Comic industry put your house in order

Just a reminder, I am a nerd. I collect comics and read at what some have called an alarming speed. I mention these things because there are some sketchy rumors flying around about the comics industry and specifically the Houses of Marvel and Darkhorse. Almost all the books I read come exclusively from these two publishing companies or independent, but business is business and it is hard for independents to get published or off the ground.

First a primer, the comic industry and dear lord, it is a lucrative business so if you think it is fanboys and fangirls creating in their basements shelve that. It is however a boys club. We’ve heard a lot of rumors coming out of cons and just about anywhere fans, entertainers, and creators gather. Mostly, the allegations have been of the sexual harassment variety with a few assault complaints. The cons have gone from not responding to some pretty decent protective measures and rules.

So in the last few months, there has been a lot of accusations coming out but until recently without the name of an alleged perpetrator. Tess Fowler (Charmed, Grimm Fairy Tales) has come out in support of Brandon Graham about the alleged misogynistic behavior. The Mary Sue (Jill Pantozzi) has some of her tweets stating more people should call out the perpetrators by name.

Let’s break here for a minute. You guys remember the big deal about outing people on the Internet for harassment? Remember how that went over like a lead balloon? This whole thing is going to sound very familiar to some atheists real quick. And back to the story…

Fowler continues to say that the same man being accused harassed her when she was new to the industry implying opportunities for sexual favors. Fowler noted that she was young and naïve, but not that naïve. She says that after she rejected him, he embarrassed her in front of a crowd of fans and industry people, made fun of her and her work on Facebook, and admitted he had no interest in her work. Classy guy. Fowler says she’s not the only one because her inbox has been inundated by stories from other women. She also doesn’t name the creator that harassed her.

This started discussions around about what exactly is going on. Fowler eventually released a statement:

“The behavior of the man in question is considered normal in this business. And the few people who know about it consider it to be my fault for “falling for it” when he feigned interest in my work. In my pursuit of doing this work professionally I ran a gauntlet of this sort of thing. I came in with stars in my eyes and were it not for the handful of really good people who stepped in to keep me safe, I might not have made it through without being completely jaded by it. I am older now, with young impressionable followers of my own. And I do my best to help them over these kinds of hurdles when they arise. I wish more people were brave enough to speak out. But for every voice raised in protest, there are a thousand to defend the person in question. It’s daunting.”

Of course the Internet. Fowler has defended herself and inadvertently (on purpose?) dropped some hints to the man in question’s identity. She also gave a quick definition of misogyny and sexism. Fowler also notes: “Granted, it was awhile ago, and maybe he’s a shining example of feminism now. But if the accounts I’ve heard are correct, he’s only gotten worse. What he did wasn’t sexism. He didn’t deny me a job or discriminate against me. He treated my like a plaything and let me know to my face just how little he thought of me as a person. Trust me. He’s a tried and true misogynist.”

And the industry knew who it was, after many emails, Fowler named the man: Brian Wood. He’s working on the all women X-Men title and Star Wars for Marvel and Darkhorse, respectively.

For a while Wood was silent, but he released a statement yesterday:

“For the last couple of weeks I’ve been accused of a lot of very serious things. I feel I have to speak up for myself and for my friends and colleagues who are finding themselves s under a sort of scrutiny they don’t deserve. The situation has reached the point where it is affecting people who in no way deserve it, up to and including my family.  

Tess Fowler is correct about this: I did make a pass at her a SDCC Hyatt bar roughly 8 years ago. But when she declined, that was the conclusion of the matter for me. There was never a promise of quid pro quo, no exertion of power, no threats, and not revenge. This was at a time in my career when I had very little professional power or industry recognition. The pickup was a lame move, absolutely, and I’ll accept the head for having done it, and I apologize to Ms. Fowler for the tackiness and embarrassment of it all.

I’ve kept quiet for these last couple of weeks because this is a problematic thing to address without unintended blowback. While I believe she is as incorrect as she can be about what my intent and motivations were, I don’t want to encourage any negative opinion directed at her.

I think the larger issue of abuse in the comics industry are genuine and I share everyone’s concerns. As a father to a young daughter showing an interest in making her own comics, I do really care about this stuff. So I don’t want our difference of accounts to take attention away from that industry-wide discussion that needs to happen.”

So impasse. Heidi MacDonald wrote about this for TheBeat and reported Wood gave her no comment, which Wood denies. Marvel had no official comment either. MacDonald also calls for an industry –wide shift to do more to stop these situations from happening.

More accusations naming Wood have come out including Anne Scherbina who worked in the comic industry from 1993 to 2002, stores then DC comics. What struck me as interesting were the interactions after the harassment from Wood. Scherbina posted two email conversations between her and Wood, where he “apologized” with a non-apology. You know, I’m sorry you’re offended and the I’m a different person now apology.

All of this brings me to a couple of things: power, apology, and institutional change. Way back up post, Wood says this wasn't a power thing; he was merely hitting on someone. Welp, I guess the bar in the Hyatt is some kind of magic vacuum where everyone is equal in every aspect of their being.

Personal story: last Friday I was waiting for the bus home from my job, and a homeless dude j walked across the street. I like homeless people, and someone beeped at him to get out of the way so when he looked to me for confirmation the driver was overreacting, I gave a tight lipped smile. The driver wasn’t out of line, and I hate when people take their damn time j walking. The man introduced himself as D and wanted me to shake his hand so I did, again not a big deal. Except it was dark, by a building under construction, we were alone, and he tried to kiss my hand and then when I refused became aggressive and tried to grab it again. So from a power and influence standpoint this girl had the power, but from an environmental standpoint I think D had a lot of power, too. All of these reminded me of not one, but two high profile incidents, Rebecca Watson and Questlove. Watson was harassed in an elevator at an atheist conference and then the misogynists descended. Questlove shared his experience where he was treated like a threat when he wasn’t one. Questlove assumed he was treated as a threat because of his race, and that may be true, but I also have to wonder about the role of gender, which I did way back when. I ignored D until someone from the University walked up and he stopped saying inappropriate things to me and walked off.

So back to Fowler and Wood. Wood had power by being a white man; sorry that is just the privileged classes he was born into. A lot of pull in the industry or not, he was still in it, and he has more pull than an unknown. What all of this is, is an inability or refusal to recognize one’s own privilege. Everyone has different degrees of power at all time. Just the way the world works.

Apology in brief: apologizing you got caught, you offended someone, or you’re sorry, but you’re a better person now, are not apologies. They serve no purpose but to make you sound better, change the narrative to be about you, and make the person you’re apologizing too small.

Institutional change is required in all these industries. These male dominated industries (and yes, atheism is an industry too) where women are excluded, harassed, and ignored. Also, usually women aren’t the only people being ignored in these spaces. It will take a cultural shift and leadership to make any substantial changes or a full on revolution, which I would love to see in comics and gaming where women are making up more and more of their consumer base. Oh, free market, it is moments like this I hate you a little less.

I was really excited about the all women X-Men title, but I won’t be picking it up even if most of my favor characters are in there. I’ll be staying away from all titles credited to Wood at least for a while or until Marvel make some kind of statement.

Oh, menfolk, why do you insist on saying stupid shit?

Alyssa Rosenberg in all her awesomeness wrote a piece for ThinkProgress on the dismissing of sexism by several legendary comic creators. The creators in question are Michael Kantor, Todd McFarlane (Spawn), Len Wein (Wolverine), and Gerry Conway (The Punisher).

Rosenberg begins her article with a quote from the Television Critics Association press tour from MacFarlane, “The vast majority of dudes [are] doing this high testosterone sort of storytelling, and so we put out fantasy on the plate on the pages. As much as we stereotype the women, we do it with the guys. The guys are all good looking, not too many ugly superheroes. They’ve all got their hair gelled back. They have got perfect pecs on them. They have no hair on their chest. I mean, they are Ryan Gosling on steroids. Right? They are all beautiful. So we actually stereotype both sexes. We just happen to show a little more skin on the ladies.”

Oh behalf of comic fans everywhere please shut up. You can’t equate the way women are depicted and the way men are in mainstream comics. I’ve written about it before. And we can talk about violence against women (girls in the refrigerator as motivation for male characters, poor Ms. Marvel, etc). McFarlane’s statement ignores the costumes, power dynamics between men and women, fantasy power dynamics between men and women, and as Rosenberg notes, “the difference between admiring what someone can do with their body, and what you can do to theirs.”

She followed up with McFarlane, Wein, and Conway where she was met with the same perspective, which isn’t that far off from consumers (see con harassment). Conway said, “the comics follow society. They don’t lead society.” So society is ok with fantasies that include dominating superheroes.

 McFarlane asserts that people can make comic about whatever they want, even women! Thanks dude for the permission. He even claims there are no barriers in the field, except in the major two companies…and of course women are in the business, so equality (Jenette Kahn is head of DC now). Also, the major two companies cause problems for independent creators all the time. Talk about barriers.

These three dudes defaulted into the traditional argument about how if someone wants/creates a character just because they want more diversity in comics then it won’t be good story telling (oh, we’re coming back to this assertion). They say it becomes tokenism because the character is completely about that one characteristic…yeah, some of these guys work for Marvel, and this is what they believe. McFarlane said this on the subject, “There hasn’t really been historically a comic book that has worked that is trying to get across a kind of message, if you will. So the female characters that work are the ones that are just strong women that actually it’s good storytelling, and the odd character that is a minority that works is the one that is just a good strong character. They’ve tried to do minority characters and bring that label that surrounding [debate] into it. You’re aware that you’re reading a minority comic book. I think it’s wrong.”

Well, golly gee, I’m glad you have a moral opinion about it. Also, arguably Wonder Woman was created to be a female hero for the sake of being a female hero, and that worked out pretty well, except we can’t get a movie must be because she isn’t a strong and complex character not like the Hulk (smash). *sarcasm*

Wein argued for race neutrality, I imagine because we live in a post racial society after all Obama’s election ended racism…except with Martin, and the kid the cops killed (over and over and over), etc. Wein said, "I have written anything you can possibly think of. I have created Storm who was the first black female superhero. I created a number of other characters, and it never matters to me what the color of their skin was. I was writing about who they were as human beings, and it wasn’t Black Storm. She was Storm.”

Few things. One, Eric Jerome Dickey would probably have a different opinion. He wrote the story arch where Storm married Black Panther and became co-ruler of Wakanda, an independent African nation that stands against Western imperialism. Additionally, Anna Beatrice Scott wrote “Superpower vs. Supernatural: Black Superheroes and the Quest for a Mutant Reality” where she discusses the use of race and subsequently the impact a characters race has on things like powers. It sounds very much like the discussion around the Mammy, Jezebel, and Sapphire archetypes.

Conway went on to tell Rosenberg that his daughter reads comics by Faith Erin Hicks, and she doesn’t write guy stories. He separates Hicks' The Adventures of Superhero Girl from the other superhero comics for some reason, probably because Hicks has a vagina. Additionally, it sounds like Conway was dismissing Rosenberg’s knowledge on the subject which pisses me off because that is pretty damn condescending.

Don’t worry though; McFarlane says something much more offensive. McFarlane steers his daughter in another direction because, “It might not be the right platform. I’ve got two daughters, and if I wanted to do something that I thought was emboldened to a female, I probably wouldn’t choose superhero comic books to get that message across. I would do it in either a TV show, a movie, a novel, or a book. It wouldn’t be superheroes because I know that’s heavy testosterone—drive, and it’s a certain kind of group of people. That’s not where I would go get this kind of message, so it might be the right platform for some of this.”

I should probably apologize to my father given one of our normal outings is superhero and action movies. Seriously, he made my brother-in-law and I sit apart from one another during X-men 3 because we were making predictions and then arguing with the screen. It was a dark time in my life, and I don’t want to talk about it. Also, Joss Whedon writes comics. Any of his are appropriate for girls. *drops mic*

MacFarlane’s comments are pretty disturbing on several levels once you step away from the sarcasm. First, somehow biology dictates what you like. Secondly, sex and gender are the same and finite. Back up man, there are Trans(ish) comic characters (see The Runaways). Additionally, his assertion should work both ways, men and women shouldn’t be interested in any art the other gender creates (not to mention third genders). Does this mean I have to give up Shakespeare? Or are we operating under the assumption the man perspective is the default so we should all just accept it and comics are somehow the exception? Also, gentlemen, step away from Frankenstein, you’ll get cooties. Rosenberg puts it in excellent perspective, “The decision to stay within the narrow lanes of your own fantasies is a choice, not biological determinism.”

Preach. Rosenberg goes on to point out that these creators don’t share the views in the actual documentary, Superheroes: The Never-ending Battle. Michael Kantor is the executive producer on the film who pointed out that women are included in the film, which focuses on why the industry has shrunk. Kantor says, “When Stan lee introduced Luke Cage and the Black Panther in the ‘60s, there’s a level of tokenism to that, but it also reflects the growing Civil Rights movement.”

Of course, wanting more diversity isn’t tokenism. It is only tokenism if the creators under develop the characters making them shells. Rosenberg and I agree with something Conway said about origin stories and the nature of superhero storytelling, “I think part of the issue is that people who are making these movies feel that the basic that the origin story is the story, that there is no other story that you can tell about a superhero. I think they missed the point that these characters can be plugged into almost any story structure. They are focused on the origin story because that’s sort of what they think superheroes are. You know, their these little mythic creations that are about an unempowered person becoming empowered. But of course they are not. They are symbolic of story telling structure. There are modern day myths so they can tell any story you want to. They can tell about the story of the fall of a good man.”

But not a good woman I guess. Rosenberg countered the comment about comics not being able to get ahead of society by saying, “’That seems like an unambitious position.’ I told him. One might even say it’s decidedly less than superheroic.”

I’m going to be brief because this thing is lengthy, but comics have been ahead of society or running right alongside it (all art does, see last week’s post on subversion and fiction). Additionally, comics have quite the history of being political, though maybe not in the most heroic of ways, but as propaganda. Take Captain America, he was created for political reasons (I’m not saying this is bad or good, just true). And for every Miles Morales, we get a reinterpretation, retelling, and violation of Wonder Woman and Starfire, which just feeds into stereotypical male fantasies about women as object not subject.

Don’t think women and girls are interested in (super)heroes? Buffy, Veronica Mars, Harry Potter (with all the kick ass women),The Hunger Games,  The Divergent Trilogy, Game of Thrones, shall I go on? Because I didn’t even include comic characters that are feminist icons. It should be noted that not every series listed is a feminist narrative. But in all cases, the women, damn son.

I once had an argument with a good friend of mine over Twilight. L loved the books, and I hadn’t read them at the time (I did eventually, and they are just romance novels for conservative teens). I pointed out the problematic themes to L (violence against women, often for their own protection, infantilization of women, the creepy pro-life messages, consumerism, racism, knock a girl up, not only will she love you forever, literally, but it makes her want to be a mother even through for the first three books she had no interest in it, so troubling themes). L asserted Meyers had no agenda, let alone a political agenda when writing the books. To which I replied, then Meyers is a shitty writer because all writers should want to convey a message, an agenda. Anyone who doesn’t might as well be a monkey at a keyboard.

I say this to the men who believe adding women, queer individuals, Muslims, and people of color will deter from storytelling, what exactly is your agenda? Let me tell you, it is the agenda of the patriarchy.

Superheroes and subversion

Most people who read this blog are going to know this already, but I’m a big nerd. I collect comics and last year, got up on Saturday mornings to watch DVR’d episodes of the Clone Wars with coffee while texting my brother-in-law making predictions about Ahsoka’s end. Yeah, that happened, a lot. When I was young, I would watch the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles before going to kindergarten in the morning. The character April shaped a large portion of my life even down to what I went to college to study. I love a good superhero story. I can’t help it. As an adult, I get to wrestle with the themes behind these stories (often arguing about the representation/lack of representation of women, genders, races, and classes).

I bring this up because there is some controversy brewing over the new cartoon superhero coming out of Pakistan, The Burka Avenger. The main character is Jiya, a female teacher with martial arts skills who hides her identity with a burka to fight the big bad who wants to close the girls’ school where she teaches. She is armed with pencils and books. *mind blown* Take a minute and think about the ramifications of those as weapons, and the saying “the pen is mightier than the sword” in a place where 12% of girls are literate. Additionally, the major theme of the cartoon is so “send a moral message to children about the importance of education and not discriminating against others.” The first thirteen episodes aired on Geo Tex on July 28^, 2013.

Obviously, the show has good timing. Malala Yousafzai, 16, was shot in the head during an assassination attempt by the Taliban on October 9, 2012. Yousafzai is an outspoken advocate for women and girls’ rights and education, and she has become a symbol for women and girls struggle to overcome repression (speaking of kick-ass heroes).

The creator of the show, Haroon (and pop star) was asked about the burka, and this was his response, “It’s not a sign of oppression. She is using the burka to hide her identity like other superheroes. Since she is a woman, we could have dressed her up like Catwoman or Wonder Woman, but that probably wouldn’t have working in Pakistan.”

The man knows the first rule of creating: know your audience. But back to the controversy. Some are not pleased the hero will be wearing a burka. Human rights activist Marvi Sirmid told the BBC, “How can you get power from a symbol that humiliates and demeans women’s power? Walking around in a burka is like a walking prison—projecting a symbol that is so closely associated with the submission of women. And you are now re-imagining the burka—the symbol of suppression—as a symbol of resistance. I don’t agree with that.”

A couple things. One, I don’t make decisions about what other people wear as long as there isn’t hate speech on it. Secondly, I’m a white woman atheist, and we have our own battles with sexism and atheism in addition to the issues women in the US face with the restricting of women’s rights. So maybe using the standard in the West isn't the best thing. Feminists and human rights activists are split on the burka and Hijab. I stand on the side that women can choose what they want to wear (so France and the Taliban need to back the fuck off).

I have a few thoughts on this controversy outside of the burka and Hijab debates. But first some history on Muslim women superheroes. Dust. That is all. She is awesome, and appeared for the first time in New X-men in 2002. She is credited with being one of the first positive representations of Muslims in comics. The character originated from Afghanistan, and she wears the Hijab by choice, which is controversial in the comics. Also, other characters mistakenly call it a burka, and are constantly being corrected. They're ignorance is used as a tool to enlighten the reader about Afghan culture. There are of course issues with the character, like all characters. Marvel also created Dr. Faiza Hussain, a British Muslim decent from Pakistani parents. She showed up in 2008 (remember some of the issues Britain and Europe are having with immigrants and immigrant communities, it is hard not to think of Dr. Hussain as a response to that racism). Dr. Hussain was created by employing a panel of Muslim women, because that’s how you create an authentic character. Also, while I don’t read Excalibur it is my understanding that in a different timeline, Dr. Hussain is Captain Britain. That a minute. A Muslim woman is the British version of Captain America. Take another minute. This isn’t a comprehensive list by any means, just the two characters that jump out at me.

Activist Marvi Sirmid sees to be employing “the master’s tools” theory. Read bell hooks, then panic, read it again, and then organize. That is just good life advice. I go both ways on this theory. In some situations I completely agree, for example the Occupy Movement struck me as casting off the masters’ tools and developing some new ones. And aspects of it were very effective. However, women and people of color got the vote, and they did so through traditional protests, and then they used the vote to change things (a long road where we’re obviously losing ground, which perhaps proves we need to cast off the master's tools. There is room for a long discussion here. Buy me a drink, and I'll yell about it in a bar.). Personally, my approach has always been whatever works. It should also be noted that the cartoon is a creative work and not reality, which means some standards and conventions have to be taken into account.

This whole conversation makes me think of three things: oppressive symbols being employed by the resistance, resistance through creation, and the responsibility of art to be subversive. I’m not going too deep into all this. But art is frequently the way for people with limited power to subvert those with the power (all the literature out of apartheid in South Africa see J.M. Coetzee). An example that brings this together that everyone is going to know is Hawthorne’s Scarlet Letter. Hester is forced to wear the red A, and overtime she finds herself with more power after being ostracized from the group. Simplistic, I agree. We can get deep into the themes if you want, but I’d have to dig up some old papers. Additionally, later incarnations of Hester (The Handmaid’s Tale and When She Woke) employ asserting one’s power by taking ownership of the oppressive symbol subverting the intent of those doing the oppressing. Specifically, in all three cases embracing the "red" brand and employing it to your advantage (even in the short-term).

It is actually fairly common in literature to embrace the imagery of the oppressor to subvert the oppression, even seen in children and young adult literature (The Hunger Games: the mockingjy, Harry Potter: Harry’s scar, all things muggle, Weasley is our King badges, and of course SPEW and Dobby, etc). In these later examples, the embracing of the symbols becomes a mockery of the powerful, for example the muggle items and behaviors in the stories are viewed as primitive and silly, but it is these items and ideas facilitate the resistance. Hermoine's ability to bring others around to seeing house elves as people and subsequently all cognitive beings are worthy of respect and defense arguably move Harry and co. on the hero's journey, which really comes into focus while the Ministry of Magic is rounding up, imprisoning, and torturing muggle-born people. It should be noted that of course not all the attempts to subvert oppressive symbols are effective.

Finally, The Burka Avenger begs the question will Jiya’s mask (costume) hold her back as it has traditionally for other superheroes? Spiderman and Batman need and hate the masks they wear, which causes a lot of problems for both. Notably, in the Civil War Spiderman unmasks himself after a pretty convoluted storyline. Mask => burden. The mask becomes as oppressive as having everyone know who you are. Ironman and the X-men (mostly) don’t wear masks and are public targets as are their loved one's (Aunt May). The casualties of secret identities. This conversation, where the burka is simultaneously empowering and oppressive could be interesting, if the show chooses that direction.

Below is a clip from the cartoon. .