Friday, December 07, 2007
Bada-Bing Barda Doom
Ever hear of the Women in Refrigerators theory about comic books? It's a theory that women more often that not suffer the worse fates in comic books than the male counterparts. Superheroines routinely lose their powers, get raped, or are cut up and stuck in the refrigerator. This also happens to supporting characters, be it friends, girlfriends, or relatives. Comics writer Gail Simone writes about the trend and gives in examples on the Women in Refrigerators website.A big example of this just took place in the mini-series Death of the New Gods, wherein a mysterious assassin killed Big Barda. Big Barda often takes on Superman - and beats the snot out of him for awhile before he gets the upper hand. She is nigh indestructible, projects cosmic energy, can see into the sub-atomic level, and can manipulate energy and matter in any way she sees fit. Oh, and she can teleport at will and instantaneously heal other living beings.
Essentially she's a female Silver Surfer, with a pinker complexion (and a nifty Kirby headdress).
And she died, in between panels, in a kitchen, while unpacking groceries.
What?
I know Barda wasn't a first tier DC character, but given her character background, that death is simply impossible. Batman could certainly die a death like that. He's got no real superpowers, just a keen mind and an amazingly conditioned body. A villain could conceivably skewer him in the middle of the night while he was making an omelet.
I don't expect to see that plot development. Ever.
Hence, my full-fledged acceptance of the Women in Refrigerators theory.
Labels: Anti-Fun, Hey Kids - Comics, The Great Divide
Have you been reading Gail Simone's work in Wonder Woman and The all new Atom? I've been enjoying The all new Atom in particular. It's a nice relief from the gloom and doom of Countdown and Sinestro Corps.
DC has been busy with the killing in recent Countdown issues. IIRC most of the New Gods have had very quick, or off panel deaths.
By 
, at 9:24 PM
I have to say I've been playing armchair quarterback with comic books for a while now. It got too darn expensive, and now I find I can keep up with the story just by perusing the web for a few minutes every now and then.
Gail Simone will be coming to our college for a conference next year - we have one of the few English department in the country that really does serious academic study of comic books. Life is good.
WiR is not about more women getting killed than men, it's about the way women are killed as motivation for men.
And yes, Barda was killed in a pathetic way, but I'd say the Black Racer got it worse. The narration was all about how miserable and lonely a life he had and now he's dead, in direct contradiction of the way Kirby presented him.
In fact, since every single one of the New Gods is scheduled to get it in the neck by the end of the series, and most of them so far have been done off panel, or by shots from the sky, to single out one example and try to make any kind of case for prejudice puts you on shaky ground.
By Marionette, at 6:26 AM
Have you actually read Death of the New Gods?
Every single New God is going out this way not just Barda. The Black Racer was killed while in a hospital bed, he's crippled. The Forever People were found as corpses and every single New God was killed off panel or with no or very little resistance. There are WiR moments but this was not one of them.
Still, this essay makes a pretty good case for why Big Barda's death is the most ludicrous of the New Gods deaths.
I seriously think it's inappropriate for Kirby's grandiose mythology to be done in during a dishwater dull murder mystery. Rather paltry and more than a little insulting.
By 
Joel Bryan, at 5:41 PM
Sorry. I still have to say it does fit the WiR mold... perhaps not directly as a theme in the comic in which it occurred, but as an example of the trend in general as seen in all comics taken as a whole. Just because all of the New Gods are written out this way does not mean it negates the fact that Barda's death fits the definition put forth for WiR.
Why is it that no writer or editor seems to look carefully at a character's history and make decisions based on those traits versus what the writer thinks is important for their current story?
Thursday, September 27, 2007
How Mothers Let Linda Hirshman Down
I first heard of Linda Hirshman's and her stance that being a stay-at-home mom was to settle for being less than an adult human being on CNN. She has a quiet, studied voice, with a steady cheerful delivery that would make Dolores Umbridge proud. Hirshman asserts that "the tasks of housekeeping and child rearing were not worthy of the full time and talents of intelligent and educated human beings. They do not require a great intellect, they are not honored and they do not involve risks and the rewards that risk brings." She also goes on to say:
Here's the feminist moral analysis that choice avoided: The family -- with its repetitious, socially invisible, physical tasks -- is a necessary part of life, but it allows fewer opportunities for full human flourishing than public spheres like the market or the government."
So, in a few sentences, Hirshman has made it abundantly clear that the raising of a child does not require a competent adult. If her argument in meant to galvanize mothers into rejoining the workforce, it also establishes that those that will be given the responsibility of the children while they do so - be they stay-at-home dads, nannies, day care operators, teachers - are people who are neither intelligent or well educated.
And I'm not sure what 'public sphere' Dr. Hirshman resides in, but my experience in the market and government spheres is chock full of 'repetitious, socially invisible, physical tasks'. Veronica Mitchell does a great job of breaking this down in her analysis of Hirshman and her work.
After making her viewpoints known, Dr. Hirshman then follows the tried-and-true tact of all media pundits today: undermine the opposing view by belittling and discrediting the detractors. In an article in Washington the Washington Post, Dr. Hirshman attributes most of the complaints against her work to religious zealots and bloggers who revel in the mundane drudgery of their lives. While talking to Diane Sawyer on Good Morning America, she elaborated:
One of the things I've done working on my book is to read a lot of the diaries online. And their description of their lives does not sound particularly interesting or fulfilling for a...complicated person, for a complicated, educated person. It's physical, but it's repetitious.
Her supporters, she surmises, are too occupied to talk about their support of her viewpoint:
"I guess working women are too busy at work to blog about their lives and are already on their way to their jobs when "Good Morning America" puts me on at 8 a.m.
I'm astonished by Dr. Hirshman's real lack of knowledge about how people live their lives today. Dr. Hirshman, working people blog. Sometimes at work. They also post pictures to Flickr, Dropshots, and dozens of other sites - and participate in chat rooms, etc. You'd be surprised at how many people do. I'd be more inclined to believe that working women who support your stance are not likely to come out and support it because the corporate culture they are in already has your viewpoint ingrained in their philosophy, and so there is no point in coming out and affirming what they feel is obvious.
At least CNN anchor Rick Sanchez took her to task in his interview. He told Linda that he knows exactly what his job is: a TV anchor. And that it's completely unimportant next to his kids. And he'd quit it in an instant if he needed to to be at home. Well done, Rick. It makes up for the whole taser thing.
Labels: Kira, Parker, Punditz, The Great Divide
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Bicker, Bicker, Bicker, It's Different Than It Was
Listening to NPR today, I listened to a pundit claim that the immigration bill failed because of the "viral effect" of talk radio and conservative listeners sending form letters to Congress. It was the pundits assertion that talk radio undermines the democratic process by urging listeners to take action.Uh, what?
The pundit went on to explain that a recent survey of talk radio showed that 90% of radio programs were Conservative, while 9% of hosts showed Liberal viewpoints. However, the poll did not review Public Radio as it isn't a commercial venue, which I feel already skewed the results. I have no doubt it still falls more to the right than to the left, but leaving out a significant part of the talk spectrum doesn't give an accurate portrayal of the situation.
Furthermore, the pundit also made the assertion that Neil Boortz was from the far right of the spectrum. Neil is a Libertarian, and far more moderate than he was painted in this story - I don't believe a die-hard conservative would have no problem with gay marriage, refuse to talk about banning abortions, or rail against the Christian majority as much as Neil does.
What struck me is that despite this tendency towards the right on the radio, political views in this country are still drawn about 50/50. This to me says that the radio plays just as much an influential role as any other media, or the view and opinions of the individual. Perhaps the key difference is that liberals read those that influence their opinions, and conservatives listen?
Labels: Art, NPR, Politics, Talk Radio, The Great Divide