I hadn’t planned on talking anymore about Red Hood and the Outlaws. I thought I’d said all I could possibly say in my last post on the issue. And then I made the horrible, horrible mistake of reading Red Hood and the Outlaws #2 and reading Scott Lobdell’s response to the whole controversy.
What follows is my open letter to Scott Lobdell, in response to his decision to try to turn everything around and say the people speaking out were the ones demeaning women.
Dear Mr. Lobdell,
As a comicbook reader who was upset by your first issue of Red Hood and the Outlaws, I appreciate you addressing the issue and stating that you are aware there was controversy. However, from your statement in this recent interview with Newsarama, you clearly missed the point of what many people, myself included, were saying.
When asked about the controversy, this, Mr. Lobdell, was your response:
Nrama: Scott, I’m sure you’ve heard about the negative reaction some fans had to the portrayal of Starfire in Red Hood and the Outlaws #1. Did it surprise you?
Lobdell: It didn’t surprise me that there were some people who didn’t like it.
What surprised me was that it almost caused the Internet to melt. Mostly, what has surprised me has been the very vulgar way that people believe they are coming to the defense of Kori: they hurl words like “slut” and “whore” and expressions too disgusting to repeat here that are only used to demean women.
Lets consider an imaginary woman who has more than one or two lovers. Is it fair to label her with dismissive and derogatory language? Because we disagree with the choices she makes, to do what she wants with her own body? Are we still at a place in society where we’re going to call a woman — any woman — names that reinforce gender inequality?
The good thing is that the story has gotten people to talk about issues they are passionate about — and that can only ever lead to a better understanding on everyone’s part.
Nrama: The character is obviously very comfortable with nudity and sex, which isn’t exactly new to her character, but was really played up in the art here. Was that the intended message behind the way she was visually portrayed?
Lobdell: I’m not really sure one draws a Koriand’r in a bathing suit on a tropical island without making her sexy.
Also, I don’t think a beautiful and confident woman needs to apologize to anyone for the way she dresses, on a beach or off.
First, I would like to point out that Kori is not an actual person. I’m sure you are aware, as a writer, that she’s a character, and I wish you would please speak as if she were one. Kori did not make the decision to have sex with anyone – you made that decision for her. And were a real “beautiful and confident woman” to go to the beach and wear a bathing suit no, she’d have no reason to apologize. But Kori is not a person who decided to go to the beach or a person who decided to have sex with multiple partners. She is a character who was reduced to sexual poses and acts by a writer who wanted to throw some sex appeal in his comic. That might as well be the textbook definition of objectification. That is a problem, and that is something you’re guilty of, whether you’ve realized it or not.
Let me point out to you what happened in your comic, in case you’ve somehow forgotten. Kori was not simply a woman on the beach. And having her be “sexy” was not a problem. She posed in ways very few women would actually pose, or even be physically capable of posing, just to make sure she showed off both her tits and her ass. Some kid who looked all of about twelve took pictures of her on the sly to post on the Internet so she could be objectified further. She was, in that moment, nothing but an object of male sexual desire. To see that, in a comic book in 2011, with a character who’s supposed to be “confident,” turned my stomach. Not because some woman was being “sexy,” but because a writer had made the decision to put a woman out there for sexual objectification and nothing else. That’s offensive, Mr. Lobdell. And you don’t get to play the part of the victim in this situation, nor do you get to act like you’re the one who’s defending women.
Furthermore, the problem was not that Kori was a “slut” or a “whore.” I heard those words used, too, more often slung at actual women like Laura Hudson for daring to say hey, maybe women shouldn’t be sex objects, than at Kori. Turning this into nothing but a case of “slut shaming” is both disingenuous and missing the point. As I stated in my original post, I had no problem with a sexy Kori who made her own decisions about who she wants to sleep with, be it multiple partners or not. I do have a problem with being told that this is what makes a woman “liberated” – by a man. I’ll give you the tiniest sliver of the benefit of the doubt and think maybe you don’t realize what you’re saying, but it is, at best, a perversion of feminism. It’s insulting and offensive to tell a woman that she has the right to “be sexy” – and that definition of “sexy” is the one that’s set by men. Portraying the fictional character of Kori in this way does not tell real women they’re liberated. It tells them their place in comicbooks and comicbook culture is as sex objects to titillate men. I’m the actual woman here – not Kori, who again, is fictional – and that’s how it made me feel. Not that I was looking at a slut or a whore, but that my gender was again being reduced to sexual playthings. You may want to consider that going forward before you try to pass yourself as the real supporter of women.
You go so far as to remind us in Red Hood and the Outlaws #2 that this is all Kori’s decision and to insinuate that this portrayal of her is somehow supportive of women. I’m just going to go ahead and clue you in right now – it’s not. Yes, we want the right to be sexy – on our own terms. The same as men. We do not, however, need a man to remind everyone for us that we have the right to sleep with whomever we choose, especially in a situation that also puts us in tiny bikinis and porn poses, ripe for Internet spank-bank fodder. It’s like a man sexually harassing a woman and then insisting he was only celebrating her sexual liberation. He’s not, and the real point has been missed. We don’t need men to tell us we’re free to have sex. We know.
Feminism: You’re doing it wrong.
But as you also point out, Kori is an alien and there’s more behind the scenes we haven’t seen yet. So maybe – maybe – if it were only Kori you chose to objectify like this, I could give you the benefit of the doubt here. But I can’t, because it is not only Kori. If you’re honestly a little confused about what objectification of women is, then you can look no further than your own comic – Red Hood and the Outlaws #2.
Your decision to portray a flight attendant as more sex object than actual, competent woman doing her job is disgusting, degrading, and insulting. It’s a slap in the face to not only the women who work long hours for little pay while often being harassed and bullied by passengers as actual flight attendants, but to every woman who opens your comic and is told her only use is to offer sex. Flight attendants are not sex objects or waitresses in the sky. Their job is to help passengers in the event of an emergency. They’re trained professionals, not blow-up dolls who exist to fulfill a male fantasy.
Perhaps you’ve never seen a flight attendant before and were a little confused, so I’ll help you out a little with a picture of real flight attendants.
Pictured: Real Women
This, Mr. Lobdell, is how you chose to portray a flight attendant:
Pictured: Objectification in Comics
Do you see the difference? It’s pretty clear to me, and I think if you stop frothing with righteous indignation for a moment, maybe you can see it, too. If not, I’ll point out a couple things that are nothing – nothing – but objectification of women. (Not empowering women – objectifying them. Please pick up a dictionary and learn the difference between these words.) First off, she climbs into the chair beside Jason like a stripper climbing across a stage. Flight attendants do not do this. If nothing else, this woman is putting her job in jeopardy by behaving inappropriately with a passenger. Airlines frown on this, as does the FAA. Secondly, as she walks away, we’re given a shot of nothing but her ass and legs. There is no other reason for this panel to exist this way but to offer a woman’s bottom and legs up for objectification. This was what people had a problem with. Not Kori being a “whore.” Are you starting to see the difference?
I really, really try to see the best in people and hope that my worst thoughts about them aren’t true. And despite the sickening feeling this page gave me and my past experience with issue one telling me this was probably more objectification, I wanted it not to be. I kept reading, hoping that flight attendant would pop up again and have been setting Jason up or something that might make any of this part of a plot. I really, really hoped you wouldn’t have sunk to this level and there’d be resolution in this comic that would give me a reason – any reason – for a woman to behave this way that was not simply because you wanted to demean women in the insulting guise of “empowering” them. I waited, holding out hope that you could redeem yourself a little.
You didn’t. This was the resolution to the scene with the flight attendant:
Yeah. Seriously.
This, Mr. Lobdell, is shameful. You do not need to be giving interviews where you portray yourself as the wronged party. You need to be apologizing, realizing what you’re doing wrong, and taking this as a life lesson of how women should be portrayed. You need to get off your high horse and stop pointing the finger at people who have rightfully pointed out that the portrayal of women in your comics is offensive. It is offensive. It is not empowering. If your goal is genuinely to portray women as empowered (and given the scene above, I’m seriously in doubt of that), you have failed miserably. Take it from an actual woman, not one in a comic that you, as the person writing her, decided felt empowered. This isn’t what women want. This isn’t how we want to be treated. This isn’t how we want men to view us.
We want to be treated like people. We want to be portrayed as people who can be confident, professional, intelligent, and sexy. We’d like to be able to be shown doing our jobs without it being turned into how we can also be sexy to men. And seeing as we also read comics – buy comics – we’d like to be able to say that we’re sick of seeing this sort of bullshit in comics without being told to get back in our places and stop our silly slut shaming. We’re not slut shaming. We’re not being hysterical. And we’re damn tired of men who tell us to be quiet and try to turn it all back on us when we speak out.
Yes, Mr. Lobell, words like “slut” and “whore” demean women. Which is why the bulk of people speaking out against your comic weren’t using them. You are the one who, ultimately, demeans women, and you do not get to turn it around on us. The scene above, printed in a comic book internationally published, does more to demean women than any Internet comment. It’s time for you to pull your head out, take a good look around, and realize who’s in the wrong here. It’s not the people telling you to stop. It’s you.
Let’s consider a real woman who’s shown time and time again images like ones above and told that’s what makes a woman empowered. Is it fair to call her a slut shamer because she’s tired of dealing with her own gender’s degradation? Is it fair to tell women they have to be part of the male gaze or they’re the sexists?
Here’s the real question, and one you need to ask yourself – are we still in a place in society where it’s okay to portray women as if they exist to do nothing but provide sex to the male characters?
No, Mr. Lobdell, it’s not. And it’s time for you to own up to the real problem and learn what it takes to portray a woman that’s actually empowered. You’re as obtuse as Roy Harper, and I would suggest you educate yourself on the real debate before you try to speak on it again.
Sincerely,
A Female Comic Book Fan
Brilliant response. After the horror of spending money to read issue #1, you can understand why I didn’t bother reading any more of Lobdell’s work. Your comments on issue 2 just cemented my stand. I’m honestly, really puzzled as to how he and the writer who wrote Generation X and Superboy can be the same guy. Should I blame Jason Todd and the “dark” aspect of this rogue title for polluting his brain? I’m not sure. But what I am sure of is that this title remains filth, and I remain justified in avoiding it.
I read someone else’s copy of Red Hood and the Outlaws #2 out of morbid curiosity. It turned out to be even more horrible than I thought it would be. There was more bullshit after that flight attendant scene, but I didn’t have the energy to go past that.
Maybe he’s punking us? I’ve really got nothing, other than he’s getting crazier as he gets older.
Oh! New theory.
You know how some actors internalize their roles? Yknow, method acting? Maybe Scott Lobdell is a METHOD AUTHOR. He internalized Jason Todd so much, he’s writing Red Hood like Jason Todd writing a fic. That’s what Red Hood and the Outlaws is! It’s fanfiction authored by Jason Todd! Hence all the boorishness, sexism and objectification.
…
Silly theory? Well then, sorry. Got nothing else on my end either.
Somehow I still feel that it would be a lot better if Kori has acted like THIS afterward:
http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2011/272/e/b/starfire__gettin___lucky_by_magickmaker-d4b91so.jpg
If nothing else, she’d have this thing called “emotions” and a “personality” again.
Scott Lobdell the method author is my favorite theory ever. So much would make sense then.
If he is a method author, then he’s channeling a different character than Jason Todd. Jason’s not known for womanizing and his biggest rage button in canon has been the abuse of women and children. Lobdell’s just a hack who’s managed to destroy three characters who already had enough shit thrown at them in the original DC universe.
“The good thing is that the story has gotten people to talk about issues they are passionate about — and that can only ever lead to a better understanding on everyone’s part.” – Scott Lobdell
Well, everyone except for YOU, apparently. Because you clearly still don’t get it. Oy. -_-;
You know, this seems to be the modus operandi at DC lately. A vague acknowledgement that something bad happened followed by no admission of guilt and then complete dismissal of the problem.
“I’m glad to see there was a reaction created (when we turned Cassandra Cain into a remorseless killer), it shows that people care about the character and want to see something happen with her”. – Dan DiDio
“I’m happy (Lian Harper’s death) upset people because it means that the story had some weight and emotion.” – Ian Sattler
Yeah, pretty much, which is a lot of my problem with DC. They’re willfully ignorant on what the actual issue is, and are flaunting that ignorance in the faces of their customers. Not an awesome business plan, and one that’s lost me from ever, ever giving them my money.
The more I see of this train wreck, the more I wish that I really could team up with that female commenter from your other thread and write this book with her. I hate second-guessing myself, so I figure that a female voice of reason will help keep me on the straight and narrow.
I applaud you for your post, but I have to say I never even had a thought of reading any more of this new 52 stuff after this whole thing with the first issue of this one book. It’s not only a massive marketing ploy bound to be undone in a short period, like all DC projects, but when the company seems determined to produce crap (and offensive crap, at that…) I find my attention fading very quickly.
I hadn’t planned to either, and I certainly didn’t spend any money on that comic (I read someone else’s copy). But I had read Scott Lobdell’s Newsarama article to see what he could possibly have to say for himself, and it infuriated me since I was part of that Internet discussion, and I certainly never called Kori a slut or a whore. Neither did Laura Hudson or Michelle Lee, the two most widely-read commenters on the issue. It angered me that he would minimize our complaints like that and put the people complaining on the defensive and then when I saw what he did with that flight attendant… I can only resist commenting for so long.
I’m glad I stepped off the train when I did…and that I also dropped “Superboy” and “Teen Titans” last week. There were so many people saying that this was being blown out of proportion and it would get better if we stuck around for the second issue.
Somehow, I don’t really see that happening anymore.
Your insight and eloquence on a subject I care deeply about continues to astound me.
Very well said. *slow clap*
This from the man who single handedly took all the joy out of the X-Books a decade or so ago? I’m not surprised in the slightest. Lobdell is a plague.
Ms Snarky, I just thought that you might to know that Gail Simone has stated that Scott Lobdell may be dropping by her boards to directly address the issue in the following thread that I started:
http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/showthread.php?211763-Scott-Lobdell-to-Critics-quot-My-writing-of-Starfire-is-fine.-The-problem-s-all-of-you/
Keep an eye out. Perhaps you’ll get to take everyone’s grievances straight to the source.
Thanks for the head’s up. I’d love to hear what he has to say for himself.
No problem. I think it’s a bad idea for him to show up given what’s already happened, but it’s his funeral. Spread the word, tell your friends. The more the merrier.
Personally, I’d like to see him explain himself to room full of flight attendants. I’d pay good money for tickets to that show.
We know you know we think you’re awesome Sara, so we’re just going to leave this link here for your perusal because it should give you even more insight into Lobdell’s thinking than that Newsarama interview:
http://redhoodsden.blogspot.com/2011/10/exclusive-scott-lobdell-talks-red-hood.html
I’m not going to comment on the main controversy here, but I am going to say that Red Hood and the Outlaw’s penciller’s name is Kenneth Rocafort. If you are complaining about
1. The way people are posed
2. How realistically they are drawn
3. How a shot is framed
then yeah, you probably have Kenneth Rocafort to blame. It can be difficult to separate the artist and the writer in comics, (and in All Star Batman’s case, Frank Miller was certainly responsible for Vickie Vale’s talking ass) but it’s really unfair of you and other commenters to act like Scott Lobdell somehow WROTE the images in his comic, like he projected “objectifying” images from his mind on to the page. There can be a pretty big level of disconnect between writers and artists, so it’s possible (but probably not likely) that Kenneth Rocafort turned in pages that Scott Lobdell disliked or would have wanted changed,
PLEASE be critical of Kenneth Rocafort here, as a Female artist who wants to get into the comics industry, I feel like you’re objectifying my career goal, turned artists into brainless, blameless tools of the writer.
Also, I am really sorry, but while I agree with some of your points, when the bulk of your argument about the flight attendant scene was concerned with how she looked and was posed, not what she was saying and doing, I thought It made your argument seem weak and flabby. It was like you didn’t think the written material justified your point enough, so you had to blame the art on Lobdell, too. Ignoring the art, it’s a scene where a flight attendant hits on Jason Todd, gives him a drink and her phone number, and he gets confused by that. I actually thought the scene was refreshing, because Scott Lobdell appears to have written a world where women (The ones who aren’t fat, magic users, old mentor types, or Talia anyway) are used as sex objects, and I was honestly expecting Jason to have sex with the flight attendant, because this is supposed to be a stupid SEXY book with lots of SEX, and sleeping with the flight attendant could be seen as asserting Jason’s masculinity and virility, traits important for main characters in books like this. Instead of that, though, we get a scene where Jason is genuinely confused by the flight attendant giving him her phone number. You said that this scene didn’t have a point, but I think it might have been a character moment. In the previous book, Jason had some appalling, wince-worthy lines to Roy about Starfire’s breasts and how he’d had sex with her, so you’d expect him to be proud and pleased that a woman was interested in him, and instead he was more confused about it. This could hint at social awkwardness, low self-esteem, a tendency to brag about sexual conquests with Roy but to be intimidated by actual women, or his opinion (shared with some internet commenters) that Kory only slept with him because he was sexually-functioning man, not because any innate value he had. Of course, while I was surprised that Jason and the flight attendant didn’t have sex, I was also surprised that she wasn’t a deadly spy or assasin. Similar to how Scott Lobdell said it will eventually be revealed that Kory didn’t really forget her friends and ex-boyfriend, it may be revealed that the drink the flight attendant gave him was poisoned, or that the number on the napkin she gave him is the combination to a bank vault. Probably not, but I’m just saying, comics are kind of hard to analyze while they’re mid-storyline.
P.S. Thank you for saying “flight attendant” instead of stewardess. I am aware that it’s an incredibly harsh job with medical risks, and I found it really grating how she was consistently called a stewardess online, even when feminists were talking about her,
I am fully aware of who the artist is, and I believe he shoulders a lot of the blame. However, he didn’t give an interview to Newsarama that basically stated nothing was wrong with the book, it was just the critics slut-shaming Kori. My response was to that, and what is wrong with a book his name is on — and the art is part of that. And while yes, someone else drew the art, it’s not like Scott Lobdell’s script called for a woman who wasn’t behaving like that and the artist completely took it upon himself to throw a few porn moves in there. Mainstream comicbook scripts are often pretty detailed, and quite often even give layout for the pages or description of what the characters should or shouldn’t be doing. And even if Rocafort acted completely on his own and the script didn’t call for any of this, Lobdell is clearly okay with this sort of thing, given his comment on the beach scene in the first book. Whether he drew the comic or not, he’s fully aware of what’s in his book, and has given no sign that he’s not okay with it.
I am not objectifying your career goals. Trust me, I know about how mainstream comic scripting works and how the art is created. And I am not making Rocafort blameless. But like I said, he wasn’t the one who gave the interview. He isn’t the one who opened his mouth, inserted his foot, and made himself look like he didn’t know what he was talking about. And as a writer, I can tell you that if any of what you listed was something Lobdell planned, he did a poor job of setting it up and further solidified that he is not doing a very good job writing this book. Even beyond all the other stuff, it’s badly written, something that I also take offense to as a writer.
Even without the art, having a flight attendant show up and hit on Jason is degrading to both flight attendants and women as a whole. Flight attendants are often portrayed like this, and it detracts from their abilities to do their actual jobs when passengers think this is an okay thing to expect. Why do you think so many people think it’s still okay to call them “stewardess” in the first place? And I can guarantee you, her being “sexy” and throwing herself at Jason was in the script. It’s unnecessary, demeaning, and frankly, something I’m sick of seeing in comics, whether it’s on the shoulders of the artist or the writer. As a female artist who says she wants to be part of the comics industry, I would think that you would have more of a problem with this sort of endemic issue in the industry that not only pushes out female fans, but female creators as well. This is the sort of comic that keeps the industry a boys’ club, and not something anyone needs to defend, on any level. And again, mainstream comic scripts are often VERY detailed with what the writer expects the artist to draw. That’s how the medium works, and something that’s pretty clear if you look at mainstream scripts.
You actually were making Rocafort blameless in the original post. You blamed all the art on Lobdell and didn’t mention Rocafort once, that’s a pretty clear case of making the artist blameless. I’ve seen Rocafort’s art from before he started working on Red Hood and the Outlaws, and it’s not as if he’s in the habit of drawing proportionate women with reasonable, non-sexual poses. Also, I don’t think Lobdell’s assessment of the beach scene necessarily proves anything. As a feminist and a fan of proportion I was a little squicked by the beach scene, and acknowledged that it was supposed to be a gross version of “sexy”, but I didn’t actually consider it from a larger feminist perspective until I saw some discussions of it, discussions that I doubt Lobdell has ever seen.
Most men do not view things from a feminist perspective, and while that is in and of itself a pretty horrible and shitty thing, it means that they sort of deserve the benefit of the doubt on some issues at this point in time. Yes, again, I know that from feminist perspective it’s shitty to say that, especially since the patriarchy has created a greater pressure for women to apologize for themselves and to give men the benefit of the doubt. My point is, though, that if you’ve read the discussions that analyzed Red Hood and the Outlaws from a feminist perspective, where they pointed out everything that was wrong with it down to the most minute detail, it’s outrageous to think that Lobdell read those and thought for even a second that they were slut-shaming, but we have no proof that he DID read those. When I move out of the wonderful, feminist-positive sites I frequent on the internet, it’s REALLY EASY to find comic fans calling Kori a slut, whore, and skank, and saying that she no longer has any value as a person because she has sex and wears revealing clothing. If a stranger asked me about the fan reaction to Red Hood and the Outlaws, those people would be the first people I’d talk about, even though the feminist analyses are really good and well thought-out. Additionally, (and again, this is problematic) the “slut” commentaries are actually probably the ones Scott Lobdell was most likely to see, because there are a lot of them, and because most comic discussion boards are not safe spaces for women (problematic, too) but they have the reputation as being the discussion place for “serious” comics readers, so they would probably be the first place Scott Lobdell would look to see a general discussion of his comics, especially if (again, very problematic!) he didn’t think to consider his writing from a feminist perspective, or to question what female fans thought of it. A big part of why you seem to be upset with him is that it looks like he saw feminist discussions of his work and totally misinterpreted them and ignored them as “slut shaming” but we have no proof that he saw those discussions.You say he put his foot in his mouth and made it look like he didn’t know what he was talking about, but there’s a good chance that he really didn’t.
Does it piss me off that writers think they know how to write sexually empowered women, but end up writing living sex dolls that only appeal to their conventional ideas of what is sexually appealing? Yes. Does it bother me that DC comics has created an environment that is toxic to women, both as employees and readers? Yes.Does it bother me that they see women as a specialty market, and not a group that should be considered as a demographic when making all comics? Yes. Do I think Red Hood and the Outlaws is a good symbol of what’s wrong with comics right now? No. No I don’t. I think Catwoman is, what with all the violent sex with dubious consent, and panels focused more on Selina’s body than her face or feelings, and how the last four pages of Catwoman #2 are focused on bloody, one-sided violence against women. Catwoman #1 created a negative expectation that Catwoman #2 lived up to, and I am Goddamn furious that there aren’t more comics about women that don’t feel the need to appeal to male readers with amped up female sexuality, or to show women as powerless, bloody and brutalized. The point of that example, though, is that both of the women in Catwoman have massive breasts and accentuated hips and thighs, and one ends up bloody and the other ends up bloody and dead by the end of issue two. That’s a very clear, very troubling problem. I was disgusted and incredibly disappointed when I read issue two because I hoped that it would improve after the negative precedent set by the first issue, and it just got worse. Red Hood and the Outlaws had a similarly baffling and appalling first issue, but it actually DID improve itself on the second issue. It was goofy and stupid, but also a little fun, and the character interactions were amusing. There are obviously much better books out there, but it did not contain anything that I personally considered blatantly offensive. I mean, just looking at the named female characters from a feminist perspective, you have:
Ducra: Who is acknowledged to be Jason’s better, both in a physical and knowledge-based sense. She calls Jason a “puffy little man child” and knocks him unconscious when he disrespects her. Jason acknowledges her as his better. It’s disappointing that she dies,but the fact that it affected Jason so deeply gives it some meaning, although I guess that’s troubling from women in refrigerator’s perspective
Talia: Who is worryingly Caucasian and conventionally pretty.defined by Jason as being Batman’s ex and Ra’s’ daughter, but other writers have set the precedent of defining Talia by the men in her life already, and the text was conveying that. There’s an implication that she is also Jason’s better, considering that Ducra respects her, not Jason. I guess you could find something problematic in her desire to help Jason, but at least she’s textually motivated by her concern for him and not because he slept with her once or was Bruce’s adopted son in the old continuity (Not sure if either still applies.
It’s dissapointing that their interaction didn’t pass the Bechdel test, but I didn’t see anything worrying or offensive in their portrayals, and neither were defined by their sexuality or lack of sexuality.
Suzie Su: Who is drawn as fat and ugly, but the only commentary on that is about the smell of her “undercarriage”. Jason kills her and appeals to feel bad about it. She has her own goons, but appears to have to do with having a powerful father. I found her to be one of the more offensive things in the book, but I’ve seen male characters just like her in other comics, so it’s not entirely a gender-related issue.
Starfire: Wore a more concealing outfit, was referred to as a team member, and the conversation about her sex life was pretty limited and non-judgmental. Jason When she’s seen again, Jason’s monologue exclusively referred to her strength and relationship with the rest of earth. She mistakenly thought Roy was complimenting Jason’s ass and agreed with him, but I thought that was kind of funny. She provides transportation, puts a comforting hand on Jason’s shoulder, and defeats the biggest zombie monk. I guess the fact that she was doing things for her male friends could be problematic, but I didn’t see it that way.
All the stupid fratboy conversation about how HOT Starfire was and how the guys TOTALLY DID HER was absent, and Suzie Su was drawn with exaggerated ugliness, but there was no commentary on what that ugliness meant to her value as a person. Altogether, not great portrayals, but kind of interesting, and not especially offensive. There was a decent contrasts in these characters, and the two named female characters who died in this issue had some power, and their deaths were treated with some meaning (unlike Catwoman #2).
On to the flight attendant, I don’t see how her flirting with Jason was demeaning to “women as a whole”. If Jason, or an unappealing passenger groped her or propositioned her and she let out a squeal of lustful joy, then I would have a problem. As it is, it’s a stupid scene, I don’t know of any women who act or talk like that when they flirt, but I don’t see anything glaringly offensive about it. She was flirting badly in an unrealistic outfit, and it has troubling implications from a real-world viewpoint, but I didn’t find it letter-writingly offensive. Jason acknowledged that it was odd for her to be flirting with him, and the issue treated is as being an incongruous event, so it could have been a character or plot-related moment. If it turns out that it was just a throwaway scene (and a stupid reference to A Death in the Family) I’ll be disappointed and confused, but not much more offended than I already am.
You say this comic isn’t anyone needs to defend, but I do feel like defending it. From a feminist perspective, I’m allowed to defend it and its (Stupid, uninformed, jackass of a) writer. There are worse comics on the market right now, and I want this series to continue because I haven’t seen enough in the book to condemn it, because it’s still a new series and I want to see how the story, relationships, and characters (especially Kory) develop, and because there’s a chance that all the controversy over feminism could actually get the writer to reconsider the way he writes women. If that doesn’t happen, and Red Hood and the Outlaws reaches issue twelve without any real improvements, then I will join you in judgement of it an call for it’s cancellation.
(Also, and this is just a curiosity of mine, is there anything that series could do to change your mind about it? You said that Kory saying she’s “free to do whay [she] wants, when [she] wants” is just a man putting words in her mouth, and that Jason saying that Kory is allowed to sleep with whoever she wants is just a man’s meaningless lip-service to her sexual freedom, so how would the comic convince you that she was genuinely sexually empowered in way that wasn’t aimed at a male audience?)
How could he convince me she was actually empowered? By making her act like an actually empowered woman. Which she hasn’t.
Not addressing Rocafort doesn’t mean I think he’s blameless. However, since this was an open letter to Scott Lobdell I put emphasis on him and what I think his problem is. And honestly? If he missed the comments about Kori that weren’t slut shaming, he was being really, really blind since some of the biggest commentary that had the most press was anything but. But to address that would be to address something that made him look bad, so he didn’t do that. And if he is going to speak out, then he should have the sense to know what he’s addressing completely before he does. There’s a rule among writers that you’re not really supposed to directly address your critics, and this is exactly why. He did put his foot in his mouth. He did ignore a large part of what was wrong with his books — including Rocafort’s art which, Lobdell himself, has called “genius” — and spoke out to shame the people who told him why the book bothers them. He spoke, and I responded. On my own blog. Where I have every right to address my thoughts and feelings. I did find that scene “letter-writingly offensive,” and since again, my blog, I can state whatever I want about it. If you don’t want to read about it, you can go elsewhere.
I’m fully aware of what happened in Catwoman #2. I have a lot of thoughts on the issue, which I discussed with my other comicbook reading friends. However, I said all I wanted to say about Catwoman on the Internet in my previous post. Again, my choice. And I wasn’t going to say anything else about this either, but Scott Lobdell spoke out and I, as I have every right to do on my own damn blog, responded. To Scott Lobdell. Because he made a stupid comment. Not Rocafort. It doesn’t mean I think Rocafort is without blame, but I don’t think Lobdell is either. So I voiced my opinion. I’m sorry if you have a problem with that, but it’s still my opinion, it’s going to remain my opinion, and it does absolutely nothing to advance feminism for you to come here and lecture me about what I should and shouldn’t be doing with my own opinion on my own blog.
It seems that we have a lot of the same problems with women in comicbooks today, so I honestly don’t know what you’re trying to achieve by attacking me on my blog. Wouldn’t this energy be better directed trying to make actual change in the industry?
I’d like to add a disclaimer here: I’m male and not an artist (though I do have artistic aspirations). Personally, I would place more blame on Scott Lobdell than Kenneth Rocafort because, if something was lost in translation between the script and the art, I’d say the writer’s to blame for not providing enough details to the artist to get his vision across unambiguously and leaving the latter so much room for improvisation and guesswork. As an experiment, I attempted to rescript the beach scene with Starfire and Roy, keeping the original dialogue intact but completely altering the suggested accompanying artwork to bring Starfire more in line with her original personality. This was the result:
http://www.bleedingcool.com/forums/showthread.php?47806-In-Defence-Of-Starfire-And-Red-Hood-And-The-Outlaws&p=246082#post246082
I’m currently working with an amateur artist to see if we can salvage this mess, just for fun. Might be a while before we see any results, but it’s been fun so far.
Ms. Snarky,
(I always feel odd directing my replies to open letters from screen names!)
I made it very clear in my first sentence of the interview, that I was not surprised that some people didn’t like it.
The reasons ranged from what was perceived to be my overt sexism, to some people being upset Kori had any non-Grayson sex, to Kori having any sex at all, to the way Kori stands on the beach, to what some felt was the character assassination of any combination of Jason, Roy or Kori, to whether or not this book should be written with pre-teen girls in mind, to whether or not Kori’s alien mind represents a diminished capacity and therefor inability to consent even if she is initiating the encounter, to whether or not the sex was “emotionless”, to how criminal it was to not portray Kori with her nearly thirty years of continuity in place.
But the question I was asked was “were you surprised”. And again, no, i was not surprised. In fact, I would be more surprised if I wrote something that everyone agreed was without fault.
While you and others did not use those offending and demeaning words, I was not addressing or referring to you in my answer. Again, I was genuinely surprised by how easily men and women toss such words around. I would imagine a woman as passionate and intelligent as you would join me on the hustings in helping to eradicate this word. But again, to be clear, I was talking about the people who did use the word, not to people who did not.
As to your defense of all flight attendants everywhere, it has been my experience that flight attendants are individuals and are not the single organism that you seem to think they are. Some are very professional, some are cranky and rude, some are cheerful and fun, some are antagonistic, some scold, some flirt. If it means anything at all, the scene with Jason was autobiographical (writers often write what we know). It was a flight from New York to L.A. about seven years ago, at a time when I was flying back and forth a lot. I had met Isabel several times on flights and we talked a little but not much… and during one flight she decided to take it further by giving me her number.
For the record, the purpose of the scene was to expose Jason to a world which he is unfamiliar: one that doesn’t involve super heroes or villains or drug dealers or murderers. As a kid who spent his early life as a Robin and his later years as a hooded vigilante/undercover crime lord, I felt he has very limited experience with “regular people”. I thought it was cute that here is a guy who has been taught by Batman (and Ducra and others) about how do deal with every possible life or death scenario… only to be flummoxed by the simple act of a woman giving him her phone number.
I don’t think I’m giving anything away (don’t introduce a gun if you’re not going to fire it) but he is eventually going to call Isabel. And he’s going to have a very awkward first date (his first?) as he keeps waiting for the other shoe to drop. When it doesn’t, and he starts to have feelings for her eventually, he becomes torn: can she really like him if she doesn’t know who he is and what he’s done in his life? In some ways she becomes the one thing in his life that hasn’t been tainted by Batman or the Joker in one way or the other… and he wants to protect her from all of that. This feels like fertile emotional ground for Jason and something I want to explore. I think you can see how this would have been hard to convey the first year worth of stories in the two page sequence that introduced Jason to Isabel.
Any way, that is a glimpse behind the thinking that goes into my writing. It is unlikely I’ve changed your opinion about anything — but since you were polite enough to write me an open letter, I felt I should be polite enough to respond.
Peace,
S
Mr. Lobdell,
My name is actually Sara, if that makes you feel more comfortable. I appreciate you coming to respond. I appreciate discourse on the matter.
As a reader, I can say that if this was your authorial intent, it didn’t come across. Instead, it seemed like more of the same, degrading objectification that I’ve dealt with as a comicbook reader since I was eight. You’ll have to pardon me if at this point, it’s a little old. There’s numerous ways that an author could write a “meet cute” between Jason and Isabel that came across as way less condescending to women. And as far as flight attendants are concerned, I do not think they’re some sort of hive mind. I do, however, think that portraying them the way that Isabel came across in this comic is doing a disservice to the ones who do their job without crawling all over the passengers. There’s a lot of flight attendants — and other professional women — who just try to do their jobs without either picking up or wanting to be picked up by the people they deal with in their day to day work lives. The stereotypes are strong and cause problems for women every day, and when I see them reinforced, it upsets me. If you’re as pro-women as you claim, then I’d think you’d at least be able to understand what that must be like from my side of the gender fence.
I found it upsetting that you chose to only address some of the issue and completely ignore the people with legitimate complaints. That’s a dangerous road for an author, and one that only serves to minimize the real problems inherent in female objectification. You can’t get up in arms around “slut shaming” while simultaneously thinking it’s okay to write that beach scene where a young boy surreptitiously takes a picture of Kori to post on the Internet because she’s just oh-so-hot. Both of those things do a disservice to gender equality, and if you’re going to get up in arms about one, you need to be able to take a look in the mirror and realize your own contributions to the problem as well.
In all honesty, it’s difficult to be a woman and a comicbook fan. I wrote an earlier post on this blog about what my own experiences have been, so I won’t rehash it all in a comment, but it’s a place in my life where I’ve faced more sexism than almost anywhere else. There’s a systemic attitude in much of the comicbook world that female fans are second-class fans and that they exist to either leer at or shame. Comcbooks that set up that dynamic only serve to make it more difficult for me to both be a woman and love comics, and I think that’s a sad state of affairs. Women should be able to read comics without cringing because they feel objectified and without having male writers tell them what they should and shouldn’t be okay with. Personally, I don’t find a scene where a flight attendant literally climbs on a seat and tells Jason she only remembers the drink orders of hot passengers to be “cute” at all. Why could she not sit down beside him like a human being and have a normal conversation? Why does she have to be in a mini-skirt climbing around like a stripper? And while I realize a lot of that was done by the artist, they don’t seem to be artistic choices that you realize the inherent sexist nature of.
Something you may want to consider going forward is that if this many people “misinterpret” what you’re trying to say, you may want to take a look at the message that’s actually being conveyed in your writing and not just what you think it’s saying. If this many women feel offended by your comic, then maybe you’ve done something that you haven’t realized the impact of. I do hope that the book picks up from here and that the female characters in your comics develop personalities as large as their breasts. However, I for one have already been too turned off from any future work by the mistakes you’ve made here, and I won’t be reading to see.
Thank you again for taking the time to respond.
Sara McDonald
“The reasons ranged from what was perceived to be my overt sexism, to some people being upset Kori had any non-Grayson sex, to Kori having any sex at all, to the way Kori stands on the beach, to what some felt was the character assassination of any combination of Jason, Roy or Kori, to whether or not this book should be written with pre-teen girls in mind, to whether or not Kori’s alien mind represents a diminished capacity and therefor inability to consent even if she is initiating the encounter, to whether or not the sex was “emotionless”, to how criminal it was to not portray Kori with her nearly thirty years of continuity in place.”
I believe the best summary of the problem everyone had was the UNFORTUNATE UNDERTONES of what appeared in the first issue.
I’m not a fan of this relaunch by any stretch and I’ve made that extremely vocal about that in several places on the Internet. There’s no sense bringing it up here.
Based on what DC Comics officially stated and what you yourself said in a video clip concerning your decision to retcon Lian Harper out of existence, I was led to believe that the characters would be regressed along their personal timelines and a lot of their personal baggage dropped. I was also told that the Wolfman/Perez era of the Teen Titans did occur in one form or another, even if, as Bobbie Chase said recently, in slightly altered form. I can accept that.
The problem I have is with your characterizations of Jason Todd, Roy Harper, and Starfire. And, to make myself clear, these are my personal opinions on the matter:
1. Jason Todd is reasonably consistent to his characterization in the various “Batman” titles, so no complaints there.
2. Roy Harper’s maturity has experienced a nose dive. However, since having a daughter to raise on his own was what “dragged him kicking and screaming into adulthood” to paraphrase something he once said and he was seen hitting on his female teammates several times during his time with the Teen Titans, I can also accept your characterization of him. He also hit on Starfire no less than four times during the Wolfman/Perez run – and this after she was already seeing Dick Grayson and he knew about it – so I can also swallow his violation of the so-called “bro code” about dating or sleeping with your buddy’s ex since there’s a precedent for his behavior. I will say that I don’t like your decision to remove Lian Harper from continuity one bit. She was killed for pure shock value in an extremely despicable matter and deserved a second lease on life.
3. Starfire’s characterization I can’t accept because her personality has been COMPLETELY INVERTED. This Tamaranean may look like Starfire, have her powers, and share her name, but her behavior is totally inconsistent with the way she was previously portrayed. And the problem is a lack of precedent, regardless of whether or not a particular story has been decanonized. Starfire was seen having casual sex with Captain Comet, so I have no problem there. However, out of her four known sexual partners in 31 years, she’s either been romantically involved with or married to three of them. Captain Comet was the odd man out, so to speak, and she herself even suggested that what happened with him was the exception rather than the rule. Furthermore, Tamaraneans are supposed to be ruled by their emotions and passions and Starfire herself was always a sweetheart: a little naive but seemingly eternally optimistic and happy. Whether as a result of your writing or Kenneth Rocafort’s artwork, Starfire appeared emotionless and propositioned Roy for sex with the same enthusiasm that you’d display when asking someone to pass the salt at the dinner table. Even worse, her wording suggested that she simply wanted sex and didn’t care where and from whom she got it. Unfortunately, that didn’t give me the sense she was an empowered woman. The nonchalant, almost robotic nature of the “seduction” made her seem psychologically broken. Also, the fact that Starfire’s sarcasm was not unambiguously demonstrated in writing or art and her “when I can tell them apart” comment seemingly corroborated Jason’s statements about her short attention span and perception was what led to people believing she had, at worst, goldfish memory, or, at best, purposely maintaining emotional detachment.
In short, my problem with Starfire is that she’s SINO: Starfire In Name Only. As drastically as Grant Morrison has altered Superman’s personality, I can still see enough of the core character there to recognize him. When it comes to your interpretation of Starfire, I can see nothing in her that remotely resembles the character I’ve known for the last three decades. And the unfortunate implications and sexist undertones, intentional or not, just made things worse.
Oh, and one last (comparatively petty) point: unless you plan on retconning Starfire’s history, she was never in a death camp. The Gordanian model of slavery involved owners leasing their slaves for one-year-periods with the explicit requirement that they NOT be killed under any circumstances.
Wow.
I don’t know if you realize this, Scott Lobdell, but in your response to Ms. Snarky, you are actually guilty of doing exactly the same thing that she was originally criticizing you for doing – i.e., not only missing the point of the criticism completely, but turning it around and positioning yourself as a defender of women’s rights.
Her criticism of your flight attendant character was pretty simple. There are two components to it: 1. It’s a stereotype, and 2. It’s objectifying women.
Notice that this criticism is about your fictional creation. It’s not about REAL flight attendants or human beings. It’s not about some woman you met on a flight who gave you her phone number. It’s about a fictional construct that you created. How you go from that to implying that Ms. Snarky believes are flight attendants are the same is baffling.
Is it possible that a flight attendant somewhere behaves the way the character in your comic does? Of course it is. But that’s besides the point. The point is this is how flight attendants are USUALLY portrayed in media and have been for a very long time. As a writer, you CHOSE to follow every established stereotype about sexy flight attendants and did not make the slightest effort whatsoever to give her a personality of her own or subvert those stereotypes.
The fact that this is apparently based on one of your experiences in real life is not a defense. In fact, I find it rather troubling that the flat, lifeless, stereotypical, objectifying female characters you create are based on real human beings. What does that say about how you view women generally? Either you really view them the way they appear in your comics, which makes you disturbingly sexist, or you are not succeeding in portraying them the way you believe you are, which makes you a bad writer.
In any case, regardless of her origins, this character in your comic book, again, is a fictional creation. And a bad one. Everything you’ve been saying in interviews and here in response to this post comes across as one giant attempt to derail the discussion and move the blame away from you as an author. It’s as though you believe that your job is merely to report on people and events that have already happened, as though you had no influence on them whatsoever. “How dare you criticize Kori for being a liberated and empowered sexy woman who feels good in her own skin? It’s not her fault she sees humans differently? She’s an alien. That’s how aliens are. And how dare you demand that this flight attendant conform to your narrow-minded definitions of how they must be. She’s a human being! She has feelings! If she wants to flirt with Jason, it’s her right. She’s empowered!”
You need to realize that the discussion is not about real people, but about things that you have created.
“If it means anything at all, the scene with Jason was autobiographical (writers often write what we know). It was a flight from New York to L.A. about seven years ago, at a time when I was flying back and forth a lot. I had met Isabel several times on flights and we talked a little but not much… and during one flight she decided to take it further by giving me her number.”
I’m sorry, but this is not a defense. The Isabel you met, I’ll wager, did not act the way the Isabel in Red Hood and the Outlaws did. Like you said, you met her several times and you talked a little and then during one flight (meaning after several times), she gave you her number. The Isabel you wrote in this scene acted like you’d expect a porn star to in the beginning of a porno about flight attendants. The way that scene went, I’m actually surprised Jason didn’t end up becoming a member of the Mile High Club.
“For the record, the purpose of the scene was to expose Jason to a world which he is unfamiliar: one that doesn’t involve super heroes or villains or drug dealers or murderers. As a kid who spent his early life as a Robin and his later years as a hooded vigilante/undercover crime lord, I felt he has very limited experience with “regular people”. I thought it was cute that here is a guy who has been taught by Batman (and Ducra and others) about how do deal with every possible life or death scenario… only to be flummoxed by the simple act of a woman giving him her phone number.”
You’re right, it would be a funny and cute scene to see Jason get flummoxed by the simple act of a woman giving him her phone number. But you didn’t do that and to claim that it was “just a simple act of a woman giving him her phone number” is an extreme over-simplification. The problem isn’t with Jason getting a number from a woman, it’s that the woman is portrayed as a male sex fantasy. And Jason doesn’t appear flummoxed at all. He’s still being portrayed as “Mr. Awesome Nonchalant Bad-Ass.” The entire scene is one giant cliche.
If you wanted to do a scene where Jason appeared flummoxed just by getting a woman’s number, you could have (and should have) found a better way to do it. And it’s not like it’s a hard thing to do to have a cute flight attendant who doesn’t behave like a cat in heat engage in some light flirting with a good-looking passenger and then slip him her number.
I’ve supported and followed your work for a number of years, Scott. I can’t do it here. This is beneath you.
Hey Mr. Lobdell,
I’m genuinely impressed that you took the time to answer this post in a not-too-hostile-and-defensive way (minus the accusation that she pigeonholed flight attendants).
But if I think too hard about your writing I have an extremely hard time believing that you might not hate women. Seriously. Sexual frustration just seeps out of the page and glares at me and makes me feel uncomfortable.
Here’s my opinions, formed from hurt feelings: http://tissue2.livejournal.com/18262.html
It’s written with rage (thus giving you ammunition to dismiss it immediately), but it echoes the complaints a lot of others have with your portrayal of every. single. woman. in. RHatO, Ducra and the spirit lady included.
-Michelle
I don’t think I ever came anywhere even remotely close to attacking you or telling you what to thing or do with your blog. Telling me “Wouldn’t this energy be better directed trying to make actual change in the industry?” and “As a female artist who says she wants to be part of the comics industry, I would think that you…” are MUCH clearer cases of telling someone what you think they’re supposed to think or do. I can’t find anywhere where I did the same to you.
Also, it was an “OPEN” letter, so I thought I was entitled to an opinion or discussion of it. I don’t know if you sent it to Scott Lobdell (or if he’s even can receive (e-)mail) but I’ve seen this page linked and described as place to see a well-voiced opinion about what was wrong with the Red Hood and the Outlaws, and I just thought I’d comment on how not mentioning the artist and blaming Scott Lobdell for the art made your point seem weaker, both to the man himself and to any readers who might be directed to this site to have their opinion changed. You then addressed my points, and you also addressed what you thought my opinions should be as a female artist, so I thought I was allowed to tell you what they were and why they didn’t quite line up with what you thought they were supposed to be. I don’t think I was lecturing you, and while part of my goal was potentially persuading you to think a different way about the issue, I don’t think I ever said you didn’t have a right to your opinion, or that your opinion was wrong.
Of course, telling you my opinion is, according to you, a waste of time and energy, so I’ll stop.
Excellent discussion Sara, thank you.
This may or may not help…
http://stars-and-garters.blogspot.com/2011/10/scott-lobdell-and-first-rule-of-holes.html
That did help. You’re spot on, and that post was exactly what needed to be said. My roommate (also a female comicbook fan) and I both thought it was a great post.
Another great post!
I used to really like Starfire in the Wolfman/Perez Titans. Now, not so much. But then I used to really like comics. Now, not so much.
I haven’t read, nor plan to, this issue of Red Hood etc. but the whole flight attended issue did not rub me the wrong way quite as badly as the way Starfire was portrayed in the first book (and how the men around her were portrayed for that matter). Lobdell is clearly catering to stereotypes that are better buried deeply and never resurrected not even as a horror story for Halloween, but it is offensive to women on a order of magnitude less. He still misses the mark but at least he is now aiming at the same planet as far as portraying a liberated woman in the 21st century (quite an improvement over not even hitting the same plane of reality in his first attempt).
I can even understand why the complaints might confuse Scott Lobdell. His mistake of course is that he confuses being overtly sexual with being liberated. What we like to see in our stories is women who are simply -professional- and accepted without thought or male gaze for doing their job and doing it competently. The flight attendant in this scene was acting like a sex kitten, crawling all over the passenger, and not like a professional. I understand that her ‘job’ in the story was to highlight that the hero was clueless about the world, but that end could have achieved in a much more realistic way without diminishing or objectiving women. All it would have taken was to ask a -real- woman how she would approach a man she would not mind spending a wild night with. But then that is more problematical when the company you work for just kicked almost all women out of its work force.
Same with Starfire in the first book. The whole degrading scene would have read -entirely- different and much less offensive if she had, instead of reacting with disinterest to hearing the names of people she had known most of her life, she would have said something along the lines of “I don’t want to remember”. It would have transformed her from being a blow up doll with all the personality of a banana peel into somebody who is recovering from some kind of psycholigical trauma and resorts to extreme behaviour to escape the memories. It would of course not have changed the men around her from being written as utter douchebags who do no justice to the vast majority of men in the world (and yes, the men in that first issue were objectified every bit as much as Starfire was), but it would not have taken all that manage changes to the writing to lift them out of the morality morass they were sunk into.
The Starfire thing actually bothered me more than the flight attendant, but since Lobdell had a million excuses to justify his portrayal of Starfire, I picked something that was basically “objectification for dummies.” That flight attendant scene was so stereotypically objectification, it could practically be in a textbook on how to write bland, stereotyped female characters. But I agree with you that Starfire’s portrayal is even more problematic. I’d just already said a lot about that in a previous post.
Scott Lobdell seems to make the mistake of assuming that he knows better than a woman as to what she sees as empowering — which in itself is sexist. A lot of what’s going on in both these comics is just bad writing across the board. That scene with Starfire would’ve been a lot better had their been clues to the reader that there was more going on than Starfire wanting to have sex with some guy with a backwards hat and a Poison tattoo, but it lacked all of that, which made everything fall flat. Neither the men nor the women seem to have any internal motivation that makes it on the page, and that leads to a comic that’s both offensive and just bad.
Thanks for taking the time to comment. You had some good insight on the whole thing.
This is a very, very, very subjective subject. I’m a feminist, I’m a Catholic, and a conservative Filipina, I’m all up for marriage before sex, and I believe that sex is sacred, but what I don’t believe in is people judging a male writer for making a female character free of her pathetic old role as a cry baby who cannot move on from an ex who SHE dumped YEARS ago.
Before, I saw Starfire as this girl who did not have backbone. Someone who just couldn’t get a damn grip. She had all this power but was so weak and needy when she didn’t have to be. Scott Lobdell changed that notion, so have you even tried to give it a shot before slamming it? Its only been issue #2 and already you feel like you’re the best comic book critic in the entire universe.
Honestly, I think Laura Hudson is just a feminist who thinks that she should say something because she thinks she’s just so damn important, and that kind of includes you. I get that the sex thing is touchy, I understand, but is it right to judge a writer and his job? Do you know him? Is it right for people to bad mouth him just because they think their opinions only matter and that now DC sucks just because you think so?
I do not think Scott Lodbell misses the point, he explained it thoroughly and professionally, and you know what? After the 2nd issue people started shutting up, and went back to their caves. I’m an active Wonder woman blogger on Tumblr and I follow the Red Hood and the Outlaws posts on the net and I must say the negative remarks have diminished.
Even if you say Kori is not a real person, I have a lot of friends who are just like her. They’re just as beautiful, and independent, and they make tons of money for themselves and their families, and yes, they may have had a rather “liberated” sexual life in the past or currently (as what you are trying to say), but that does not make them any lesser than you or me, or anyone else.
I do not believe in people who judge others just because of sexuality. It just means that you’re either close minded or unforgiving with their lifestyles and happiness just because you don’t believe it. People live different lives, they have different outlooks, and they go through life with mistakes and triumphs and no one should push it down their throats that their slutts or whores just because they’re happy with what they do, and you just won’t let them be.
I’m a fan of Red Hood and the Outlaws, I love Scott Lodbells work, I’m still a feminist, and I still respect and fight for the rights of women. Does liking this comic book issue make me a sexist? Does it mean I’m not really a feminist? Or that I support men using women for fanboy service (oh come on)? You don’t like it? Write to DC Comics. End of story.
Your comment is so full of venom that I’m not even going to take the time to give you the angry response that you clearly want. You’re obviously the sort of person who I’ll be incapable of having any level of reasonable discourse with.
However, for your own edification, I would suggest that you perhaps stop frothing with righteous indignation long enough to look up the word “objectification” in a dictionary and learn how it differs from sex. Then, perhaps, you can join a discussion on this subject and come off as less ignorant.
“Before, I saw Starfire as this girl who did not have backbone. Someone who just couldn’t get a damn grip. She had all this power but was so weak and needy when she didn’t have to be.”
Uh…sorry, no.
I kindly suggest that you go back and read some old Teen Titans issues. The problem there was actually Starfire’s independence and warrior mentality. If she lost her temper or someone she loved got hurt, she’d lose control and go for blood. In fact, a big theme for several years was how her teammates’ attempts to instill a human sense of justice, ethics, and morality in her clashed with her savage nature and occasional bloodlust.
One point I will concede you without argumentation is that writers just can’t seem to let go of the Dick Grayson/Starfire pairing. When Marv Wolfman ended his Titans run after an unprecedented 16 years, he’d actually set things up so that she was married to an alien general and pregnant with his child. But not only did any and all mention of that child mysteriously disappear after that issue, her husband was killed and she was conveniently single again. And any and all writers that followed kept finding excuses to bring her back. Since her introduction in 1980 and the start of their romance, there hasn’t been a single team that Dick Grayson’s been on that she hasn’t that I can recall. And considering that we’re talking about at least five teams here – one version of the Teen Titans, two versions of the Titans, one version of the Outsiders, and even the Justice League of America – the strength of that shipping is pretty powerful stuff.
That being said, you’re not looking at this from a psychological point of view (yes, I know she’s a fictional character, but humor me) in which her inability to get a grip, as you put it, makes a whole lot of sense. Starfire was sold into slavery as a child by her own father. She was then loaned out as a slave and tortured by five years by her own sister. She has two dead husbands, one dead boyfriend, and her home planet’s has been blown up three times. Given how pretty much everyone in her life that she’s cared about has stabbed her in the back or been killed and the Titans have been the one constant in all that – in essence the only real family she’s ever known for a very long time – it’s not surprising that someone whose race is emotional and passionate by nature would get clingy and dependent. Wolfman himself addressed this issue during his run and even Judd Winick (I think) had her visit a psychiatrist who said the same thing. As I recall, she was in the process of puzzling things out before the latter’s run was cut short due to the consequences of “Justice League: Cry for Justice”.
Compare and contrast this with Lobdell’s version, where Jason’s taking advantage of her hatred of soldiers and turns her into his own personal living “point and shoot” weapon as opposed to someone with independent thought capable of flying off the rails at a moment’s notice if provoked.
Another Filipino female comics reader here, and can I just apologise for the tone of the last one? Phew. Actually I think I follow Bea D on Tumblr (hello, are you brucediana?), and while I love her tumblr and her posts I have to disagree with some of the ways she’s expressed herself here. I’d like to think we’re all feminists on the same level and Laura Hudson is not ‘just a feminist’, and yes, many polyamorous women even in this very Catholic country have embraced their life choices and that is really, really not what Lobdell did with Starfire.
Ms Snarky, I cried when I read your original September post. I was the girl whose uncle tried to send out of the room for watching ‘boy cartoons’, I stole my cousin’s Voltron Lions to play with, and when I was eight I got a She-Ra action set with the mask, shield, bracers and glow-in-the-dark sword. I promptly threw my plushies out of bed and slept with the sword. Who says you can’t be a princess and a warrior too? You can guess that Wonder Woman has been my personal hero since I was 3 (and when I was a kid Linda Carter was still on TV, God I’m old.) I only knew Starfire through the cartoons even though I’d been a lifelong Bat-follower, but when I met her in comics I was shocked at the personality difference. Then I was delighted. The Kory in ‘GO!’ was the Kory I grew to love, raging and joyful and passionate, like my other female heroes.
My life with DC Comics has lasted, well, a lifetime. I struggled a lot, especially with all the damn Crises and reboots and everything. But when reading about new comics makes a lifelong fan want to spraypaint the DC section of her favourite comic book stores with the word ‘RAPE’? It’s probably time to quit. I noticed all your recommended comics have been from the Marvel side, I’ve always loved Classic X-Men, and I’m really enjoying the films (and the fanfic of the films–shhh!), but I think it’s time to shut the door on my love of superheroes as it’s clearly one-sided. From now on I’m sticking with indies, foreign comics and the all-ages titles. Thank you for your eloquent posts.
This is such a toxic thread. Kudos to Scott for being brave enough to enter.
Yup, nothing more toxic than people not wanting to be treated like sex objects. Thanks for doing your part to keep mouthy women everywhere in their place!
Just stumbled upon this site and the open letter. Discussion is propably over by now. Sadly, the tone still leaves a lot to be desired. When dealing with concepts such as empowerement vs. objectification, everyone involved in the discussion should try their absolute best to have facts and proff and interpretation ready. I guess what “Joe” was trying to say a few months ago is what I was thinking while reading this – it will be almost impossible for anyone to get through to the other side. This environment is indeed toxic somehow and this matter simply cannot be discussed when it’s about “hard working flight attendants, some of whom might actually have at some point in their life been the vicitim of harassement, which should trouble you alright, Mr. Lobdell” or about “that time that I cried when I was 8 years old”. That is not even to say that I don’t believe the real emotions behind those words. I do. I wouldn’t want to disrespect anyone’s personal feelings. However, they are personal feelings and not helpful in a discussion. See also the quite aggressive statements along the lines of “you obviously want to keep us women in our place” that pop up whenever someone disagress. It is still a lot better than in other threads where people are actually hurling insults but I can’t help to recognize that the few people who have (more or less respectfully) disagreed here have been immediately labeled “full of venom” by Ms. Snarky so that they needn’t be dealt with.
I guess the next insult is always right around the corner and people are always going to have their own agenda. With the best intentions even. “You’re obviously the sort of person who I’ll be incapable of having any level of reasonable discourse with.” Goes for both sides, most of the time. It’s a shame. Otherwise, you know, people might actually be reaching through to one another.
The late great Christopher Hitchens said it well (I’m paraphrasing slightly): “People come to me all the time and they say: “Well, that’s offensive. That’s an insult.” And I say to them: “Yeah, so what? I’m still waiting for an argument here.”"
There are definitely facts in this sort of argument, but when it comes to something like objectification, feelings are a big part of it. I don’t believe I strayed too far from facts, honestly — this is objectification. That’s pretty factual, if you take the definition of objectification. However, when it comes to objectification, what makes it have the power it has over women is often how it does make us feel, and to discount that is to take away a lot of what is, in fact, an important discussion.
I may be missing your point because, I’ll be honest, I don’t entire see what you’re trying to get at here or what it has to do with the overall discussion of objectification in comics, but it seems as if you’re saying that being offended by something isn’t an issue to be discussed. You seem to be oversimplifying and glossing over the impact of objectification on the women in affects and dismissing it as being as something as simple as crying one time as a child. That isn’t the issue here, or the heart of my argument. If you feel it is, then I say — respectfully — that you are missing the point entirely. Perhaps if you stepped back and stopped being quite so defensive, you may be able to read this for what it is and not for what you think it is. I also did not simply claim to be offended. I made an argument about why the offensive behavior is problematic.
Why do women make statements like how people want to keep us in our place? Because we’re angry. And we’re tired. And after seeing bullshit like this comic over and over again and be told we need to simply deal with our offended feelings gets very, very old. So maybe some of us get defensive, but there’s a very real place that defensiveness is coming from, and it shouldn’t be dismissed and treated like our problem, not theirs. So if someone says hey, I don’t think you should care so much about this objectification stuff, yeah, I get angry. And I have every right to get angry at people who make offensive statements at me and tell me I shouldn’t care so much about sexism. Because, quite bluntly, those people are wrong.
I could have a discussion that is strictly based on facts. I could quote the percentage of women who work in the comics industry vs. the percentage of men. (Hint: it’s pretty lopsided, and not in favor of women). I could do counts of the number of T&A shots in the “New 52″ as a whole. I could quote statistics of how men make more than women for doing the same jobs. I could give historical treatises on how women have been treated over the years, and how the struggle for women’s rights has been ongoing. I could pull quotes from male comics industry insiders who have marginalized and ignored female readers and creators. I could give first hand accounts of how women are often mistreated when attending comic book conventions or even trying to go into a comic book store — all of which are, indeed, factual. Dismissing a very real complaint because I chose to talk about personal feelings on (shock!) my personal blog doesn’t change any of those FACTS. It’s simply a different way of looking at them, and a way to call attention to the damage that female objectification does in an industry where it’s allowed to run rampant with very little done to check it.
I honestly don’t know if you’re male or female from your user name, and I can’t begin to speculate on whether you’ve faced issues of sexism personally in your life. But I will say, for me, it is personal. It comes from a personal, visceral place. It’s something I’ve dealt with since childhood and continue to deal with every day. And when confronted with it, I will get angry, and I will speak my mind against it. And honestly, if you want to discount my point of view because I choose to treat this issue like the very personal one it is to me, then that’s your choice. But you’ve missed the point entirely, and are being very obtuse, be it willfully or not.
The true reason that the other — and very wrong — side cannot budge is that they use obfuscating arguments like this one to avoid seeing and discussing the actual issue at hand. And it isn’t which side has more “facts” to bring to the discussion.
You’re acting as if Scott Lobdell was a saint in all this. His responses to criticism may appear to be superficially friendly, but they’re condescending and dismissive. Every response he’s given to readers unsatisfied with his treatment of Starfire makes me feel like a 6-year-old child being lectured and spoken down to when I read it. That’s annoying as hell. And it’s forced me to respond in the only manner that the current regime at DC Comics understands: dropping titles from my pull list like flies.
Also, you picked a poor individual to quote. Christopher Hitchens was a douchebag, and so’s his comrade-in-arms Richard Dawkins. And no, I’m not a creationist or some crazy fundie. I’m actually agnostic, but have no problem acknowledging that the facts seem to be on their side. Yet I can’t stand either one of them. And I’ll tell you why.
There’s something to be said about treating the people you disagree with with respect; not only does it make you a better person, it also makes that person more receptive to what you’re saying. You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar and all. But people like Hitchens and Dawkins view any level of acknowledgement as a weakness, even in the interest of diplomacy. Their methods of persuasion involve insulting the intelligence of their opponents, ridiculing them, and making incredibly offensive statements to shame them into submission or to get them angry so that they’ll do something foolish. There’s a difference between making an argument and stirring shit up. They stir shit up to masturbate their own egos and bolster their beliefs in their intellectual superiority. They’re the real-life equivalent of Internet trolls. Trolls that make some very good points, mind you, but trolls nonetheless.
As for “Red Hood and the Outlaws”, the position I first took on my blog is the one I still have now, and this is it:
“When it comes to the characterization of Starfire, the book’s a failure. What everyone can’t seem to agree on is exactly WHAT the nature of that failure is.
If Scott Lobdell genuinely believes that his characterization of her is consistent with what’s come before, then he’s utterly failed to grasp what she’s all about.
If he retconned the character’s personality to fit the kind of story he wanted to tell rather than a story that would fit the character – something that’s become a serious problem during Dan DiDio’s regime at DC Comics – then he’s failed to keep his promise to uphold and respect the Teen Titans’ legacy.
If he sincerely meant to portray her as an empowered woman, then he, as a writer, failed to effectively translate that idea into words and communicate it to the vast majority of readers in an unambiguous way.
If he was aiming to accentuate how alien and divorced from humanity she is, then he failed to both pick an effective means of doing so and one that had any precedence in continuity, relaunch be damned.”