![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
On that NYCC panel thing.
Yes, yes, I know. The panel description is shockingly bass-ackwards and sexist. So is the grouping of the women. Louise Simonson, Amanda Conner, and Colleen Doran are seasoned veterans who worked damn hard to get where they are; Jenna Jameson, on the other hand, has fun ideas for comics, but she:
A) is a n00b,
B) doesn't handle the writing or art herself, and
C) to be honest, the fourth panel slot should probably have gone to someone else who has had to work harder, faster, better, and longer in order to be successful in the comics business.
Does Jenna Jameson have interesting things to say about science fiction, horror tropes, and the art of making comics? She does. Yes, she really does. You can read the things that she has to say in her editorials in Shadow Hunter. She's a smart and fun person. That still doesn't mean that she has anything else in common with the other three women on that panel. Let's be honest here: Jameson got an opportunity to make a comic because of her celebrity status. So far, it's a good comic. But that panel slot probably should have gone to a hard-working and under-appreciated female industry veteran. That's kind of the point of the panel, isn't it?
Panel seats are rewards. They're recognition for people that have been making long-time contributions to a field, in this case comics. Louise Simonson, Colleen Doran, and Amanda Conner have been contributing to the industry for decades. Jenna Jameson? It's not that she doesn't have anything to contribute, because she does. But there are others who have been working longer who have contributed more. And Jameson doesn't even write or draw her own comic book. That's the most damning strike against her in this situation. I'd be a lot more willing to defend her seat on that panel if she actually rolled up her sleeves and did the hard work of making a comic, either writing the script or drawing the artwork or doing the lettering or something. As it stands now, she's more of a creative director than anything else. She comes up with the ideas; other people bring them to life. That's great, but it also means that she only gets to do the fun part. The panel seat should have gone to someone who can do the hard work, too.
Having said that, however, I'm still disappointed at the misogynistic poo that's already being flung at Jameson, in the comments at two certain blog posts.
FFS, people. Don't make me bust out the Wall of Shame again.
As usual, Rachel hits the nail on the head, and I tried to be a little more coherent in the comments there, but I'm still just reeling from all the general stupidity and wrongness surrounding this. And I mean general stupidity and wrongness coming from all sides, including those who are using this as an opportunity to crack cheap sexist jokes at Jameson's expense.
Also, "outrageous and provocative"? Are you effing kidding me?!
Power Pack. New Mutants. Birds of Prey. X-Factor. Superman. Heck, even Shadow Hunter. What exactly is outrageous or provocative about ANY of these titles? Why does a comic have to be "outrageous and provocative" in order to to be considered good? Why are "outrageous and provocative" the ONLY adjectives chosen to describe these women's works and presumably to excite potential panel-goers? Why?!
(And yeah, I know what you're thinking, and no, I still say that Shadow Hunter is not particularly outrageous or provocative. Look, I like the series, but come on, there's nothing new about a scantily-clad woman slaying demons and spraying lots of blood and gore anywhere. Obviously Jameson's name associated with the title is outrageous and provocative, but I'd say that's more a result of the fact that a lot of comics readers - and a lot of the the general public - are mouth-breathing idiots who can't wrap their tiny trogolodyte brains around the concept of a pornographer actually having thoughts and talents, rather than a characteristic of the comic itself.)
I think it's a sad, sad reflection on the mainstream comic industry if things like good writing, nice artwork, and strong women characters can be described as "outrageous" and "provocative."
EDIT: Oh good God. Is it Comics Book Fans Flash Their Assholes Week, or what? There's so much stupid in the comments here that I don't even know where to start.
EDIT TWO: What actually happened at the panel.
A) is a n00b,
B) doesn't handle the writing or art herself, and
C) to be honest, the fourth panel slot should probably have gone to someone else who has had to work harder, faster, better, and longer in order to be successful in the comics business.
Does Jenna Jameson have interesting things to say about science fiction, horror tropes, and the art of making comics? She does. Yes, she really does. You can read the things that she has to say in her editorials in Shadow Hunter. She's a smart and fun person. That still doesn't mean that she has anything else in common with the other three women on that panel. Let's be honest here: Jameson got an opportunity to make a comic because of her celebrity status. So far, it's a good comic. But that panel slot probably should have gone to a hard-working and under-appreciated female industry veteran. That's kind of the point of the panel, isn't it?
Panel seats are rewards. They're recognition for people that have been making long-time contributions to a field, in this case comics. Louise Simonson, Colleen Doran, and Amanda Conner have been contributing to the industry for decades. Jenna Jameson? It's not that she doesn't have anything to contribute, because she does. But there are others who have been working longer who have contributed more. And Jameson doesn't even write or draw her own comic book. That's the most damning strike against her in this situation. I'd be a lot more willing to defend her seat on that panel if she actually rolled up her sleeves and did the hard work of making a comic, either writing the script or drawing the artwork or doing the lettering or something. As it stands now, she's more of a creative director than anything else. She comes up with the ideas; other people bring them to life. That's great, but it also means that she only gets to do the fun part. The panel seat should have gone to someone who can do the hard work, too.
Having said that, however, I'm still disappointed at the misogynistic poo that's already being flung at Jameson, in the comments at two certain blog posts.
FFS, people. Don't make me bust out the Wall of Shame again.
As usual, Rachel hits the nail on the head, and I tried to be a little more coherent in the comments there, but I'm still just reeling from all the general stupidity and wrongness surrounding this. And I mean general stupidity and wrongness coming from all sides, including those who are using this as an opportunity to crack cheap sexist jokes at Jameson's expense.
Also, "outrageous and provocative"? Are you effing kidding me?!
Power Pack. New Mutants. Birds of Prey. X-Factor. Superman. Heck, even Shadow Hunter. What exactly is outrageous or provocative about ANY of these titles? Why does a comic have to be "outrageous and provocative" in order to to be considered good? Why are "outrageous and provocative" the ONLY adjectives chosen to describe these women's works and presumably to excite potential panel-goers? Why?!
(And yeah, I know what you're thinking, and no, I still say that Shadow Hunter is not particularly outrageous or provocative. Look, I like the series, but come on, there's nothing new about a scantily-clad woman slaying demons and spraying lots of blood and gore anywhere. Obviously Jameson's name associated with the title is outrageous and provocative, but I'd say that's more a result of the fact that a lot of comics readers - and a lot of the the general public - are mouth-breathing idiots who can't wrap their tiny trogolodyte brains around the concept of a pornographer actually having thoughts and talents, rather than a characteristic of the comic itself.)
I think it's a sad, sad reflection on the mainstream comic industry if things like good writing, nice artwork, and strong women characters can be described as "outrageous" and "provocative."
EDIT: Oh good God. Is it Comics Book Fans Flash Their Assholes Week, or what? There's so much stupid in the comments here that I don't even know where to start.
EDIT TWO: What actually happened at the panel.
no subject
Rachel's post was awesome :) I'm tired of the male as default crap. :\
no subject
I really need a "Get off my side!" icon for posts like this.
no subject
like.. i hate it when feminists degrade other women like that and dun see a problem with it, or put down ppl in the sex industry :( and ironically enuf throw around words that misogynists use to put down women :(
no subject
If I'm wrong, I apologize.
no subject
You're missing the point. It's about letting ppl choose to be who they want to be. A lot of transgirls dun aim for the more "feminine side of things". Wanting a body they're happy with and a presentation they want are two seperate things! It's not just guys that are feminine so much that they wanna be girls. And it's not all feminists, just certain ones. Their complaints aren't as you think they are either. -_-;;;
If someone identifies themselves as female strongly enough to do something about it, wouldn't they be more likely to be feminine? Just seems logical to me.
You're looking at it from a cissexist pov, that's why it seems logical to you.
no subject
I see your point, I just wasn't sure if it was like that or not.
Didn't mean to get you mad- it's just something I don't understand much. It's why I probe and prod some- not so much to be annoying (though I succeed in that quite well) but to understand.
no subject
I'm not mad. But since you want to learn, learn to check your cisprivilege too. :) That includes saying
Yet it makes perfect logical sense to me that transgirls would aim more for the feminine side of things. If someone identifies themselves as female strongly enough to do something about it, wouldn't they be more likely to be feminine?
Which is you defining us with the norms you are accustomed to. :\ I know you didn't mean it, but it's annoying.
Read up about the hoops we have to jump thru in the medical community to get HRT and stuff, and how ppl like Blanchard and others have defined us (and is still a definition ppl accept *sighs*) and you might understand why this view is unhelpful :)
You should also familiarize yourself with the radfem criticisms of transsexuality and stuff....
:)
no subject
If I won the lottery, I'd probably put a bag of money with her so she could be happier (but I'd do that for a lot of people- money is supposed to make you happy, and I'd be happy knowing people I know I made happy, I don't have a lot of material wants beyond security).
I'm sorry- all I can say. I may annoy, but I promise I'm not of those mean sucky intolerant sorts- I've been a victim of those myself.
no subject
no subject
You're right about the psych/medical community- that's a group that will have to be won over. That's where movements come in. No idea how though. I'm not smart enough or powerful enough to change the world- and if I was- I'd probably turn into Black Adam or something.
no subject
Ah. Makes sense. That's why I apologized in advance.
no subject
Of those comics- only one I read is Birds of Prey (mostly due to sticking just to DC since that's what everyone else I know reads, and I like it enough not to go exploring too much without a convenient opportunity- risk aversion and all)- it's the stuff like that I like more then the mainstream stuff.
I really think (well know) if some comics didn't appeal to women for the reasons you just mentioned, I wouldn't be reading them. Really, I just want good stories, I don't give a crap if it's Gail Simone or Vladimir Putin writing them.
no subject
no subject
no subject
God, yeah. That makes me SO fucking angry. I mean, hey, look! It's a girl! Who's open about sexuality! Let's pull out the ol' virgin/whore rubric--it'll save us from having to think or treat her like a REAL PERSON with REAL IDEAS.
no subject
Because seriously, THANK YOU.
no subject
no subject
no subject
Or they just wanted a panel with Jenna Jameson on it to appease the fanboys. Part of me has a strong suspicion she's the real premiere zoo exhibit here, and all the long-time comics pros are just window dressing.
(Plus, their "Women in Fantasy and Science Fiction" panel description includes "fingers with a fairer touch." Yes, because my vagina plays such a key role in shaping genres. It's practically prehensile!)
And the added link is such a real fanboy winner.
Assumptions of American superiority? Check!
Tasteless jokes about Hiroshima? Check!
Awkward straight man yaoi jokes! Check!
no subject
That's it. That's what was bothering me about the panel description, but I couldn't quite put my finger on it. ARGH.
no subject
It's by Peter Bagge and the full thing is here, if anyone wants to see the rest.
Also, this post reminded me of those people who claim that beautiful models in lingerie are "degrading" to women (inner beauty being most important and all!). I suppose by that standard, we'll have to slap the same sticker on the Starlights. :D
no subject
those people who claim that beautiful models in lingerie are "degrading" to women
Well, that's probably because there's a lot about the fashion industry and lingerie in particular that IS degrading to women. Er.
Look, I don't care whether you're an anti-porn feminist or a sex-positive feminist or whatever. That's not the point of my post and I don't want to start a wank about it. The point of my post is that Jenna Jameson's career as a porn actress is completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not she belongs on a panel of women comic book creators.
no subject
Those people do pay too much attention to an artist's past.
no subject