Let’s make her hawt, and lose the plot!


Margaret Rutherford should rightly look puzzled at Disney’s latest casting for Miss Marple. And probably Agatha Christie will be spinning in her grave as well.

Disney have acquired the cinematic rights to the Miss Marple character, and plan to have 38yo Jennifer Garner play the Christie character. Doubtless the Marple character will shed her trademark tweed for copious amounts of female flesh.

Agatha Christie loosely based the Marple character on her grandmother and other women of that era. The essence of Miss Marple is that she is an elderly spinster, a bit on the dottery side, but razor-sharp in her logic, deduction and understanding of human-nature, a skill she has acquired over many years of studying human behaviour (no doubt because she had some luxury of free time as a spinster!), but mainly due to her many years of living, her age. From Diki:

Agatha Christie attributed the inspiration for the character of Miss Marple to a number of sources: Miss Marple was “the sort of old lady who would have been rather like some of my grandmother’s Ealing cronies – old ladies whom I have met in so many villages where I have gone to stay as a girl”. Christie also used material from her fictional creation, spinster Caroline Sheppard, who appeared in The Murder of Roger Ackroyd. When Michael Morton adapted Roger Ackroyd for the stage, he removed the character of Caroline replacing her with a young girl. This change saddened Christie and she determined to give old maids a voice: Miss Marple was born.

So not the first time old woman/spinster erasure has gone on.

How does a 38yo ‘hot property’ actress fit into the scheme of things? Well, obviously it’s not her fault for the casting, it is Disney, erasing old women from the screen.

Disney I am now convinced, are actually an Evil Empire devoted to the destruction and subjugation of women. The Disney studio have for decades pushed the feminine delicate heroine onto us, who is usually rescued by a charming Prince Nigel, and holds out to marry aforesaid Prince Nigel. Portrayal of older women in the Disney films is usually Wicked Stepmother, Evil Witch, or Ugly Step-Sisters, the main message being to divide women. Decades and decades and decades of the stuff.

No doubt that all the early Disney animated films had loads of lowly-paid female colorists painting the frames. It is the sort of detailed and careful work that females are good at. These days animation houses outsource the labour-intensive colorisation work to places like Korea for cheap labour, or the newer trend of completely computer-generated.

The only marginally good things to come out of Disney were Touchstone films. Back in the 80s Touchstone Pictures were a regular vehicle for legends such as Bette Midler.

Every bit of animation under the Disney brand has some level of misogyny, and/or old woman erasure going on. From the exaggerated nipped in waistlines and beauty standards, the divisive female roles, ugly-as-evil, and no elder woman role models. The female heroine is on her own, usually in an unknown battle with some other female character. Generations of girls have been brainwashed by this shite, not to mention the fuckability mandate.

I was brought up knowing Margaret Rutherford as Miss Marple, and I have always loved Margaret Rutherford. I did not see the later Miss Marple series with Joan Hickson, and many enjoyed her in the Marple role.

Angela Lansbury played a Marple-esque character in Murder She Wrote, although the Jessica Fletcher character was a widow. Lansbury played Miss Marple in the 1980 film The Mirror Crack’d. Landsbury is still alive, and is 85 now.

And here she is (below) in 2007 in a stage play, looking far more Miss Marple-like than Jennifer Garner at any rate.

Ageism both on-screen and off-screen affects women earlier and far more dramatically than it does men.

Bring back granny-power and spinster-power!
Rutherford’s Miss Marple was a character I could look up to. It is important for girls and young women to have strong, older role models, instead of being taught to be ‘decoration’ or mommies. Is it any wonder that 3rd wavers and funfems think they have to ‘retire’ and hand over the reigns at 30?

– – – – –


Dame Agatha Christie (15 Sep 1890 – 12 Jan 1976) aged 85
Dame Margaret Rutherford (11 May 1892 – 22 May 1972) aged 85
Joan Hickson (5 Aug 1906 – 17 Oct 1998) aged 92
Angela Lansbury (born 16 October 1925) currently 85

Bette Midler (born Dec 1, 1945) currently 65

Jennifer Garner (born 17 Apr 1972) currently 38

54 thoughts on “Let’s make her hawt, and lose the plot!

  1. FAB Libber

    I suppose the new-look Miss Marple will have to have some obligatory (male) luv-interest as well. *puke*

    Like

    Reply
  2. Sargasso Sea

    What a nice post FAB.

    The erasure of spinsters is such a blow, isn‘t it? I mean it’s easy for the fully brainwashed to write radfems off as crazy ladeez because reality does indeed sound crazy to those who refuse to deal with it, but spinsters? Nice *old* women; soft-spoken and kind, sharply logical yet non-threatening. Those women could do some serious damage to the idea that ladeez needz dickz. Erase, erase, erase.

    My uncle worked for Disney as a colorist back in the late 30s. He was a very talented cartoonist (and all-round artist) who went on to draw a very, very, very popular single-frame comic series for 30 years but he was *only* a colorist at Disney because he was paraplegic. I’d venture to guess that he was probably paid more than the women though.

    Like

    Reply
  3. FAB Libber

    Do you know if the colorists were mainly female? It is fairly repetitive but accurate work, and I reckoned that it would be a pink ghetto back in the day.

    Same with the Enigma project during WW2, most of the grind was done by women, because it required hours and hours of concentration and attention to detail, menz weren’t up for the task. The menz were all heads of the department etc.

    Like

    Reply
  4. maggie

    This is just WRONG. I can’t bear this mindset that needs to bring things up to date. For frack’s sake why can’t women be allowed to be old? And smart? we have idiot old men running the world – think burlesqueconi (riot aren’t I?) – who possess none of the brains of the likes of Miss Marple. WHY are they doing this?

    “Disney I am now convinced, are actually an Evil Empire devoted to the destruction and subjugation of women.”

    YES!!!11!! Bambi! I rest my case. The straw has been broken. This means revolution. Furious am I.

    Like

    Reply
  5. Sargasso Sea

    Actually they were. Family legend: Poor Uncle! So talented yet stuck doing laydee work. Mr. Disney didn’t recognize his talent blah blah blah

    Interestingly enough though that was basically what he did (ink and color) for his long-term comic gig although he was given a pretty free hand when it came to conveying the *message* visually. For example, I know that at least one of the trademark visual devices used in that comic was created by uncle but credit is given to the author on the diki page.

    Like

    Reply
  6. jilla

    That’s the way credit is for so much “woman’s work”. Famous photographera and artists ride on a wave of underlings shit work. Not to mention, academics.

    I’ve had that happen with my work for which other women took credit, because of course, the women weren’t feminists, just women who had achieved. Queen Bees.

    Like

    Reply
  7. FAB Libber

    Thanks for the confirmation Sar. I was not sure if I remembered it from a very old documentary on the studio from years ago or not, so I think perhaps I remembered correctly. Plus the animation industry was very hierarchical and compartmentalised.

    Doing laydee work indeed.

    Even as a kid I found something a bit ‘off’ about Disney animations, definitely all of the ones with female leads (Snow White etc). I could tolerate ones like Bambi (and now the significance of bam! blasting Bambi’s mother to bits). Oh gawd, I think I should look in more depth at Disney, character by character, what a misogynistic minefield.

    Like

    Reply
  8. jilla

    Could it at least be Tilda Swinton, or Emma Thompson? Of course not. Just by the choice of actor we know what this movie will be. Will there be a reissue of Marple’s work with hawt gold-embossed bodice ripping cover art?

    Like

    Reply
  9. Sargasso Sea

    I confess. I have a problem with Bette.

    Bette threw her original fan base (gay men) under the bus right around the time she married that dude. AND she bought a stretch of the toniest freeway in Hollywood to plant signs that said: Litter Removal Sponsered by Bette Midler! (lame)

    I’m still pissed about that.

    Like

    Reply
  10. noanodyne

    You’ll find no shortage of info about the shit that is Disney — books, articles, blog posts. Here’s one that came out just this week on Alternet: How Disney Invaded American Childhood to Shill Worthless Crap to Our Kids:
    Disney is a major source of the potentially harmful gender and race myths proffered to girls today.

    Only “potentially harmful”? Sure. Use “disney” as a search term on Soc Images or “Miley Cyrus” in google. I bet dozens of women’s studies master’s and PhD theses have been written on the subject, too.

    Like

    Reply
  11. FAB Libber

    Bette threw her original fan base (gay men) under the bus
    It makes a change from the other way around…
    no harm, no foul. 😛

    I bet dozens of women’s studies master’s and PhD theses have been written on the subject, too.
    Could be, I just had not thought specifically about Disney before, mainly contemporary media images. (I have never done a women’s studies course.)

    Like

    Reply
  12. m Andrea

    Strangely enough for the past couple months I’ve been watching nothing but Agatha Christie. And the reason for my enjoyment is that there’s not much sexism in them. No tits, no ass, no sexual objectification of females — which is probably the reason Disney feels compelled to “redo” the series — they simply can’t let anything be unpornified.

    I won’t watch it.

    Like

    Reply
  13. FAB Libber

    From Noan’s link:
    And predatory marketing is only one of the problems inherent in princess culture, which Orenstein also believes is a major source — if not the major source — of the potentially harmful gender and race myths proffered to girls today. Even more insidiously, Disney princesses also prepare young girls to become consumers of a whole host of cultural products — from Bratz dolls to Miley Cyrus to toddler beauty pageants — that promote, and ultimately normalize, manipulatively sexualized girlhoods.

    Oh, I like the phrase “predatory marketing”.

    [T]he pressures on women to look good from womb to tomb have become more intense and confusing […] One of the things [I found] that surprised me was the relationship between sexualization and disconnection from authentic sexuality: Girls who are sexualized early are more likely to see sexuality as a performance, not as something that they feel internally.
    […]
    There’s also the issue that if everyone skews more toward gender neutrality, or even if we allow for greater variation in each sex, you risk having boys who might seem “feminine,” and everybody freaks out at that thought. It’s that baseline homophobia. So that, I think, always keeps us in check.

    Like

    Reply
  14. FAB Libber

    The other thing to watch mAndrea, are the really old Hollywood films of Bette Davis, Joan Crawford, Rosalind Russell etc. Just ignore some of the romance storylines, the rest is feisty.

    Like

    Reply
  15. radfemcrafts

    Speaking of Lansbury, same thing happened to her Mrs. Lovett. And Disney-owned Pixar has a real 1950s bootstraps individualist fetish, as well as a lack of female protagonists. Which is infuriating when Brad Bird and others at Pixar claim to be huge Miyazaki fans. It’s like they know better and do it anyway, or because of.

    Like

    Reply
  16. noanodyne

    If you wanna get the funfems up in arms, dis Disney on one a their blogs. Holy cow on a crutch. Or if you do search disney on SocImages and read the comments on the resulting posts, you’ll see the same thing. Disney has absolutely colonized the planet with their princess crap.

    It hit me today while reading today’s “who’s trans-ing” at Dirt’s that growing up under that total colonization (what disney itself doesn’t accomplish, the rest of children’s movies, toys, games, wardrobes, etc. does) could definitely spin a girl or young woman’s mind if she didn’t conform to those standards and didn’t see any other way out.

    Like

    Reply
  17. thebewilderness

    I could be wrong about this, FAB, but I do not think Disney employed women at all until the late sixties, except at the theme park. Bit of a scandal as I recall.
    They would do those behind the scenes thingummys on the teevee and it was all men all the time. That is one of the reasons that Disney was the go to bot creators in the Stepford Wives story. Misogynists one and all.

    Like

    Reply
  18. ball buster

    I got the heads up about Disney several years ago, when I read this:

    http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Disney.html

    Now, I’m no expert on Disney but the schtick with Miley was the last straw for me. I refuse to accept Miley Cyrus in my home. The pictures she posed with her FATHER, were oddly pornified:

    http://knockedupcelebs.com/2008/04/29/the-miley-cyrus-and-dad-photo-shoot-controversy/

    I was told I was making something out of nothing when I said it’s inappropriate to wrap a 15 year old girl in a silk sheet and smear lipstick on her face like she’d just woken up from an all nighter. Apparently I am a prude because I don’t think it’s right to pornify 15 year old girls (or seven year old girls for that matter).

    Proud prude, right here!

    Like

    Reply
  19. FAB Libber

    The Miley Cyrus & father photos are set up “as lovers”, so yeah, it is well creepy. This is not too different from the creepiness of Samantha Fox and her father, which Joan Smith wrote about in her book Misogynies.

    A few interesting pages and bits from the anti-Disney site:
    Killing off the mothers (and later, equal ops, killing off the father!!! MRAs be proud)
    http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Disney/Disbits.html

    The Lemming thing:
    http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Disney/Lemmings.html

    The numbers of peeps and pervs actually working for Disney:
    http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Disney/Perverts.html

    And from this page, Disney (financial) interests:
    Bottom line?
    * Disney owns the largest percentage, as a partner, in the biggest company in the soft-to-medium porn market.
    * Disney owns many of the huge record labels producing the very bands and topics the “Parental Advisory” label was created for – bands that glorify rape, drugs, murder, hate, racism, violence against women, violence, period
    * Disney owns many of the huge movie studios producing some of the most outrageous crap yet to be made. You won’t find any mention of those details as they push their Family Friendly, Pro-Family, Pro-Mom&Dad, Pro-Happy Safe Healthy Children Agenda though. As one insider said, “The New Disney will do just about anything to make a buck”.

    http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Disney/Interests.html

    Disney aren’t the only major with interests in porn, Warner Bros too. Owned by Time Warner now I believe, and have sub-divisions in porn, primarily print media I think it is.

    Like

    Reply
  20. FAB Libber

    I could be wrong about this, FAB, but I do not think Disney employed women at all until the late sixties

    Well, I am not sure. The documentary I saw was well over 30 years ago, and I am not even sure of the time period of the colorists, which could have been as late as the 60s. But I am sure that those jobs did eventually become a pink ghetto due to the labour-intensive nature of the job. It may well have started in the 30s as all-dudes, but later discovered the ‘economy’ of a pink workforce, they are soooo cheap yanno.

    From that anti-Disney site, there were also pages on ‘Disney sweat shops’ not only in Vietnam, but also based in LA of all places. So Disney have no probs whatsoever exploiting the labour force.

    Like

    Reply
  21. rahelle

    Oh wow. This is hilarious (well, sad and hilarious). Agatha Christie’s books are full of patriarchal crap, and they’re a minefield of racism and xenophobia, but I love Miss Marple. She stands out in a sea of eccentric male detectives. For what it’s worth, this casting decision doesn’t seem to be well-received in more mainstream places either. Not that Disney will care.

    Like

    Reply
  22. FAB Libber

    Agatha Christie’s books are full of patriarchal crap, and they’re a minefield of racism and xenophobia, but I love Miss Marple. She stands out in a sea of eccentric male detectives.

    With male-as-lead character though (Poirot etc), there has always been pressure on writers to have the main character male. Just think of Harry Potter. Would the HP series have taken off so greatly if the lead had been a girl wizard? I did hear a rumour that HP was originally supposed to be a female character…

    Christie was also born in 1890, a completely different era (primarily much stronger class structures within Britain). It is has always been difficult for female writers, she was probably one of the first fiction writers not writing under a pseudonym. Some writers are driven to write, and will make compromises in order to practise their craft.

    Actually we do have an English prof onboard, so perhaps TLS would like to comment more (hinty!). I am not a writer, nor do I read much fiction.

    Like

    Reply
  23. Sargasso Sea

    “The 1930s and 40s was a time when almost the only roles for women in Hollywood were in front of the camera, and those were reserved of course for those blessed with the storybook looks of budding young ingenues.

    But over at the Disney Animation Studio, women were heavily recruited for the inking and painting department. Inking and painting was the second step in the actual animation process.” – somewhere on the internetz

    Notice how the piece above could be read as Disney doing a big ’ol progressive, feminist thing by hiring women to do boring repetitive work. Back in my film school days this same Disney-as-progressive mantra was popular.

    At this site (http://www.altfg.com/blog/classics/ink-paint-the-art-of-hand-drawn-animation/) there is a 1957 *class photo* of the ink and paint department consisting of around 100 individuals and I make it to be around 85 – 90 % women. Perhaps half of the smattering of men appear to be black. Now THAT I’m finding rather interesting…

    Also, I ran into another photo from 1940 showing two women who are named as supervisors at the I&P department.

    Like

    Reply
  24. FAB Libber

    Here you go, the women of disney I&P
    http://disney.families.com/blog/women

    I too have the feeling that the documentary that I saw all those years ago tried to ‘paint’ the large numbers of women in the paint dept as “progressive”. When in reality, we know that it was because they could pay women an absolute pittance. Nothing progressive about it.

    Can’t help but think of this graphic

    Except, in this type of work, they are far superior to menz.
    But still get paid like shit.

    Like

    Reply
  25. FAB Libber

    This is interesting, a letter from 1939 to a woman who applied to be something more than an inker/painter, and was told those gravy jobs only get done by “young men”
    http://www.pixartouchbook.com/blog/2010/2/27/women-in-disney-animation-1939.html

    This one goes into more detail about the working conditions for the “girls”
    http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2010/03/disney-animation-girls-201003

    ETA:
    Here is an idea of the pay difference between the departments:
    Money (new girls were still making only $18 per week while top animators made $300)

    Like

    Reply
  26. jilla

    Relegate women to colouring between the lines then develop tech to make her work obsolete.

    They’re still doing this. It’s worked so well it doesn’t need upgrading.

    Like

    Reply
  27. FAB Libber

    The xerox machine dramatically cut down the amount of work in the I&P department apparently. So numbers of the women were reduced.

    ETA:
    Reading a few other sources on the pay rates.
    The above was for a newbie, but the established I/Ps got about $25pw.
    In the inbetweeners/animators, it was between $100-$300.
    So quite a bit of difference in the payscale, and the women were required to work some very long hours as well, not just the menz.

    Menz started off as inbetweeners before working their way up to animators.

    Like

    Reply
  28. rahelle

    “With male-as-lead character though (Poirot etc), there has always been pressure on writers to have the main character male. Just think of Harry Potter. Would the HP series have taken off so greatly if the lead had been a girl wizard? I did hear a rumour that HP was originally supposed to be a female character…”

    Well, Poirot wasn’t the lead character in relation to Marple. They were each the lead character of their own series of books/short stories. It was just that Poirot took off far more (not surprising unfortunately).

    Don’t even get me started on HP. Have you read any of the books? I understand female writers have to make a lot of compromises to get published/become successful, and, no, I don’t think HP would’ve been nearly as successful with a female lead. But JK Rowling went above and beyond in making sure that women are as inconsequential as possible in her books. Harry’s father was brave and fascinating, Harry’s mother had nice eyes. One of the rare female characters who seemed to have potential was promptly married off (after completely losing her magical talents and being completely useless to the resistance movement for over a year due to pining after some guy) and we never see her again. Though we do hear that she ends up pregnant, gives birth and then dies off-screen. Not exactly a thrilling story arc.

    The one exception is Hermione, who does all of Harry’s work, solves all of Harry’s mysteries, plans all of Harry’s adventures, basically does everything for him, and then smiles and talks about how proud she is of him while he non-chalantly takes the credit. She’s also persistently described as a charmless, humourless bore who spoils all of Ron and Harry’s fun (Harry clearly can’t stand her and abhors her company, several times explicitly stating he much prefers Ron). Not to mention the way Hermione is constantly ridiculed (both by the other characters and by Rowling) for trying to better the conditions of house-elves (creatures who, by virtue of their nature, enjoy being slaves… which is a whole other disgusting can of worms).

    And it’s impossible to talk about patriarchal crap in “Harry Potter” withot mentioning that Harry’s mother was stalked and harassed for years not only by his father (how romantic!), but by Snape, an evil jerk but ends up saving Harry because his pretty eyes remind him of the woman he stalked (how heroic!). Those books are a mess.

    Like

    Reply
  29. rahelle

    Sorry, that Harry Potter rant ended up much longer than I thought it would be. I don’t know if anyone will bother reading all that but I don’t really wanna delete any of it, I really need to vent about all the sexism in those books after years dealing with rabid HP fans.

    Like

    Reply
  30. FAB Libber

    Well, Poirot wasn’t the lead character in relation to Marple. They were each the lead character of their own series of books/short stories.

    I did not imply they were in the same series, so wtf are you on about?

    I was referring to having a male character lead in a series vs a female character lead, in general, and beyond Christie.

    Like

    Reply
  31. rahelle

    To clarify, I misunderstood because I was trying to make sense of this sentence:

    “With male-as-lead character though (Poirot etc), there has always been pressure on writers to have the main character male.”

    I’m still not quite sure what you meant to say here.

    Like

    Reply
  32. rahelle

    Oh okay, on reading it again, I see what you were trying to say (took me three times, lol). Sorry for spamming you with so many comments, btw.

    Like

    Reply
  33. thebewilderness

    I think it is one of those written word thinggummys, rahelle. I was wondering the same about your earlier comment. Sometimes we are read more harshly than we have written.

    Like

    Reply
  34. ball buster

    rahelle, did you know that the series LOST was supposed to have Kate be the leader of the group? Jack was supposed to die in the plane in the open episode. But MEN decided to keep Jack, because they liked him better. 🙄

    So the entire show, beginning to end, removes Kate as a strong leader and places her in the realm of eye candy and being coveted by men. How original (not).

    I dig your rant about HP. It does go to show that success requires women to throw other women under the bus, even if it’s fictional characters.

    Like

    Reply
  35. rahelle

    I didn’t know that about Lost. I don’t know whether I am more pissed off that they didn’t go through with having a female lead, or shocked that there was actually a female lead planned. I mean, the poor men just have such a hard time identifying with us subhumans.

    Like

    Reply
  36. veganprimate

    Fuck Disney. I went to see “The Little Mermaid” with a friend and her daughter, and I was completely flabbergasted. There’s that part where TLM breaks through the surface of the water, looking like something out of The Sports Illustrated Swimsuit edition, and of course, there’s the Sea Hag. She’s OLD and FAT. That’s how you know she’s evil. Gawd. I want to puke.

    Are there any male villians in Disney flicks? I am having trouble thinking of any. Wasn’t there a male villian in Aladdin? But he was a foreigner, so it’s OK to have a male villian if he’s non-white and non-western. But I’ll bet female villains outnumber the males.

    Like

    Reply
  37. Aileen Wuornos

    This is fucked up. It has always bothered me that older womyn are seldom in any contemporary media. Tilda Swinton is a Polanksi supporter so I wouldn’t wanna cast her in anything.

    BB – you read Daly? She explains that prude actually means wise so I think we are all prudes, but especially you for that statement!

    Like

    Reply
  38. Aileen Wuornos

    Sorry for the double comment but wow, Rahelle I’d never thought of apply a rad Fem analysis to Harry Potter and that one you’ve jotted is fucking brilliant.

    And VP, yes, there was a male villain in Aladdin who was hell bent on raping Jasmine. I didn’t mind her as a kid cos of her line “I am not a prize to be won!” but these days I wouldn’t watch that crap if I was high.

    Like

    Reply
  39. jilla

    Tilda Swinton suppors Polanski!?

    Well, I’m no prude am I. . :/

    Can’t think who then. I have the 1972 compilation edition of the Ms. magazine reissue of Wonder Woman comics. It’s neat to see how the (male) artist drew her. Except for the fact that she was originally, and for the time, provocatively dressed, she is fat by today’s standards, and has short fat legs. That I liked. Not really fat. Just not the airbrused 5 feet of legs on her 5’3″ body. She was very real looking. That was drawn in 1941.

    Fab has a pix.

    Like

    Reply
  40. Sargasso Sea

    Julia Serano thinks he’s Wonder Woman! Or Freshly Charles thinks she is?

    “In a 1943 issue of The American Scholar, [WW creator] Marston wrote:

    Not even girls want to be girls so long as our feminine archetype lacks force, strength, and power. Not wanting to be girls, they don’t want to be tender, submissive, peace-loving as good women are. Women’s strong qualities have become despised because of their weakness. The obvious remedy is to create a feminine character with all the strength of Superman plus all the allure of a good and beautiful woman.” – the diki, of course

    Maybe this quote belongs at M/T ‘Splainin…

    Like

    Reply
  41. jilla

    But the context was a male adult, speaking from a 1930s perspective. That’s actually rather different than if it was mansplaining from 1990s perspective, which is what we’re hearing today, and is more vile and threatening.

    He said he created her to “provide an alternative to the blood-curdling masculinity of most comics by showing that strength could be used with love and justice”.

    From the book’s introduction:
    Prudence, after being rescued by Wonder Woman, says “I’ve learned my lesson. From now on, I’ll rely on myself and not on a man. In another episode WW herself says, “I can never love a dominant man who is stronger than I am”. Throughout the strips it is only the destructive criminal woman, the woman who has bought the whole idea that male means aggression and female means submitting who says “Girls want superior men to boss them around.”

    The first strip says “At last in a world torn by the hatreds and wars of men appears a woman to whom the feats of men are mere child’s play. (…) With a hundred times the strength and agility of our best male athletes (…) she appears as though from nowhere to avenge an injustice or right a wrong.”

    Not such a bad idea, from a man born in the 19teens, writing in 1941.

    Aren’t you doing that, with that strength, today? Here on these blogs? I see WW in FAB, SSea, FCM, No, Miska.

    Little girls need heroes, role models. “Aphrodite” isn’t a bad choice.”

    Like

    Reply
  42. Sargasso Sea

    Thanks for that Jilla.

    It’s true that WW was really a breakthrough and I’ve always been a *fan* although I’ve always been more identified with the Bat Man, personally.

    It was mostly this that I wanted to have the snark on: “Women’s strong qualities have become despised because of their weakness.” I mean that’s just straight out of Whipping Girl! 🙂

    Like

    Reply
  43. jilla

    I’m thinking of selling my book, and the t-shirt. I’d probably get nothing for it because … who cares? I sold a 100-year old book on a male cartoon hero for $500 not long ago. It was crap. But of course, it had GREAT value.

    Like

    Reply
  44. Sargasso Sea

    Yes, in most cases in almost all collectibles genres female *heroes* sell poorly $$$-wise.

    An exception is the G.I. Nurse from Mattel’s G.I. Joe line. Nurse was only produced for less than a full production year because the boys didn’t want them (or if they did have one they were treated just the way that males treat real females) so they are incredibly rare and *valuable* today if they are “complete”.

    Do you NEED to sell your book and shirt?

    Like

    Reply
  45. jilla

    Well, yes. But not in the case that I do not have food in the cupboard. Let go to the private thread, I don’t want to derail further.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a rilly rilly twanzphobic reply, go on, dares ya!

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s