Personally, I feel deeply offended by the suggestion that all superheroes are gay, because--
Seeing them all as actually or potentially gay is just as stupid as believing they should all be straight, or Caucasian, or all anything-else.
Are we really to believe that every superhero creator who ever lived couldn't conceive of sexuality in any regard except in terms of a hetero/homosexual nexus?
How gay is that?
(Not that there's anything wrong with that-- oh, wait, there is)
Frederic Wertham and Gershon Legman used to accuse comic book characters of nearly every type of "deviancy" (as the term was then understood) ever chronicled by Kraft-Ebing. Next to the kind of narrow focus expoused by Berlatsky and academics like Eve Sedgewick (cited by Berlatsky in the above piece), I think I prefer Fred 'n' Ger over Noah 'n' Eve. At least with the first pair there's a wide range of perversions from which one may choose. To focus only on homosexual influences is to overlook all the other manifestations of kink in comics, such as:
SADISM & MASOCHISM
INCEST
BESTIALITY
And finally...
WATERSPORTS
So one doesn't need to invoke homosexuality to exercise the thrill of the forbidden, which flourishes quite healthily in even the superheroic versions of male-female encounters.
Sure, there are special cases, where homosexual vibes are either present unconsciously or evoked with cynical manipulativeness (such as the Bucky-Robin schtick Berlatsky reprints).
But criii--tic, please! Homosexuality is not the polar opposite of heterosexuality any more than a dog is the opposite of a cat.
I speak, then, for all the neglected deviants whose voices are almost lost in the overwhelming straight/gay discourse:
WE'RE HERE
WE'RE DEVIANTS WHO AREN'T AUTOMATICALLY QUEER
GET USED TO THAT
Very well put, my friend!
ReplyDeleteMore interesting than the superheroes supposed homosexuality, would be to speculate on the apparent lack of sex drive on the part of super-villains.
Time and again, from the master villain to the lowliest henchmen, once they have a powerful heroine like Batgirl, Supergirl or Wonder Woman on their clutches they seem to be disposed to do everything but molest, assault or rape them.
Since most feminist scholars (women, men or otherwise) seem to equate rape with a manifestation of power and dominance(and not of sex), wouldn't it be normal for the villains to exert said powers over their captives?
Ok, just rumbling here.
Cheers,
Sherman
They're not gay. They're straight. The kind of nervousness about gayness, and hyperbolic appeals to masculinity and sentiment that is typical in super-hero comics, is characteristic of straight interactions, not gay ones. I say this repeatedly in the essay.
ReplyDelete"Homosexuality is not the polar opposite of heterosexuality any more than a dog is the opposite of a cat."
ReplyDeleteNo, of course not. But homosexuality is an important touchstone in our society for how heterosexual identity is conceptualized and shorn up. Again, it's not that the heroes are gay, it's that compulsive references to gayness are an important part of how male genre literature thinks about gayness. And, in addition, about the fact that maleness is itself incoherent; it can't exist *without* those references to femininity and gayness.
And I probably shouldn't tell you this because it will cause your head to explode, but...Wertham was right about a lot of stuff (lesbianism and perversion in Wonder Woman, for example.)
Sherman, the super-villains aren't interested in the heroines; they're interested in the heroes. The main emotional energy in most super-hero comics is male-male — though of course, the romantic aspects are denied and instead worked out by everybody thumping each other.
Also, feminists think various things about rape. Some try to make it solely about violence, but other folks are more interested in talking about its sexual aspects.
Sherman--
ReplyDeleteRape is an interesting taboo in American comic books, especially since a handful of comic strips, notably FLASH GORDON, flirted with the action even though that medium too was "all-ages" and therefore would not show the action as such. It may be that all comic-book genres-- certainly not only the superhero!-- tended to avoid it because they were more often pitched solely to children in the 40s and 50s.
There are a few instances in 60s comics where rape is an implicit threat. One early FF shows the Sub-Mariner wrestling with Sue Storm as if he plans to take his prize before the cavalry arrives. In the wedding of Barry Allen and Iris, Professor Zoom, having also fallen for Iris, tries to substitute himself for the Flash with the idea of usurping the connubial bliss that the comic couldn't literally mention.
Of course with the rise of "grim and gritty" it became more expected for villains to act like hardcore criminals rather than goofballs. But though the reading audience got older, a new version of the taboo appeared, rooted not so much in the "all-ages" expectations but in the expectations of humanism. It might be "realistic" to some for villains to rape female captives, but such "realism" would have fallen foul of the old Trufaut paradigm: "How do you the creator depict something so ugly without making it seem like you the creator are advocating it?"
Thus the taboo is only lifted for specialty stories, as with the infamous Very Special Identity Crisis.
Noah said:
ReplyDelete"They're not gay. They're straight. The kind of nervousness about gayness, and hyperbolic appeals to masculinity and sentiment that is typical in super-hero comics, is characteristic of straight interactions, not gay ones. I say this repeatedly in the essay."
But Noah also said, in the essay:
"So masculinity in super-hero comics is almost laughably straightforward. And yet, at the same time, it isn't straight at all. Instead, it's bifurcated, incoherent and, in a lot of ways, really gay."
I guess "in a lot of ways" allows you to think you've sufficiently qualified the statement.
I submit that such is not the case. I submit the only way that would *be* true would be if you had furnished a dominantly-normative view of straight masculinity that was not "laughable." Against such a background you *might* be able to argue that masculinity could *become* "incoherent" (though the argument itself tends toward incoherence).
But w/o that background you're simply proposing a modern version of the old "one sex theory." Just as Freud was often accused of making the male gender primary and the female gender derivative, you and Sedgwick are merely reversing the argument to make straightness seem derivative from gayness.
BTW, your first example of secret gayness hinges on the secret identity. Does this apply only to superheroes, or to superheroines as well? And how about both male and female spies? Isn't their function tied up in having secret identities?
Noah also said:
ReplyDelete"Again, it's not that the heroes are gay, it's that compulsive references to gayness are an important part of how male genre literature thinks about gayness. And, in addition, about the fact that maleness is itself incoherent; it can't exist *without* those references to femininity and gayness."
I say: sez you and Sedgwick. Even if you modified "maleness" to "societal construction of masculinity," it would be no *more* true than the reverse would be of femininity or gayness. That's why I've rightly accused you of trying to trying to palm off a new version of the "one sex" theory.
"And I probably shouldn't tell you this because it will cause your head to explode, but...Wertham was right about a lot of stuff (lesbianism and perversion in Wonder Woman, for example.)"
Actually, if you read "Ho Hum" a little more closely you'll see me saying that I prefer Wertham and Legman's accusations of polymorhous perversity to your monomorphic one. That's why I gave all the examples of non-gay deviancies (so called) in the article proper, only one of which I intended as a real joke.
W (& L, whom you don't comment on) were not wrong to see deviancies in entertainment: just wrong in terms of many of their dumbass examples and in terms of What Should Be Done About It.
Gene--
ReplyDeleteYou are, of course, right in what concerns the main reasons for the taboo in the depiction of rape in comics. And I think you nail it down with special acumen when you refer to the brake "humanism" applies to such depictions. And I do believe that one aspect of the problem that must have American comic writers and publishers shying away from it is the representation of the aftermath of rape: how do you avoid transforming a superheroine into a victim (a super-victim at that)?
Or maybe feminists will "demand" that one becomes so.
But I wonder if Truffaut's dictum couldn't be easily avoided. One just has to think of some "tasteful" depictions of rape, both in cinema or in comics. For instance, I'm thinking of the infamous THE LONGBOW HUNTERS mini-series where Black Canary is tortured and (one supposes) raped - or at least severely abused. Or the not less infamous rape scene on Peckimpah's STRAW DOGS, where Susan George is excellent in balancing the fear and humiliation of someone who knows will be raped, with a degree of apparent co-operation in order to avoid been beaten or forced to suffer physical pain (besides that of the rape itself).
Finally I must confess I don't know the Very Special Identity Crisis. I believe it is related to the Meltzer and Morales DC mini-series and tie-in story arc?
Cheers,
Sherman
Hey Sherman--
ReplyDeleteYeah, I was talking about the Meltzer IDENTITY CRISIS. "Very Special" is just an old 70s reference, hearkening back to the days when TV shows used to refer to this or that episode as "a very special episode of CHIPS" or whatever.
I'll probably touch on the topic of rape in a future essay, since it's implicit in the various accusations of critics like Noah here that the fights between costumed men are merely displaced versions of homosexual attack.
"Seeing them all as actually or potentially gay is just as stupid as believing they should all be straight, or Caucasian, or all anything-else."
ReplyDeleteIs and ought -- not the same thing.
If Critic X has put forth a theory that he claims to be an "is," but furnishes only the most specious evidence, then what he's proferred is an "oughtta be" masquerading as an "is."
ReplyDeleteFor instance, a white supremacist would mount arguments as to the superiority of his chosen race. His assertions would take the structure of "this is true," but his slanted evidence would really mark his argument as "this oughtta be true."
"If Critic X has put forth a theory that he claims to be an "is," but furnishes only the most specious evidence, then what he's proferred is an "oughtta be" masquerading as an "is.""
ReplyDeleteNo, it's most definitely not. If an anti-racist says "the system is racist," that in no way entails nor implies his desire for a racist system. Your way of thinking about it would collapse the distinction where every declarative statement (even if wrong) is a subjunctive one. You're simply wrong.
As for your example of a racist claiming the inferiority of another race: it's not his wish that the other race be inferior that leads to his racism, but his belief that the other race is inferior. Being wrong about the facts is not the same as wishing the facts were other than they are or believe them to be.
Gene--
ReplyDeleteIt goes without saying that I'll be in the front row, anxiously waiting your essay... ;)
Cheers,
Sherman
Insert 'you' before that last 'believe.'
ReplyDeleteAnd to relate it back to the original subject: Noah clearly doesn't have an issue with reading gay texts, so even if he's wrong about the queerness of superheroes, that's not the same, morally or otherwise, as a Wertham who might've seen some of the same stuff, but believed it shouldn't have been so. Noah isn't being anti-homo or -hetero.
CR said:
ReplyDelete'If an anti-racist says "the system is racist," that in no way entails nor implies his desire for a racist system.'
It's not the bare declarative statement that shows his desire. It's the lack of logical proof, and the demonstrable tendency to skew purported evidence to sustain an "oughtta be" as an "is."
"it's not his wish that the other race be inferior that leads to his racism, but his belief that the other race is inferior."
But the racist doesn't necessarily put forth pure belief: he tries to justify that belief with psuedo-science (Weininger) or with anecdotal evidence (the Klan).
Something like "Cerebus looks like a plush toy; therefore Cerebus is feminized" is probably an example of the latter
"Noah clearly doesn't have an issue with reading gay texts"
ReplyDeleteNo, his problem in this case is dismissing what the actual text of the item critiqued shows.
Oh good lord. I typed a somewhat long response and the internets ate it.
ReplyDeleteWell, the main points were
— thanks to Charles
— I don't think you should lump Sedgwick in with me if you haven't read anything by her. She's much more careful to avoid the kinds of accusations you're making than I am.
— You have made no mention of my shojo discussion, where I argue that shojo is superior in its handling of these issues because it is more openly gay, essentially. Do you feel that it is homophobic to argue that yaoi is a healthier or more valid genre than super-heroes? (I'd also be curious to see if you believe it's elitist, since yaoi is a popular genre with a fair-sized audience, both in the U.S. and overseas.)
I'm also curious; do you think masculinity or femininity exists, not as necessarily actual physical realities, but as fairly important cultural categories?
ReplyDelete"It's not the bare declarative statement that shows his desire. It's the lack of logical proof, and the demonstrable tendency to skew purported evidence to sustain an "oughtta be" as an "is.""
ReplyDeleteI know that you're reaching for some sort of jouissance here, i.e., that ideology makes pleasure out of pain, such as a Marxist or Fundamentalist critic who despite an abhorrence for the latest Hollywood spectacle still gets some pleasure out of his critiquing the object. Yet there remains a pretty clear distinction between perceiving the order of things in some way and desiring the order of things to be a certain way. The Christian might see a Satanic world, and even implicitly take some amount of pleasure in pointing it out, but that's not the same thing as a Satanist who wants such a world. At worst, the Christian would be prideful, whereas the Satanist is (for the Christian) the personification of evil.
As for the lack of logical proof being relevant to considering an implicit "ought" in the declarative order, consider the scholarly theologians of the middle ages who upon the assumption of Christian order (the "is"), came up with many logical proofs to guide our thinking given that basic assumption. Are we supposed to believe that their belief in God becomes more of a simple and direct declarative statement because of the logical proofs surrounding it? An argument can be logically sound and not apply to anything real. For example: All members of the horse family with a single horn on their foreheads are unicorns. This horse has a horn in the center of its forehead. Therefore, this horse is a unicorn.
At some point, you either accept the color you're looking at is 'red', or you don't -- it has nothing to do with your particular desire, but your constitution, perceptual in the case of color, ideological and cultural in the case of politics, and metaphysical in the case of religion. In the case of Noah's gender critique, the relevant question isn't whether that's the only truth of the texts he's discussing, but whether it's a good matrix for a particular discussion. Is it logically coherent once one accepts certain terms he's given?
As always, for a self-proclaimed pluralist, you're extremely limited to your own missionary position.
Noah said:
ReplyDelete"I don't think you should lump Sedgwick in with me if you haven't read anything by her. She's much more careful to avoid the kinds of accusations you're making than I am"
The only thing on which I judge her is her pronouncement (in the piece you excerpted) that masculinity is defined by incoherence. Precise defintions are very important to a critic's ouevre, and that strikes me as the sort of ghastly error that could taint one's whole system. But as I noted earlier, I may never know.
"You have made no mention of my shojo discussion, where I argue that shojo is superior in its handling of these issues because it is more openly gay, essentially. Do you feel that it is homophobic to argue that yaoi is a healthier or more valid genre than super-heroes? (I'd also be curious to see if you believe it's elitist, since yaoi is a popular genre with a fair-sized audience, both in the U.S. and overseas.)"
Last question first: no, I don't think shojo or yaoi works are elitist as a whole, though some of them could be. Particular fictional works can be elitist in tone (like Nabokov's LOLITA), but elitism is mainly experienced through nonfictional discourse, like criticism.
I didn't mention your arguments about shojo/yaoi because I don't think they influence the consistency of your arguments about American superheroes. (Interesting thought: do the same arguments apply to superheroes in other countries ranging from Britain to Brazil?)
Re: homophobia-- I'm confused. Why would *you* be homophobic if *you* thought yaoi was a healthier genre than that of the American superhero? Wouldn't it the more logical culprit be the person who vociferously denies that assertion?
"I'm also curious; do you think masculinity or femininity exists, not as necessarily actual physical realities, but as fairly important cultural categories?"
ReplyDeleteSure. And I've never denied that there aren't a lot of cross-currents within these broad categories.
But as Daddy Freud said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Consequently, sometimes a punch to a villain's jaw is just a punch to a villain's jaw.
Charles:
ReplyDeleteHa ha, "missionary position;" well chosen, sir.
Of course most of the rest of your post is nonsense predicated on a skewed view of what I said, and I should know better by now than to try to get you to admit it. But--
Maybe it will satisfy you if I admit that my use of verbs wasn't consistent throughout. I did start out by saying "Batman's Gay" in the title, and in the 1st two paragraphs I kept with that posture, using declaratives like "[they] turn out to be so" and "all superheroes are gay."
However, these are, you may've noticed that those paragraphs are rather flip in tone. That's because I'm summarizing not merely Noah's argument but a common theme that many people (not only elitists, as I'll be noting in Part Two of "Our Bodies") have come back to again and again.
So those are declarative statements, but mock-declarative. And Noah himself asserts that he doesn't actually say all superheroes are gay, though I'd argue that he does situate them as being gay-curious at the least.
THEN, in the passage to which you originally objected, I change to opposing interpretation with interpretation. "Seeing [superheroes] as actually or potentially gay" switches, in all seriousness, to what we're talking about: an interpretation, not at all comparable with the perception of an objective fact, like seeing the color red.
Nor is the following part of the sentence any less an interpretation: it is an imagined projection of how someone of the opposite political stripe might feel: that all superheroes, because they incarnate social values for their readers, should all be straight, or maybe even all Caucasian.
With that in mind, all the stuff about joissance and ideology really doesn't have a peg to hang its hat on. Sorry.
"But as Daddy Freud said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
ReplyDeleteConsequently, sometimes a punch to a villain's jaw is just a punch to a villain's jaw."
Perhaps...but "sometimes" is different than "always." And context is important. Guys wearing their underwear on the outside of their clothes and/or with names like "Superman" or "The Thing" seem to me to be different than random folks punching each other on the jaw. But perhaps we can just agree to disagree.
There is a point where a punch in the jaw-- or any other story-element-- can go from being simply functional to being "super-functional;" where it interrelates with other elements to take on a deeper semantic richness both within the narrative and for the reception of audiences.
ReplyDeleteBut any such case has to be proved in respect to the narrative in question first, and then in comparison with other narratives second, IMO.