pawsplay
Hero
Moreso. She's got the lasso, after all.
Feminist adventures?
- Thread starter Jon_Dahl
- Start date
Moreso. She's got the lasso, after all.
WizarDru
Adventurer
Well, see, that depends. In the Silver Age forward, Yes, her enemies would be bound by her lasso as often as she was. But in the Golden Age...well, while she did tie folks up, as often as not it was other women:
[sblock]
And stuff like this happened a LOT:
[sblock]
[/sblock]
Of course, to be fair, we also have to note that our token male hero Steve Trevor, the Ned to Wonder Woman's Nancy Drew, is pretty dang useless, getting tied up himself a lot.
And finally, it's worth noting that, kink or not, WMM was clearly shooting for female empowerment tales, with resolutions like this:
[sblock]
[/sblock]
As often as not, it seems like Wonder Woman's stories hinged on two things: writing a story that wouldn't alienate the core young boy readership and advancing his (admittedly sometimes odd) theories on gender politics. Marston clearly entertained some ideas that were a little on the wacky side and the Golden Age being what it was, some really out-there stories were to appear (case in point: Dr. Psycho up there? His origin is basically that the pretty girl he has WW tie up was his fiancée who met someone handsomer and arranged to have him falsely imprisoned as a traitor instead of just breaking off the engagement?). Oddly enough, nobody seems to hold that against her or consider her culpable for Psycho's behavior later. Go figure.
Frankly, when you hold up these Golden Age adventures against stuff like Flash Gordon serials...they don't look all that different.
That's not my thesis. It is one that floats around in certain feminist circles. (I simply feel it is an acquired taste that I have no interest in acquiring.)
Over the course of my education, I took various classes in feminist theory, including a law School seminar called Women & the Law (with Ziporrah Wiseman).
Part of that class involved a close examination of feminist views on the sexually oriented business industry in America. Some (few) were pro-porn*. Some (many) felt that porn was universally and inherently degrading of women. Some (few) felt that the only porn that was acceptable was that produced by women. Some (very few) felt that porn produced by women could not- by definition- be demeaning of women.
IOW, there was a broad spectrum of viewpoints among feminist thinkers.
My personal view: it depends on a case by case basis, but beyond a certain point, when force is used in sexually explicit material- either in plain aggression or in the restraint of an individual, the onus shifts to the producer to justify that use of force. (An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof.) Gender didn't give you carte blanche, nor did it automatically make you an oppressor. Men and women alike could be victimizers as much as victims in this arena.
* by porn, I'm including all forms of erotica- Hardcore & softcore, print, video or live- just for convenience
Last edited:
Starfox
Hero
I'm from Sweden, generally seen as one of the most progressively feminist countries in the world. While I'm not a scholar of feminist history, feminism and its view of morality seems to have undergone a few stages over time here.
In the 1960s, feminism was very liberal about sex and pornography. The large generations born in the 40s were coming into heir own and demanded more freedom, personal and sexual. This got to the point that Swedish Sin became something of an international scandal. In the 80s feminism in Sweden changed to become quite porn-hostile, seeing porn in any form as victimization of women. It became the law that porno magazines here had to be displayed in paper sleeves that hid the photographic covers and there was much talk of banning porn altogether. Around 2000 the attention shifted from women being victimized to children being victimized. Pedophilia is today the big scare; any kind of invasive legislation is all right as long as it will "protect the children".
My personal analysis is that its the same generation who initially demanded sexual liberties for themselves who became first parents of teenagers in the 80 and then grandparents around the year 2000. They wished to control their childrens' and grandchildrens' emerging sexuality as older generations are always wont to do. It has much less to do with feminism or who actually is being victimized and much more with the generation born in the 40s being large, influential, politically active, and going through the different ages as all generations throughout history have. Morality is about older generations trying to control the sexuality of their offspring.
All this upheaval and debate has had many beneficial side effects. The sexual revolution of the 60's did make changes that are still felt today and we have a much healthier sexual climate than we did 50 or 100 years ago. But morality and its history since the 60' feels too me like much more of a generation issue than a gender issue. People born in the post-war years have a disproportionate amount of influence because they are so many and so empowered. As they aged they went from the liberal views of youth to conservative concern for first children and then their grandchildren - and their views became the morals of the day.
In the 1960s, feminism was very liberal about sex and pornography. The large generations born in the 40s were coming into heir own and demanded more freedom, personal and sexual. This got to the point that Swedish Sin became something of an international scandal. In the 80s feminism in Sweden changed to become quite porn-hostile, seeing porn in any form as victimization of women. It became the law that porno magazines here had to be displayed in paper sleeves that hid the photographic covers and there was much talk of banning porn altogether. Around 2000 the attention shifted from women being victimized to children being victimized. Pedophilia is today the big scare; any kind of invasive legislation is all right as long as it will "protect the children".
My personal analysis is that its the same generation who initially demanded sexual liberties for themselves who became first parents of teenagers in the 80 and then grandparents around the year 2000. They wished to control their childrens' and grandchildrens' emerging sexuality as older generations are always wont to do. It has much less to do with feminism or who actually is being victimized and much more with the generation born in the 40s being large, influential, politically active, and going through the different ages as all generations throughout history have. Morality is about older generations trying to control the sexuality of their offspring.
All this upheaval and debate has had many beneficial side effects. The sexual revolution of the 60's did make changes that are still felt today and we have a much healthier sexual climate than we did 50 or 100 years ago. But morality and its history since the 60' feels too me like much more of a generation issue than a gender issue. People born in the post-war years have a disproportionate amount of influence because they are so many and so empowered. As they aged they went from the liberal views of youth to conservative concern for first children and then their grandchildren - and their views became the morals of the day.
WayneLigon
Adventurer
To be fair, Batman has always enjoyed spanking people for just whatever reason...
There's also the infamous Herny Pym slap:
(and some interesting backstory about that panel)
Back on subject; there are at least two really good Marvel villains to use for a woman who's committed to fighting for women's issues: The Mandrill and The Purple Man.
Mandrill's superpower is that he emits a pheromone that mind-controls women. Which is good for him since he looks like a six-foot-tall mandrill. He's been known to raise armies of women servants, and he's a pretty confimed misogynist.
The Purple Man does a similar thing, just with everyone; he's been shown to use women as domestic servants and such using that power.
Outside of Marvel, you could use Captain Dynamic from Dynamic 5. He was the 'superman' of their world. He was also a philandering bastard who have not one but five women on the side - each of his kids inherited one of his five main powers. Now, in the book he dies and all this is found out post-mortem, but it certainly could come out in other ways.
You could introduce him as a typical heroic figure and then later on reveal his hanky-panky. How would her PC react to such a thing? The Captain still saves dozens of people a day and repels alien invasion just like the rest of them.
Or use Herny Pym, above.
There's also the infamous Herny Pym slap:
(and some interesting backstory about that panel)
Back on subject; there are at least two really good Marvel villains to use for a woman who's committed to fighting for women's issues: The Mandrill and The Purple Man.
Mandrill's superpower is that he emits a pheromone that mind-controls women. Which is good for him since he looks like a six-foot-tall mandrill. He's been known to raise armies of women servants, and he's a pretty confimed misogynist.
The Purple Man does a similar thing, just with everyone; he's been shown to use women as domestic servants and such using that power.
Outside of Marvel, you could use Captain Dynamic from Dynamic 5. He was the 'superman' of their world. He was also a philandering bastard who have not one but five women on the side - each of his kids inherited one of his five main powers. Now, in the book he dies and all this is found out post-mortem, but it certainly could come out in other ways.
You could introduce him as a typical heroic figure and then later on reveal his hanky-panky. How would her PC react to such a thing? The Captain still saves dozens of people a day and repels alien invasion just like the rest of them.
Or use Herny Pym, above.
All these characters - and Buffy, Lara Croft, Alias and the rest - were created by men, for a primarily male audience. Female protagonists created by and for women look quite different, and not of much interest to men, which is why you guys are not discussing them here!
I read Regencies and the female protagonists are not "that" different from these male-created ones. Except there's usually a lot less emphasis on combat, but that's partially genre. Though quite often the protagonist is a good shot or can fence, because one of the characteristics of a Regency heroine is that they usually are quite competent in a "traditionally male" sphere of activity.
The other main protagonist archetype would be someone like early Willow from Buffy. Bookish, a bit shy, smart. And of course, with red hair.
WizarDru
Adventurer
The Mandrill has become progressively more skeevy over the years, but the Purple Man is far, far worse. I'd be very careful in using them if you're playing with folks who know the characters. The Purple Man has done far, far worse than make women domestics. His abuse of Jessica Jones in 'Alias' could put the game in some very uncomfortable territory and might make your players uncomfortable if they're looking for a four-color feel to the game.
The whole Henry Pym thing is another kind of complex one. To put that whole infamous slap in context, Pym had been heading for a stress induced breakdown for a couple of years. This was meant to be the breaking point. His change to Yellowjacket was supposed to be the first sign and then his out-of-control behavior was the other part. By this point, he was half-crazed. The aftermath of this attempt to save himself was pretty sad.
Mark Millar then took it much further in the Ultimates, with the implication that it wasn't a one-time thing and unlike the regular Marvel Pym (who was just desperate, exhausted and under heavy stress at this point) that he was a wife-beater through and through. I know I wasn't the only person in my circle of friends that dropped the comic from the issue with his 'why you make me gotta hit you, baby?' moment.
Similar Threads
