 'There are so many worlds, and I have not yet conquered even one.'"). Never mind that the concept of masculinity=non-emotional is a product of the Victorian era, and prior to that men could weep and show their emotions without shame or stigma. Colin Farrell portrayed Alexander as a human being, instead of as a stick-up-the-butt he-man. There's nothing wrong with that, and the sooner the halfwits who review movies realize that, the better.

All of which reminded me of a very enraging moment on the "So you think you can dance" reality/talent show that

morgan_dhu has been watching lately. In the show's first episode, they aired footage from their initial cattle call auditions in New York and I forget what other cities. One of the male dancers, Anthony Bryant, was obviously extremely talented, but also quite femme (yes, straight men can be femmes, but that's a topic for another day). Halfway through his solo audition, he took out the sort of ribbon that rhythmic gymnasts use and danced with it. Nigel Lythgoe, the head producer/judge, let Anthony go on to the choreography and pairs half of the audition, but first he gave him a tongue lashing for bringing out the ribbon. He was looking for strong, masculine dancers, he explained, and "the thing with the ribbon" wasn't masculine. Then, after the second half of Anthony's audition, (which we were never actually shown more than two or three seconds of), Nigel told Anthony he'd been eliminated because he wasn't masculine enough in the pairs, and launched into another tongue lashing, telling him that if he was a man he ought to know how to act manly.

Now we all know that the whole point of these reality-talent shows is ritual public humiliation, in which the TV audience vicariously enjoys watching the hosts use cruel and emotionally sadistic methods to manipulate the emotions of the contestants. The ultimate money shot is getting a contestant to break down and cry on camera (can you tell I don't like these sorts of shows?). So the fact that Nigel was a total asshole toward Anthony, when the other judges all seemed to like him, is hardly worth commenting on. And we all know that since this is an American TV show, airing on the Fox network no less, there's no way that the producers are going to let anyone who seems gay get past the initial cattle call, so the fact that they booted Anthony is likewise not noteworthy. But this is a dance show in which they had to end up with an equal number of males and female finalists. There's no doubt Nigel dismissed quite a few talented dancers because they were too obviously gay, and none of those men were subjected to humiliation on national TV. Probably because it wouldn't have been PC. But Anthony, who is straight (search in the page for "my younger brother Anthony"), gets singled out for a televised hectoring lecture on being a man. Why is that?

Well, because while it's slowly becoming not quite completely cool to insult people for being queer, it's still totally acceptable to attack a man for not being masculine enough. So, contrary to the opinions on the above linked page, this was not a case of Nigel's or the studio's homophobia. It was a case of femme-phobia. In the urban, sophisticated parts of 21st century American culture, gay men are OK, as long as they are discreet and don't remind us about the whole two penises thing. But effeminacy is ULTIMATE EVIL.

Well, I have some news for those halfwit movie reviewers, and for assholes like Nigel. There's nothing wrong with men to expressing the full range of human feelings. There's nothing wrong with men acting femme. To the contrary, there's something deeply wrong, sick, and twisted in claiming that men should hide their emotions, always keep a stiff upper lip and a square jaw, and never act feminine. That attitude is the source of more evil in the world than I can keep track of, and the more movies there are that show Alexander the great ovecome with emotion, and the more young men take up rhythmic gymnastics because they like twirling colorful ribbons around in pretty patterns, the better off we are.

Edited to add: I found a partial transcript of Nigel's berating of Anthony.

Current Mood: angry
Current Music: a roomful of fans trying to cool the air

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
				1	2	3
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30	31

Ahaie Tengwar Angulócello

Rants From the Dragon

Wonder Woman, Etta Candy, queerness, and Dr Wertham.

Feminist anime: Revolutionary Girl Utena

Frederick Douglass's editorial on the Senecal Falls women's rights convention.

More non-nice girls

Fed up with fiction, I make a meme

Review: "The secret history of Wonder Woman," by Jill Lepore

Consentual sadism is not violent

Gays are OK but effeminacy is evil

Profile

May 2025

Page Summary

Most Popular Tags

Syndicate

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags