You are currently browsing the gender category

Male Writer Tries to Imitate Male and Female Fantasy Novel Poses

  • Posted on April 28, 2012 at 3:18 pm

Jim C. Hines as Conan

Fantasy author Jim C. Hine tries posing as both male and female characters from fantasy novel covers. His conclusions:

  1. Men on book covers are indeed posed shirtless in ways that show off their musculature. However…
  2. Male poses do not generally emphasize sexuality at the expense of all other considerations.
  3. Male poses do emphasize the character’s power and strength in a way many (most?) female cover poses don’t.
  4. When posed with a woman, the man will usually be in the dominant, more powerful posture.
  5. Male poses do not generally require a visit to the chiropractor afterward.

Jim C. Hine: Striking a Pose (Women and Fantasy Covers)

Jim C. Hine: Posing Like a Man

See also:

A contortionist/martial artist says he can’t imitate that female fighting pose from comic books

Escher Girls: Redrawing Embarrassing Comic Book Women

From http://technoccult.net/archives/2012/04/28/male-writer-tries-to-imitate-male-and-female-fantasy-novel-poses/

Instruments for Operating on Mutant Women

  • Posted on March 16, 2012 at 11:37 am

The Criterion collection has a bunch of David Cronenberg memorabilia on display, including a photo gallery of these props from Dead Ringers: the so called “Instruments for Operating on Mutant Women.”

Also check out this feedback card from a test screening for Videodrome.

(via Justin)

See also: David Cronenberg on Gender

From http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Technoccult/~3/5vGKjQrIFXE/

Covers From Ah ! Nana, the All Female Creator Version of Heavy Metal

  • Posted on March 15, 2012 at 5:49 pm

Cover of Ah ! Nana # 1

From the Women in Comics Wiki:

Ah ! Nana was a French comics magazine published from October 1976 to September 1978, running nine issues. It was published by Humanoïdes Associés, best known as the publishers of Métal Hurlant, or Heavy Metal. It was the first French publication featuring work entirely by women (though each issue invited one man to contribute) at a time when comics were still almost exclusively male environments. It included work by such French cartoonists as Chantal Montellier, Florence Cestac, and Nicole Claveloux, as well as Americans such as Trina Robbins. It sold 15,000 copies on a print run of 30,000, before the ban on sales to minors proved fatal, due to its frequent taboo and controversial material.

Women in Comics: Ah ! Nana has covers and a history of the publication.

(via Popjellyfish)

Previously: Leah Moore on Women in Comics

From http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Technoccult/~3/v5xZosnb80M/

Leah Moore on Women in Comics

  • Posted on March 15, 2012 at 10:31 am

Great rant from Leah Moore, co-author of comics such as Raise The Dead Hardcover and The Thrill Electric (and, yes, Alan Moore’s daughter):

Everyone knows fangirls rule the world, they pay for most of it. Drifts of Twilight cushions and Harry Potter scarves, Legolas action figures, obscure game character cosplay outfits, nyancat lunchboxes and kitten mittens. The world is literally awash with Things Girls Like. We are surely never further than 2m from a Hello Kitty.

So what is it about comics that’s different? What makes comics suddenly this great thrusting phallus of masculinity? [...]

If comics is to survive the financial turmoil we are all suffering under, it doesn’t matter if it’s paper comics or digital, trade paperbacks or floppies, it’s about “ARE THE COMICS ANY FUCKING GOOD?” and “ARE WE SELLING THEM TO AS BROAD A MARKET AS POSSIBLE OR ONLY 50% OF IT?” If we continue to try and sell crappy comics to half the population based purely on what they keep in their underpants and nothing else then we are totally doomed.

What is required is an all hands to the pumps mentality. Action stations! Let’s find some new blood, let’s find some new ideas, new characters, and most importantly new readers kind of plan.

I honestly think that anyone who doesn’t see women as a rich untapped potential source of ideas, or labour, or cold hard revenue must be delusional. Why should comics sit in a sweaty locker room of ignominy when novels and films and games skip about hand in hand with wealthy teenage girls? Doesn’t that make comics feel a bit sad?

Leah Moore: Thank Heaven for Little Girls

As I’ve mentioned before I don’t even think the current comics model is addressing 50% of the addressable market for comics. There are a lot of men who don’t give a flip about objectification of women in media, but still find the idea of being caught with a pile of garish floppy books full of bizarre female anatomy quite embarrassing. And more importantly, how many parents want their kids buying that stuff, or even going into comic stores? The youth market, both male and female, is getting pushed out as well.

I have no problems with sex or nudity in comics, or even flat out pornographic comics. The trouble, as many have pointed out, is a lack of variety, or at least a scenario where much of the variety gets swept under the rug while publishers and retailed double down on a dwindling demographic. Comic stores have been man caves for far too long, and even the men are getting embarrassed about it.

Maybe it’s all for the best and the collapse of the big two and the current retail model has to happen (the big two are supposedly quite toxic environments for women. That sort of crash would put a lot of people out on the streets though.

Anyway, like Moore says trying to run a comic company that’s run comics “for girls” is probably not a viable option at this point, but comics that appeal to a broader audience, I think, is.

Previously:

Escher Girls: Redrawing Embarrassing Comic Book Women

If Male Superheroes Were Drawn Like Female Superheroes

From http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Technoccult/~3/wWKI_tMq6Zk/

Escher Girls: Redrawing Embarrassing Comic Book Women

  • Posted on March 8, 2012 at 10:49 pm

Escher Girls redraw

As a follow-up to my post about male superheros drawn like female superheros here’s a blog documenting all the paradoxical anatomy that shows up in comics. But most interesting are the redraws showing a clear alternative to how many of these comics are drawn.

Escher Girls

(via Lupa)

See also this:

A “re-shoot” of a “sexy photo.”

Leah Moore on Women in Comics

From http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Technoccult/~3/o79JXolDUws/

If Male Superheroes Were Drawn Like Female Superheroes

  • Posted on February 28, 2012 at 6:39 pm

Metafilter has a great round-up of depictions of male comic characters depicted the same way female characters typically are (See here if you don’t understand why all those beefy Hulk-like characters aren’t equivalent to the way women are portrayed in comics, though yes I do think there are pop cultural portrayals of men that are also problematic).

For example, this one by kevinbolk:

… which is a parody of this Avengers poster.

There’s also a gallery at Gammasquad, which features gems such as these:

I’ll add to this list these images from a great Comics Bulletin article:

Green Lantern objectified

Also, this was a real New X-Men cover:

I wonder what the mainstream fan reaction was. Anyway, it seems to be a real outlier.

So why does this matter? Marvel and DC are free to publish whatever trash they see fit, and the fans are free to buy it. And if males are having their perceptions of women warped, actual pornography is probably much more damaging. And for females, there are far more damaging portrayals of women in mass advertising campaigns, where women actually see them. Can’t avoid seeing them, actually. And really, not that many women will ever see most many of these comic book images.

I guess that’s what bothers me – seeing the comics industry slit its own throat. Here’s a great comic from Shortpacked about why the Starfire reboot was stupid from a business perspective. That Comics Bulletin piece breaks it down as well.

But would comics with less absurd women actually sell? Well, first of all even as a male comics reader you could be put off by this stuff, even if you’re not in the least bit gender progressive. As someone pointed out in the Metafilter comments, stuff like the Starfire comics would be downright embarrassing to be seen reading in public in a way that something like a Sandman comic wouldn’t. You could be the most sexist, body-negative mofo on the planet and still not want to buy this stuff.

Also, let’s take a look at some (relative) recent comics history. Look at these covers from Harbinger from the early 90s (actually that last one is the cover to a more recently published collected edition, I think):

Harbinger, now nearly forgotten, was one of the hottest titles of the early 90s. Yes, there’s a scantily clad woman there, but there’s also a bigger girl – something that wasn’t often seen then or now (though the fact that her name was Zepplin ["blimp," get it?] doesn’t really help matters). The Valiant Comics line had a meteoric rise, with both commercial and critical success. Those books sold well in a climate where comics it competed with stuff like this:

I don’t know the history of Valiant’s demise, but it was after it was sold to the video game company Acclaim. Even before the sale, the company was starting to “Image-ize” its comics with titles like Bloodshot and Ninjak. But those old Valiant books, from before the acquisition and before the Image-ization, had a huge following and proved that there was a market comics featuring something other than the cartoonishly distorted anatomies of the Image founders.

I suppose, given the recent shabby treatment towards creators on Marvel’s part and the history of abuses by DC, I should be happy to see those companies self-destruct. It’s probably just nostalgia keeping me from wanting to see these corporations get eaten in the market. On the other hand, the comic industry in general hinges in a lot of ways on those two big companies and I don’t think it would necessarily be a good thing for smaller publishers to see Marvel and DC implode any further.

From http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Technoccult/~3/Zp_Hu3OynjQ/

Fashion is a Feminist Issue

  • Posted on December 20, 2011 at 1:02 pm

newface Fashion is a Feminist Issue

(photo by Toru Kogure)

Greta Christina writes:

Fashion is one of the very few forms of expression in which women have more freedom than men.

And I don’t think it’s an accident that it’s typically seen as shallow, trivial, and vain.

It is the height of irony that women are valued for our looks, encouraged to make ourselves beautiful and ornamental… and are then derided as shallow and vain for doing so. And it’s a subtle but definite form of sexism to take one of the few forms of expression where women have more freedom, and treat it as a form of expression that’s inherently superficial and trivial. Like it or not, fashion and style are primarily a women’s art form. And I think it gets treated as trivial because women get treated as trivial. [...]

If you don’t personally care about fashion and style, that’s fine. We don’t all have to care about the same art forms: I could care less about grand opera, and it’s unlikely that I’m ever going to. I do think people should be aware that what they wear communicates something to other people — something about who they are and how they feel about the world and their place in it — and I think many people would be better off if they made that communication intentionally instead of un-. But again, we all don’t have to care about the same forms of communication. If what you want to say about yourself through your clothing is, “I wear clothes so I won’t be naked,” that is entirely your prerogative, and none of my business.

But if you think other people — especially other women — who do care about fashion and style are shallow, trivial, or vain for doing so?

That is my business.

Greta Christina: Fashion is a Feminist Issue

(via eecummingscapitalized)

Great post, though some might dispute the conflation of “fashion” and “style.”

From http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Technoccult/~3/_Q96MeBwlYc/

Fashion is a Feminist Issue

  • Posted on December 20, 2011 at 1:02 pm

newface Fashion is a Feminist Issue

(photo by Toru Kogure)

Greta Christina writes:

Fashion is one of the very few forms of expression in which women have more freedom than men.

And I don’t think it’s an accident that it’s typically seen as shallow, trivial, and vain.

It is the height of irony that women are valued for our looks, encouraged to make ourselves beautiful and ornamental… and are then derided as shallow and vain for doing so. And it’s a subtle but definite form of sexism to take one of the few forms of expression where women have more freedom, and treat it as a form of expression that’s inherently superficial and trivial. Like it or not, fashion and style are primarily a women’s art form. And I think it gets treated as trivial because women get treated as trivial. [...]

If you don’t personally care about fashion and style, that’s fine. We don’t all have to care about the same art forms: I could care less about grand opera, and it’s unlikely that I’m ever going to. I do think people should be aware that what they wear communicates something to other people — something about who they are and how they feel about the world and their place in it — and I think many people would be better off if they made that communication intentionally instead of un-. But again, we all don’t have to care about the same forms of communication. If what you want to say about yourself through your clothing is, “I wear clothes so I won’t be naked,” that is entirely your prerogative, and none of my business.

But if you think other people — especially other women — who do care about fashion and style are shallow, trivial, or vain for doing so?

That is my business.

Greta Christina: Fashion is a Feminist Issue

(via eecummingscapitalized)

Great post, though some might dispute the conflation of “fashion” and “style.”

From http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Technoccult/~3/_Q96MeBwlYc/

Douglass Rushkoff in Conversation with Genesis P. Orridge (2003 and 2007)

  • Posted on August 25, 2011 at 4:18 pm

The Believer has finally published Douglas Rushkoff’s interview with Genesis P. Orridge, conducted in 2007 just after Genesis’ wife Lady Jaye passed away:

DR: But, then, Jackie’s passing. Do you experience that on two levels, then? On the level of half of the pandrogene?

GO: Yeah. But I also experience it as a person who is fifty-seven and has been indoctrinated for most of my life to accept a binary world. And feeling a great sense of loss just in a romantic way, as an emotional person. Conceptually, I see that she has just broken through the final perceptual barrier. The human species won’t exist if it carries on replicating pointlessly. I think it’s very clear what we were concerned about when we began this, which was the ever-increasing polarization and reduction of ideas into dogma and paranoia, and this posturing that there’s a right way and a wrong way: I’m right, you’re wrong, and therefore I must attack you. And the whole idea of Pandrogeny is to make that irrelevant, and to bypass that. If we were all pandrogynous, physically and/or mentally, it would be impossible to be at war, because there wouldn’t be a sense of difference all the time.

DR: So does the project continue? You as a lone pandrogene?

GO: It’s not convenient. Because there are lots of things we had in mind that would use both of us in the projects. So I have to try and figure out ways to represent those ideas anyway.

DR: Or start on the new ones. I mean, gender may be an artificial duality perpetrated by DNA and all… but what about death? That’s got to be the biggest, baddest duality of them all. It’s not so very hard to see through gender as a social construction. An illusory divide, like you’ve shown. But death is entirely more convincing. We die, and the people to whom we’ve passed our genes take our place. Death feels like DNA’s last laugh, its final tyranny over us.

The Believer: Douglass Rushkoff in Conversation with Genesis P. Orridge.

Arthur Magazine published another conversation between the two back in 2003. Once upon a time, Rushkoff, Genesis and Grant Morrison were planning to write a book together. It was meant to essentially be a collection of conversations between the three of them. The Arthur interview may give us a sense of what that book may have been like (and the plan for a book may help explain the preoccupation with co-authorship in the interview). It’s also interesting to Rushkoff talk about themes that later became the basis of his books Life Inc and Program or Be Programmed:

DR: That’s why for me the open-source software movement is such a terrific allegory and practice for accepting the fact that we live in a malleable reality. Or certainly for accepting that a hell of a lot more of our world is programmable software than we’ve previously thought. There might be some hardware down there somewhere, but we haven’t got close to that yet. People are starting to accept that they have indeed been the programmers, whether they were witting or not, and that they’re actively programming the world we live in. I think it’s healthy for people to realize this. I think that then they start to experience everything—from their bodies to the air we breathe—as a medium through which they can create and transmit their story.

G P-O: Absolutely. Well you know that Burroughs and Gysin used to say, In a pre-recorded universe, who made the first recording? I’ve thought about that a lot. And what it led me to wasn’t so much wondering about that question, because I think you’re right, it doesn’t matter, actually, but what it did make me realize is that the entire planet is a recording device. That, as you and I are speaking now, on this planet, there is, certainly it seems that way, and we’ll probably find more, there’s some kind of data recorded—whether it be fossils, geological strata—

DR: [laughing]: Or the digital cassette that we’re recording on right now.

See also: my interview with Rushkoff.

From http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Technoccult/~3/MX8Ed7blRgA/

Doctor Wants to use In Utero Drugs to “Treat” Heteronormality

  • Posted on July 1, 2010 at 3:11 pm

The folks at Alternative Right will love this:

Pediatric endocrinologist Maria New—of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine and Florida International University—isn’t just trying to prevent lesbianism by treating pregnant women with an experimental hormone. She’s also trying to prevent the births of girls who display an “abnormal” disinterest in babies, don’t want to play with girls’ toys or become mothers, and whose “career preferences” are deemed too “masculine.”

The Stranger: Doctor Treating Pregnant Women With Experimental Drug To Prevent Lesbianism

Share/Bookmark

Related posts:

  1. Prenatal Cocaine Exposure Not Severely Damaging to Growth, Learning, Study Suggests
  2. Guide to fictional drugs
  3. Parenthood makes moms more liberal, dads more conservative

From http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Technoccult/~3/q4RqkGEOZ2E/