Sometimes A Woman In A Refrigerator Is Just That

(Editor's note: this is republished from 2008. I had taken it offline as a draft, but put it live again because I think there's some revisionist history going on with the D'Orazio/Sims thing. I might try to restore the proper date if I can track it down.)


It seems that misogyny in comic books has often been a matter for discussion over the last few years. So much so, that I think people are hyper-aware of anything that can appear to be woman-hating or sexist in comic books. That's not to say that there aren't just as many "what the hell were they thinking" moments that still happen during these hyper-aware times.

I think that, during these times, certain stories and actions are attributed to misogyny or sexism when there is a much simpler explanation.

Let's take, as an example, my dust up with Valerie D'Orazio over my joke regarding Devin Grayson having gained some sort of professional benefit by the fact that she was dating Mark Waid.

Now, it was implied that I was talking about Devin sleeping her way to the top. I never made such a statement and don't believe that Ms. Grayson slept her way to the top. What I do believe is that every person you get to know in the industry is an advantage that makes it easier for you to get your pitch seen by the right editor.

Everyone knows that it is nearly impossible, as a writer, to get your work looked at by editors because they have too little time and too many concerns about people suing their employer because they think their ideas were used without compensation. Being friends or the significant other of a hot comic book writer helps you cut through those obstacles.

If I remember correctly, Joe Casey had a bit of a "right place/right time" that led to James Robinson befriending him and his path into comics becoming that much easier for it. I don't doubt that his work demonstrated great talent at the time at all, just as I don't doubt the merits of Grayson's work being the ultimate reason why it was published. But both writers had an advantage getting their projects looked at early on because of who they knew.

Now, mind you, I made a really stupid joke that, with Devin being a female in a largely male-dominated industry, she had the chance to break in by dating a creator where most aspiring male writers don't have that as an option. That was why certain people could take it and run with it into a much more inflammatory statement.

They made it about sexism and misogyny when, if anything, it is about jealousy. That's often what a lot of bitter comments made about those who have opportunities you don't or get the promotion you wanted are fueled by. Just like, if anything, the women in refrigerators are about easy/lazy/corporate writing more so than they are expressions of deep-seated sexism or misogyny. Corporate run comic book stories can often become as simple as paint-by-numbers when done by an unmotivated writer or an editorial staff adverse to risk taking.

Can't kill Batman, Robin, Nightwing, et al...so let's kill Spoiler in a way that really makes a statement (albeit the wrong one). Can't kill a major supporting character or there are so few to pick from, so let's have Major Force stuff his girlfriend in a fridge. Now, I'm not saying those examples are lazy...but I'm saying the creative process probably involved a lot less resentment of women and a lot more of working with the options afforded to a writer in corporate comics. Established characters rarely can die. The status quo can only get changed so much, because this is a franchise property that needs to be "evergreen". There's a movie coming out; see if you can trim away some of the characters that aren't going to be in the movie. All of the non-creative concerns that limit the ability of the writer to build to a killer moment. They're not left with much.

That's why a cigar is often just a cigar and a woman in a fridge is simply a woman in a fridge.

WGBGB: Running From The Truth

(Editor's note: this is republished from 2008. I had taken it offline as a draft, but put it live again because I think there's some revisionist history going on with the D'Orazio/Sims thing. I might try to restore the proper date if I can track it down.

For the record, this exchange makes me look worse than it does Val, because I was thoughtless in how I initially expressed my point.)

Originally ran on 2/25/2008.

I was going to blog about how Valerie was being so selective about her approach to minority characters (black characters that are, in some ways, copies of white characters is bad, but Batwoman being a copy of a straight character with no defining characteristics but rich and gay is great) or the flaw in her assuming that Devin Grayson's aborted Batwoman series got killed because it was just too edgy and scared DC rather than any more realistic option (including the possibility that it just wasn't good).

But then I said the following on her blog (since deleted):

"I don't think it was because Grayson was a poor writer. If I had to take a guess, it was probably too real, too powerful, too original, too controversial, too sensual, and it scared the shit out of DC."

Ugh. Really. Ugh. All this unfounded crap about a writer that the best you could say earlier was "dependable mainstay" and included her in a group of writers with "a varying degree of talent". Talk about damning with faint praise.

Was there a switch in editorial? Could it have something to do with the timing with the movie? Was there possibly a plan to launch her with a Rucka/Williams mini or start off arc and that crumbled?

Fan reaction to Devin on Nightwing was terrible. If I remember correctly, she was losing paid readers, too. The "too sensual" comment? I don't know that sensual is what DC'd want to go for consistently in any DC Universe book. So, if Devin forgot her market, that'd be a valid reason for jettisoning her work.

For all the cries of inequality in the industry, aspiring female creators have the option of sleeping with ex-editors/current hot writers, assuring their pitches get read by someone. What? Someone acknowledge it. If we're going to boo-hoo her losing a gig, her beginnings put it in perspective.

Valerie's responses?

"For all the cries of inequality in the industry, aspiring female creators have the option of sleeping with ex-editors/current hot writers, assuring their pitches get read by someone. What? Someone acknowledge it. If we're going to boo-hoo her losing a gig, her beginnings put it in perspective."

you are an asshole.

and

Further, I don't tolerate such personal accusations like that against other freelancers, or posters, or anyone, on this blog. That sort of misogynistic tripe has no place here. Kevin, go take your readership elsewhere.

It is a fact that Devin was involved with Waid when she broke in. I'm not saying that she got involved with him IN ORDER TO BREAK IN...but that such a relationship certainly helps her pitches get read and her phone calls taken. To suggest it doesn't is stupid.

I do acknowledge, though, that my initial statement could be misconstrued as to suggest that she was using a writer to break in. So I tried to clarify with the following:

Accusation? I'm not saying she got involved with the person BECAUSE she wanted her pitches seen...but who she was dating certainly helped her get looked at by editorial. As does any kind of networking. New writers don't break in cold to DC or Marvel without knowing someone personally. That just happens to be the person she knew...and it just so happened to be in the Biblical sense.

and

By the way, it isn't misogynistic to point out that having a relationship with an ex-editor and current hot writer at DC certainly helped Devin break in.

Her response?

we don't discuss the private lives of freelancers here.

Which is hilarious given:

You're kidding, right? The blog site where you talked about your ripped vagina can't allow a comment that acknowledges a contention that has dogged Devin around since she broke in?

And then I say:

You know what, Val? If you're going to delete my comments that clarify my original statement, you should just go and delete the original statement...instead of trying to leave it up to contend that it is something other than it really was.

Val:

Kevin, please stay off this blog. You're saying things that can eventually get you sued for libel. Stop.

Me, again:

Val, I'm not saying anything libelous. It is ridiculous that you delete my comments and then post things to make it appear that I'm saying things I'm not.

As I said, I make no suggestion that she got involved with someone IN ORDER TO BREAK IN, but that it benefited her. I'd like to live in your world where having such close relationships with popular creators DOESN'T assure that your pitch gets read, but I'm stuck here in the real world.

Further ridiculous comments:

Kevin, trust me, you do not want a legal notice from Grayson. Drop it.

And the end from me:

Yeah, Val...you have my greater good at the top of your thoughts. That's why you're allowing the original post (which can be misunderstood) to stay up but not the follow-up posts that clarify that I'm not saying her boyfriend was a means to an end but that a relationship like that just happens to be a networking godsend.

and

Deleting my original comment, since you're obviously just trying to spin this into something it wasn't. You're just so professional. :)

That was, unfortunately, followed up with Val, again, trying to spin it into something else:

who Devin Grayson dates is of no concern to this discussion. I find your persistence in this extremely disturbing. please go find another blog or forum.

Yeah...ignore that most arguments involve persistence, regardless of subject matter. Never mind that, when someone tries to paint you as being misogynist for something that is simply a misunderstanding, you'll generally try to persist to set the record straight. I'm just disturbing. :)

Marvel Loves Sexually Controversial Images

Yeah...THIS won't get a lot of negative attention (that will likely just help Marvel advertise it). I've run this by a few friends and the general consensus is the fourth panel (top right) is meant to evoke images of a facial/money shot. That doesn't even get into the potentially sensual depiction of all the girls gathering around to "help" in the rest of the panels...

WGBGB: LJ Blogger "_alecto_"

OK...including _alecto_ in WHEN GOOD BLOGGERS GO BAD presupposes that this blogger has ever been good. I can't swear that they have, but I'm not creating a whole new feature for this person.

What genius effort over at their blog caused this attention?

Not going so far as to count how many times men and women speak in 1 and 1/2 episodes of Firefly.
Not suggesting that pornography has a heavy influence on Whedon's work.
Not that anyone who pays Inara for her "services" is a rapist.

But this:

Zoe, of course, is meant to be our empowered, ass-kicking sidechick. Like all sidechicks she is objectified from the get go. Her husband, Wash, talking about how he likes to watch her bathe. Let me just say now that I have never personally known of a healthy relationship between a white man and a woman of colour. I have known a black woman whose white husband would strangle and bash her while her young children watched. My white grandfather liked black women because they were ‘exotic’, and he did not, could not treat women, especially women of colour, like human beings. I grew up watching my great aunts, my aunty and my mother all treated like shit by their white husbands, the men they loved. So you will forgive me for believing that the character, Wash, is a rapist and an abuser, particularly considering that he treats Zoe like an object and possession.

So...because her grandfather was an ass, this fictional character was a rapist and a misogynist without need of any contextual clues regarding such characteristics?

Why Didn't Anyone Tell Me????

(Editor's note: this is republished from 2008. I had taken it offline as a draft, but put it live again because I think there's some revisionist history going on with the D'Orazio/Sims thing. I might try to restore the proper date if I can track it down.)

Originally ran on 3/20/2008.

I missed the pissing match between SOMEONE ELSE (Kevin Church, accomplished comic book writer and the blogger of Beaucoup Kevin) and Valerie D'Orazio? Revealing that there are so many other voices out there that find the way she handles discourse to be deplorable and dishonest? Who knew?

By the way...great person to have the face of ANY organization (cough...Friends of Lulu...cough), especially when she can show she's open-minded enough to be able to denounce sexism & misogyny AND promote the products of sexist/misogynist companies or persons. I'm pretty sure he doesn't have male poker players strip down for a photo shoot to discuss how they play the game, like this female player did.

Edit: You know...because this is the sort of thing Calvin Ayre has on his site.

Bodog Cat Fight
Barely Clothed at the Club
Girls of Bodog Fight
Kimberly Likes the Beach
And countless other examples.


Doesn't seem to me like this is the sort of company that the head of Friends of Lulu should be shilling for the vanity graphic novel of, regardless of the proceeds going to charity. Seems like something designed to be done for a loss to help out at tax time, while satisfying the ego of a billionaire, no?

Edit 2: Dontcha know...sometime after I pointed out that she was shilling for a flesh peddler in a previous blog she pulled the offending blog down. I guess that whole "personal blog vs. professional responsibilities" thing does come into play sometimes. Too bad she had to drop publicizing a friend's work like a hot potato for it, though.

Edit 3: Lest you think I made this up: the cached blog! God Bless Google (for their searches AND Blogger.com)

WGBGB: Support for my "Valerie Situation"

(Editor's note: this is republished from 2008. I had taken it offline as a draft, but put it live again because I think there's some revisionist history going on with the D'Orazio/Sims thing. I might try to restore the proper date if I can track it down.)

Originally posted on 2/26/2008.

It started out as just one Occasional Superheroine reader who came to my blog to find out that the way Valerie was spinning things made me look much worse than my actual deeds would merit.

Andy: Well I'm glad I got to read the posts here, thanks for posting them. I did assume they were much worse seeing the deleted posts, so I can validate your argument there.

Then came a completely unexpected correspondence from a comic professional. He didn't want to be named, but allowed me to share his words under a pen name. Let's call him Richard Alpert.

Richard: "The inherent contradiction in Valerie's posting is that she simultaneously wants to be the victim and the champion. She wants your sympathy for her trials at DC, but she also wants you to agree with only her. It's an inherent contradiction that makes it seem like she was less angry about her treatment as a woman, and more angry that she wasn't put on a pedestal for being so obviously right. Then again, she edited books with Black Lightning and can't recognize him. Yeah . . . I'm sure DC is crushed they let her get away."

"I don't hate female creators; I just hate Valerie."

He manages to hit a point that I wanted to draw attention to when she made the Jefferson Pierce/John Henry Irons mistake, but was trying to stay reasonably cordial at the time. She certainly doesn't seem to employ the keen powers of observation in her current work that she'd have obviously needed to perform adequately as an editor.

I'm wondering if she didn't spend more time fretting over "causes" during her work rather than doing what was asked of her. I remember doing the same when I was interning at a music promotion company and incessantly pitched that Half Pint needed to try to work something out to pimp KMD because they had a completed record with no one willing to press it. Even called Bobbito (from the Stretch & Bobbito show on Columbia University radio at the time). Really didn't endear me to my direct supervisor.

Maybe I'll hear from others who have similar opinions they're afraid to express for fear of being unjustly labeled as misogynist?