A thought just occurred to me in writing this, that it might make more sense to write these monthly, going with the issue motif. Then again, some issues come out much more frequently, and some, considerably less frequently. So then I thought "fuck it", and wrote this.

Spider-Man has boobs?

No, this wasn't a quote. Not quite anyway. A couple came into the store looking for comics for their son (they said as much :P ). Their son was apparently fairly young as they went right to the children's area to look at the comics there. At one point, the man picks up one of the small trades of Spider-Girl and says out loud "Spider-Girl?"

"She's the daughter of Spider-Man, in an alternate future. It's pretty well done and would be great for kids as well as adults", I said. He looked at me incredulously. I explained further that it was done in a style similar to late silver age/early modern age in that while there is some angst, the story is overall very light; much different from the current Spidey books.

Still looking incredulous, he said "I don't know, I don't think I can accept a Spider-Man with boobs."

It was my turn to look incredulous. "Well, she's not Spider-Man. She's a different person with different troubles. She's more popular in school, she still has snarky comments in battle, but she's a different person."

"Yeah, I don't think so." He said, then bought a trade of the Marvel Adventures: Spider-Man.

I don't know what exactly he had a problem with. I don't know if it seemed like a marketing thing to get more people to read the comic, or if he really had a problem with female characters taking up the mantle of a male predecessor. I do wonder if there was a comic called "Spider-Boy, the Son of Spider-Man" if he would have had the same issue with it (if he had an issue with perceived marketing" or if he would have thought it was a great idea. Had it been my own store, I might have asked him. As it wasn't, I didn't, so I guess I will never know. Still, it was moderately irritating at the least.

You can't have that, that's for girls

This is a quote, one that I don't hear often at the shop. Well, actually, that's the first time I've heard it ever in any comic shop. A mother, her daughter, and son were in the shop. I don't know if they were just looking around or waiting for someone else. The daughter wandered around by herself while the mother and son were at the children's section. The boy was probably five or six years old, and I guess he pointed to something on the shelf. His mother told him "That's not for you, that's for girls".

I don't know exactly what it was, I only saw them from the side. I do know it was something low enough not to be Betty and Veronica. When I went to look later, it was likely the W.I.T.C.H. trade that he was looking at. It was the only thing in the area that was remotely "gendered". The only thing "gendered" about it was the cover was bordered in fuchsia. Granted, the book is about a group of female protagonists, but I wouldn't consider it gendered just because of that. I do know many people would, especially in relation to a boy. Girls are given no flack for following a group of boys, but boys following a group of girls is often considered a bad thing.

This is sexist on two fronts. Let's go with the sexism against the boy first. It's pretty clear that boys are limited in their interests as well. If boys show interest in anything "girly" they're mocked for being gay, femme, or any host of words meant as insults. Femininity is something that is often quashed in many boys as they reach puberty as in many people's view, it is inappropriate for the boys to express. Take a look at a more basic thing. Ask a guy with long hair how much crap he gets for having long hair. It's because long hair is seen as a feminine trait. And while this is changing, there still are plenty of men who are singled out for having long hair. Especially if they're looking for work. Even if it is well kept, shaped and maintained, it is seen as a "bad" thing. And this is something very small. Any man who dresses well, uses moisturizer or skin product, or anything else can often be harassed for those things.

These things are considered "female" and thus, bad for men to exhibit. This is clearly sexist toward men, and at the same time, just as sexist (if not moreso) toward women. Femininity is seen as a bad thing, society only permits it for those who are female. But then, even when it comes to women, being "feminine" can be considered "bad" if you exhibit too much of it. It also pushes the idea that seems so pervasive in our culture and cultures of the past that women are this "strange species from another planet", that male is the norm and female is the variance (which is ironic in that biologically, female is actually the norm and male is the variance in mammalian life).

In some ways, it is ok for women to express more "male" traits or interests, allowing for more variety in gender roles for women than men. This seems to be in terms of clothing and general "personality". When it comes to men, men are not allowed to express more feminine styles or personalities without some rebuke. However, in other ways it's the other way around. Women are not allowed to be aggressive or assertive, as that "makes" so many people see her as a "bitch" or "frigid". If a woman has sex with many people she is seen as a slut. This is not the way for men. In fact, these are the very traits men are encouraged to have in our society. They may be the traits people reference the most, but it is because it's still true.

There is clearly sexism on both sides against women and men to varying degrees. When it comes to something like comics, it's often girls who are told that it's not for them. Hell, even as adults we're still told that from time to time, and not just from some men. As I've mentioned in another SCSG, our society genders things so often, and tries so desperately to maintain those gendered "norms". It so disappoints me when parents choose things for their child not on what the child wants, but what is "appropriate" for the child's birth sex. As if that's the only important thing about the child, what genitals the doc sees when she or he first holds the newborn.

Our society could advance so much further if there weren't silly restrictions based on those first five seconds after birth, where children are given all opportunities, not just ones that are "appropriate" to their gender. Again, not letting this boy get a W.I.T.C.H. trade may seem like a small thing, but it is so indicative of a larger problem in society, a problem that leaves many people of any gender behind.

Can you name the characters?

A father and his daughter were in the shop a few weeks ago. The father bought his stack, and while they waited for me to ring them up, they were looking at the Countdown poster that was taped on the side of the counter. The daughter started naming off as many characters as she could with her father encouraging her along the way. She was able to name probably a third of the characters, but then, they were both Marvel fans, so it wasn't much of a surprise. It was nice, especially after a lot of recent things (most of them have made it to one issue of SCSG or another) to see that not all parents gender things, making them "inappropriate" to another gender.

What was kind of amusing was she got stuck on Zatanna. She knew the character, but was totally blanking on her name.

"Annataz", I said.

She looked at me somewhat confused and said "Annataz?"

"Annataz", I said again.

Bill figured it out immediately and said "she's a magician who casts spells by saying words backwards."

Suddenly, she got it and said "Zatanna!"

Fun. :)