Ugh, now she doesn’t have pants like how it used to be? What is wrong with you, DC?
WE WANT DC TO LISTEN TO US!
Ugh, they acknowledged but they’re not doing it right
WE WANT WOMEN FRONT AND CENTER ON COMICS!
Ugh you’re not drawing them right
I don’t think anything DC does at this point will satisfy anyone. I agree DC has mishandled some things but I also think that we’re reaching a point of just complaining about any and every little thing.
The point of contention still is, as it always was, that people are getting tired of seeing all of the female leads drawn with body language and uniforms that make them appear less heroic, powerful, legitimate, and all-around able to be taken seriously than their male counterparts.
Tattoo artist Ryan Fitzgerald from Dayton, OH was hit with a $100,000 lawsuit last week by his ex-girlfriend Rossie Brovent. She claims that her boyfriend was supposed to tattoo a scene from Narnia on her back but instead tattooed an image of a pile of excrement with flies buzzing around it.
Apparently, Ryan found out that Rossie had cheated with a long-time friend of his, but instead of confronting her about it he acted like everything was normal and hatched a plan for revenge. Originally, Rossie tried to have Ryan charged with assault, but the ingenious tattoo artist had covered his bases by plying Rossie with wine and tequila shots and getting her to sign a consent form that stated the design was “at the artist’s discretion.”
No word from Rossie on whether the illicit night of passion with Ryan’s friend was worth it. Moral of the story? Never cheat on a tattoo artist.
OK, so I kind of liked this analogy, until I came across the following use of a similar analogy in The New York State Reporter, a book ofNew York State court decisions published in 1894.
At common law, if a person intended to steal an article take it with the the owner’s consent, it is not larceny. … In such a case the completed act, accomplished as intended, not being a crime, none of the steps taken being ingredients of the offense, would constitute a crime, and the taker could not be convicted of an attempt to commit the crime of larceny.
If an assault should be made on a man dressed as a woman with the intent to ravish, the assailant believing the person assaulted to be a woman, he could not be convicted of an attempt to ravish, because in such a case the commission of the crime of rape would be an impossibility. So in the case at bar, it was a legal impossibility to commit the crime of extortion as against the woman Ames, because she inveigled the defendant to commit the act and was not in fear by him. [Emphasis added.]
In the case of The People v. Gardiner, Catherine Ames, who ran a “house of prostitution,” was coerced by Charles W. Gardiner, who threatened to have her prosecuted, to pay him $150. The court ruled that it was a “legal impossibility” for Gardiner to extorted money from Ames, claiming that she was not in fear.
While not exactly the same as the “mugging” dialog above, the two cases have significant parallels. Both coerce someone to give the other person their money, main difference is the one uses the threat of a gun and the other uses the threat of criminal prosecution. While the hypothetical mugging is used as a rape analogy, in the real life case of The People v. Gardiner the court itself makes an analogy to rape.
Only in real life case, the attempted rape of a trans woman or male cross-dresser is actually deemed an “impossibility,” and is not recognized by the court as a crime. Moreover, in a clear case of “victim-blaming,” it is suggested that trans women and cross-dresser actually “inveigled” their assailants to attack them.
While this may be a case from the nineteenth century, this view of the “impossibility” of rape of trans women is still predominant in our society.