a.k.a. karen

May 26 2012
sophiagratia: Okay, time for me to be a humorless feminist and poop this party. I get that Hell Of Airbrushing is part of the pin-up genre. But part of what’s interesting about having an icon of strong-women-on-television in a pin-up parody is to challenge, as well as imitate, this genre. Whoever retouched this photo has edited Amanda Tapping so heavily that she’s scarcely recognizable. And I really don’t see what’s sexy or interesting about that. I would so much prefer to see Tapping’s natural features – the lines on her face, the muscles in her legs, the curve of her belly, the imperfections in her skin and the wrinkles in her costume – so much prefer that to this plastic fabrication. Not least because it would comment effectively on the genre it imitates, because it would declare attractiveness as more than a cookie-cutter resemblance to an arbitrary archetype of femininity. Humorless feminist out. So much this, you guys.  I mean, I am pretty sure my views on Amanda Tapping’s face, attractiveness thereof, are kind of obvious.  But this is not that face.  This is remarkably unsexy and frankly kind of unsettling in that it doesn’t say anything about the genre, merely recaptures an aesthetic that I thought we finished taking seriously about forty years ago.  Even aside from that, it negates her most (conventionally) attractive features and kind of erases her personality.  A huge portion of what’s super-sexy about Amanda Tapping is her stupidly adorable goofiness, and I really miss that here, buried under all the photoshop.  How good would this have been if she’d been allowed to make it silly?  So much more her.

sophiagratia:

Okay, time for me to be a humorless feminist and poop this party.

I get that Hell Of Airbrushing is part of the pin-up genre. But part of what’s interesting about having an icon of strong-women-on-television in a pin-up parody is to challenge, as well as imitate, this genre. Whoever retouched this photo has edited Amanda Tapping so heavily that she’s scarcely recognizable. And I really don’t see what’s sexy or interesting about that.

I would so much prefer to see Tapping’s natural features – the lines on her face, the muscles in her legs, the curve of her belly, the imperfections in her skin and the wrinkles in her costume – so much prefer that to this plastic fabrication. Not least because it would comment effectively on the genre it imitates, because it would declare attractiveness as more than a cookie-cutter resemblance to an arbitrary archetype of femininity.

Humorless feminist out.

So much this, you guys.  I mean, I am pretty sure my views on Amanda Tapping’s face, attractiveness thereof, are kind of obvious.  But this is not that face.  This is remarkably unsexy and frankly kind of unsettling in that it doesn’t say anything about the genre, merely recaptures an aesthetic that I thought we finished taking seriously about forty years ago.  Even aside from that, it negates her most (conventionally) attractive features and kind of erases her personality.  A huge portion of what’s super-sexy about Amanda Tapping is her stupidly adorable goofiness, and I really miss that here, buried under all the photoshop.  How good would this have been if she’d been allowed to make it silly?  So much more her.

via sophiagratia
29 notes
May 24 2012

Wow.

gailsimone:

I just kind of randomly looked at Dan DiDio’s Facebook page for a minute this morning.

Holy crap.

Okay, let me first get this out. Dan does care about lgbtq portrayals. It’s important to him, I’ve had a dozen conversations with him about it. Out writers like Marc Andreyko have been told, by Dan, not to shy away from gay storylines, characters, and content. And he was a major reason why Batwoman finally got printed. Whatever else you may disagree with, I know this is important to him, and he’s backed it up  in many ways.

This stuff isn’t coming from Dan, this is just a sampling of some of the posts people have sent him on his Facebook page in the last couple days.

“Just giving you a heads up because you’ve been a fair guy, If Wally West comes back gay, i’m done with DC comics forever. Nothing against LBGT, but they can’t have my favorite character.”

“Who will be the gay character?, Please no Superman, Batman, The Flash or Green Lantern!. I’ll throw away my collection and will not buy any. I have gay friends, but the characters who were not gay do not have to be now.”

“Mr. D, I sure hope you all aren’t planning to make Superman gay. You all have already torn the character down enough, please don’t ruin the character for the shock value. Not sure what DC has against having characters that are good role models…married and have a respect for their parents views.”

Yeesh.

I have to admit, I’ve seen SO MUCH pre-coverage for this, I’m already over the announcement and it hasn’t even happened.  Seriously, I just want it done with.  But here’s the thing - when I think about it, I really like the idea that they’re outing or switching or whatever-you-want-to-call-it-ing an established character.  Because guess what?  Not every woman who sleeps with men is straight.  Some are bi.  Some are pansexual.  Some haven’t figured out yet that they’re gay.  Some are going to experiment.  But just because you’ve seen on the page that a character has exclusively hetero relationships doesn’t mean that that is the entirety of their sexuality.

I like that we’re getting a chance to say, hey.  You might not notice, you might not see, you might not know.  But queers are there whether we wave our big gay flags or not.  You can’t just assume the default and rule us out.

I’m goddamn tired of all the faff already.  But I like the premise, and I hope it goes well.

via gailsimone
246 notes