Why Supergirl’s shorts aren’t “patriarchal” (I do not think that word means what you think it means)
When I talked with the Toronto Star yesterday about the upcoming article about Supergirl’s shorts (look for it this Saturday!), there were a few points that came up that I wasn’t as articulate about as I’d have liked. Here’s one of them.
While Igle says he’s heard some complaints, fans opposed to the change have a…unique viewpoint.
“There is one guy out there on the message boards who calls them ‘the diapers of shame,’ and comes at it from the idea that I’m patriarchical and draw her like an overprotective father, and that this is part of DC’s double standard when it comes to male and female characters, because female characters should be sexy, and we’re afraid to show Supergirl in that light.”
(Newsarama: The Supergirl Shorts Story: Talking to Jamal Igle)
This is one of those insulting, convoluted, ass-backwards ideas that just makes your head explode in frustration. The stupid, it burns. What’s extra frustrating is that this guy has taken the language of feminist theory and twisted it to his own, misogynist ends. “Patriarchal” and “double standard” do not mean what he thinks they mean. The reasoning because these kinds of inane patriarchal statements is two-fold: projection, and a deliberate attempt to obfuscate and distract.
First is the accusation that Jamal Igle is “patriarchical and draw[ing] her like an overprotective father.” If the guy had paid any attention to what Igle has said on his blog before his first SUPERGIRL issue came out and since, he would know that this is patently false. But that’s beside the point: it’s a bizarre thing to say, and he’s really overreacting to very small changes. This is just a distracting tactic. The second half clearly reveals that this unknown jackass is projecting onto Igle his own very misogynistic, patriarchal view of women. He wants us to get so distracted by defending ourselves that we accept his implicit lie about women.