Due Sep 24 – Sep 29
Liberal Feminism vs. Women’s Liberation
Over this week, we’ll read from two books on the rift that developed in the 1960s between mainstream feminists and younger, more radical activists calling for women’s “liberation” from the shackles of the patriarchy. Both selections are a bit long, but they are also rich in detail, so it’s a good opportunity for you to practice your ability to skim: read the first page or so in depth, scan ahead to get a sense of the chapter structure by reading the sub-headings, then choose a few places (in one or in both authors) where you’re curious to learn more—and read those sections in depth. Aim to spend about 10 minutes skimming, and then an hour focusing.
Women’s Liberation, according to Flora Davis
⤹Click the reply button just below.
The Women’s Liberation movement radically (pun intended) differed from traditional liberal feminism in both its origins as well as its targets. Whereas liberal feminism sprang up far earlier, the Women’s Liberation movement was a nascent sect born out of largely college-aged women in organizations like SNCC and educational institutions like MIT. This movement was characterized in large part by their “fierce passions and endless debates,” as well as a primary target of “people’s private lives and…the patriarchal system” (Davis 70). Rather than attempting to work within institutions to equalize them, radical feminism in the Women’s Liberation movement primarily focused on critically analyzing, and possibly dismantling, established systems that were designed with primarily men or male domination in mind. These fundamental differences in the philosophies of action between liberal and radical feminism came to a head when NOW-New York, a “bastion of liberal feminism” according to Davis, came under repeated challenge by Ti-Grace Atkinson, a radical feminist who “proposed…that instead of electing officers, NOW chapters should hold lotteries…to draw lots for the leadership positions” (Davis 96). Such radical equalization, Atkinson argued, was based on the idea that “all women were equally talented and should have equal opportunities to hold leadership positions” (Davis 97). When she was eventually run out of NOW by the liberal feminist establishment of the organization, Atkinson went on to found The Feminists, a more radical group that implemented her preferred policies. These fundamental differences, highlighted by the struggle between NOW and Atkinson, compose what defines the Women’s Liberation movement as different from liberal feminism – a more extreme vision of equality and female empowerment that transcended and sought to challenge or dismantle traditional, and allegedly rigged, systems.
In her book Flora Davis creates a distinction between the women’s liberation movement and the liberal feminist movement by demonstrating how the women’s liberation movement was defined by the decade before it. For example, Davis writes that “Rooted in different political tradition that the liberals, many had worked in the civil rights movement or had been campus radicals, vehemently opposed to the war in Vietnam. When it came to tactics, they thought in terms of civil disobedience- revolutionary tactics designed to force revolutionary changes,” (Davis, 69). Essentially, the women’s liberation movement is defined by the successes of the movements in the decades before. Seeing the successes of civil disobedience in the creation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, these women were prone to adopt these tactics for their own movement. Additionally, because many of these women were involved in the civil rights movement, they knew how to organize a political movement. Overall, the women’s liberation movement differentiates from the liberal feminism movement because of their willingness to use “revolutionary tactics designed to force revolutionary change” instead of settling for the incremental change that the liberal feminists did.
Davis shows that Women’s Liberation differed from liberal feminism because it did not just seek equal opportunities for women within the existing system. Instead, Women’s Liberation questioned the traditional roles that society had created for women in the first place. Liberal feminists could focus on changing laws and gaining equal rights, while Women’s Liberation also questioned expectations about women’s roles as wives and mothers. Davis gives a good example of this with the 1968 Jeannette Rankin Brigade demonstration. Radical women held a mock funeral for “Traditional Womanhood,” (Pg 78) which showed their rejection of the idea that women should mainly be defined as wives and mothers. This is important because they were not just asking society to treat traditional women more equally, they were challenging the traditional role itself. The demonstration therefore shows the more radical approach of Women’s Liberation, instead of only trying to give women a better position within the existing system, they wanted to question and change the system and expectations that had defined women’s lives.
According to Flora Davis, Women’s Liberation was different from liberal feminism because radical feminists believed that women’s inequality came from deeper problems in society than just unequal laws or political opportunities. Davis explains that radical feminists believed “the main problem was male supremacy” (Davis, 70), showing that they wanted to challenge the broader system of power between men and women. This was connected to the New Left and civil rights movements, especially through figures such as Ella Baker. Davis explains that Baker believed in grassroots organizing and that her ideas “subsequently influenced both the New Left and feminists” (Davis, 71). This connection shows how Women’s Liberation developed a more radical approach to social change, focusing on changing the structures of power and encouraging ordinary people to challenge authority. In contrast, liberal feminism generally worked more within existing political and legal institutions to achieve greater equality for women.
As noted by Linda Gordon in her book “Feminism Unfinished”, the women’s liberation movement had a unique characteristic which set it apart from liberal feminism in that while the latter was all about striving to obtain equality of opportunity in workplaces, courts, and elections, the women’s liberation movement called for a radical change of the whole society by confronting the power of men in both public and private spheres. Unlike the liberal feminist organizations like NOW, which were traditional lobbying groups, Women’s Liberation was collectivist, anti-authoritarian, and based on raising their own consciousness, and therefore, promoted the idea that “the personal is political” to show that such things as sex, domestic work, and bodily control were structures of male dominance. The basic difference between political activism and radical forms of direct action is best shown through the 1969 hearings before the New York state legislature committee on abortion reform, which featured an all-male committee inviting fourteen men and one nun to speak as “experts.” Not engaging in lobbying within the system but instead being told to sit down when she tried to speak up, activist Kathie Sarachild convinced her radical feminist Redstockings into holding a separate public speak-out, a month later at Washington Square Methodist Church, where twelve women publicly shared their own experiences of undergoing an illegal abortion before an audience of nine hundred people with no feelings of shame or regret
Flora Davis defines the Women’s Liberation movement as a more radical movement that occurred during the 60’s and 70’s. Although the movement had started as a way to help women, its goals eventually started to change over time. Davis writes, “The second wave of feminism was about power: not only about how it was distributed in society, but how it might be used differently. … In the women’s movement, what many activists valued as the ability to empower others – to find out what their needs and hopes were and work together toward mutual goals.That became the feminist ethic for women’s liberationists and liberal feminists alike. As with any ethic, it sometimes received only lip service” (Davis 104). This passage shows how the Women’s Liberation movement worked to not only change the way that women were treated, but also how women were perceived by society. On the other hand, liberal feminism wanted to simply get equality for women in general. This difference shows how the Women’s liberation movement wanted systems that affected women.
Women’s Liberation, according to Linda Gordon
⤹Click the reply button just below.
Gordon defines the difference between Women’s Liberation and Liberal feminism mainly around the line of structure. Liberal feminism worked by changing laws and building equal opportunity for employed women using litigation, lobbying, and electoral pressure. It kept a national office and elected leadership, so Gordon calls it the movement’s “bureaucratic” branch. Women’s Liberation instead looked for a more complete transformation of society. It rejected formal hierarchy in favor of small, leaderless, rotating job collectives built around raising consciousness. Women’s liberation operated under the assumption that oppression operated everywhere, which is where the slogan “the personal is political” came from.
A good anecdote for this is the 1972 sit in at the University of Massachusetts, Boston. A group of working class mothers had spent years asking the university for a daycare center and kept getting told the administration would “consider” it. So a dozen of them showed up unannounced at the president’s office with their toddlers and refused to leave. When he stalled again, they told his secretary they might supply the kids with crayons, but not paper. This was very indicative of womens liberation because they had no lawsuit, no lobbying campaign, and instead improvised direct action using the very thing (childcare) that was the political issue.
Gordon differentiates between the Liberal Feminism and Women’s Liberation Movement through their respective priorities and goals. Liberal Feminism focused on expanding women’s rights, freedoms, and protections in order to bring them equal to their male counterparts. They prioritized legislation that erased discrimination and leveled the playing field for women in the workforce and beyond. For example Gordon says, ” NOW continued a liberal feminist orientation, focusing primarily on changing laws and creating equality between the sexes”(90). This quote demonstrates what many believed and were looking to gain during Liberal Feminism. Conversely, the Women’s Liberation Movement had a different stance on bringing women to the forefront, and their views were fairly different from those apart of the Liberal Feminism movement. The Women’s Liberation Movement was a more radical group who was influenced by other groups and movements that were prominent during the 1960’s. Gordon quotes, “Between 1967 and 1969 a younger generation of women, influenced by the civil rights struggle and the anti-Vietnam War campaign, came together to form what was soon called the women’s liberation movement. They sought a more holistic transformation of the society, one that would do away with male dominance in every sphere-in private as well as public and would challenge all the older gender patterns.” (69, 70) This quote highlights a major contrast between what was seen from Liberal Feminism and the Women’s Liberation Movement. Instead of trying to bring themselves equal to males, the Women’s Liberation Movement wanted society to be entirely flipped over (in terms of equality and the oppression of people and groups) and rid of the injustices. This movement did not want any of the roles or patterns in society to stay in place as it would simply keep women oppressed. Although both movement sought to change the dominance of men and the oppression of women, the Women’s Liberation movement used the influence of similar movements and took a much more radical approach.
Davis & Gordon, by contrast to Van Gosse
⤹Click the reply button just below.
Davis’s work poses a slightly different idea about the relationship between Women’s Lib and other civil rights movements. There was undeniably tensions between the different movements of that time, but certain ideas and principles from some movements greatly influenced others. SNCC’s principles of radical equality and the ideas of Ella Baker about civil disobedience and active opposition rather than passivity “subsequently influenced both the New Left and feminists and are alive in the women’s movement today” (Davis 71). So although Davis’ writing doesn’t say that Women’s Lib was a part of the New Left, she definitely likens them to each other and highlights their similarities.
Davis by contrast to Gordon
⤹Click the reply button just below.
Primary Sources for Surprising Anecdotes
⤹Click the reply button just below.
Attachment Womens_Group_Split_Over_Meani.pdf
The excerpt I chose comes from Gordon’s book, where she highlights the story of Elizabeth Martinez, who she describes as “the greatest influence on Women’s Liberation”. It struck me how much she was inspired by the southern liberation movement, despite not being African American, displaying how ordinary people could find themselves involved as well. She also signified how feminism could blend into other “New Left” Movements as well, signifying that there doesn’t need to exist a complete separation between the movements (Gordon, 101). I decided to pair the information I learned from Gordon’s book with a primary source regarding feminism, in which I chose an article from The Washington Post, written in 1968. This article, complicated the account I saw from Martinez. This account highlighted the growing divide, in this case between Mrs. Friedman and Mrs. Atkinson, who encountered a schism between whether women in NOW should hold a place of power. Like many of the cases we’ve seen with the New Left, there isn’t a precise answer whether movements can be more impactful if they are a collective or divided, which adds to the complexity of the feminist movement.
It Ain’t Me Babe
⤹Click the reply button just below.
The page from “It Ain’t Me Babe” that stood out to me most was page 25. It shows how women were expected to accept unwanted attention from men as a normal part of being a woman (which is still something that women have to deal with in part, although somewhat less than in the 1960’s). The page begins with a sarcastic question about whether women “must dig all that attention,” merely because they are out on the streets, which challenges the assumption that women invite harassment through their presence or appearance. It brings the question of whether a woman’s existence merits harassment/predatory attention from men. The following panels make this idea even more clear by suggesting that if women do not like being harassed, they can always stay home, which places the responsibility on women rather than on the men who are bothering them.
This reflects an important issue for the Women’s Liberation Movement because feminists were challenging the idea that women should have to change their behavior, clothing, or lifestyles to avoid mistreatment by men. The page also focuses on the way women’s bodies and appearances are constantly commented on and judged, showing that this kind of sexism was part of women’s everyday lives rather than something that only happened in obviously political situations. The sarcastic tone was particularly effective because the comic does not treat these attitudes as reasonable and exaggerates them, so the unfairness becomes obvious to the reader. The illustrations also make the page feel crowded with comments and expectations, which helps communicate how difficult it could be for women to exist in public without being judged or sexualized. Because this comic was produced within the Women’s Liberation Movement itself, its perspective is very different from the way feminism is represented by mainstream media. Overall, the page demonstrates that women’s liberation was about more than gaining legal equality because it also involved challenging daily sexism, sexual harassment, and the social expectations that restricted women’s freedom.
The page that stood out to me most was the page in the comic entitled “Breaking Out” (around pg. ~23). There are two small stories that are laid out on this page, one of Lulu’s life and the other of Juliet Jones. Starting off with Lulu’s life, the introductory sentence at the top left of the scene states “a sunny afternoon just like the 30,00 other afternoons.” The scene depicts her attempting to join a parade but is denied by the small boys, just for being a woman. The ubiquitous nature of this scene, comes off as depressing from my point of view, as girls were constantly being mistreated by guys just for their gender. The scene continues by characterizing Lulu as angry and short-tempered, an attempt to reflect the male-authors as portraying all women as difficult and the superiority of men, which Is blatantly wrong.
The second section highlights the life of Juliet Jones, who speaks in an elegant tone by using words such as “exasperatingly”, “inane”, and “docile”, an interesting note that these words are rarely used now. However, her words come as a surprise to her, as she speaks in such an elegant tone and the man is blatantly disinterested, where she takes the blame on herself. The use of bold question-marks also marks a commonality between Juliet and Lulu, possibly portraying the ever-changing atmosphere in the realm of Women’s liberation. Juliet’s words “mindless simp”, “docile under the shadow of an eraser”, stand out to me as being a commonality between many women during the period.
Both stories highlight the difficulties women experienced, both being ignored just for being themselves. This really reflects the personal vision of the women’s liberation movement, as it was a personal revolution that impacted all women of all perspectives, and would eventually lead to societal change.
In the comic “It Ain’t Me Babe,” the panel that I found particularly interesting was the last panel on page 22. In this panel, a group of mismatched female characters gathers to talk about their shared realization of the burden of patriarchy. At the top of the panel,l the author writes that they gathered “into small groups not unlike witch covens of old,” and that “shared tales of outrage produce a burning reaction.” This was particularly interesting to me because it showed me the extent to which the patriarchy hurt bonds between women. The resolution seems fairly trivial by a modern standpoint:t, women coming together in sisterhood to discuss how the men in their lives have either wronged them or treated them as “less than.” This is something that I would say is fairly common within my own life and among my female friends, so for it to be seen as “revolutionary” to express such concerns and complaints among fellow women demonstrated to me how much the patriarchy didn’t only stress female-male relationships but also platonic relationships among women. Additionally, I found the last sentence, “shared tales of outrage produce a burning reaction,” because I feel like it shows the intimate nature of this movement. These women were essentially sitting in groups, talking, and sharing stories, which then built a coalition of the “women’s lib” movement. It seemed to me to demonstrate that the movement was so strong because the women cared about each other personally in addition to the cause of the movement.
I found the “Breaking Out” page on page 19 particularly interesting because all three parts show women and girls questioning the roles that society has given them. In the first part, a young girl wants to join a parade, but she is told that girls are not allowed, showing how girls could be excluded from activities simply because of their gender. Her response, “Fuck this shit!”, is funny, but it also shows that she does not want to accept that rule. The second part is especially interesting because Juliet Jones seems to be saying romantic things to a man, but then we see what she is actually thinking. She asks, “Who put these inane words in my mouth?”, which shows that she realizes she is being made to act like the typical woman in a romance comic. She is questioning why women are expected to be quiet, romantic, and focused on men instead of having their own opinions. The last part also challenges traditional ideas because Veronica tells Betty that she has been a better friend than Archie ever will be. Instead of making a relationship with a man the most important part of their lives, the comic shows the importance of women supporting each other. I think this connects to the Women’s Liberation idea that the personal is political, because the comic takes everyday situations and shows that they are connected to larger expectations about women. The title “Breaking Out” fits because each story shows a woman or girl beginning to reject an expectation that she is supposed to simply accept.
The most interesting part about It Ain’t Me Babe, found in the comic “Tirade” on pages 24-25, is its direct connection to the ideology of the more radical beliefs of the Woman’s Liberation movement, as opposed to more traditional liberal feminism. The author, like many more radical feminists of the Sixties, seeks to explicitly confront societal and institutional norms and forms of misogyny, as opposed to more legal forms of discrimination. These societal norms include catcalling, possessiveness by men (especially when they are in competition with each other), and other forms of blatant misogyny and “other”-ing of women. “Tirade,” however, highlights not just the usual pains of being a woman in a male-dominated society, such as catcalling, but also the highly patriarchal society that women live in, especially in terms of institutions. The police, housing and neighborhoods, and party culture – all arguably institutions in some form – are also similarly rigged against women, to the point that the author sarcastically posits that “you can always stay home” instead (25). Even times when women technically benefit from a patriarchal society, such as being let off by the cops – though even this point contains critique of Sixties society, as the father in the panel is arrested for “possession of long hair” (25). The author similarly calls out the ludicrousness of pinning the blame on women, stating sarcastically that they “must dig all that attention, or why would we be out on the streets in the first place?” (25). The scathing satire present in “Tirade” highlights almost all of what the Women’s Liberation movement sought to fight against, from individual incidents of misogyny to the deeply normalized and institutionalized forms of misogyny that affect the lives of women daily.
The story that stood out to me from the comic “It Aint Me Babe” was “Breaking Out” (20-23). The story features women and girls who are very unique and different from one another, fighting against oppression and gender norms set by their male counterparts. The author depicts the women standing up for themselves, rejecting the expectations, and abandoning the desire for male approval. In all of the different women’s and girls’ features, they begin trying to be friendly or obedient, but by the next panel they realize they can ignore the orders of the men and boys. They use strong language to outright oppose what they are being told they cannot do; even a little girl retorts, “fuck this shit”, when the boys deny her entry into their group. In addition to the vulgar and strong verbal opposition, the artist also ensures that the facial expressions of the females change as their attitude does. Later in the story, all the women are seen recognizing that they do not need to, nor are they meant to, serve a male. And by the end, they are uniting and protesting for women’s rights and are pictured doing all of the things a man had previously told them they could not.
“Tirade funnies” is a comic which is raising awareness for the experiences that women went through each day when they simply walked outside. I say that like it’s just an “in the past” thing, but it seems a lot like experiences today too. This portrays a woman talking about all the “interruptions” she faces when she walks alone outside. It proceeds to show multiple men cat-calling her and saying vulgar and upsetting things, which she simply has to ignore and accept as part of her life. The comic addresses the issue in a satirical tone towards the end, with the line “We must dig all that attention, or why would we be out in the streets in the first place?”, accompanied by an image of women walking to class with books, walking home with groceries, or walking a stroller. These images highlight the idiocy of statements that blame women for their own harassment- women are simply doing everyday things, not looking for any attention whatsoever, and they are still being harassed. The comic ends with the woman questioning “what’s the use” when wishing that men would not harass and catcall her. This storyline represents the unfortunate reality of this kind of culture- women are made uncomfortable all the time but feel forced to not say anything because they have no faith that anything would actually change.
The panel that stood out to me in It Ain’t Me Babe is the one where Witch Hazel is plotting and says, “Feminist rebellion is creeping all over the world.” In that panel and the next one, it shows how women from different backgrounds all agree that men have restricted them to a certain extent. Additionally, it shows how the women are gaining confidence in themselves. Although there are many different ways to view this comic, I believe that the witch is a character within this comic to give feminism a negative connotation. At the same time, the realizations that the women are having are a positive aspect of the way that this comic is represented. The women realize that they do not need men to achieve anything with one of them saying, “I don’t have to always join the boys. I’m just as good a person as they are. I want to do my own thing too!” This shows how the movement has changed society since all of the different things that the characters are saying go against traditional expectations. However, Witch Hazel labelling this as a rebellion seems threatening towards society.
The comic “Breaking Out” in It Aint Me Babe pdf effectively makes use of mainstream comics’ imagery to show the main principles of radical feminism. In this comic, Betty and Veronica have stopped their longtime rivalry for a teenage boy, as was the case with the classic comics by Archie. In one key panel, Betty picks up the mask of Archie that she has just thrown out and says, “You’ve been a better friend to me than Archie ever will be!”. This panel clearly shows the idea of sisterhood and the refusal to compete according to male standards. In later panels, we can see women holding a consciousness raising circle and talking about how their husbands kept them apart and prevented them from defining reality themselves. By putting iconic female characters who were always portrayed as passive like Petunia Pig and Supergirl in an open rebellion against male icons, the authors reveal how sexist American popular culture is. Moreover, the graphics in this comic are intentionally crude and underground, not resembling the commercial, clean graphics of the characters that they parody. This is consistent with the nature of the Women’s Liberation movement, which is grass-roots and anti-establishment by nature.
The “Trade Funnies” (pg 24) story stood out to me because it shows how sexism affects women even during something as ordinary as taking a walk in public spaces. On the first page of the story, the women explain that when they walk alone, men constantly interrupt them with comments about their bodies, whistles and attempts to get their attention. What especially intrigued me about this comic was that the comic does not portray these moments as harmless flirting, but as something exhausting that women are expected to tolerate everyday. the repeated comments from different men make the harassment seems almost unavoidable, whether the women are walking, sitting on a bench, or simply existing in public. The second page shifts to the women being very confrontational when the women question why they are expected to accept this behavior rather than respond to it. One character asks why women should be so negative about mens comments, but another points out that men would not want the same thing constantly happening to them. This exchange connects to what we have been learning in class about women’s liberation because it challenges the idea that women should stay polite when they are uncomfortable. The story also shows how feminism was concerned not only with equal laws or employment, bout with the everyday ways women were treated and made to feel watched in public. By turning street harassment into the subject of a comic, “Trade Funnies” makes an experience that can easily be dismissed be seen through a political lens and the comic proves a point that this issue is worth confronting for the greater good of society.
Avengers 83
⤹Click the reply button just below.
The page from “The Avengers 83” that stood out to me was page 4, where the women introduce themselves as the “Liberators” and announce a “feminist takeover” of the Avengers’ headquarters. The large title, “The Revolution’s Fine,” connects the story to the language and ideas of the late-1960s and early-1970s Women’s Liberation Movement. Instead of joining the male superheroes, the women take control of their own group and challenge the existing structure of the Avengers, which reflects the feminist movement’s criticism of institutions that were traditionally controlled by men. Valkyrie’s introduction is especially significant because she presents herself as a powerful figure who does not need the approval of the male Avengers.
Simultaneously, the artwork creates an interesting contradiction because the women are drawn in extremely revealing and sexualized superhero costumes. Their poses and clothing emphasize their bodies as much as their power, which makes the feminist message more complicated than it initially appears, and ties into the “It Ain’t Me Babe” comic’s idea of pervasive sexualization of women. The page therefore seems to show both sides of mainstream media’s relationship with the Women’s Liberation Movement, because it acknowledges that women are demanding greater independence and authority, but it still presents those women through traditional ideas about female attractiveness and sexuality. The dramatic lettering and exaggerated superhero poses also turn the idea of a feminist “revolution” into something entertaining and theatrical for comic-book readers which almost undermines the struggles of the movement because it downplays how painful they were/could be. This is very different from “It Ain’t Me Babe”, which was created by people directly involved in the feminist movement and focuses more on the everyday experiences of women.
This contrast is interesting because it shows how the same general ideas about women’s independence could be represented very differently depending on who was creating the media and who the intended audience was. The page demonstrates that mainstream popular culture was engaging with women’s liberation, but it was still playing into some of the gender expectations (such as the sexualization of women and their forms) that the movement itself was challenging.
The page that stood out to me was page 18, which included the transformation of valkyrie into “the enchantress”. This transformation was rather interesting, how a parallel-time device was used to transform valkyrie into some other person who is somehow more powerful. However, the most interesting part was the fact that valkyrie transformed into a villain of all things. As a result, the superheroes needed to band together, which were called “boy-heroes”, and that reflects the tensions that reflected the times that this was written.
I feel this page is a direct representation of the Women’s liberation movement, as it shows this former hero who was seduced into becoming a villain, which seemed to confirm previous gender expectations. However, in consequence of her rebelliousness, she was transformed into this villain who defied the establishment, where the other superheroes needed to team up to defeat her.
I also found her name, “The Enchantress” very interesting. I believe that the meaning of enchantress seams to be a representation of women’s role in the period, needing to “enchant” a man in order to be successful. Therefore, I find it interesting that her name being connected with defying the establishment is an interesting detail, especially after knowing this was written by males.
A particularly striking panel from Avengers 83 comes in the midst of the struggle between the Liberators and Avengers, on page 16. The Liberators, having just freed the Avengers from a series of villains that had incapacitated most of them, have now turned their focus back on the Avengers, who they see as “male, chauvinist pigs.” Despite them being super-powered heroes who are formidable in their own right, Black Panther remarks that he doesn’t “fight women – even super-powered ones!” Even in a weakened state, exhausted from a fight that the Liberators themselves had to save them from, the Avengers dismiss their feminine teammates as not enough of a threat to have to defend themselves. A more critical reader might argue that the Avengers treat the Liberators as simply hysterical and not actually committed to a fight. In a humorous way, this mirrors the sentiments of Ti-Grace Atkinson, who I read about in Davis’ excerpt earlier in the week. Atkinson argued that “all women are equally talented,” which, logically, includes their prowess in fighting. Throw a few superpowers in the mix, and the playing field really is leveled between the women and men in the comic. All else now being equal, Black Panther’s remarks, along with some of the other minor comments made by the male Avengers in the same scene (such as Vision calling Valkyrie/Enchantress a “costumed female”), reek of a uniquely insidious form of misogyny that many feminist movements faced at the time – dismissiveness and apathy.
The page that stuck out the most ot me in “Avengers 83” was page 28. On this page, the enchantress talks about how she hatched her evil plot against “all males” after her partner, the executioner, left her for another woman. This page stuck out to me because it felt like the comic was playing directly into a popular stereotype- that the women of the women’s lib movement were simply male haters. By making the “villain” of this book a woman scorned in a comic that so heavily addresses the women’s liberation movement, it made the storyline very simple and cliché. Instead of making the comic an actual story about the relationship between the female and male Avengers, which I think would’ve been interesting, the male authors instead make a story about how their superwoman would have only acted this way under a spell from a woman scorned. This is especially pertinent because the mostly male Marvel fans can then look down upon the movement as something that “takes over” women or makes them not think rationally. This storyline felt indicative of the male opinion at the time, and I feel it didn’t add anything particularly new to the conversation, but simply made a comic book about it.
This Avengers comic paints Women’s Lib, in the form of Valkyrie/Enchantress, as a deceiving movement that will always eventually be beaten down. The comic makes it appear that the other lady “Avengers” have been brainwashed by Valkyrie into thinking that they are oppressed by the patriarchy. It paints Valkyrie, and other Women’s Lib leaders, as brainwashing their followers, as well as showing Valkyrie using aggressive rhetoric against “male chauvinist pigs”. This is essentially a strawman fallacy, because the comic is framing the feminist/Women’s Lib argument as extreme and attacking of the other side, rather than a simple defense of women’s own rights. In this way, the comic invalidates feminism by suggesting that it is just a hatred of men for no reason instead of upset over issues of actual importance. Specific lines, like the Wasp’s “I know– I shouldn’t be…and yet– yes! I’m in!” create a sense of doubt in Valkyrie’s words, or in other words, a sense of doubt in feminist leaders. Additional details, like the Valkyrie calling Wasp “wench” again paint the “feminist” leader in a bad light, emphasizing that she doesn’t actually care for the well-being of her followers. Each of these details makes Women’s Lib seem like a false movement rooted in selfishness and hatred rather than protest for rights and freedom.
The pages that stood out to me from the Avengers Comic #83 were pages seven through nine. The pages feature female superhero Valkyrie and other female superheroes as they form their own female-only superhero group. The pages include an anecdote about Valkyrie from when she worked in a lab under a male, and they highlight how she was belittled by her male supervisor. The importance of this scene was not only to illustrate the injustice that women faced in the workplace, but also to highlight the motive behind Valkyrie’s drive to form a women-only organization. The dialogue used in these pages is another way the women highlight their disapproval of male supremacy. In one of the panels, Black Widow questions Valkyrie’s ideals, but Valkyrie quickly shuts her down by questioning her on why she was rejected from becoming an Avenger (which was all-male at the time). Earlier in the comic, Valkyrie refers to men as “male chauvinist pigs”(8), and later she transports the group on her horses and declares, “nor shall we depart in vessels built by men”(9). Valkyrie’s strong words and actions help the other female superheroes get on board with what she is saying. Most importantly, her presence and leadership emphasize the need for a strong leader for the women’s rights movement in order for progress to be made.
I believe that the ending of Avengers #83 gives the feminist movement a negative association. Valkyrie/the Enchantress had been the one that was pushing the women to go against the Avengers. Since they thought that she was doing it for a good cause, they joined her fight. Eventually towards the end, she says, “To gain all my ends, I disguised myself… and used subtle, secret spells to win you four to my case.” This panel stood out to me since the women went into the fight with Valkyrie since they believed there would be a chance that they would benefit from it. The reader may see this as a correlation between the feminist movement and this comic. Feminism itself was a movement meant to make change, however, this comic shows the possibility of the power using the movement for personal gain as well. Comics, similar to this one, would most likely affect the way people thought about feminist movements at the time and the impact it would have on the community.
The last page of Avengers83.pdf presents a contradictory mainstream interpretation of the Women’s Liberation Movement. Following the revelation that the militant “Valkyrie” was actually the disguised villainess known as the Enchantress, Goliath smugly tells the female heroes, “You birds finally learned your lesson about that women’s lib bull!”. In fact, this particular panel shows the dominating male hero towering above the Scarlet Witch, thus affirming the patriarchal hierarchy restored at the end of this comic book. The plot of the issue in question implies that the Women’s Lib was just an artifice of the supervillain trying to manipulate and divide male and female heroes in her own interests. However, the male creators of this issue do not reject the idea of the movement in its entirety and do not completely silence their female characters either. In response to the taunt of Goliath, the Scarlet Witch defiantly points a finger at him and calls him a “male chauvinist pig!”. The Wasp also comments that “The Liberators will make a comeback.” Thus, the feminist threat remains open in the end. It seems that the creators tried to strike a balance between punishing militant anti-male radicalism of the Enchantress and giving female Avengers more importance and recongintion.
A section. from the “Avengers #83″ that stood out to me was on page 24 when Valkyrie attacks the male avengers while shouting “Up against the wall, male chauvinist pigs!” The phrase directly borrows the language and imagery of radical protest, but the comic exaggerates it by turning the women’s Liberation movement into an actual battle between women and men. Valkyrie describes the men as oppressors, while the women are the “Lady Liberators,” making feminism look like a militant superhero franchise. Earlier in the comic, the women are brought together through complaints about how men have treated or underestimated them. Ath the same time, those same frustrations are presented through dramatic slogans fighting, and eventually the revelation that Valkyrie is actually the Enchantress manipulating the women. This reveals that the most extreme version of women’s liberation in the story is literally the product of deception. Instead of allowing the women’s anger to stand on its own, the comic ultimately explains much of their rebellion through the influence of a female villain. This detail is a sharp contrast from “It ain’t me Babe”, where women themselves define the problems they experience and treat them as serious political issues. The avengers story reflects how mainstream popular culture during this time could recognize the language of the Women’s Liberation movement while also turning it into something exaggerated, humorous and threatening.