Slashdot Mirror
Holy Men in Tights! Academic Superhero Conference
Malfourmed writes "The University of Melbourne's Cinema Studies Program, School of Art History, Cinema, Classics & Archaeology is hosting a four day conference (and fancy dress ball and movie programme) on superhoeroes and supervillains. The interdisciplinary conference will address the varying roles, identities, and social functions that these superheroes serve. Topics include censorship; industry and franchise differentiation (eg DC vs Marvel); mythology; the female superhero ("It has been a very much male-centred universe," co-convener Saige Walton said. "They need some more chicks."); ethnicity, class and race; diverse media formats (cinema, comics, computer games, television) ; the resurgence in the cult of superpowers in recent cinema; super-auteurs (eg Frank Miller, Alan Moore, Tezuka Osamu, Grant Morrison); fan culture; the science and physics of the superhero; ancient superheroes; and the 'hero' who isn't 'super'."
When you think you misread the title of the article, then realize no you didn't... it is what /. posts at night when all good geeks are in bed.
What always makes me laugh is how otakus try to justify their objectification of women in comics as somehow empowering to women. By cladding the female characters in skin-tight suits that leave nothing to the imagination and giving them powers, they are somehow less objectified than you'd assume at first glance. Oh no, they are totally powerful, according to the geeks.
Of course, at no point are they ever in charge, in normal clothes, homely, or out of the control of some male superhero.
I've jacked off to Rogue in her undies many times, so I ought to know a thing or two about objectifying comic book women. That doesn't excuse the industry for its blatant subjection of women, though, it only reinforces the stereotype of geeks as misogynists.
"It has been a very much male-centred universe," co-convener Saige Walton said. "They need some more chicks."
Interestingly, a male would lose some edge saying that.
I salute you Saige, and your message. I just wish that wording the message the same, in my shoes, as a man, wouldn't get me an unsavory label.
So he says to me he says, "Do you want to be baaaaaad?" And I say, "Yeah baby YEAH! Surf's up space ponies! We're making gravy WITHOUT THE LUMPS!!! AAAAAAAAAAAhahahahahaHAAAAAA!!!"
"-- What's a Nubian?"
History tells us that many of the Celts went into battle naked. This was disconcerting to their foes. I wonder how popular That comic would be?
On another note, "Holy Men in Tights!" sounds like the next scandal.
The King
Rural Alaska nuclear power gets legislative backing
When I saw "Holy men in tights", I thought it was about another Catholic sex abuse scandal.
http://www.superdickery.com/
Superheroes being dicks.
And other stuff so amazing it... sucks.
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
Bruce Wayne is a normal guy that everybody can relate to. He has no special powers to rely on; only the technology that his wealth affords him. He keeps in shape through rigorous training and is skilled in martial arts. He is a self-made superhero. None of that bullshit radioactive nonsense (what superheor ISN'T brought into existence by some type of radioactivity?). Gotham is a dark, lonely, unforgiving place. I think the animated series captured it the best, although the Dark Knight graphic novel was pretty good. Batman embodies what a superhero should be, and yet he doesn't play by the rules. He wasn't "gifted" or "chosen"; he took it upon himself to make a difference in a cruel world, and to strike back and get revenge. Batman is the best superhero because he is the most human.
...its to do with time when most of the famous characters were created I think, there was a great deal of interest, and post 1945, collosal anxiety about radiation. I expect to see more modern creations having something to do with genetic modification and perhaps nanotechnology in their origin stories. These things don't necessarily happen by accident, I understand Stan Lee was thinking of issues of race and prejudice when he came up with idea of the X-men as being mutants persecuted for being who and what they were born as. Professor Xavier can be seen as a sort of Martin Luther King to Mangento's Malcolm X. In more recent times I've had the suspicion that this form has been reworked slightly to have more resonances with regard to society's treatment of homosexuality (I definitely got that feeling in the second film in the scene where, was it Iceman(?), goes home and his parents get upset when they find out what he is. Would appear to mirror many a "coming out" story).
This reflection of anxieties in popular art forms as a way of exploring or dealing with them is fairly well noted; for example, Bram Stoker's Dracula has an underlying theme of fear of supressed female sexuality, whereas Frankenstein is clearly all about fear of science. Its all the same thing really.
As an aside another reason Batman wins over his only DC rival, Superman, for readers internationally is that Superman is a little overly wrapped in the stars and stripes (of course "Red Son" had much fun playing with that aspect the strip) to the extent where his popularity waxes and wanes with regard to how people feel about the USA. He was big in the 1980s when American culture was at its zenith of being "cool" in Europe. Right now nobody wants to know really. He's always been and still is popular in countries that target the USA as a migration destination.
On closer examination though I think Superman is very symbolic but I think that Bruce Wayne/Batman is probably nearer the American dream ultimately. By day he's an enlightened capitalist in the modern American mould (rigorous businessman but very charitable etc) who still finds time to be a 'self made man' and act in a sort of "Wild West" state of mind by night.
Hang on, inherited wealth, wild west mentality, hangs out in a technologically advanced underground bunker...Batman=GWB? Holy known unknowns and unknown unknowns Batman! Makes you wonder if Wayne Industries had the contract for repairing the damage to Gotham done by the Batmobile and the Joker blowing stuff up. Meh, politics.
Plays violent online games as: Nerfherder76
Rumiko Takahashi.
But in the US and Europe, there appear to be no good female comic writers.
I think this is because if a man wants to be a cartoonist, he learns to draw and design and lay out panels, while if a woman wants to be a cartoonist she networks with her art college freinds and produces a strip in which stick figures talk about Iraq and Men.
I must note that the above theory is based on a single visit to Forbidden Planet and there may be some cases it doesn't address
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
It is if the woman can keep it a secret. In many species, including humans, females will mate with other males while their partner is otherwise engaged. That way they vary the genetic mix of their children, while still keeping a male partner to look after them.
But for some of us, devouring puerile comic book entertainment and debating it as if they were something worthy of serious analysis appeals to the immature smart aleck eleven year old in us.
[disclaimer: the following was written by my inner child]
Now, for a demonstration of black belt level irony: those of you say we shouldn't talk about comic books actually hold the same opinions and have the same attitudes as those who say we shouldn't read them at all. Opinion: You both agree that the idea that comic books are anything based on them could have any literary value is absurd. You only differ in that you find comic books entertaining and they do not; they find pretentious intellectual blather entertaining and you do not. Some of us like both. Attitude: Both the literary stuffed shirts and the literary know-nothings share the attitude that people who don't like the same things as them need to be corrected. In short, you are both prigs. But I mean that in a nice way.
[/disclaimer]
Now, for you pleasure (or mortification (or both)), I will repost my K5 diary in which I analyze Spider-Man 2 on a level that would probably get me beaten up if I did it in my high school English class. By my teacher.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Actually 'sexy' means 'biologically strong'. A female is perceived as sexy because her body shape 'promises' healthy children, and thus survival of the genes. The same goes for men.
This line of Darwinian rationalism is so flawed that I'm surprised many intelligent people even proffer it. Humans do not select mates based on phenotypical signals of reproductive fitness. Period. What you argue about body shape "promising" healthy children is ludicrous. China and India both come to mind. Furthermore, even a cursory survey of sexual icons and fetishes over the last 500 years reveals enough of a range--fat, thin, black, white, tall, short, disabled, herculean--that any argument about sexiness being a biological predisposition to reproductive capability is just plain wrong.
blog
Let me tell you a secret: There's a reason the thin models get silicone implants to have big breasts. The reason is human biology.
There is a fundamental problem with the current brain-fucked ideal of beauty (as represented in comics too), namely anorexic with huge breasts. The problem is that it tends not to happen in normal, healthy humans. By the time the body has been forced to eat its fat reserves, or didn't have enough food to build them up in the first place, guess what? It doesn't have enough fat for big breasts either. Those reserves went too.
The current ideal of beauty is something that deviates far enough from the biological average, or from a normal human metaboloism, to count as a _mutant_.
So you're telling me... what? That you're expecting normal healthy kids from a _mutant_? Now I would understand a fascination with mutants in comics as a source of super-powers (after all, most super-heroes are mutants). But as a means of propagating normal human genes to healthy human offspring, it's outright idiotic.
And as was already mentioned, this ideal is very new. In some parts of the world, as new as late 20'th century. (See recent stories about Asian girls ending up with metabolism problem and other illnesses, by starving themselves or making themselves puke, to fit the beauty ideal Hollywood raped their coutries with. Countries where until recently the idea of beauty was a slightly fat woman.)
See, for most of human history, the beauty ideal was actually someone who by modern standards would be considered overweight. And you know the fertility figurines the cavemen made? Now those were seriously overweight.
_That_ was the kind of shape that guaranteed survival the next time there's a famine or you catch a disease. An anorexic wife would most likely have died long before passing those genes along. Someone with fat reserves would have survived.
And then there are other bleeps on the history radar, such as the Greeks and Romans. You may notice that those did have statues of thin women, for a change. They also had tiny breasts. In fact, the Romans are noted as having invented the bra... for the purpose of _hiding_ breasts. In effect, a strip of cloth tied over the breasts to make a woman look like she had none.
Oops, that ideal of beauty was different from ours too.
Or then, yes, were the Chinese, whose idea of beauty was more centred around crippled feet. A woman was apparently dead sexy for them if, before anything else, her feet were crippled to the point of barely being able to walk.
Oops, that differs from our beauty ideal too.
So give me a break. There is no correlation between our current _mutant_ ideal of beauty and survival in anything even vaguely resembling natural condition. And there is _no_ constant ideal through human history to suggest that somehow chasing that idea is built into the species.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.