Хотела дать ссылку в порядке общего линкспама (да, теперь я постараюсь делать и это тоже), но дискуссия интересна сама по себе, и не только из-за масштаба.
Итак: Чудо-Женщина. Точнее, её последнее воплощение в "новом DC". Точнее то, как в "новом DC" изображены амазонки.
Only One Can Wear the Venus Girdle, You Patriarchal DipshitВыдержки:
This is, in short, another example of the ever-popular sci-fi metaphorical approach to issues of discrimination. Rather than looking at how race or class or gender effects the characters, you simply map these effects onto a different set of relationships. This creates new insights (everybody would be oppressors if they could!) while also adding the thrill of novelty (women perpetuating sexual violence! how cool is that?) Powerful messages and cheap thrills; what more could you want from your superhero comics?
...
Thus, the Amazons, even as they take the male position of oppressor, are still objects of a male narrative, and, indeed, of a male gaze. They are presented as sexual objects, and the bloodthirsty reversal is almost an afterthought…or, perhaps we should say, an excuse. Certainly, I don’t see any real commitment to thinking about power as a pragmatic, overarching truth. There’s no effort, for example, to use the switch to make men participate viscerally or emotionally in oppression, as you get in some rape-revenge narratives. Instead, I see pulp titillation, complete with snickering, coupled with dunderheaded pulp misogyny, which disavows the violence of the male fantasy by the simple expedient of blaming the whole thing on women. It feels fundamentally thoughtless and dishonest.И из комментариев:
“Azzarello and Chiang … They’re not spouting sexist crap because they’re committed to it; they’re just too lazy to think of anything else.”
If you replace “lazy” with “nasty and cynical,” then you have my point precisely.
If these guys were committed to sexist crap, Wonder Woman’s intro in issue #1 would’ve been handled (drawn) very differently. But they’re not committed to it — it was just the most “shocking” and “dark” thing they could do with the Amazons, so they did it. It had all the thought behind it that turning Killer Croc into a black guy with a skin condition who eats corpses for the Joker did (in Azzarello’s Joker) — Azzarello isn’t committed to depicting black people as subhuman savages, but he did it anyway. Про то же самое ранее там же и в других местах.Про то же самое ранее там же и в других местах:
Only One Can Wear the Venus Girdle: Latest DC Idiocy Edition
Комментарии:
Azzarello, on the other hand, has simply reproduced misogynist tropes in the name of “realism”, as if the history of misogyny has no bearing on how one uses those tropes or how they are received. You don’t get to start over from zero; you don’t get to define your “realistic” perspective as outside history.
And structural bigotry is more simplistic, and more popular in pop culture, because it makes it seem like the issue is simply one of people changing their hearts, or simply an issue of treating everyone the same. It makes it easy to place oneself in a position of moral superiority; to say, well, I know how this works, and I would never do that. Taking account of historical oppression is a much messier and more painful process; it suggests that even in fantasy, what has already happened matters, both for characters and for readers.
...
It’s worth pointing out too, maybe, that Marston and Peter really do feel women are superior essentially on the basis of women’s historical oppression. That is, the main reason Marston thinks women are superior is because he feels that the most virtuous/powerful way of being in the world is submission and love. Women have historically been associated with both, not just in terms of stereotypes but in terms of history (women have been associated with family; women have been forced into subordinate positions.) He argues that women are more fit to rule, and more fit to teach men how to submit lovingly, essentially because of their historical oppression. It’s definitely idiosyncratic, and certainly can be criticized from various perspectives, but it is undeniably an explicitly feminist response to the history of women’s oppression.
She Has No Head! – Is the Destruction of The Amazons The Destruction of Feminism in DC Comics?
Выдержки:
One of the most common words to be thrown around on the Internet at women by people who disagree with them is the word Feminazi. The implication of Feminazi generally being that the woman in question is an unreasonable militant feminist that hates men. It’s a horrible and generally false stereotype that is shockingly pervasive. So when you take something that is the symbol of positive female empowerment and more broadly a symbol of feminism and present it as exactly that stereotype (except even more extreme) then it just feeds into all that is wrong with those ideas. Azzarello’s Amazons are absolute monsters. They are presented as women who not only rape in order to procreate (and yes, I believe rape is the right word), but also women who kill after they mate, women who either kill their sons or sell them into slavery, and who seem to lie and hide what they do and who they are. I don’t see any way in which these women – an entire nation of women – can be labeled as anything except monsters.
...
Yes, mythology tells us – and let’s be clear here – this is MYTH – not FACT – that Amazons as an idea in Greek Mythology may have opted not to raise male children, they also may have raped in order to become pregnant. And they were certainly warriors, although the difference between warriors and murderers should be quite clear to us all as comic book fans. Much of what Azzarello is choosing to use has basis in Greek Myth, however A) the myths vary greatly; B) to take on ALL of the absolute worst qualities of a group of people at once while showing none of the other attributes that might offset some of those abhorrent qualities presents a drastically unbalanced portrait of an entire people which feeds into the absolute worst “Femi-nazi” stereotyping; and C) Regardless of the roots of Greek myths, The Amazons of Wonder Woman were certainly never intended to be presented this way. The Amazons of DC Comics, though warriors, were never intended to be monsters.
...
It’s hard to ignore that this is a society that increasingly hates and distrusts women, especially as they gain any ground or power for themselves. And so it’s doubly hard to see that reflected back in our fiction right now. To see powerful women – which The Amazons have unequivocally been – as THE example of a society of powerful women in DC Comics – stripped of everything that might be good and honorable so that we may see the broadest most hateful stereotypes of them presented. The erroneous and damaging stereotype reinforced yet again that women with power will become absolute monsters. I would never make an argument that a matriarchal society would be a utopia. I would argue that any society that has inequality can by its very nature NOT be a utopia. But I see the Amazons, time and time again turned (primarily by men I’m sorry to say) into horror stories. Wildly exaggerated speculation of man-hating, man-killing, war-like unreasonable monsters. The question in fiction seems to lately be – how could powerful women be anything but monsters? For me, it’s a bridge too far.
...
Because if you do that to Ma and Pa Kent you’ve still got dozens upon dozens upon dozens of powerful positive origin stories for dozens upon dozens of male superheroes and you’ve still got precious few for female superheroes. And you just destroyed the longest standing origin for the longest standing female hero.
The Wonder Woman Reboot Makes Amazons Into Man-Eating Baby Slavers
Выдержки:
But while the male figures of Greek mythology have been getting fascinating updates you’ve really been short changing the females.
First there was Hera. Known as the cow-eyed Goddess and the maternal figure of the mythos you’d expect her to be some sort of giant cow, or maybe a badass female minotaur right?
Nope. Where the male gods get crazy adaptations that honor their past while making them cool beasts for the comic she’s just a naked chick in a peacock robe. And she’s SKINNY. To the point of it being alarming. How is this acknowledging any part of her legend beyond the jealous evil harpy of the Heracles myth?
...
So this change, while certainly being in line with Greek mythology (it is a fusion of the sirens and certain tellings of the Amazon myth), is a major step back for the representation of women in comics.
...
It divorces Wonder Woman from her major maternal and feminine ties (please note that in the comic her allies are now exclusively male), perpetuates the myth of the man-eating Amazon and in general is just incredibly short-sighted. Not to mention it means that either the Amazons are now mortal or they’re suffering from a MAJOR over population problem.