Amazons International # 70 ************************** Contents: UFO Girl: Martial arts & Amazon pride Daniel Thomas: The Degradation of the Superheroine Thomas: Artemis vs. Cyrano Jazz Fan: 'Pepper' -- a Great Name for an Amazon Sandy Steinbok: Re: Humanism or feminism? Thomas: Feminism IS humanism Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand Date of publication: 14.11.1998 ********************************************************************* Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 15:35:10 PDT From: UFO Girl Subject: Martial arts & Amazon pride Konnichiwa! I'm a new subscriber. When people think of an Amazon, they think of a tall, brawny, big-breasted woman. I am neither tall (5'2") nor entirely brawny and I'm not even gonna discuss my breast size, but strength, as the old cliché goes, does not lie in the body alone. Many people assume that in order to be considered a capable fighter, you have to be rippling with freshly oiled muscles (a la Conan). However, I come from a long tradition of using your enemy's physical bulk against them (martial arts and the like). I believe strongly that you can defeat someone way heavier and way taller than you are. I don't just believe, I know it for a fact. Big, arrogant guys come up to me and tell me how cute it is that I'm so interested in Wing Chun and martial arts in that tone that says, "you'll never succeed because you're too small and a girl". Boy, are they surprised when they're down on the mat. I may be short and cute and sort of innocent looking but piss me off and it's your ass. To me an Amazon represents strength (of mind and body); courage, self-discipline, honour, humility, justice and knowing the difference between true victory and true failure. I'm a petite Amazon and damned proud. Domo arigato. Y. Kisaragi ********************************************************************* Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 20:23:33 PST From: Daniel Thomas Subject: The Degradation of the Superheroine Many people are exposed to the idea of the Amazon through comic books, movies and television. Through these media, the idea of powerful females, frequently much more powerful than their male counterparts, comes across quite well. Who cannot admire the power Lucy Lawless and Hudson Leick bring to their characters? Or the feminist ideals stated by Lynda Carter in her role as Wonder Woman. But what if the ideals and archetypes don't come from a respectable or believable source? The superheroine has 5 archetypes. The first is "Bitch". Second is "Feminist". Third is "Tragic". Fourth is the "Please have sex with me". And finally, there is the "physical-abuse-is-no-big-deal-'coz-it-just-makes-women-stronger" category. Sometimes, these characterizations overlap, creating what the writers think is a well-rounded female character. Frequently, they *are* well rounded -- their breasts and hips are so round that one wonders where the muscle could possibly go. At http://members.tripod.com/~FirestarArtemis/15.jpg, you will find a picture of Artemis. She is a character of DC Comics, the younger sister of Princess Diana of Themyscira (Paradise Island), better known as the Wonder Woman. Artemis defeated Diana in a tournament of the Amazons, and became Wonder Woman for a time, until her death. After Artemis fell, Wonder Woman journeyed into Hell in search of her sister, finding her married and enslaved to a Demon Prince. Diana freed Artemis, and the warrior was resurrected, becoming an adventurer with an extraordinary gift for violence. As is plain in the picture, Artemis wears very little to cover her spectacularly muscled body. While her garments may appear fearsome to some, to most, it degrades this spectacular example of Amazonian Features to a mere sex kitten. She manages to show a spectacular amount of her shapely buttocks by wearing a thong. Yet, in her comics, she is clearly portrayed as kicking and punching her opponents with great skill. It must have taken her years to learn how to do this without snapping the string of floss that covers her crotch. Add to that the sexual imagery of the fact that she cannot close her legs (being that she wears spikes around her thighs), and the artists have nearly completely ruined this woman. Artemis, incidentally, falls into the "Bitch" category. Another lovely Amazon can be found at http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/2855/uxm_164b.jpg, Formerly known as Ms. Marvel, then here as Binary, and currently Warbird, the Amazon known at Marvel Comics as Carol Danvers is, like Wonder Woman, a Feminist super heroine. In this particular picture, we see how proud she is of her physique, as she shows it off in something slightly LESS than a bathing suit. She, much like Wonder Woman, also manages to kick box, run and fight evil wearing high heels. The clothes these women don are not only impossible to fight in, but have almost nothing to do with their characters. Take these three women: Firestar: Mutant Mistress of Radiation at http://members.tripod.com/~FirestarArtemis/firestar.html, Dagger at http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/2855/dagger.html and Gamora: The Deadliest Woman in the Galaxy at http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/2855/gamora.html. They fall into the "Tragic", "Tragic" and "physical-abuse-is-no-big-deal-'coz-it-just-makes-women-stronger" categories respectively (Firestar runs the risk of sterilizing herself with her powers. Dagger is compelled by her sense of charity to remain with her companion Cloak so that she can protect him from himself. Gamora was beaten and raped repeatedly as a child, which gave her the rage to fight villains. Go figure). All of these women wear costumes that were obviously designed by males who have never had anything to do with real life women. Gamora is nearly asexual, expressing interest in only one male at any time during her nearly 25 years as a comic book character, yet she wears a costume that plunges the neckline down to her navel. Firestar and Dagger are representative of shy, teenaged girls, yet also have the same problem. My last example will be the character from Xena: Warrior Princess so dear to so many hearts, Callisto: Goddess of Rage at http://www.hudsonleickfan.com/. Callisto is definitely a character whose gender is not an issue. She stopped living the day her family died (Callisto represents both "Tragic" and "Bitch" characterizations). The fact that Callisto is a woman is irrelevant. Yet she wears what appears to be both very painful and very, very useless armor. I'm certain that her chainmail bikini top will stop any attacker who has a driving need to plunge a knife into her nipple, but why not go for that lovely, rippling muscle of her exposed belly? Surely that would be a much easier target. The point of this little rant is quite simple: Amazons are not sex kittens. They never were, yet today, people feel the need to portray them as such. Can any of us answer why these fearsome warriors we so love must be portrayed so one-dimensionally and so scantily clad? Daniel Thomas http://members.tripod.com/~FirestarArtemis/index.html "...But I do not enjoy the killing...I AM NOT VIOLENT!! And I will put an arrow through the brains of anyone who says I am!!!" --Artemis (Artemis Requiem #4-DC) "Dress to kill. Not to just maim." --Elvira ********************************************************************* From: Thomas Gramstad Subject: Artemis vs. Cyrano de Bergerac Daniel makes a lot of astute observations and interesting comments about superheroines. I'd like to chime in with my $ 0.02 about the Artemis character and stories from Wonder Woman. These stories are first published as single comics, but I prefer the bigger collector albums which are published later. So far, the relevant albums are: Wonder Woman: "The Contest", DC Comics, NY 1995. ISBN: 1-56389-194-8. Wonder Woman: "The Challenge of Artemis", DC Comics, NY 1996. ISBN: 1-56389-264-2. They are both written by William Messner-Loebs and drawn by Mike Deodato Jr. Hopefully there will be published a third album, covering the last comics of the series with the last part of this story line. These stories are quite dramatic and well-written. They are also hyper-violent, really big on violence as entermainment. This tends to crowd the traditional feminist message of Wonder Woman; probably many oldtime fans would rather say "undercut" than "crowd". Perhaps it's just me, but I really do enjoy seeing rapists and manhood dominators drown in their own blood and gore, at the hands of intransigent female protagonists. I really do think there is something of feminist relevance there. So I can't really support that particular criticism, of the violence. The idea of violence can be empowering for the oppressed. But then there is the objectification element of clothing etc. that Daniel pointed out, which I think is a much bigger problem. An appealing thing about these stories, however, is that there are many powerful females both among the protagonists and antagonists. All in all, these stories are a mixed bag, for sure. But, I was going to talk about the Artemis character. Daniel identifies her as belonging to the bitch category. There is much truth in that, but it is a partial truth. I agree with Diana, who says to Artemis, at the moment of her (Artemis') imminent death: "Your ARROGANCE was one of your most APPEALING features, little sister. I won't hear you disparage it." (p. 176, 1996) What's going on here? Is Diana endorsing maliciousness, spitefulness and domineeringness (the lexicographical synonyms for "bitch")? Different writers are reclaiming positive aspects of "bitch". See for example Elizabeth Wurtzel's "Bitch: In Praise of Difficult Women" (read about it at Amazon.com), or "Heartless Bitches International", http://www.heartless-bitches.com/. I'm not going to pursue that particular direction at this time; instead I'm going to argue the case from the perspective that Artemis is a more complex hero type and character than the bitch category alone (at least as traditionally conceived, and as alluded to by Daniel) gives her credit for. As is often the case with literary archetype characters, Artemis has some enlarged, starkly distilled character traits. (While Messner-Loebs makes the traditional characters of Wonder Woman, such as Diana herself, her mother, and Circe more human, more complex, more vulnerable, less obviously or uncomplicatedly good (or evil, in Circe's case), he at the same time introduces new characters which ARE clearcut and archetypical.) In order to identify and describe these traits of Artemis, I found great help in a description of Cyrano de Bergerac, the main character in Edmund Rostand's play of the same name. The key word is "panache". The description (excerpted below) is from a taped lecture series titled "Eight Great Plays", by Leonard Peikoff, Second Renaissance Books 1995 (tape no. 9, side 2B, Q & A section). "Panache is actually the last word of the play in French. Now, literally panache is the tuft or plume of feathers of an old French military helmet. That's why it's often translated as "white plume". More broadly it's taken symbolically to mean, and this is the typical list of qualities that it's taken to mean: pride, gallantry, swagger, courage, conceit and conscious superiority." Peikoff goes on, mentioning a passage from Rostand himself, written in French, that Peikoff translated into English. Rostand writes, according to Peikoff: "It is not just greatness, but something ADDED to greatness. Something courageous, articulate, theatrical, dramatic, forceful and strong." Peikoff stresses that it is an issue of both substance and style. "There has to be something theatrical with a FLAIR to it, to have panache." Rostand further says: "the man of panache is never disinterested". This is because even when the man of panache makes a sacrifice for his values, he nevertheless has a satisfied attitude about himself. His action is thus interested or self-oriented. He enjoys taking pride in his courage, and showing fierce loyalty to his values. So there you have it: Artemis is a Rostand type of hero, a woman of panache. And this is what Diana credits her for on her deathbed. If Artemis were a male character, there would be no doubt about her panache. But because she is female, she is labeled a bitch instead. Thomas Gramstad thomasg@ifi.uio.no "If you try to be pretty, you hide your beauty." -- Ya'Acov Darling Khan (Body Prayer dance workshop 08.05.1998) ********************************************************************* Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 10:24:58 -0400 From: Jazz Fan Subject: Why 'Pepper' Would be a Great Name for an Amazon When I told a good friend that my recent enrollment on the mailing list for Amazons International had sparked in me a writing frenzy, I joked that my next composition would be "Why 'Pepper' is a Great Name for an Amazon". To illustrate just how bad this writing frenzy has gotten, I acutally began to consider why 'Pepper' WOULD be a great name for an Amazon... so I thought I'd share this bit of silly nonsense with you :) In English, the word pepper refers to the peppercorn spice as well as the sweet bells and chili peppers. Like Amazons, peppers come in a variety of colors... black, white, yellow, red (and of course green). Even the most mild types are often too flavorful for bland palates, reminding us that even borderline Amazons are often too much for the average person to handle. Like Amazons, peppers can sometimes be hard, so hard that it takes a steel contraption or a stone mortar to break them down. Set your bare hand against a peppercorn? Good luck! You might as well try to make Lockwood, Korinkova, or Chyna<1> whimper by squeezing their muscles. As with Amazons, peppers are a welcomed treat when bursting at the seams with meat. Of course ground beef is used in peppers, while feminine muscle is preferred for Amazons. The strongest peppers have been known to reduce grown people to tears, while setting dread in the hearts of the meek. The strongest Amazons seem to have the same effect. In its raw and natural form, the pepper is rather tough. I think the same could be said of Amazons. Want to raise your temperature? Eat a chili... or watch an Amazon for a minute or so. You'll need a glass of ice water either way! Amazons are hot... challenging... spicey... and come in all sorts of interesting shapes. Peppers? Ditto! Like peppers, some Amazons are flakes. They'd have to be to put up with the intolerance and misconceptions... or maybe they're just excessively strong? And come on... could there BE a better name for an Amazon-fitness girl than 'Pepper'? (ask Pepper Ferry<2>) So... those are my reasons for thinking that 'Pepper' would be a great name for an Amazon. I'm sorry I felt compelled to subject you to this nonsense... but it's that writing frenzy again :) Notes <1> Tina Lockwood and Zsuzana Korinkova are particularly muscular female bodybuilders, while Chyna is an Amazon who appeared on WWF wrestling each week. I doubt there are too many men who could hurt these women by squeezing their muscles between thumb and forefinger. <2> Pepper Ferry is a very capable fitness competitor. Jazz Fan Visit the land of AMAZONIA MINOR at... http://mail.dandy.net/~bunburry/amazonia.html ********************************************************************* From: LidlAmazon@aol.com Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 01:24:52 EDT Subject: Re: Humanism or feminism? In AI # 69, Don Clerk wrote: > In the last few years, it appears that the feminists have toned > down the rhetoric a bit. Unfortunately, you obviously think this is a GOOD thing. I can sense trouble already. Just after the lip service to "strong" women, the actuality of praising them for "toning down", especially on the aggressive bit. > I hope for a world where the strength of men will be appreciated, > not belittled, and I am willing to build a world together with > women, if they will do so in a way that respects me as a man, and > men in general. Sooo...our goal should be to build YOU up again? How, er, progressive??? Er.....no...... > Men like me are willing to build a world with women who will have > proper respect for us. And we are willing to respect their > strength and their views, if they will respect ours. Women like me are willing to give men like you no respect. If you are willing to live in the world I want and build, you're welcome. But YOU don't set the standard. Sandy Steinbok ********************************************************************* From: Thomas Gramstad Subject: Feminism IS humanism In AI # 69, Don Clerk wrote: > For my part, I hope that we will see the world's first truly > non-sexist philosophy, which feminism certainly is not. Such a > philosophy, for want of a better name, would be called humanism. Feminism is many things, we really should talk about "feminisms" rather than feminism, because it isn't in any way a monolithic entity. But let us restrict ourselves to feminism as an ethical and political orientation, and keep things simple. Thus: Feminism is the doctrine and advocacy of equal opportunities of the sexes in all areas of life, including but not limited to the political, social, economic and cultural spheres. Feminism is humanism with an emphasis on issues that are of particular relevance or concern to women. A few examples that justifies the concept of feminism: (1) The right to abortion (2) Rape (3) The fact that a person that appears to be female has a much higher chance of being physically assaulted on the street than a person who appears to be male (4) The fact that the religious right (which would be more aptly named the religious wrong) spend a lot of money advocating doctrines and "research" to prove the kinder-kuche-kirche view of women -- and that they have a large following and hence political power Feminism is thus not opposed to humanism, it is a subset of humanism -- humanism with a special emphasis on "women's issues". I put that between "" because I don't really believe in "women's issues" or in "men's issues". If women suffer, all suffer. If men suffer, all suffer. Those are not separate issues (in reality), but they can be separated in your mind, allowing different emphases and angles toward the issues. A "feminism" that would oppress men or claim that all men are inherently evil (as opposed to pointing out that the cultural artifact of "manhood" is harmful and encouraging individuals of either sex to liberate themselves from gender stereotypes) is not humanism and therefore also not feminism. > It would respect both men and women and try to draw the best of > what both sexes have to offer based on each sex's unique > perspective on the world. Sexes do not have perspectives on the world, unique or otherwise. Only individuals do. "Sex" is an abstraction. Abstractions do not think, want, desire or have a purpose; only the individuals forming and using the abstractions do. > I also believe that women in general, are long overdue for a > critical analysis by men, But that's what women have been getting from men for centuries, going as far back as we have written history, at least. From Aristotle to sociobiology, women have gotten endless amounts of "critical analysis" from men. Useless, invalid critical analysis motivated largely by the same hidden agenda: getting women to be or do whatever the male analyzer want them to, or at least feeling wrong, deviant, or unfeminine when they fail to comply. > and that many many women in this world have their heads filled > with many silly, stupid, and sexist notions about men. ...and many many men in this world DO NOT have their heads filled with many silly, stupid, and sexist notions about women? What we all need to realize is that "men" and "women" are not so different (or mostly made artificially different) -- it is individuals who are different. This insight will remove the artificial lines of demarcation, the lines of war, between the sexes. From a common basis of humanity, we can respect and allow individual differences. But we will never accomplish that as long as we believe in two different "gender races" or "gender classes" at eternal war. Men are not from Mars. Women are not from Venus. Men and women are from Earth. "Vive la difference" is an oppressive and divisive collectivist notion, not a celebration of individualism. Actually, I wrote an article about that. Look it up at: http://www.math.uio.no/~thomas/gnd/vive-alf.html > I also believe that women's traditional power source with men -- > sex -- must be challenged, and ultimately removed as a source of > unfair power of women over men. Um. Exactly how would you "remove" that? Throw acid in the face and skin of "beatiful/sexy" women? Have them subjected to "uncosmetic surgery"? Or just cover them up in clothes, a la fundamentalist Islam? But actually, women's sexual power is related to women being perceived as sex objects (by themselves as well as by men), just as men's financial power is related to men being perceived as success objects (by themselves as well as by women). The pussy and the wallet. In order to get away from all that, we must get away from the self-perpetuating idea that men and women are fundamentally different "gender races" or "gender classes". But I'm repeating myself. Thomas Gramstad thomasg@ifi.uio.no "There are really not many jobs that actually require a penis or a vagina, and all other occupations should be open to everyone." -- Gloria Steinem ********************************************************************* From: Thomas Gramstad Subject: Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand (fwd) Below you will find information about a new book -- or more precisely, info about the recently launched web site for a soon to be published essay anthology. I believe several of the essays will be dealing with female heroes and heroism. The book also contains my essay, "The Female Hero: A Randian-Feminist Synthesis", in which I discuss among other things the nature of heroism and hero-worship, Amazons and goddesses in Western literature and culture, and androgyny and gender roles. For more info about the essays and the writers, check out the web page, address below. ------------Forwarded message---------------- From: "Chris Sciabarra" Subject: Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 12:26:00 -0500 It gives me great pleasure to provide information on a fascinating new book dealing with Ayn Rand. On February 2, 1999, on the 94th anniversary of Ayn Rand's birth, Penn State Press will release a landmark anthology, co-edited by Mimi Reisel Gladstein and Chris Matthew Sciabarra (me), entitled: FEMINIST INTERPRETATIONS OF AYN RAND. Those interested in finding out more about the volume's featured essays and its list of internationally known contributors should point their browsers to: http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/femstart.htm The site is connected to my own totally reconstructed "Dialectics and Liberty Site" at: http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra The Feminist book is part of the Penn State Press series, "Re-Reading the Canon." Recent and forthcoming volumes in the series include those devoted to Aristotle, Nietzsche, and Descartes. The inclusion of Rand in this series should erase any doubts that her work is legitimate and worthy of engagement, examination, and critique. Thanks for your attention. Chris Sciabarra ====================================================== Chris Matthew Sciabarra, Visiting Scholar Faculty of Arts and Science New York University Department of Politics 715 Broadway New York, New York 10003-6806 ====================================================== ***************************************************************** * Amazons International * * Thomas Gramstad, editor: thomasg@ifi.uio.no * * Administravia/Listserver: amazons-request@ifi.uio.no * * Submissions: amazons@math.uio.no * * http://www.math.uio.no/~thomas/lists/amazons.html * * * * The Amazon Connection -- Links to Amazon web sites: * * http://www.math.uio.no/~thomas/lists/amazon-links.html * ***************************************************************** "A Hard Woman is Good to Find" -- The Valkyries