I am not very familiar with X-Men continuity in the comics, though I know some of it. I’ve seen every X-Men movie and, until recently, saw every animated incarnation. One thing I have not failed to notice is how the women Wolverine loves tend to die violent deaths, usually as a punishment to him. Really, the only safe thing you can do if Wolverine loves you is to run into the arms of another less compelling man and consign yourself to life with a tool (hi Jean, I am totally dogging you out, but at least you are alive!).
This trope is not unfamiliar to most of you. How many times have we lamented over a female character’s death that only served to further the emotional growth of the lead male(s)? Trope, cliche, point, set, match.
The same amount of times we have lamented over the death of parents, brothers, best friends and side kicks who have been killed only to serve to further the emotional growth of the lead character, male or female. It is cliched and a trope, but it works, which is why it gets done all the time.
Claiming that there is sexism against women with Wolverine comics is quite the stretch. Over the course of the last thirty years, Logan has killed ten thousands named and nameless young men solely for the purpose of the writers proving how cool a character he is. Sometimes, like during Scott Lobdell’s run, you would get introduced to young male characters with cookie-cutter personalities who Logan simply kills because they hated mutants. This has been done dozens of times. In Mark Millar’s run, Logan literally kills thousands of men in an act of revenge for the murder of a little boy.
Comparatively speaking,there are a couple of women who have been killed to serve Logan’s character development versus thousands of men and boys that have been killed for the same reason. No matter how much one does not value the lives of males, one would think that a couple of thousand dead men and boys would balance out the death of three or four fictional female characters. This immediate jump to “it’s sexist” because Logan’s love interest in the film was killed is just absurd, although not quite as absurd as the blogger’s proposal:
One day I am going to become a famous novelist and Marvel Comics is going to come knocking on my door and beg me to write a graphic novel for them. I will agree, but only if I am allowed to write something with Wolverine in it. They will say yes, and I will get to writing, and somewhere within my story I will bring in a love interest for Wolverine, and she will love him better than any woman ever has before and he will love her better than he has loved any other woman. It will be an epic romance with fighting and mutant goodness.
Before you say: “ABW, that sounds like a Mary Sue fantasy to me,” please be aware that I will have no other goal in writing this story beyond making sure that this Wolverine love interest is still alive by the end of the book.
One can write it, but Wolverine fans will hate it the same way they hate the idea of Marvel turning Wolverine into a bishounen character. Most of the fan base likes their Logan a certain way and particularly with a certain redhead, so that plan will not work out all that well, especially since Marvel tends to be rather picky about the novelists they choose to work with and how they market their products. There is also the matter that interest is not in Logan, but in making a political statement through his story, and unless one considers male comic book fans stupid or one manages to conceal one’s true intent, fanboys will notice that and hate the story even more. The other point worth mentioning is that if a person does not know anything about Wolverine in the comics, there are sites that can remedy that.
Of course, the above post has been scattered across various feminist blogs, being touted as “insightful” despite the clear lack of knowledge about the character’s history and comic book history (and failing to note how many random men get killed in the film the comic just to make Wolverine look cool). My favorite “insight” comes from the gift that will not stop giving. The discussion devolves into talking about violence in comics, to which one person states:
I love the scene in Kill Bill where Uma Thurman slaughters fifty thugs with a longsword. It’s not high literature, and I can’t blame anyone for not enjoying that sort of thing, but I like it. Sometimes my mind wants candy.
It probably was not the violence itself that was gratifying, but who was doing it and who it was done to. If it had been David Carradine slaughtering fifty female thugs between the ages of 17 to 25 with a katana, one doubts that it would be considered “candy.”
I don’t want to give the impression that I’m opposed to sex or violence in comics (or movies or books or whatever), just that there’s a difference between Kill Bill and Death Wish. Violence isn’t enough on its own, and it’s certainly not enough when it appeals to our ugliest impulses.
The only difference between Kill Bill and Death Wish is that Tarantino is damn good at storytelling and dialogue. Otherwise, it is a basic film about a woman who wants revenge and kills or maims everyone who gets in her way (sans the little girl and the youngest yakuza). Granted, there is the obvious difference in that the person going on a killing spree is female in one movie and in the other male. The probably has more to do with the “difference” than Tarantino’s talent.
It seems that when it comes to entertainment, unless the main character is female, unless the story is focused on females, unless the smartest, coolest characters are female and unless all the disposable characters are boys and men, feminists find the story inherently sexist. Despite the fact that countless male characters are killed just to propel story development, it is only an issue when it can be pigeonholed in some political agenda. Of course, the same acts can easily be taken as racist and homophobic and anti this-or-that depending on any other politically correct aspects of the characters (it is surprising no one has labeled Alan Moore racist or sexist given that the majority of his characters tend to be white men).
This is just another example of people who over-analyze things like this, or rather form opinions before hand and then label anything that does not coincide with those opinions as “bigoted.” It is the same kind of inane thinking that leads Evangelicals to complain about the portrayal of Christianity in TV and film. This sort of politically correct essentialism does not improve storytelling nor is it particularly insightful. It is just another form of censorship, although in the case of feminists, it is also a thinly veiled attack on men and masculinity. Replace the male characters with women and the female characters with males (Ultraviolet comes to mind), and suddenly there is no complaint.
X-Men Origins: Wolverine is hardly a work of art. The special effects were poorly done and the story was not something anyone needed to know. Part of what makes Logan an interesting character is that we as the audience do not know his past. So if there is criticism about the way the film was made, by all means make it. However, leave the politically correct mastabatory accusations of sexism and racism aside, or at least come up with something better than his love interest got killed unless plans on calling Logan’s slaughtering of dozens of nameless men sexist.
*snicker* I love how you claim that I said Wolverine was sexist. I never actually used that word. What I said was that this was a problematic and BORING storyline. If Wolverine fans are happy to see the same boring story over and over then they’re, well… stupid and boring. I suspect that few fans than you think would appreciate some variety and are not as stupid and boring as you paint them.
Beyond that, the Women in Refrigerators thing is well documented and I really can’t add to it, nor do I care to for your benefit. You’re capable of looking it up. But I doubt that you will since critical thinking faculties seem to be in short supply here.
No, you only implied that Wolverine was sexist, and every feminist site that linked to your post and many of the comments on your blog use the word. So if your intention was not to claim or imply that the film’s portrayal of women was sexist, one would think you would correct those reached that conclusion. You did not, and judging by your flippant remark, it seems that my conclusion is not off base.
Whether you personally consider the character or his story stupid and boring (for the record, I outgrew Logan once I hit puberty) is irrelevant to the topic at hand, particularly considering you did not critique the story, the film or the character as a whole in your post. Likewise, insulting Wolverine fans does not alter that you are implying that an aspect of Wolverine’s character and story is sexist. Had those characters been male, I do not think you would be complaining or suggesting that you will write a story in which none of the males Logan loves died. It probably would not be a blip on your radar, which is fine. I am simply saying that you should acknowledge that it is not the cliche using the death a person close to a character as plot device that is the problem, but the gender of that character.
I do not care what your opinion of my ability to think critically is, so either keep the insults to yourself or do not post here. As for the Women in Refrigerators, it is about as objective and honest as the Christian right citing instances of gays becoming straight. One can cherry pick a couple of instances and tout them as representative. However, the fact remains that just as many men and boys have treated in the same fashion (probably more so) just to progress stories and in some instance to avoid paying royalties to creators, because of poor sales and, my personal favorite, because fans do not like the character and they get to call a number and decide whether a child lives or dies, all of which with no complaint in terms of gender.
It probably was not the violence itself that was gratifying, but who was doing it and who it was done to. If it had been David Carradine slaughtering fifty female thugs between the ages of 17 to 25 with a katana, one doubts that it would be considered “candy.”
If there is one thing a feminist can find/make is an instance of sexism against women. Wolverine could walk up on a woman/man couple with the intent to kill and almost no matter how it went down it would be sexist against women.
1. He only kills the woman – Violence against women.
2. He only kill the man – He is sexist against the woman in only killing the man because Wolverine assumes the woman is not a threat (i.e. she is weak).
3. He kills them both – Violence against women. (and damn the dead man lying next to her)
The only way Wolverine could come out of that not being sexist is to kill neither of them.
And if you think this is bad go look up feminist breakdowns of Sin City and Joss Whedon’s material.
I am well aware of Whedon’s material. I deliberately refused to read his X-Men run because I could not stand the overt misandry. At least Brian K. Vaughn can sublimate his feminism enough to write interesting, multi-dimensional male characters. Reading Whedon is like reading a feminist version of Frank Miller. He thinks he is treating them nicely, but in reality it is just another blatantly biased portrayal.
Oh no not Whedon’s material but feminist reviews of Whedon material. Most feminists predictably praise his use of powerful female (and will insult and pick at the flaws of males characters) but in particular I mean this.
Its some angry feminist trying to prove that Whedon is not as feminist as he claims to be…and fails at almost the get go. Check out this part of her breakdown of Firefly:
So in the very second scene of the very first episode, an episode written and directed by the great feminist Joss, a white man tells a black woman to ‘shut up’ for no apparent reason. And she does shut up. And she continues to call him sir. And takes his orders, even when they are dumb orders, for the rest of the series.
If you aren’t familiar with Firefly (as this person apparently is not) that white man and black woman were in the military together and he was her commanding officer. Why is it that in all the fiction through all of history in which two war buddies that are no longer in the service still maintain the chain of command THIS is the one time there is suddenly a problem with it?
It is a problem because a person who wants to can pigeonhole it into their political views and call it sexist. One of the things I would like to see whenever a person criticizes the portrayal of certain groups of people is an actual criticism of the work itself. In other words, I would like someone to actually critique the film, book or show, not simply harp on a particular point.
TS:
You read Lobdell’s run on X-Men? I thought he had a better mastery of the characters then most of the writers since him (including Joss Whedon). I at least thought Lobdell tried to give the characters character.
I agree with you here. I’m particularly bothered at deeming things sexist without full information. In this case it does seem that a lot of what makes Wolverine Wolverine was reduced to his relationships with women, hence the “not enough information.” But more importantly I notice an increasing tendency of “this a negative portrayal of women”/”I don’t like how a woman/women were portrayed” to be “problematic” of the culture at large. Can we not have negative portrayals of a person due in no part to their gender?
I caught the latter part of it while it was in print and then collected most of it a few years ago. It was mainly for Joe Mad’s art work, but I did like the writing. I thought he improved the core characters, but when it came to making Logan look cool, he would just write throw away characters for Logan to beat up or kill. Obviously you would not want to invest too much in someone who will die in three pages, unless the death is supposed to be meaningful, like killing Logan’s lovers. I cannot stand anything Joss Whedon writes or works on, though. He thinks he is clever and comes across as pretentious as Frank Miller, though with far less interesting dialogue. In a way, I think the two are opposites on the same spectrum. I do not care much for Frank Miller’s work either, although I am more inclined to read it.
This reminds me of something a feminist teacher told me in college. She said that male writers were not allowed to write women as sexy, cheap, manipulative, angry, meanspirited, bitter, seductive or as prostitutes, gold diggers, lesbians or place them on a pedestal. Female writers could do this, but any male student who wrote female antagonists were chastised for doing so no matter how well-written the characters were. Coincidentally, after telling the class of mostly male students this, she had us read a story about an abusive lesbian mother raped and beat her daughters.
I’m a fan of Joe Mad’s artwork also. His blend of art styles was impressive. Lobdell’s writing represented a balance that I don’t think many X-Men writers have achieved since. I was a particular fan of his take on Cyclops. Overall I thought he had better command of the characters than the other writers.
Now to Joss Whedon. You know, I read his run on Astonishing and I have to admit it felt just like Buffy. At least, that was my general feeling of it, that somehow Buffy characters had taken over the X-Men. It didn’t help that Whedon admits that his inspiration and foundation for Buffy was Kitty Pryde. I must admit there did seem to be a feminist slant to his run. Many people seemed to love the story despite the political undertones of the it and, to me at least, despite Whedon’s shallow understanding of the characters.
It seemed to have backfired during Whedon’s run on Runaways, which has been largely panned by the fans of the series. My problem with his writing is that usually presents cookie cutter characters, but whereas with female characters he tries to turn the stereotypes on their heads, he leaves male characters as they are. They are very rarely good people. They inevitably personify some “bad” aspect of masculinity or are simply useless characters. When combined with his obvious political undertones, it comes across as pretentious with too many attempts to be clever.
I think the best part about Lobdell’s run was that he brought back the family element to the series. It felt like these were people who knew, liked and loved each other, not that they were put on a team to look cool. A lot of that is missing now in the books, which is part of the reason I stopped buying them.
Also, a male writer may not write without any women at all, that would be sexist, too. I guess it is easiest for male sf-writers to just write about species where there are no sexes/genders at all, if they want to escape feminist scolding (although I guess they would claim that weaker characters were obviously meant to be women and the writer made his species one-sex simply to cloud his sexism).
I have seen that critique before. It strikes me as odd because it presumes that one cannot tell a good story without including every potential group of people. Some stories are about men, others women, some certain ethnic groups. It seems silly to require writers to play politics when writing a story.
It seems silly to require writers to play politics when writing a story.
Silly indeed but their intent can be unraveled by looking at such requirements. That professor clearly wanted to put unfair limitations on the males of that class in order to give the females an unfair advantage. (Funny thing is many a feminist would claim that this is not sexism because that professor, as a woman, does not have institutional power.) Privilege if you will…
So Wolverine is a sexist movie because his girlfriend died. (the same girlfriend that has always died)….
He is sexist because he happens to be straight, and people he has no control over like to fuck with his life and kill every woman he has fallen in love with.
Would it still be sexist if he was gay, cause the same shit would happen. Would it be sexist is he was a she and straight? What if she was a lesbian, is it sexist than, world?
Ultimate Universe Colossus better count himself lucky that Wolverine isn’t gay, otherwise he’s be dead too.
I swear people that find stuff like that sexist need to learn to shut the fuck up because they’re over zealous morons.
Empowering women by disempowering men. That is an element of feminism that strikes me as counter intuitive and it is one of the many reasons why I do not support the ideology.