I like DC characters; I just hate DC

I'm Amy, a white queer atheist vegetarian cis female physics major. I spend most of my time fangirling Connor Hawke, Jason Todd and Cassandra Cain. This blog is sex-positive, body positive, QUILTBAG positive, anti-racism, anti-misogyny, anti-ableism, anti-oppression in general, anti-whatever fuckery DC is pulling now, and pro-Missing-E. Check out http://daggerpen.livejournal.com/tag/fanfiction for my fics. I have SPD and a migraine disorder, so please tag for flashing lights, general trigger warnings, and, just as a personal "I'm tired of seeing scans from these shitty arcs" thing, tag for Fabian Nicieza and Grant Morrison, as well as the issue numbers of the arcs in which they both butchered Jason's characterization.
I am likewise willing to tag for anything. I do my best to tag for anything that might generally be a problem for someone, but if I'm posting something you need to Savior, just drop me an ask and I'll do my best. Thanks to Tumblr user dimethyloctopus for the icon. Check out the full version here: http://dimethyloctopus.tumblr.com/post/48569979761/cass-cain-redesign-kinda
Posts tagged "gender"

marcusto:

gimpnelly:

Last week I wrote this piece for Comic Book Resources about the new Teen Titans #1 cover. The point of the piece was hey, there’s a broad demographic DC *could* be hitting with this book but the cover is certainly not made for that potential demographic. Instead, it’s more of the same-old,…

I’ve worked with Janelle on Red Robin for the majority of my run. She is one of my favorite collaborators and also a great friend. She brings up a lot of things that women have to deal with, in this case within our industry. It’s not about attacking men, it’s about bringing to light the problems that exist and our inability see what is actually going on. My personal belief is that the more we talk about this and the more people know the better we can all be. 

Asker Anonymous Asks:
Well now I'm curious. I looked up all of the books that you recommended and there's only one by a male writer. You know men write YA too, right? It's not just stories about vapid teen girls. There are real stories in there. Might I recommend you branch out to include more stories that aren't just about teen girls? Neil Gaiman, David Levithan, Jay Asher just to name a few.
daggerpen daggerpen Said:

yaflash:

catagator:

summerscourtney:

aprihop:

 There are real stories in there

are you trying to tell me, a woman, that a story about a “vapid” teen girl isn’t a real story? dude are you lost on the way to /r/theredpill or something?

i’m not at all interested in the authors mentioned, or their books. they do nothing for me. if you want to recommend books to people, go ahead and do it, but i’m not going to do it for you. and for real, neil gaiman? do you even go here? 

ok which one of you is trolling me tho

"Men write YA too, right? It’s not just stories about vapid teen girls."

"Men write YA too, right? It’s not just stories about vapid teen girls."

"Men write YA too, right? It’s not just stories about vapid teen girls."

"Men write YA too, right? It’s not just stories about vapid teen girls."

"Men write YA too, right? It’s not just stories about vapid teen girls."

"Men write YA too, right? It’s not just stories about vapid teen girls."

Wow, every time I publish a YA novel, I hope there are at least 10 male YA writers out there to make up for my stories about vapid teenage girls.  WAIT.  What am I even saying.  My books aren’t even REAL!  They don’t even exist.  Thank goodness for that because they’re about girls.

This is why the ongoing conversation about how undermined and discredited female YA writers are for their work is so important.  Whether or not this ask is serious—I hope it’s not, but ha ha as a YA author I’ve seen exactly this sentiment when it is—it’s super indicative of a very real and pervasive and damaging attitude that NEEDS CHANGING.  (Or wait, does it?  It’s just hurting girls, after all!  Those vapid, vapid girls.)  Also a perfect example of how any story that has value to a girl is completely devalued BECAUSE it has value to a girl.

I mean, seriously, how can you write someone an ask like that with any kind of sincerity and not see how messed up the overall sentiment behind it is?

ALL of this. 

NO I HAD ABSOLUTELY NO FUCKING IDEA THAT MEN WRITE YA. WHAT A REVELATION. THANK YOU FOR YOUR FUCKING WISDOM, ANON.

Whenever I hear the "Women are paid $.78 for the man’s $1" I flip it around.

Men make $1.22 for every woman’s $1.

It interests me that even the most common simple measure of gender inequality is firmly based on male-as-normative …

bisexual activist and queer theory blogger Patrick RichardsFink 

this is an interesting point, although mathematically inaccurate: assuming the women:men, 0.78:1 ratio is correct, men make $1.28 for every woman’s $1

A white man makes $1.34 for every dollar that a black man makes

A white man makes $1.52 for every dollar that a latino man makes

A white man makes $1.24 for every dollar that a white woman makes

A white man makes $1.44 for every dollar that a black woman makes

A white man makes $1.67 for every dollar that a latina woman makes

That’s some bullshit right there.

Let’s take it a step further. For every hour a white man works, a black woman has to work 86 minutes to earn as much money. 57.6 hours a week compared to the white man’s 40.

Take it another step further. Assuming a Monday through Friday, 9 to 5 job, from Thursday 12:45pm through Friday end of business, a white man gets paid for his work, a black woman is, by comparison, working for free.

(via quentintortellini)

THE LAST LINE

(via covenesque)

This. I am tired of seing this numbers without thinking about woc. (via nabyss)

(via elusiveseamonster)

bioticbootyshaker:

for real tho 99% of the time this “grimdark” bullshit is a macabre excuse to punish and brutalize women and girls like. you’re not even subtle with this shit anymore.

(via saphire-dance)

theivorytowercrumbles:

See: men getting tortured and flagrantly beaten and rising back up is an assertion of masculinity and a sign of a hero, whereas with women and girls it tends to be an excuse for torture porn, making the heroine a victim that the (ostensibly male) audience wants to ‘protect’, or using their suffering as justification for aggression, because we’re not supposed to take action for ourselves.

(via saphire-dance)

brigidkeely:

bikiniarmorbattledamage:

castleintheairwaves:

This is a great article that does a good job of explaining exactly why arguments excusing ”sexy armor” are invalid and altogether ridiculous.

This awesome article not only thoroughly explains why there’s no way to logically justify sexualization of female characters in video games, but also highlights the struggles that women in the industry go through:

The thing is, in this industry, you don’t want to be “that girl.” The world has communicated very thoroughly, with Anita Sarkeesian’s death threats, with so many comments on Kotaku, and with comments in the hallways of the workplace and the podiums of conventions, that being “that girl” is bad. Real bad. Potentially end of career bad.

But it’s not just dangerous for potential ramifications on career trajectory. There’s also a social component of how “that girl” is insufferable, annoying, and should be punishable by shaming. 

Many female game designers, anonymously and publicly alike, confess how they have to deal with sexist standards of the industry, just so they can keep their jobs. It’s a legit problem that men, especially the ones chanting “sex sells!” or “it’s intended for male gamers!” are either blisfully unaware of or willfully ignore (my bets are on the latter option, though).

Please guys, read the whole thing.

~Ozzie

People are often quick to dismiss arguments against the conventional wisdom that “sex sells” as “politically correct” idealism.  But one of the most compelling argument against the slogan comes from the other side of the political spectrum.

David Ogilvy was one of, if not The great iconic Ad Men of the 1960’s.  Unsurprisingly he was deeply invested in the idea of gender roles and claimed “I am less offended by obscenity than by tasteless typography, banal photographs, clumsy copy, and cheap jingles”.  He also (literally) wrote the book on how to create effective advertising and measure the effectiveness of your advertising. 

He was, amazingly, admantly against introducing sex to sell any product that wasn’t inherently sexual in itself for one simple reason:

All his research and experience in advertising told him it would not work.

What did Ogilvy very sincerely believed was the first step in creating effective advertising an massive sales? To create a high quality product.

That way all that was required was to sincerely show the customers why it was a great product and the rest would take care of itself.

So when developers distort their products (comics, books, movies, video games, etc) by cramming sexualised imagery into them with the mentality of “sex sells” so “more sex will sell even more” they are actually sabotaging their product’s reception, reputation, sales and it’s marketing campaigns.

At least according to an old white man from the 1960s who always assumed women should be house wives… and also happened to be one of the greatest thinkers in advertising.

-wincenworks

The article is fantastic (do check it out!) as is the above comment.

(via saphire-dance)

newwavefeminism:

newsweek:

Newsweek’s staff is comprised of 43.3% female reporters, writers and editors as of today. 

upworthy:

One Group Had A Hypothesis About Sexism. They Made A Bunch Of Pies To Prove It.

Every year, a group of volunteers does an old-fashioned tally: How many of the stories, articles, and reviews in major literary publications are by or about women authors? They turned their tick marks into pie charts, and the VIDA Count was born. The gender imbalance it reveals is so dramatic, there should probably be an episode of “Law & Order” about it. Here are just a few of the ickiest “pies.”

Id love to see race & definitely sexuality next

(via saphire-dance)

idriveahyundaimovietheatre:

medievalpoc:

whitefriartuck:

theletteraesc:

medievalpoc:

fuckyeahalejandra replied to your post: Ancient Art Week! Various Roman Sculpt…

Are these sculptures of roman citizens or slaves?

The association of Black people with enslavement is an entirely modern invention, as in, chattel slavery in the…

Regarding the whole ‘men hunted, women gave birth’ thing (and wildly off topic from racism in classical Rome, sorry), it is looking increasingly like a load of nonsense (no surprise). 

There are prehistoric hunting scenes showing hunts which (probably *1) show women hunting for one thing and despite this male researcers still declares that men hunted and men created these hunting scenes and were also the first artists. But now we know that these hunting scenes not only show women hunting in some cases but WERE PRODUCED BY WOMEN primarily!

So what evidence for male = hunter is there?

When you look at the evidence for male hunters you have gender bias (men obviously hunted because men hunt now), gender essentialism (men hunted because they had less body fat and didn’t need to produce babies and Reasons) and ethnographic evidence (indigenous Australian hunters were solely male in the 19th-20th centuries).

We assume that because violent activities today are associated with men while women nurtured young that has always been the way. We also assume that women who were not pregnant would be compelled to behave in the same way as women who were pregnant/looking after children. It also assumes that hunting was much more dangerous than it probably was, hunters were often as much scavengers as far as we can tell from archaeological evidence of kill sites and often employed tactics like driving pray off cliffs to die or into dead ends were they could be picked off more safely. That isn’t to say it was completely safe of course. But who is to say gathering was necessarily safe in an age where a simple cut could result in death from infection and there were no anti-bodies for the admittedly few venomous creatures in Europe or that the gatherers would be free from the attentions of now extinct predators.

Much of the ethnographic evidence comes either from African nomadic peoples which have still had thousands of years of contact with patriarchal cultures or Australian Aboriginal and Papua New Guinean groups. The ethnographic observations were made in the 19th and 20th centuries and are deeply racist because they were based on the assumption that these cultures were primitive and unchanging since settlement of Sahul (Australia + New Guinea when they were connected) 50,000 years ago! We know, for example, in the early nineteenth century the power structure of Australian indigenous populations shifted in favour of young men after various epidemics killed 90% of the Aboriginal population in the space of 50 years or thereabout (something we never learnt in school, funnily enough). We do not know who hunted prior to European colonisation of Australia. We guess and the further back in time you go the more problematic that becomes because the hundreds at least indigenous cultures in Australia have all evolved over time just like any other culture.

IF we accept the creators of the hunting scenes across Europe were hunters themselves then we have to accept that women were as likely to be hunters as men. If we do not want to accept that the people who made the art were hunters then we have no evidence beyond ethnographic evidence for males solely being hunters and then we have to look carefully at the ethnographic evidence and accept it is deeply, deeply problematic.

So, in my opinion as a humble archaeology undergraduate, we either accept we have no firm evidence to say men or women hunted, just that hunting was done. If you accepted the cave paintings as evidence of male hunters when they were believed to be produced by men you should also accept they are now evidence of female hunting.

If you think you can say with certainty that ‘women have always been subjected to men because Reasons’ then you have no clue what you are talking about.Sadly much of the scholarship on the subject assumes male = hunter and works forward from that, trying to justify the assumption rather than addressing the actual evidence. Because if we accept that there is no evidence for that then it undermines a lot of nonsense gender essentialism used to handwave away sexism in society today. 

Sources:

Australian Archaeology by Peter Hiscock

Cave paintings created by women

Lectures, seminars, lost media articles etc. 

Image source

*1 Of course it is ‘accepted’ (read: assumed) that all the figures are male by default unless there are obvious feminine traits as opposed to just representing people in general.

Oh my god, I could not have said that nearly as well as you did.

This is such a concise and accessible explanation of why and how so much of what we “know” about the ancient world, prehistory, and a lot of history in general has almost EVERYTHING to do with looking for confirmation of reflections of our CURRENT SOCIETY, and any academic with a lick of honesty will tell you the same thing.

My graduate adviser tells a story about doing her dissertation research in Normandy in the 1970s, where she delved into the civic archives of Caen to study the role of women in early modern commerce. The other academic working there was an older French man (my adviser is an American woman), and he guffawed at her research plans and greatly despised her working there alongside him, a “real” historian studying “serious” history. He insisted repeatedly that there were no women working in commerce in France at that time, and that there were only men.

My adviser soldiered on despite having to work while facing directly at this man every single day. As she began her research, she began finding women “hiding” in plain sight, listed right alongside men in the tax rolls and notarized sales that they were both studying. She found hundreds of women engaging in buying and selling, and happily shoved these documents right in the face of her detractor, who now insisted that these women, who had not existed in his mind the day before, were simply “unimportant”. 

My point: our biases are so powerful that we can literally look at documents and not see the names on the paper, if we believe that those names should not be there. How much of our narrative self-perpetuates, as generations of scholars find support for preexisting biases by simply overlooking the contradictory evidence staring right back at them?


(via thebicker)

cynique:

popculturebrain:

Leading Men Age, Leading Women Don’t | Vulture

There are more charts if you click through.

I’m so glad this info graphic is going around, because so many people don’t realize how ageism and misogyny play hand in hand and how the sexualization of young girls play into this.

(via sephet)