Rating: WORTHY!
After a few children's book reviews, it's time to move on to more adult fare - although I'm sure there are those who consider comics and graphic novels solely children's fare too! I'm not one of those people, although I do sometimes think comics have not yet fully matured, especially in the light of electronic presentation. The maturity factor is the main reason I grew interested in a four graphic novel series titled Batwoman - not 'Batgirl', but Batwoman', a title which intrigued me.
Why is it that male super heroes are called 'man' - as in Batman, Spider-Man, and so on, but female heroes are typically named 'girl'? Yes, there are women here, Wonder Woman being the most prominent, but you'll find far more female heroes with 'girl' tacked onto their title than you'll find male ones with a 'boy' suffix. Even stories like 'Superboy' are actually nothing more than retrospective looks at 'Superman'.
Someone I knew once argued that 'woman' indicates a person who has grown and settled down - perhaps into a rut - and who has, to one degree or another, accepted the status quo, with the implication being that the status quo is a rather Biblical one. On the other hand, 'girl' has not yet sold out or bought into anything. She has not subjugated herself to the 'husband and wife' pairing, which implies that 'wife' is a creature in need of husbandry; therefore 'girl' still has the potential to lead her own life, to run riot, and to change the status quo. I didn't agree with that assessment, but it may play a part in what underlies the favoring of 'girl' over 'woman' in comic book super heroes.
For me, the problem at the root of this is that we're not comparing equivalent terms here. While 'woman' equals 'man' in terms of perceived maturity, girl does not equate to boy because of traditional gender disparity. 'Girl' is viewed, if not dismissed, as merely a minor stage on the uninterrupted path to a fertile 'woman', whereas traditional gender 'norms' have placed a veritable chasm between 'boy' and 'man' which must crossed in order to gain respect. Ridiculous as it was, in the past, a boy had to make his first kill during the hunt to become a man. Now he has to develop facial hair and get laid, both of which are still ridiculous.
There are no such equivalents for women. No girl ever achieved womanhood by plucking berries for the first time on the gather! It's because of this rampant patriarchy in our past that the measure of human growth has long been not whether a person is mature, but whether they were a man. If they were not, they were really of no account (which is doubtlessly why villains are typically not named 'man' as part of their title!).
'Boy', therefore, is not equivalent to 'girl', because girl is merely a step along the path to womanhood, and while technically boy is the same place along the path to manhood, manhood has come to mean something else. It's not just a mature human male. A boy then, is someone who has quite literally not 'manned up' - who is not ready to take his 'rightful' place in society. I think this is why we see few super heroes named 'boy' and why, for example, Batman had Robin, The Boy Wonder following him like an acolyte.
No one ever talks about 'womanning up'! This is, of course because women tend not to see things in terms of a competition or a race (and wisely in my view), in the way that men all too often do. This is why women's sports and female athletes are treated like second class citizens in a male-dominated society. While women do have obvious signs of sexual maturity, in terms of secondary sexual characteristics for example, their most potent sexual characteristic, menstruation, tends to be a hidden, personal, and private thing. There's nothing obvious about it, in the way that, for example, men begin to develop facial hair. In this way it's possible for a woman to be perceived as a girl for a lot longer than a man can be viewed as a boy. Obviously, I'm not talking about actual maturity, merely physical and perceived maturity. It's wrong, and genderist, but it's the hole we've long been digging for ourselves.
I was rather sorry then, to start reading this novel and discover that despite the mature titling, the adolescent comic book ethos still prevailed, with the female characters all being highly sexualized and objectified even as Batwoman was portrayed, in her alter ego, as a sexually adventurous, unrestrained, and independent woman. So then the problem becomes: is this acceptable? And if so, how acceptable is it? Where is the line to be drawn between 'this was a great story, and so I can recommend it', and 'this was a great story, but women were repeatedly demeaned in it, and so I can't recommend it'? Do comic books get a pass on this because they have always had this view? Is this an art form as, for example, some Japanese comics have bizarrely caricatured female characters, who are adult yet are portrayed as pixie girls, with pointed chins and huge eyes? If the art is done by women (which is largely not the case in these volumes), does this make objectification okay? If the female character is portrayed as gay, heading for a gay marriage, does that ameliorate it any?
I have to add one more thing, and this actually relates to the sexual orientation of Batwoman. She's a lesbian and openly so, which I think adds to the power of this particular title - that she's 'woman' and not 'girl' meaning that this is definitely a mature part of who she is, not merely some adolescent rebellion or experimentation. There was, however, a huge controversy over this particular series because at one point in it, Kate Kane, who is Batwoman, becomes engaged to police detective Maggie Sawyer. The controversy wasn't over this, but over DC comics refusal to countenance an actual marriage between the two! DC Comics through co-publisher Dan DiDio, argued that Batwoman couldn't marry because heroes should not have happy personal lives(!), and because they're committed to the defense of people at the sacrifice of their own personal interests. So does DC also think that cops, firefighters, and soldiers shouldn't marry either?
That's a huge thicket to wade through, but because writers JH Williams III and W Haden Blackman resigned from this series over the gay marriage issue, I'm going to take the easy way out here and give them the benefit of the doubt. I'm not going to factor in any objectification in my rating, because I support the actions of the writers, so I'm going to rate these four volumes on the quality of the art rather than the design of the female characters, and merely offer this caveat, because as always, it's entirely up to the reader to decide whether they want to support his kind of art form or not.
So on to the story! This is part of the new 52 DC Comics reboot. I liked it even though it begins with a rather patriarchal Batman actually stalking Batwoman and spying on her to determine if she's worthy of admission to his crime fighting syndicate! I kid you not. He played a very minor role in this story though. The bulk of it was Batwoman, aka Kate Kane, taking a rather patriarchal attitude herself towards her cousin Bette Kane, aka Flamebird, as she trains the latter in the art of crime-fighting.
There is also the beginning of the relationship between Kate and Maggie, wherein they quickly end up in bed together. I guess comic books aren't ready to deal with STDs yet! Or super-heroes are immune to them. The villain here is Maria Salvaje aka La Llorona, a ghost who takes young children to an apparent watery grave. In addition to this, Kate is dealing with the death of her twin sister, her dad, Colonel Jacob Kane, whom she blames for that death, Cameron Chase, of Department of Extranormal Operations which is run by a skeleton with the unoriginal name of Mr Bones, and an evil organization named Medusa, which I guess is DC world's equivalent of Marvel Comics' Hydra.
If you're a regular reader of this, which I am not, I'm guessing it would be easier to get into the story than it was for me, but eventually I did, and I enjoyed it. I liked the fairly complex life which Kate led, although we saw little of it outside of her crime-fighting persona. I liked her relationship with Maggie, and the fact that on the one hand the two were becoming involved in Kate's everyday world, but were rather becoming enemies in Batwoman's world.
The artwork, however, left a lot to be desired. It wasn't atrocious, by any means, but it looked and felt very wooden to me, particularly in the action scenes, like someone was posing one of those little wooden artist's models, and copying it without adding anything, and in particular forgetting to add any real sense of movement. Overall though, this to me was a worthy start, and despite the objections I've raised, I think it was a good read and worth pursing the series.
