Rape in the Avengers and Avengers #200

[ed2962]

Wasn't it reconned later on in another book as being a Wanda bot because of the complaints that Marvel received about Barton sleeping with Wanda when she was said to be in a confused state with no memory of who she was? That Barton took advantage of this situation even though he had been rejected by Wanda in the past and he knew she wouldn't have slept with him if she was herself with full recollection of who she was and of her past?

I'm not sure if they got major complaints but I know that's partially why I had a problem with it.

That and why Wanda came on to him in the first place...he stopped a purse snatcher so she throws herself at him sexually?

[ed2962]

Putting aside the stupid back-write (of Mockingbird cheating), how is that a mark against Mockingbird? The guy attacked her. Not sure that she was the bad guy.

The back-write muddies things a bit, which is why I am saying to put it aside for the moment.

It muddies things a lot. In the old version she lets him die because he drugged raped her. With the retcon she let's die cuz...he's too clingy?

[Valamist]

It sounds like I would not be a fan of Shooter 's work. I heard about what happened to Carol (And the whole 'gays are rapists' narrative in that Hulk book) not long after I started reading Marvel a few years ago, and I think thats the main reason why I have only just started looking into the pre-Civil War era comics. I hate to see comics tainted in such ways, be it with dodgy rape commentaries or anti-feminism/LGBT stuff. I know there are probably more examples of pro-stuff then negative, but its still caused me to tread carefully.

I mean, I still feel bad reading Byrne's stuff. He helped define my favorite comic book character (She-Hulk) and created one of Marvel's most prominent gay characters... yet the first I heared about him was when he was comparing transgender people to pedophiles.

It muddies things a lot. In the old version she lets him die because he drugged raped her. With the retcon she let's die cuz...he's too clingy?

I wonder if that final issue/arc would have been more better explained had the book not been canceled.

[ed2962]

so that retcon saves Wanda. but Clint is still made out to be a real creeper. why would Doctor Doom have left a Wanda sexbot, there?

That part is actually not that hard to buy into. Doom has a history of making robots of himself and in "The Children's Crusade" story he was planning to marry Wanda, so it's not far fetched that he'd build Wanda-bots that would run simple errands for her.

But you're right Clint is still a creep cuz he still thought it was Wanda.

[TakoM]

They are both bad and badly done. The first sees Carol being raped or having an incestuous relationship with her son. The second sees her developing and recovering from a drinking problem in a matter of weeks. Also lets not forget the whole Marcus Kang mess

Just my 5 cent to this Kang in retrospect seems obsessed with children especially with "his" his adjective should be changed from Kang the Conquerer to Kang the Baby-Snatcher.
He wanted to have a child with the Celestial Madonna.
He wanted to get Apocalypse as a baby to rise him as his son.
Then the whole Macus plot in the Kang War were he had about 100 sons(or something) which he all killed because they were failures in his eyes.
He also took away Wasps daughter and before this he kidnapped and raised Apocalypses twin children.

For some times he had also Black Bolt and Medusas child (Black Bolt gave him to him)

[Drops Of Venus]

I saw that before, but I couldn't find the source for it. I'd love to know more information.

Not sure if there was any other reason, but Doombot Wanda was a thing Allan Heinberg came up with in Avengers: The Children's Crusade seemingly as a way to retcon Wanda's previous appearence in Transia back in New Avengers. It didn't fit his plans to explain what was going with her (she was in Latveria with Doom), so I've always figured that's why he did it. And then it kind of became a gag on Clint because he had slept with a Doombot.

so that retcon saves Wanda. but Clint is still made out to be a real creeper. why would Doctor Doom have left a Wanda sexbot, there?

There wasn't any official explanation, but I assume he probably didn't want anyone to know where Wanda really was and what he was up to with her, so the Doombot could've simply been a distraction.

I mean, I still feel bad reading Byrne's stuff. He helped define my favorite comic book character (She-Hulk) and created one of Marvel's most prominent gay characters... yet the first I heared about him was when he was comparing transgender people to pedophiles.

Tell me about it. When I was looking up some information about Northstar, I came across his forum and found some other shitty things he said about trans people back in 2007. He called a transgender lesbian a ''castrated heterosexual man'' and then proceeded to say he didn't believe transgender people could actually exist. Considering the article you linked is from 2015, I'm guessing he hasn't changed his mind on the subject at all. I'm thankful for how he opened the door to the first openly gay superhero in Marvel Comics, but other than that, screw him and his transphobic ****.

[Anduinel]

I mean, I still feel bad reading Byrne's stuff. He helped define my favorite comic book character (She-Hulk) and created one of Marvel's most prominent gay characters... yet the first I heared about him was when he was comparing transgender people to pedophiles.

I hear you. If it helps, I find that making a donation to one of my local LGBTQ programs when I end up buying something Byrne would get royalties from does a lot to settle that conflict for me.

[JKtheMac]

There is definitely a theme developing in the examples being drawn upon here. Writers write a soap opera style plot that has somebody having sex in a way that is either universally disturbing or disturbs a particular fanbase. Fanbase are outraged for all the wrong reasons by focusing on the characters and not the writers or comic culture. Writers "fix things" in an attempt to placate the fan outrage, and ultimately are off the hook.

Until fans stop focusing on the damage to characters and instead call the writers to account on gender issues, this will continue.

Better still maybe we should actually read stories without making such harsh judgements like "she's a tramp and I will never like her again" or "there is a tiny hint of consent issues that I will pick up on forever, but I will ignore every consent issue for my favourite pairings and defend them vehemently".

I am starting to understand why Alan Moore has explored rape so often in his comics.

[leokearon]

so that retcon saves Wanda. but Clint is still made out to be a real creeper. why would Doctor Doom have left a Wanda sexbot, there?

Doom was planning to marry Wanda but he knew that Earth's heroes would be looking for her. So he creates a Wanda-Bot and places it in Transia for the heroes to find. They think they have found her while he marries the real Wanda and no-one will be the wiser until it's too late.

[TakoM]

I think you are spot on that Shooter was aiming at a science fiction paradox story and forced the issue to the detriment of the characters, all in service of his 'cool idea'.

Sry it took me so long^^

I think when you have a paradox in your story it only works in your favor as author when it is a light hearted story. It was the same as Hickman's Secret War and Time Runs Out arc this and those older stories would be called GoT style today.
In Hickman's case it was the absolute desperation contra heroes who should overcome every desperation and then the only one who could solve it was a villain which made him owned what remains.

When you write a story about someone with absolute power over society you essentially writing a power fantasy which dissolve into sexualized content because power is a aphrodisiac.
I started to write a villian fan-fiction about the outcome of "Times Run Out" when it was still running . I essentially stopped because of this. Okay the reason was when I started to write this was to show how extreme it was by giving a villain the possibility to solve it for universes he choose. The problem with this you can basically blackmail any heroine from these universes to join your harem even with a strict non rape policy of the villain I had my doubts because it would become more porn then what fit into a superhero franchise even when it is a villian. ( I might rewrite and finish it someday when I have a better idea to make it lighter)

In short extreme ideas equals extreme results

[cranger]

It sounds like I would not be a fan of Shooter 's work. I heard about what happened to Carol (And the whole 'gays are rapists' narrative in that Hulk book)

This is how boogeymen get created. I will get the easy one out of the way, Shooter did not write Avengers #200. Whatever his involvement was, Carol was already getting impregnated by something before he could have been having anything to do with the story.

The more interesting one is the Hulk one, because you have a real anti-rape story here, something people seem to question Shooter about, where he uses a real life story a friend experienced and a super hero that one would not think could be a victim. As far as this story is concerned Bruce Banner could be gay or a woman, and the story still happens. The story is that the fear is so great that he cannot transform into the Hulk. Sure, it falls apart when examined by any Hulk fan, but to a casual reader this is a powerful story. About how bad rape is and if anyone spent more than a second thinking about it beyond whatever article they read telling them how bad this story was, they would see this actually speaks up for women who are often questioned about why they don't fight back or speak up.

[JKtheMac]

This is how boogeymen get created. I will get the easy one out of the way, Shooter did not write Avengers #200. Whatever his involvement was, Carol was already getting impregnated by something before he could have been having anything to do with the story.

The more interesting one is the Hulk one, because you have a real anti-rape story here, something people seem to question Shooter about, where he uses a real life story a friend experienced and a super hero that one would not think could be a victim. As far as this story is concerned Bruce Banner could be gay or a woman, and the story still happens. The story is that the fear is so great that he cannot transform into the Hulk. Sure, it falls apart when examined by any Hulk fan, but to a casual reader this is a powerful story. About how bad rape is and if anyone spent more than a second thinking about it beyond whatever article they read telling them how bad this story was, they would see this actually speaks up for women who are often questioned about why they don't fight back or speak up.

But this is why there is a need to be dispassionate and less accusatory about these stories. It is perfectly valid to criticise the book for playing on gay stereotypes without pointing the finger and saying this story is an inappropriate use of rape in a story. It is perfectly valid to analyse a story on grounds of gender and point out how male focused or slanted towards a misogynistic mindset without saying this is a bad story. It is perfectly valid to point out that a specific writer's stories set out certain attitudes and perspectives, but it is not valid, or for that matter acceptable, to call that writer out as having those views personally.

Where this kind of analysis interacts with fandom we get a double whammy of criticism about the elements of a story and protectionism surrounding characters. This results in frequent flame wars and twitter arguments that would be entirely avoidable if people understood where the initial critique was coming from and understood the context of literary criticism in general.

It is related to the far less serious divide between critics and audiences over high profile movies. There is a serious lack of understanding in our culture regards academic or journalistic criticism.

[Iron Maiden]

Full disclosure, I'm actually a big fan of Englehart. I disagree with your interpretation of the FF. I think the person who looked bad there was Ben, not Crystal. I thought Crystal was as uncomfortable with the whole situation as Johnny.

Glancing through some of those issues last night and were both right, sort of. Creepy Crystal comes later and she gets into a cat fight with Sue over the situation with Johnny. But these are those weird dopplegangers that Aron the Rogue Watcher created for his entertainment. Another reason why I hate Englehart's Fantastic Four run. He even had to come on panel and apologize for it at the end. But then I have to add that IIRC he may have been having some disagreements with EIC Tom DeFalco.

[Carabas]

This is how boogeymen get created. I will get the easy one out of the way, Shooter did not write Avengers #200. Whatever his involvement was, Carol was already getting impregnated by something before he could have been having anything to do with the story.

He was editor in chief. He was aware of the story. He had some kind of hand in it. And id I mention he was editor in chief? In the end his office was where the buck stopped.

[JKtheMac]

He was editor in chief. He was aware of the story. He had some kind of hand in it. And id I mention he was editor in chief? In the end his office was where the buck stopped.

And he accepted this, took full responsibility and apologised.