How to win at Cover Controversy Roulette!

[odditycollector]

 
Finally, just what I know we've all been waiting for: Feminist Outrage has been introduced as a betting game!

Now, it occurs to me that a fangirl could make a pretty penny by letting on our secrets...

 

How to win at Cover Controversy Roulette

So you want to impress your friends and win big bucks by playing CCR? Thanks to odditycollector^tm, your odds just got better!

Step one: When trying to decide where to place your chips, look at each image and ask yourself the following questions. (I know they’re tough to memorize, so feel free to write them down on a cue card before you go to play.)

 

1. Is there at least one woman (or imagery associated with women) in the image?

If not, there might be serious issues with the cover, but chances are they are not primarily feminist issues. (Exception: is the absence of women conspicuous? Eg, a JLA group shot without Wonder Woman and Black Canary.)

1a. If there are both men and women in the image, are they portrayed in an equivalent manner? If the genders of the characters were reversed, would the image still make sense?

 

2. Does the woman appear strong? Does she have agency?

PAY EXTRA ATTENTION TO THIS ONE!

If yes, the cover is going to have to work double-time to make people *angry*. Other possible problems are more likely to be interpreted as “not my thing” rather than “are they trying to offend me on PURPOSE?”

If no, every other problem - with both feminist issues and the art itself - will be highlighted.

 

3. Is the featured woman well known and/or well loved?

Lisa Fortuner explains it best. If no, the cover may very well be pointed out as an example of a general trend.

If yes, a problematic portrayal of the character will be felt as a personal attack. (However, make sure to note, a *positive* portrayal will be taken as a thing of AWESOME.)

 

4. Does the image communicate anti-feminist ideas?

EG.

Women are just there to be fuck dolls.

The only important parts of a woman are the parts that make a man want to fuck her.

Women are inherently disgusting and/or evil.

Women are somehow less (important/capable/dangerous) than men.

Women must be put in their place: serving men.

Women should not be treated as full people.

Etc. Etc.

Etc.

4a. Is the first thing one notices T&A? Does the woman’s outfit serve only to highlight her sexual characteristics, rather than any practical purpose?

See: The only important parts of a woman are the parts that make a man want to fuck her.

 

5. Does the image serve a narrative purpose?

For example, a cover where Wonder Woman is shown to be defeated and unconscious may be great for getting across drama and tension. (However, because she would *not* display agency in this image, sexual undertones would change the whole message of the image and should be avoided.)

For example, Lois Lane waiting in lingerie on her and Clark’s wedding anniversary has narrative purpose; Lois Lane giving an empty locker room a slow strip tease probably does not.

 

6. Is the image an obvious parody? Is it *funny*?

This is tricky, because humour depends on a *lot*. Is the image making fun of the way the comic book industry portrays women, or is it making fun OF women? Is it just an excuse for even more exaggerated depictions of asses and bondage scenarios, or does it actually have something interesting to say?

Remember that jokes written for one audience may not be funny at all to a different audience, and that this says nothing about the validity of their respective senses of humour. Remember that jokes can be offensive.

Even if people don’t agree on whether or not the parody is successful (eg, Empowered, Bomb Queen, Zombie Mary Jane), it’s more likely to generate discussion than vitriol. However, note that this is not the case if people don’t agree on whether or not it IS a parody. (eg, All Star Batman and Robin.)

 

Step Two:Play the odds! The more of these simple questions the image FAILS UTTERLY, the more likely many individual bloggers are going to look at the image and feel offended. Place your bet on the one (or more) which has the greatest chance of Feminist Outrage!

Let’s see a couple examples!

 



 

Is there a woman? Yes.
Does she have agency? YES. The art’s a bit weird, but she gives off an overall attitude of “Exhausted now, but don’t fuck with me. I just killed a fucking dinosaur.”
Is she a popular character? Not in the internet circles I live in, anyway.
Anti-feminist morals? I’m going with no. Although I don’t really know what is up with that dino-tongue.
T&A? Costume? Sure, she’s perhaps too endowed for that bikini, but she’s not really posing for the viewer’s benefit.
Narrative purpose? Probably not for the tongue.
But is it *funny*? Karen votes: vaguely on the side of ‘yes’.

Chance of Feminist Outrage: Slim.

 



 

Is there one or more women? Yes.
Equivalent portrayal to the men in the image? AH HAH HAH HAH. That is to say: No.
Do the women have agency? NO. None at all.
Are any of them popular? Yes. Misty Knight especially has a fan following to which she matters greatly.
Anti-feminist morals? I think it would be quicker to ask if there are any it *missed*.
T&A? Costumes? It is amazing, actually, how we notice the boobs first, even before the rape-tastic tentacles. The fact that their costumes have been ripped or un-zipped to the point of indecency may have something to do with that.
Narrative purpose? No. I mean, at least, I really really hope not.
But is it *funny*? Karen votes: No. Karen votes: It is, rather, nausea-making. Also, it does not read as a parody, and I think Joe Q’s comments on the matter have proved conclusively that it was not meant to be such.

Chance of Feminist Outrage: WTF HOLY HELL COMICS WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU

 

Now you try!

 

Comments

[odditycollector.livejournal.com]

Whooops! I'd excised that bit. I'd forgotten.