Man and Super Woman-Feminist Ethics and Superheros
Welcome back, heroes.
With the release of Before Watchmen, this seems like a great time to look back at Alan Moore’s classic and see what the modern day master has to teach us. But any attempt to scratch the surface of Moore’s work takes us, quickly, to some very, very dark places. So before proceeding, a warning. This piece starts in a very dark place on a very dark topic. This next part deals with rape and sexual violence, so if you don’t want to read that, I direct you the back button now.
Probably the most horrifying, stomach clenching scene in Watchmen happens at the beginning of the second issue. I refer to the rape of Sally Jupiter, aka The Silk Spectre, by Edward Blake, the Comedian. Here’s the scene from the original comic:
In addition to highlighting Blake’s moral ambiguity and psychopathy, this scene also plays as a great introduction to the evils feminist ethics seek to address. Note Blake’s reasoning for coming onto the Spectre: “you gotta have some reason for wearin’ an outfit like this”. The Spectre’s initial refusal is ignored as simple toying, and after resisting violently she is beaten for withholding what Blake assumed he could get without effort. She is rescued by Hooded Justice, another superhero, feeding the assumption that Silk Spectre could not take care of herself. After Hooded Justice beats the stuffing out of the Comedian, he turns to Silk Spectre and tells her to “Get up…and for God’s sake cover yourself”, implicitly linking Sally’s refusal to handle herself (“Get up”) and her state of dress (“cover yourself”) with her culpability in the attack.
(By the way, I’ve got to give Zach Synder credit, he got this scene horrfyingly correct down to every gut-wrenching detail in the film version of Watchmen)
Those familiar with the story know it doesn’t end there. Sally Jupiter later goes back to Blake, and the two form a relationship which culminates in the birth of Laurie Juspeczyk, the second Silk Spectre. This weighs on Sally, who understands that, as a rape victim, she should hate her attacker. Both her daughter and her husband ostracize Sally and resent her for not fighting back in every way possible against her attacker, even after the attack. A more thorough analysis has been done on this topic (whose final conclusion I disagree with, but the narrative analysis is spot on), but the end result is the same, Sally Jupiter’s attempts to define her own identity are rebuffed at every turn. When she dresses like a female superhero, it is used as a justification to rape her. After being brutally assaulted, she is identified as responsible. And after the attack, her family expects her to behave as a rape victim and despise herself for having a child with the man who assaulted her.
Moore’s point: female superheros are not treated as rational beings with morality and ability on par with their male counterparts. Instead, they become less than human objects which are expected to behave in the roles they are placed.
Oh, and the female superheros often perpetuate this myth themselves.
From: Before Watchmen: Minutemen #3
Recall Sally Jupiter’s reaction to her daughter finding the Tijuana Bible- Sally was pleased someone had thought of her that way. She’d embraced the life of the objectified woman- and when she found herself behaving counter to her image, it shocked even herself. Only at the end of the comic could she bring herself to cry for Edward Blake, her attacker and her lover- but also her choice. In the same scene, she gives away the Tijuana Bible.
Final point: women should be allowed to define themselves, just like men. But any attempt to do so is stymied by a variety of factors. Especially in comics.
********DISCUSSION OF SEXUAL VIOLENCE OVER****************
This bring us to our topic for today: feminist ethics. The basis of feminist ethics is that traditional philosophy, and the ethics which we derive from it, has devalued and discounted the female perspective. And to be fair, they are absolutely correct. According to many early psychologists, “the very traits that have been traditionally associated with women’s goodness, their concern for and sensitivity to the needs of others, are the very qualities that have led psychologists to describe them as morally inferior to men.” This is why the earliest feminist ethicists, namely Nel Noddings and Carol Gilligan, focused on critiquing traditional ethics which argued women were inferior simply by virtue of their differences. Noddings further argued that many traditional “female” traits were in reality the superior ones, and that traditional ethics had replaced those natural tendencies with rigid, philosophical, yet inferior replacements.
Later, a second branch of feminist ethics, the liberal feminists, rose up, arguing that the subjugation of women was due to social norms, not biological imperatives. To wit:
Liberal feminists maintain that the primary cause of women’s subordination to men is a set of social norms and formal laws that make it hard for women to succeed in the public world. Unless women have the same opportunities that men have, women will not be able to achieve their full potential in the academy, the forum, the marketplace, the operating room, and so forth. Although many people think that liberal feminism is passe and that the ethical issues that preoccupied it have been resolved, truth be told as of 2009, the Bill of (Women’s) Rights proclaimed by NOW in 1967 in the United States, for example, has yet to be fully implemented. U.S. women’s reproductive rights are still not secure and the Equal Rights Amendment has yet to pass. Moreover, as of 2009, the average U.S. female worker still earns about 20% less than the average male worker (Maher, The Wall Street Journal, 2008); only 17 of 100 U.S. Senators are women (Confessore and Hakim, NYTimes, January 21, 2009); and as of December, 2008, only 13 Fortune 500 CEOs are women (CNNMoney.com, 2009). If the goal of liberal feminism is to push women full force into the public world and catapult women to its higher orbits, then its work is far from done. Women tend to do mostly dependency work—the work upon which Eva Feder Kittay focuses—and, in the public world, that caregiving work is some of the lowest-status, lowest paid work to be had.
Far be it from us to weigh in on such weighty issues. We, as men, do have a role to play in feminism, but we will also acknowledge that many schools of feminism seem to clash, and we are thus reluctant to call one school superior to another. We do, however, affirm the central tenet of feminism, that women should, in all ways possible, be regarded as equal to men in their ability to utilize their talents freely and ethically.
While we can’t weigh in on differing schools of feminism, we will weigh in on women superheroes. First of all, we’ve come a long way. Thank God the days are past when the Justice League Society of America recruited Wonder Woman to serve alongside them as a secretary.
Wonder Woman: being much more useful than she was as a secretary.
From: Wonder Woman, Vol. 36, No. 234, August 1977
But that doesn’t mean we’re past the point where women superheroes are valued as more than stock character types. For example, up until the 2011 DC reboot, this was Amanda Waller:
Purple dress, large gun, so cool. From: http://fuckyeahamandawaller.tumblr.com/page/4
Amanda Waller was a take-no-prisoners, ass kicking, downright awesome woman. She was slightly morally ambiguous, like Wolverine, which only made her more amazing, and she’s nicknamed “The Wall.” How badass is she? Well, here’s Batman taking her on, and failing:
from: http://fuckyeahamandawaller.tumblr.com/page/3
Amanda Waller is a well developed hero who is interesting, complex, and has every opportunity to succeed based on her smarts, strength, and being tough as nails. Which is why DC tried to “improve” her in the reboot…
From: http://comicsalliance.tumblr.com/post/10213851063/in-the-newly-released-suicide-squad-1-out-today
…and failed. Remember our earlier point about female superheroes painted into roles? Well, DC took a great character and pushed her back into a traditional role. The new Amanda Waller’s government outfit shows as much lacy bra and cleavage as possible. ‘Cause that’s what super-heroines “look like”. They rebooted a whole universe and managed to leave behind the most interesting woman in it.
Now, I’m not saying the “sexy super-heroine” can’t be a unique character. Emma Frost is a great play on the anti-hero, and her use of her sexuality makes her character more interesting. And God bless Chris Nolan for making Catwoman an interesting, layered, and conflicted protagonist. But these are the exceptions: for each great Catwoman, there are dozens of Black Widows who are the token female of a super team – often the lamest member (See: Wasp, Wonder Woman is in the bottom half of the JLA) or the homicidal one who tries to kill everyone (Dark Phoenix, Scarlett Witch), every one one of them in heels and skin tight outfits with no pockets.
See? No Pockets. Really useful, don’t you think? At least give her some decent sized pouches.
From: http://www.pinkisthenewblog.com/2012-07-09/scarlett-johansson-will-get-a-record-breaking-20-million-for-the-avengers-sequel
We’ll go more into feminist ethics in the next post, but we can’t let that Amanda Waller thing stand. Graphic Policy has a petition out to bring back the old Amanda Waller. And we signed it, and hope you will too. Because women should be more than an image – the best of them are our partners, friends, and allies whom we stand alongside as we change the world for the better. So guess what? They deserve every opportunity to succeed or fail in that task, in the manner they choose, without having to fight an image problem as well.
I am just finishing up my first comic Grim Town. I both illustrated and wrote it. While doing so I wrestled a bit with this subject. I agree with Ziggy up the point that she/he starts calling the female characters Wasp, Wonder Women, and Black Widow lame. Its just not true. The Best example of this is Wasp. She has not only lead the avengers but dealt with some heavy stuff. E.G.when hank assaulted her in the 80′s. It made me wonder if Ziggy has read enough comics to write on this subject.
In most super hero comics both women and men are over sexualised and that is a good thing (Yes I quoted Martha Stewart on purpose). I believe that comics are for the most part fantasy and escapism. Not about social norms and body issues. Is She Hulk a ” lame character”? After all she is most noted for being the horniest women in comics and her suit doesn’t have pockets.
Maybe we should get rid of the dreamy Thor, rich and suave Tony Stark, and mysterious uber gothy Sandman. They all have a sexuality that would make most men pale in comparison. Ban all sexy men from comics please they make my self esteem low. Why doesn’t batman have pockets? He could sure use them. Oh I forgot he is just supposed to be bad ass and look cool.
This last comment is directed to the ladies If you want to change the comic industry create your own comics.
Thanks CD
First of all, if you’re going to mention your comic, at least add a link so we can see it! Or is it not ready? Either way, this is a great place to promote it, so let us know.
Next, I grow weary of the “you haven’t read enough comics” argument. If you think there is some minimum number of comics one needs to read to write intelligently on the subject, list them and I’ll read them (probably without leaving my living room, as I bet I have them all), but I doubt it will change my mind on this subject. Grown men can be equally intelligent and disagree on a subject, and they can do so without resorting to weak put downs. I’ll make you a deal: I’ll assume you’re intelligent if you do the same for myself and the other writers for this site. Otherwise, you’re merely a troll and I’ll treat your comments as such. Deal?
As for Wasp not being lame, I said she was the lamest, which means lamest in relation to the people around her, even if she is a good character (I do like the Ultimates version of Wasp, but still think she’s the lamest). Of the cast of the Ultimates, who is lamer than Wasp? Captain America? Why was Black Widow voted lamest in this Rolling Stones poll? And please let me know why these sites call Wasp “lame” and “G-list”. Finally, I was somewhat horrified at your argument (“She’s not lame because she got over her husband beating her”). What? A superheroine is not lame because she was beaten? Or because she got over it? Was being beaten essential to her being a great character (now I’m frightened)? Please clarify. Please. Finally, when did she lead the Avengers? Can you cite an issue?
Next, Batman has pockets. People make jokes about it. Sorry, should I specifically mention pouches? Done, but compare Batman’s belt to Black Widow’s. She has a holster and 2 ammo clips, as opposed to Batman’s arsenal. Or to Black Cat’s lack of anything. Or any other unpowered superhero versus unpowered superheroine. Trust me, a female hero is less likely to have a belt/pockets. Why? Do unpowered superheroines need less equipment?
As for sexy being an issue, please re-read my second to last paragraph where I say sexy characters can be interesting and then name a few, because you missed my argument entirely. My point is they shouldn’t have to be sex symbols. Think of a superhero in a wheelchair. Or with glasses. Or with a drinking problem. Or who is ugly. Wow, all popular characters. Now think of a superheroine who is any of these. The only example I can think of is Oracle, who is now out of the wheelchair. This has nothing to do with body issues – this has to do with being expected to fill certain roles and being declared a failure if one does not. You present a nice straw man argument, but that’s all.
Finally, your last comment addresses the need for feminism perfectly. You argue if comics are anti-feminist, then it must be women’s fault. This is why feminism exists in the first place – because women are first objectified, then blamed when that objectification causes harm. If a work of art, like a comic book, objectifies women, it doesn’t matter who holds the pen.
Justice *Society* recruited Wonder Woman as a secretary. Not the JLA….and this ties in later with your statement about WW being ‘the lamest member’. Diana Prince hasn’t been the lamest member….well…at least since 1974 or so when they gave her powers back
and got away from the whole “Kung-Fu Wonder Woman”
Noted and changed.
As for WW=lamest member of the JLA, she is on a team with Aquaman. So I’ll modify that to bottom 50%.
Great article. The commentor’s above argument about “if you want to change the comic industry, create more comics,” is invalid, but it’s definitely true that we need more female creators in comics. Gail Simone is the only female writer that springs to mind, although I’m sure there are others.
I wouldn’t discredit Black Widow by way of her skintight styles – at least in the Avengers movie, she had a huge hand in driving the plot. I’d go as far as saying the character deserves her own movie. And speaking of that, where are the superheroine movies? Good ones, I mean?
But yeah the Amanda Waller thing is a travesty. I had no idea they had made that change.
Preach. Why on earth isn’t there a female writer for Before Watchmen: Silk Spectre?
When the JSA recruited Wonder Woman as a secretary, that was because of an editorial policy that characters with their own solo comics didn’t get membership in the JSA. Therefore, Superman and Batman were not members, and Flash and Green Lantern lost membership when All-Flash and Green Lantern began.
Wonder Woman was put in because she was popular, but of this policy was not given a starring role. Making her a secretary was *better* than what was done with similarly situated male superheroes such as Superman and Flash.
Small correction, Batman and Superman were made honorary members. But neither of them were offered the position of secretary. And that’s the point. Can you see Batman or Superman in this panel?
http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/3/3/1/122331_v1.jpg
Yeah, neither can we. The point is that no male superhero would have been asked to do that.
Also, here’s All Star Comics #33 (note: 3 years after that policy was changed), and she STILL doesn’t go out on missions.
http://thanley.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/allstar33.jpg?w=296&h=300
The group put Batman’s abilities to good use, and when they didn’t need him, they didn’t give him the job of secretary when he could’ve done other things. But the JSA put Wonder Woman to use as a secretary. Like I said, we’ve progressed.
Yes, you could argue that being offered a position as a secretary is worse than having no position at all. But it’s not obvious, and it’s certainly not so obvious that you can just leave it out because you don’t think it’s important–if you do that you’re omitting context that might change a reader’s mind, even if it doesn’t change your own..
Furthermore, while Flash and GL had returned, the policy still existed with respect to Superman and Batman. They appeared *once*, in #36 (plus cameos in #10). Really putting Batman’s abilities to good use there, by not using him. And Wonder Woman started appearing in story segments in #38 (with Superman and Batman continuing to not be there), so sarcastically claiming we’ve progressed is meaningless unless you want to claim we’ve progressed as of 1947.
I’m not arguing the position of secretary is better or worse than the position of honorary member, I’m arguing that only Wonder Woman was offered the position of secretary, and only Wonder Woman was left behind on missions despite whatever position she had. And this was considered acceptable for her, but not for any male hero. It was considered acceptable for Wonder Woman to stay behind when she could have been using her powers for just about anything else. When men and women are treated differently in regards to their abilities, that’s counter to feminism.
And my only point was we’ve progressed. Given that the point only warranted a full sentence in my post, I obviously only wanted to say a very small thing about it.
And as for omitting information: did you see the link? Click the link. The link is there because excess information is not required to make my point, but the reader may enjoy looking at further information.
If you’re going to claim that no male character was treated *exactly the same* as Wonder Woman, of course that’s correct, but I have no reason to care about such a narrow claim.
But if you’re going to make the more meaningful claim that no male character was treated comparably to or worse than Wonder Woman–which is what I think most readers would take you as meaning anyway–then the claim is false. Yes, it was acceptable for Wonder Woman to be left behind, but it was acceptable for Superman and Batman to be *completely left out*. I suppose that counts as treating men and women differently–it’s treating men worse.
Nice trolling, but I made no such claim.
I made the claim that, when given a superheroine with Nazi-killing abilities equal or greater than Superman and Batman, the Justice Society thought it would be best to use her powers to take notes. Not go on a mission. Not to say, “you’re better off doing your own thing, call us sometime.” Take. Notes.
When you have a man and a woman of equal abilities, and let the man star in his own comic, and have the woman take notes, you’re treating them differently in regards to their abilities. If I have two programmers, a male and a female, of equal programming abilities, and I have the man code and the woman take notes, I am not treating one worse; I am not using the female programmer to her fullest ability.
And “treating men worse”…that doesn’t even deserve a response.