Something got said repeatedly during the statue discussion, "There's worse in the comics every day".
I don't agree with that, and here's why, in conveniently oversimplified aphoristic form:
A female action hero lead who is believably competent cannot be counter-feminist, even if she is also portrayed in a sexualized manner for a male audience.
A female action hero sidekick can be counter-feminist, if she's sidekicking a male and acts in a deferential manner in traditional pre-feminist roles to him. I'm not sure I know of any (Jade in Rayner Green Lantern, perhaps), but it is certainly a theoretical possibility.
Or take Pamela Anderson in Barb Wire; she's not believably competent, although she's probably just exploitative, not counter-feminist.
Now, there have been many occasions when Diana Prince, Wonder Woman's alter ego, has been portrayed as profoundly deferential and eager to cling to traditional pre-feminist roles. I don't think that disproves my thesis, because it's clear that Wonder Woman herself is profoundly feminist.* Prince herself is a role designed to fit genre requirements, in this case, the Clark Kent style of secret identity, which in a pre-feminist time is a woman with deeply pre-feminist characteristics.
*Although one can probably find evidence of anything, including stereotypical pre-feminist behavior from Wonder Woman, in Kanigher's work.
I'm not going to claim to be an expert in pre-feminist female action heroes (paging Jess Nevins), but I would expect that many of them (e.g. Phantom Lady) follow the Wonder Woman model of a traditionally pre-feminist secret identity as a disguise for a typical (and therefore inherently feminist) action hero: "Oh, I feel faint" as an excuse to slip away and swing into action. Others (e.g. Liberty Belle) are prototypically feminist in both identities.
Nuances of pre-feminist action heroes are somewhat beside the point, however, which is a hypersexualized portrayal is not sufficient to make something counter-feminist, and in particular, most female characters in superhero comics are in roles which directly cut against their being counter-feminist despite their sexualized portrayal.
N.b. I use pre-feminist in this context to mean the period and society in which women were expected to be subservient and deferential to men, and were confined to narrowly circumscribed roles like secretary and housewife, and specifically the conditions that prevailed prior to second-wave feminism.
Posted by Greg at May 17, 2007 10:34 AM
I have a vague feeling that 'believably competent' is getting defined in such a manner as to render the statement tautological, allowing one to discard the Barb Wires, Lady Deaths, and Anita Blakes of the world.
(Oh, and for 'pre-feminist female action heroes', the first that popped into my head was Little Orphan Annie...)
A female action hero sidekick can be counter-feminist, if she's sidekicking a male and acts in a deferential manner in traditional pre-feminist roles to him. I'm not sure I know of any (Jade in Rayner Green Lantern, perhaps), but it is certainly a theoretical possibility.
How about Robin in The Dark Knight Returns? That may be an unfair example since everyone is expected to defer to Frank Miller's Batman and be a good soldier.
Well, I won't speak for everyone else, but when I said there were worse things, I meant in terms of statuary. And since you can find Jenna Jameson and Victoria Silvstedt I stand by that. Also, to be frank, that MJ statue's not all that bad in terms of sheer sexism, and I'll take you all on to prove it.
I suppose would disagree with your statement as it stands now to this extent. Modesty Blaise, Brenda Starr and Nancy Drew are not counter feminist in the context of their times, but is they are transported to a modern setting, without correcting for that, then perhaps they are regardless of how good they are at what they do.
Nancy Drew's adventures became progrsssively less and less adult as she became older and the series changed focus. Counter-feminist, or more appropriate for children, or a little of both, or neither?
For that matter where do you stand on Barbarella?
I think splitting hairs over whether a characterization is anti-feminist as opposed to just negative towards women in general is counter productive. Surely all of us can agree that the whole attitude that still produces "Women in Refrigerator" moments on a regular basis needs to change?
Sadly the majority of writers out there right now seem to feel that as long as they kill, maim, and depower as many male characters as female ones they are ok. They don't seem to grasp the concept that x-1 does not equal x/10 - 1.
Jeff: Actually, I would probably define "believably competent" very broadly; basically, I'm reserving the opposite for those exploitation films where the lead actresses are unbelievable in the lead role, or for those lead characters who are known as "too stupid to live" in romance reader circles (though they're not often action heros).
In other words, if the female action hero is presented as competent, and if you do not say "that's bullshit", the character is not counter-feminist.
Jason: Carrie's not particularly in a traditional pre-feminist role, though. She's a spy and a soldier; the closest she gets to a traditional role is combat medic. Furthermore, the deference also arises because she's a child.
In any case, I'm not particularly interested in identifying cases; I was merely explaining that I restricted my aphorism to a female action hero lead, because of the theoretical possibility that a sidekick could be different.
On Lewis'
"Sadly the majority of writers out there right now seem to feel that as long as they kill, maim, and depower as many male characters as female ones they are ok"
I must agree.
I took the liberty of looking up the word feminism in the Chamber's Twentieth Century Dictionary and it defines the word as this; advocacy of women's rights, of the movement for the advancement and emancipation of women. Interesting. As opposed to something about defying stereotypes or sticking it to the men (and yes that's men not man), it speaks of rights.
Frankly I think our entire view of feminism is somewhat skewed. We often think of a feminist as a manly women which is in itself an extremely sexist view; women are either meek and feeble or buff and emotionless - and don't even get me started with Ms Prince on this one.
But back to the point - I think the term feminism is being used a tad too lightly, and as soon as we see a female character nowadays we jump at the opportunity to rank her on society's feminism scale. If a feminist is one who advocates the rights of women, then I honestly don't think there are a great deal of feminist characters around at the moment. What we do have however is a bunch of square jawed figures wearing pants (and damn Jodi Picoult for her contribution to that one).
As for negative representations of women - sexist but not anti-feminist. Anti-feminism would mean actually condeming women's rights - and basically, wearing a leotard and crying occasionally just doesn't scream condemnation to me.
I think there are a couple of defensible positions where it is possible for a "competent female action hero" to be counter-feminist. The first are those stories where a female action hero is explicitly portrayed as deriving her powers from a process that was a forced violation that damaged her to a degree for which the powers can't compensate, generally because some patriarchal power figure wanted her as a disposable weapon - see X-23, Nikita, River Tam. You can read these stories as feminist in terms of being a horrific allegory of gender exploitation, but not as feminist in an empowering sense.
There are also some pacifist feminist positions to the effect that female action heroes are counter-feminist because they endorse macho ideas about violence being the solution to problems, instead of a lose-lose situation.
Phil: The origin does not make the character, I think in response to your first point. That is, Peter Parker's not a dick because his being a dick was intrinsic to his origin. A female action hero may arise out of metaphorical or actual rape or male domination, but I think as soon as they start acting like an action hero, they reject and counter those counter-feminist conditions.
It is, of course, absolutely the case that I'm assuming that aggression is not a male trait and that there are not inherently male or inherently female ways to solve problems and end conflicts. 'Cause I'm a feminist, and that means that I believe women are human just like men. Not that I have a strong opinion or anything :-)
Erin: I would hold out Birds of Prey as the best example of a superhero book with female leads who are both competent action heroes and still quite clearly women. Real feminism is, I think, about freedom, the right to make the same choices about life that men take for granted.
Yeah, uh, Greg...there are biological differences between males and females involving hormones and biochemistry and the like. I'm going to guess, say, difference in testosterone can impact behavior. I'd just as soon have a female neurosurgeon or a female Congressman or a female chiropractor or a female construction worker or a female superhero or a female chef as a male one, but stating that there are no differences seems to be a sharp denial of scientific reality.