Didn't we just do this, Marvel?

For all the times I appear to address DC and Marvel directly (as if they read this and care), I do know that the big two don't even know if I exist, and even if they did know of my pathetic, scrambling existence, they would most certainly not go out of their way to antagonize me. And yet when I see something like this (scroll down to Marvel Divas), I can't help but think they are taunting me.

So. Marvel Divas. Christ. I know I'm the one who brought this up so I should talk about it. Okay, right. Deep breaths. Deep, calming, non-strangly breaths.

Oh, sweet zombie Jesus, look at this art. You know, I always thought that women looked differently from one another. You know, had different body types and facial features, so I'm glad that Marvel is here to correct me. All women have the same exact figure with ridiculously long torsos, big breasts and anatomically impossibly arched feet. Oh, and the half-lidded bedroom eyes that says this is all sexy, sexy danger just for you.

The worse part is that this art is pretty damn normal for comics, especially the big two. I am, however, sick of the rationalization that since this is a long tradition of objectifying women in comics I should just accept it because sex sells. Funny, though, how the sex sells argument only means women and not men. Hilarious.

Let's get to the description of the series:

This also seems like the perfect time to announce our Marvel Divas limited series, beginning in July, from Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa and Tonci Zonjic, featuring some of the Marvel Universe’s greatest female heroes in a way you haven’t seem them before.

I’ll let Roberto explain:“The idea behind the series was to have some sudsy fun and lift the curtain a bit and take a peep at some of our most fabulous super heroines. In the series, they're an unlikely foursome of friends--Black Cat, Hell Cat, Firestar, and Photon--with TWO things in common: They're all leading double-lives and they're all having romantic trouble. The pitch started as "Sex and the City" in the Marvel Universe, and there's definitely that "naughty" element to it, but I also think the series is doing to a deeper place, asking question about what it means...truly means...to be a woman in an industry dominated by testosterone and guns. (And I mean both the super hero industry and the comic book industry.) But mostly it's just a lot of hot fun.”

This actually makes me long for "female product." It's like someone at Marvel said, "Hey, Birds of Prey was pretty popular and had a long run. I know, I know. That's really surprising since it's all women, but maybe we should get in on that. See if we can't trick more women into reading comics. What else do women like? Well, shoes. And Sex and the City. Chicks eat that up. We stick some girl characters into a Sex and the City role and girls will just eat this up."

Although judging by that picture up there, I am obviously not the intended demographic for this, because, obviously, I am a female and we all know females don't read comics. In fact, females only like Sex and the City and the crap Lifetime puts out.

Just look at the language they use in this: "peep at." There's a voyeuristic element to it, the titillating thought you might find these four in their underwear having a pillow fight. You will never see them using the word "peep" to describe any male characters, because they are men doing manly things.

My absolute favorite part has to be this: "I also think the series is doing to a deeper place, asking question about what it means...truly means...to be a woman in an industry dominated by testosterone and guns. (And I mean both the super hero industry and the comic book industry.) But mostly it's just a lot of hot fun.”

These two sentences together is deeply, deeply amazing. And by "amazing" I obviously mean "infuriating" in that Aguirre-Sacasa cannot see how deeply insulting and unintentionally ironic these two sentences are.

He's trying to earn credit by saying that this isn't just soft-core porn for male comic nerds, but the series will also be exploring the sexism that exists within the world of comics and comic publishing. And by doing so they are going to develop character arcs for the four women and explore their friendship while having them be heroes. You know, that's a comic I would be interested in reading.

And then the second sentence is a big fat "JUST KIDDING" and my uncontrollable strangly hands start itching. "But mostly it's just a lot of hot fun" translates to "These four female characters will be in their underwear a lot in titillating, pseudo-lesbian positions so you male readers can get your rocks off." Because, hey, why else would you have women in comics? Certainly not for them to be kicking ass right alongside their male counterparts.

For the record, I am not opposed to Marvel having a more light hearted, fun title. Hell, Cable & Deadpool fulfilled just that role before it was cruelly canceled. And even in a fun title you can have some dark parts and really go deep with characterization.

What I am opposed to is what I fear Marvel Divas (and that name along makes me want to brick someone) will turn into more objectification that panders to the believed base of shut-in comic nerds who can't get a date if their life depended it. What's even worse is that Marvel is going to try to present it in terms of feminism in exploring women in male dominated fields when it's really, really not going to be that all.

Comics have a really bad track record when trying to incorprate feminism in their titles, which is a post for another time. And in this case, Marvel seems to be under the assumption that Sex and the City, while very successful, is the default state of entertainment that women like and that it is feminism. Ah, yes, listening to Carrie Bradshaw prattle on about shoes and romance and sex for an hour certainly counts as feminist!

How about we have Marvel Divas for men? You can get Spiderman and Wolverine and Cap sitting around and drinking and talking about their love life. What's that you say? That would never happen because it's boring and readers would much rather see well-written heroics in their superhero comics? Exactly.

If you keep shoving this down my throat, Marvel, I'm going to need a special O MARVEL NO tag.

Now to wash this bad taste out of my throat, this looks like it has the potential to be pretty amazing.

If anyone of you are in Boston and happen to catch a show, let me know how it is, since I'll be stuck in Chicago and won't be able to go. There's an article here that goes into more detail.

And since it's still technically Easter, I wish all of you a very Happy Zombie Jesus Day.

I don't actually have a zombie Jesus scan, but I think Jesus Christ, Vampire Slayer is just as

good for some old fashioned blasphemy on the most important day in Christianity. Enjoy!

And it's time for another round of Uncontrollable Strangly Hands

So I was planning on sitting down and working on some school work (which features zombies. Not actual zombies, but the idea of them. The zombies may, in fact, be a metaphor), and yet its comics that keep dragging me back.

This time it's Marvel, and for a company that writes comic books, and therefore should understand the power of language, they are incredibly insulting in what words they use in their press releases.

For example, see this. Karen Healey already addressed this at her column Girls Read Comics (And they're pissed), so I'm going to try not to repeat what she says here.

So this is the novel idea of Marvel selling things to women! Surely they are pioneers in marketing!

From the very first sentence I knew I was going to have put on my brick holster: "The consumer products team at Marvel is thinking big when it comes to females."

First of all, what the hell, Marvel? Females? Really? You never refer to men as males, and, in fact, later in the article you say "guys."

It makes it sound like women are some sort of wild creature that you encounter on the Discovery Channel. "Here we have found the wily and elusive 'female.' We come bearing these gifts of stereotypical feminine products for her. Let's see if she accepts them."

(Of course, I should probably be thankful that Marvel hasn't referred to women in general as "girls," which has the purpose of infantilizing women and marking them as weaker. For example how many superheroes can you name off the top of your head that end in -girl? I have Supergirl, Power Girl, Wonder Girl, Bat Girl. How many superheroes can you name that ends in -boy? I have Power Boy. I suppose the argument could be made for Aqualad, but that's it. Amazing, isn't?)

Healey points out that, in contrast to using "men" and "guys" the term "females" is dehumanizing, and has the effect of making women in general less desirable than men when it comes to Marvel's target audience.

Which leads me to this fun little paragraph: "Since our core customer has always been guys, we need to be very careful when we introduce female product so that we don't alienate our core," said Paul Gitter, president of consumer products, North America, for Marvel Entertainment Inc. "What we have found through testing is that we haven't alienated them, which gives us the OK to move forward with female product."

First of all Gitter, please stop saying "female product" like you're trying to sell superhero themed tampons. Second of all...okay, I'm trying to make a coherent argument here without descending into profanity, which is difficult, so I will refrain from my initial response, which had to do with a term about procreation.

I cannot speak to the purpose or reasoning behind Gitter's words, but can only analyze the statement. This statement makes it very clear that their core consumers (which, for the record, I don't agree with), happen to male, I mean, guys, who are much more desirable than women. Marvel would love to make more money, and hey, women--I'm sorry, females--have income just like real people, so Marvel is seeking to exploit that.

However, god forbid they try to make any of their products more women--oops! I meant female--friendly because that may make the guys uncomfortable. And despite the fact these things are exclusively made for women, the opinions of males--damnit, I meant guys--are much more important.

And now let's look at the products themselves, shall we? Everything we have here are, like I said before, really stereotypically girly. We have lip gloss, broken heart pendents (although I think someone didn't quite think through the Spiderman/Goblin one), jewelry and "fashion tops."

From what I can see, all of these female products operate under the assumption that females love superheroes, but don't want to be them. For example, the shirt accompanying the article has the image of chibi-fied (because everyone knows females only love Japanese manga style art and a low vee neck so you can get that all important cleavage shot) males Avengers (forget about the Wasp or Ms. Marvel or the Scarlet Witch) playing rock music. Because women, or females, don't appreciate female superheroes rocking out.

To Marvel it's quite simple: females love superheroes, but they don't identify them or even imagine themselves in that role. After all, who wants to be Invisible Woman, or Ms Marvel, or She-Hulk, or Storm, or Spider Woman, or Kitty Pryde, or Faiza when instead females can have crushes on Captain America, Ironman, Hulk, Thor, or Spiderman? Women--girls-- damnit females are only interested in the romance between superheroes and women, and do not in any way want strong women superheroes who kick ass.

No, females want pretty shiny jewelry and lip gloss, because girls just want to look pretty and don't identify with superheroes. Obviously.

I think I have to echo Healey here and say I am sick and tired of this sexist, gender-specific marketing shit. Our culture has clearly divided consumer products into what's for men and what's for women, or females in this case, and despite evidence to the contrary, companies adhere strictly to this gender division, which means girls don't read comics.

While in the past comics were intended strictly for men, it isn't true anymore. Women--females--are large consumers too, although neither DC or Marvel wants to acknowledge that. I have had this conversation numerous times with Darcy and it comes down to this: Do Marvel and DC just hate money?

From a purely economic standpoint, this ridiculous stance that only men read comics doesn't make sense. By listening to critics, both male and female, about the sexism inherent in comics-- such as the T&A, poor characterization of women, the assault of female characters, etc.--and acting upon it, the companies will sell more of their titles to women and thus make more money. And yet they won't, and instead we get this "female product."

So well done, Marvel, in announcing you decided to market to women in the most insulting way possible. Females, huh? When will we learn that comics aren't for us, but instead for the guys? I suppose I should just be happy you even deigned to notice us.

So, no, Marvel, I won't be buying your female product. And for the record, I'm a woman, not one of your faceless females, and I refuse to be placated with these products and I will refuse to be silent about it.