Episode #119 - JILL SOLOWAY, ROCCO KAYIATOS, MICHELLE LAWLER talk about DR. LAURA!!
On today's episode, queer radical feminists Jill Soloway, Rocco Kayiatos, and Michelle Lawler join NJG to talk about why they love/hate listening to conservative right wing talk show therapist DR. LAURA SCHLESSINGER.
Tune In.
Bonus: Nicole reveals what she sleeps in, is ridiculed, stands by her decision.
Today's episode brought to you by Cute Fruit Undies! https://cutefruitundies.com/
Merino’s article shows that underground female comic creators tend to subvert these tired tropes, and tell entirely new stories from points of view that have rarely been considered ever before. Did it actually occur to any of these previous mainstream phallocentric (I love that word; it’ll come up again in a bit) writers that the women they simplify, disparage or exploit in their creative works actually have stories too? Histories of their own? Thoughts and feelings and desires and fears and life experiences, just like their male counterparts? Did anyone ever think that women in real life have these as well, and may also have something to say in the form of a comic?
(Here, have an assignment I wrote for my Graphic Novel course this semester, a brief look at the themes of underground female comic writers and feminine/queer content. VERY basic and generalized (it was just an online post assignment), connecting an article on the subject with Calling Dr. Laura, an autobiographical comic of lesbian author Nicole Georges growing up and looking for her birth father in Portland.)
Hello everyone! This assignment was something of a challenge – as Prof ______ warned us, since Calling Dr. Laura is such a new work (and not as well-known as some of the other titles we read this class), I couldn’t find anything specifically referring to it in the database. However, I did find a pretty interesting and informative article on the rise of underground women-written comics in a general sense: Feminine Territoriality: Reflections on the Impact of the Underground and Post-Underground, by Ana Merino. (You can find it here: http://web.ebscohost.com.marylhurst.idm.oclc.org/ehost/detail?sid=b4a4acdd-d01f-4068-afc8-2996d583b6e7%40sessionmgr111&vid=2&hid=123&bdata=JnNjb3BlPXNpdGU%3d#db=mzh&AN=2009650248 )
In this paper, Merino outlines the style and storylines of a couple prominent female comic creators in the underground (what I take to mean more counterculture and un-mainstream movement). While Nicole Georges is not directly mentioned, I feel like a lot of Merino’s observations lend themselves to her writing as well. I suppose the primary argument and thesis here would be that female comic artists/writers have brought previously ignored perspectives and experiences (queer, female, feminist) into a medium in which these points of view have been traditionally ignored or even outright silenced.
She writes that: “in the past, there was a tendency to associate comics with the engrossed readings of childhood and adolescence, with the establishment of value scales between the materials that boys read and the ones that girls read. While the superhero comics in the consumer market for boys were strong, the production of works for girls, linked to genres with romantic undertones, were often underappreciated.”
This is definitely a true statement. One recurring theme during this class that has repeatedly struck me is the misconception that comics are not “legitimate” art, or fit for adult consumption, only being suitable material for children, devoid of substance, meaning or artistic merit. However, the other erroneous assumption made by the public in general is that this oft-maligned art form is only for boys’ entertainment. Written by men, for men – or rather, young boys, as the stereotype goes. If women appear in these comics, they are either tertiary and largely passive relatives (mothers, sisters, love interests), victims/damsels in distress, or sexualized objects of male power fantasy. Even superheroines, who are ostensibly powerful in their own right, are often sexualized and victimized, often in suggestive ways. In all of these, if romantic or sexual content appears, it will be heterosexual. (Except, of course, when lesbians are fetishized for heterosexual male fantasy consumption.)
Merino’s article shows that underground female comic creators tend to subvert these tired tropes, and tell entirely new stories from points of view that have rarely been considered ever before. Did it actually occur to any of these previous mainstream phallocentric (I love that word; it’ll come up again in a bit) writers that the women they simplify, disparage or exploit in their creative works actually have stories too? Histories of their own? Thoughts and feelings and desires and fears and life experiences, just like their male counterparts? Did anyone ever think that women in real life have these as well, and may also have something to say in the form of a comic?
Nicole Georges did. Her writing removes the vast majority of the abovementioned conventions – because the story centers around lesbian relationships, there are no major male characters who have much bearing on the plot. The ones who do appear are only there briefly, abusive or absent father figures. Although the impetus of the plot comes from the search for Nicole’s birth father, he is a ghost, and not an actual character with agency of his own. In many ways, Calling Dr. Laura flips the dominant tropes simply by flipping the genders of the characters. Even though the book is autobiographical, it serves to illustrate these disparities between the usual storyline found everywhere in the media (man on a quest, has love interest, solves problems, finds himself), and Nicole’s. It’s even more powerful, arguably, due to its true content. This is a true story, not simply the invention of a creative writer. These things do happen, so it’s time everyone began to pay attention.
Back in the broader scheme, Merino writes that “in all actuality, the comic artists who depicted gay and lesbian themes brought to the underground liberal parameters that enriched the movement even though some of the critics ignored them due to the heterosexual and phallocentric tendencies of the genre.” (And there’s that word again. Going into exactly how phallocentric the comics industry is could fill an entire term paper, so I’ll just say for this presentation that it’s really a very apt descriptor.)
I would definitely agree with the above assessment. Although Calling Dr. Laura is a relatively new initiate into the annals of female-created countercultural comics (more so than Fun Home, which has earned far more critical acclaim and widespread notoriety), Nicole Georges definitely carries on the tradition of giving voice to previously ignored experiences. The autobiographical nature of the story adds weight to its differences, and although the story is incredibly valid on its own, the fact that it is also true (to me) lends more credence to the need to include more stories like this in comic book culture.
Some Questions For You:
How do you think Calling Dr. Laura subverts dominant comic-book conventions? How about story conventions in general?
Think about your favorite female character in a comic book. Even a superhero. (Sometimes especially superheroes.) How often is she sexualized or shown in need of rescue? How do you think her presentation would be different if she were written by a woman or for a more gender-equal audience?
Related to the above, does that appear in Calling Dr. Laura? Are the female characters in this book sexualized or shown more neutrally? Are they passive, or do they have their own objectives and capabilities?
To what extent do you think Calling Dr. Laura is male-driven? Think about the male characters who influence Nicole as a child. How much effect do they have on the storyline? How much is Nicole’s own agency?
How do you think ‘underground’ comics (most of the ones we’ve read this semester would qualify) differ from more mainstream ones? Why are they important?
