San Diego Comic-Con 2011 Recap (Episode II: Attack of the Princess Naked)

27/07

Whew.  I know I promised to post this yesterday, but as you can see it got a bit…epic.  Bear with me gang, I’ll get to the “Oh, You Sexy Geek!” panel, but first a little context:

Having devoted an entire chapter of my dissertation to the “Twilight ruined Comic-Con” protests that occurred in 2009, I have spent a good deal of time thinking about SDCC as a gendered space, analyzing how gendered tensions are manifested in that space, and considering how the popular press reinforces a (false) conception of comic-con as an inherently masculine space.  In this chapter, and in various conference presentations I’ve since given on “Twihate” generally, I spend some time analyzing the implications of an illustrated sidebar from a July 25, 2008 Entertainment Weekly article that attempted to humorously outline SDCC’s consistent “Faces in the Crowd.”

The majority of the “usual suspects” here are (perhaps unsurprisingly) men, from the “Campers,” who “arrive at the convention ballrooms each morning, burrow in, and remain in their seats all day as panel after panel parades in front of them,” to the “Family Man,” an aging fan who hasn’t yet realized that “fandom isn’t genetic.”  Female SDCC attendees, meanwhile, can apparently be divided into two camps: “Princess Nakeds” (defined as a “young woman wearing nothing more than skillfully placed electrical tape”) and “Dr. Girlfriends” (defined as “friends/lover/wives of the Con faithful who have no interest in the convention but attend solely to show their support”).

Admittedly, all of the SDCC attendee archetypes outlined above perpetuate crude stereotypes about fans generally, and mock male and female fans equally.  What makes these two “fangirl” representations especially problematic for me is not the fact that they trade in old pathologies, but that they offer no real point of identification for most female SDCC attendees.  The “Princess Nakeds” are constructed as sexualized spectacles rather than fans, offering themselves up for the implied male gaze of SDCC attendees.  As discussed at length in the “Oh, You Sexy Geek!” panel, many fangirls choose to cosplay in sexually explicit garb and claim that choice as empowering, but the fact that the “Princess Naked” is here constructed as a separate category from the “LARPer” is telling.  Even if we assume that the term “Princess Naked” is a reference to the disproportionate number of “Slave Leias” that tend to populate events like SDCC (as the accompanying caricature would suggest), the description divorces the archetype from cosplay and LARPing traditions and makes it difficult to read this (by definition, sexualized) display as a form of fan production.  Wearing her costume of “strategically placed electrical tape” (what character is this supposed to be?!?), the “Princess Naked” under this definition isn’t attempting to embody a specific character, she is simply offering herself up as a sexualized object for the fanboy gaze.  She is, in the parlance of the panel in question, simply “pandering.”

The “Dr. Girlfriend” archetype is, in some sense, far more troubling to me than the implicit alignment of the “Princess Naked” with the sexually objectified “booth babe.”  As I’m sure you’re all well aware, “Dr. Girlfriend” is a reference to a character on the cult Cartoon Network Adult Swim series The Venture Bros. (2003-present). Costumed in the retro style of Jacqueline Kennedy, and voiced by the male co-writer of the show, Doc Hammer, the clash between her hyperfeminine aesthetic and decidedly masculine aural presence has made Dr. Girlfriend one of the show’s most popular characters, and a favorite character for fangirls to cosplay.

Entertainment Weekly’s description of “Dr. Girlfriends” as unwilling attendees, tagging along after their boyfriends or husbands (the presumed “real” attendee), coupled with a caricature of a horrified-looking woman being forced to carry poster tubes and bags of merchandise, goes beyond simply failing to represent female fans.  The characterization of the “Dr. Girlfriend” subtly implies that no woman could possibly enjoy an experience at SDCC…unless, of course, she’s a “Princess Naked” exhibitionist.  Ultimately, both the “Princess Naked” and the “Dr. Girlfriend” archetypes are rooted in a binary view of female sexuality, the former hypersexualized and the latter heteronormatively coupled.  In both cases, importantly, female attendees are constructed through and defined by their male cohort’s gaze and companionship.  They are safely contained.

I do find it amusing that it looks like that sand person is managing this car wash

The “Oh, you Sexy Geek!” panel at SDCC 2011 this past Thursday was designed to take on the “Princess Naked” effect, and speak back to the accusations of “pandering” the so-called “fake fangirls” who wear these sexualized costumes (or post geek-themed pinups online, etc.) endure.  The panelists ranged from notable female geekerati bloggers and video parodists, to former Buffy big bads and reality television stars.  The lone academic presence on the panel was Jennifer Stuller, author of the recent book Ink Stained Amazons and Cinematic Warriors: Superwomen in Modern Mythology.  At one point, Stuller joked that she was assured she wouldn’t be the only “humorless feminist” on the panel, but in general my issue wasn’t the lack of second wave feminism (I don’t expect/assume everyone to embody those values, or constantly parrot them if they do), or even the problematic/third-wave feminist definition of “empowerment” through beauty culture that seemed to hang over the panel.  No, my main issue was that this devolved into a postfeminist panel, in which feminism was invoked and then discarded as no longer necessary (or too “old fashioned,” or some form of buzzkillery we need to “get over”).  I don’t think that was the intention, but the rhetoric pointed towards those values more often than not.  In fannish terms, it all got a bit…Mary Sue.

The “Oh, You Sexy Geek!” panel was, in a word, disappointing.  I appreciate its presence, and credit it for setting out some ambitious conversational goals, but the bulk of the panel was weighed down with play-nice platitudes (“Who are we to judge a girl who chooses to cosplay in a skimpy outfit?”/“Everyone should feel sexy!”) and (genuinely) witty commentary at the expense of any real debate.  Many have already railed against the girl-power brand of “feminism” being touted at the panel, and apparently Bonnie Burton was openly accused of being a “bad feminist” by several disgruntled attendees.  I don’t agree with the accusation, and I definitely don’t agree with the tactic.  Better to discuss the feminisms that have always circulated around girl geek culture than to begin internally creating the same sort of hierarchies that girl geek culture has battled for decades.

Many have also justifiably expressed their disgust for Chris Gore’s “contributions” to the panel.  I’m hoping to cajole Luke Pebler into guest blogging something about the G4ification of geek culture/comic-con down the line, so I’ll save a few choice words on the appearance of Chris Gore midway through the “Oh, You Sexy Geek!” panel for that comment thread.  If you’re looking to see what got everyone so riled up, Jennifer de Guzman and Feminist Fatale have recaps of the panel and Gore’s presence up that you should check out.  Suffice it to say that rolling into a panel that purports to empower female fans, and smarmily opening with “I would stick my penis in every single one of these ladies” is, at worst, Exhibit A of why some women continue to feel objectified and marginalized within geek culture.  At best, it was a severely lame to pander to the fanboys in the room.  Funny, how that sort of pandering never seems to get the same sort of scrutiny that this did:

The “Oh, You Sexy Geek!” panel was at capacity, so if/when it makes a return to SDCC in 2012, here’s what I’d be interested to see/hear:

– A more focused conversation, to avoid getting mired in generalities.  Focus on one “pandering” controversy, or one costume, and really dig in.  Take a position and argue it, propose change, something to make this a bit more concrete and constructive.

– Encourage a richer twitter backchannel…clearly there were many in the audience who felt strongly about these issues.  Announce the hashtag up front!

– Less about sexy costumes, more about the politics of DIY vs. BIY (buy-it-yourself) costuming at the con (sexy or otherwise…I’m still waiting for some badass woman to actually weld her own gold bikini).

– More from Bonnie Burton on crafting as a fan practice.  Taking a glance at her twitter feed, many a fanboy are out there seem amped to make Chewbacca finger puppets and AT-AT planters.  I think most would assume that crafting falls squarely into the realm of “women’s work,” so the success of her Star Wars Craft book with fanboys and fangirls alike could open up a nice gender neutral space in this discussion.

– More from Katrina Hill on gender/genre bias (or presumptions surrounding gender and genre).  I am a complete gore hound, horror buff, so hearing the Action Chick’s thoughts on, say, the animosity directed towards Twilight’s presence at SDCC would have been fascinating, especially considering all the complaints that Twihards only attend SDCC to ogle and sexually objectify the male stars.

– Get another academic on the panel.  This is in no way a dig at Stuller, who made some great interjections about the need for media literacy and outreach (hear hear!), but it would be useful to also have someone who is studying the gendered mainstreaming of fan/geek culture, fanboy/fangirl identities, or the evolution of SDCC as a space on the panel.  Better yet, get someone doing work on postfeminism in the media to contextualize some of these debates.

– More from the nerdybird, author of the blog “Has Boobs, Reads Comics,” as so much of the conversation seemed to hinge on a Jessica Rabbit “I’m not bad, I’m just drawn this way” defensive strategy.  Or, get a comic book creator/artist on the panel (or someone designing and drawing these costumes we’re discussing).  At the top of my personal wish list would be Garth Ennis and Darick Robertson. I’d love to hear them talk about their commentary on female superhero costuming via the character of Starlight in The Boys.

– More panelist diversity in general would have made for a richer conversation.  Hell, bring in someone who has been working as a booth babe at SDCC for the past few years. We need only look to the EA “Sin to Win” controversy to see how this panel’s topic is part of a much larger marketing culture at work.  Or, bring in a girl geek who has attended the con for over a decade to anecdotally discuss how the culture around it has changed. I’d like to hear their stories, and they are absolutely part of this debate.

– Actually dress up as buildings for the next panel (…I guess you had to be there for that one).  As encouragement, check out this killer array of Tardis dresses!

I could go on, but I won’t, and before I close I want to be clear- I’ve got nothing against any of these women.  I avidly read many of their blogs and their twitter feeds, and despite the fact that my “humorless feminist” hackles were raised repeatedly over the course of the panel, the questions of identity and authenticity that the panel consistently poked at are exceedingly complex and difficult to navigate.  Authenticity debates within subculture, and studies of subculture, are nothing new.  The gendering of “authenticity” and authority in those spheres also has a long history that is difficult to cram into a single panel.

Was I disappointed that it was Seth Green (interjecting from the audience), and not one of the panelists, who finally unleashed an impressively articulate tirade about what’s been gained and lost in the mainstreaming of geek culture, and the importance of being good fan culture ambassadors (“You can’t be pandering if you’re sincere”)?  Absolutely.  Was it depressing that no one on the panel seemed to be able to muster up an example of an empowered/empowering female character to cosplay that wasn’t at least a decade old (see: Wonder Woman, Buffy)?  Terribly.   But I completely respect these women for getting up on stage and having the conversation (or even for acknowledging that these conversations need to occur more frequently in spaces like SDCC). As far as criticisms of the panel go, I have plenty, but I’m less interested in hating and more in participating in an ongoing dialogue about these issues.

As for my version of sexy cosplay solidarity…

I defy you to find someone who is more of a sexy badass than Malory Archer/Jessica Walter.

So, if you were at the panel (or on the panel), I’d really like to hear your thoughts on what you were expecting, what you walked away with, and what you’d like to see future panels along these lines tackle.  Debates about sexy cosplay, the feminisms of girl geek culture, etc. are also welcome, obviously.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

17 Responses

  1. Usagizero says:

    “Was it depressing that no one on the panel seemed to be able to muster up an example of an empowered/empowering female character to cosplay that wasn’t at least a decade old (see: Wonder Woman, Buffy)? ”

    Not sure if they can really be called geeks then, as off the top of my head the ones i think of are Gwen Cooper from Torchwood (not the easiest though since she didn’t really have a “look”) and Homura from the anime Madoka Magicka (obscure i guess, but all the characters would count once you know the characters and look below the surface). There are plenty probably, less so to those not looking deeper, but i agree it’s depressing (and i’m a male). Maybe it’s my time in costuming that gave me more respect for home made creative interpretations of characters over “sexy” any day.

  2. suzannescott says:

    In fairness to the panelists, there may have been others thrown out that I missed, but I remember that most of the names being dropped were not particularly current. Gwen Cooper is a great example (though I get your point re: her lack of “look”), and there’s also a ton of Firefly cosplay every year that I think is a great example of the sorts of costuming that I’d certainly define as “sexy,” but doesn’t involve something skintight or skimpy. Personally, I can’t wait until Powers hits FX and we have a ton of Deena Pilgrims wandering the floor at SDCC.

    You also raise a good point about having more respect for home-made costumes, which was a point that was raised briefly on the panel, but I would have liked to hear debated in more detail. The Halloween trend of making a “sexy” variant costume for every major franchise character has made dressing up at comic-con easy, and certainly exacerbated some of the debates the panel was looking to address re: the upswing in sexy cosplay.

    I saw a female Hellboy on Saturday that was INCREDIBLE, with a sort of Foxy Brown blaxploitation twist. Truly awesome. Truly sexy. And a unique twist on a character that clearly took a good deal of labor to put together.

  3. Natalie Wilson says:

    So happy to have found this post, and also to hear about your work on the whole “Twilight ruined comic-con” debate — is that published somewhere? (As an aside, you might be interested in chapter 8 of my book, Seduced by Twilight, which discusses Twi-fandom, comic-con, twi-con and so on from a feminist perspective).

    I did attend the BD panel on Thursday, but sadly missed the “Oh You Sexy Geek” panel you discussed. As a first timer at the con, I found the gender dynamics fascinating. Attending with my 12-year-old daughter, I was especially attune to the many quasi-princess-naked’s, especially the ones hired to pass out ads and such – what do you make of the difference between cosplay by attendees and cosplay for hire?

    I like the idea of more academics on panels – I get that it’s a fan conference but there is so much interesting academic work being done on fan culture – and we are not all stuffy and boring! Alas, when Reelz Channel interviewed me in line, and I identified as an academic, they said “oh, you’re just a mole” and moved on. Frustrating!

    Anyhow, thanks for this very interesting post.

    • suzannescott says:

      Hey Natalie,

      Thanks for commenting! The Twilight component of my dissertation isn’t published anywhere yet, but I’m working on the book proposal now. In the meantime, I’d be happy to send you the chapter, just email me at suzannelynscott@gmail.com. Also, I will definitely check out your chapter on Twilight fandom (or maybe we can arrange a swap?). I am always looking for more scholarly work on the topic, especially because I teach a week on Twilight anti-fandom in my fan studies class, which I’ll be teaching again this fall. I’m revising the syllabus now, so your timing is great!

      I’d also love to hear more about your experience as a Twilight fan at SDCC, and/or your daughter’s response to the cosplayers and booth babes. The booth babe phenomenon (which is actually now much more present in the streets surrounding the convention center than in the expo hall) is, to my mind, exacerbates the tensions surrounding female attendees wearing in skimpy costumes. It is easy to collapse the two categories, and draw conclusions accordingly (booth babes are paid, they’re not “real” fans, and thus anyone dressed similarly must be a “fake fan”). This isn’t fair, of course, but it is a presumption many make. It’s also not always a false presumption. There will always be a segment (albeit a small segment) of women who come to comic-con to get attention rather than to bask in the fannish glow. The easiest path to this tends to be a skimpy costume, and thus the scrutiny. It’s a vicious cycle.

      I hesitated when suggesting more academics for the panel here. I hate the air of authority and condescension that accompanies such a suggestion. I suggested it because I, like you, know a ton of women who are both academics and fans/geeks, and I wouldn’t use the words “stuffy” or “boring” to describe any of them. The suggestion was primarily rooted in the fact that, as academics, we spend much of our time contextualizing complex ideas, and (attempting) conveying them in clear and concise ways, and that would have been useful on a panel like this to give a broader sense of the scope of these debates surrounding gendered subcultural authenticity. This isn’t to say a feminist blogger couldn’t do the same, or do it better.

      Lastly, I’m stunned to hear that Reelz Channel dismissed you as a mole! Maybe we need a to put an “Oh, You Scholarly Geek!” panel together for next year’s SDCC? I am used to explaining and defendingmy hybrid scholarly identity as an aca-fan, but to totally dismiss you (especially after you’d been waiting on line since Wednesday?! I think I read that on your blog…) suggests to me that you didn’t neatly fit that pathologized portrait of a Twilight fangirl, or fangirl generally, that they were hoping to exploit.

  4. […] San Diego Comic-Con 2011 Recap (Episode II: Attack of the Princess Naked) […]

  5. […] Revenge of the Fans post: San Diego Comic-Con 2011 Recap (Episode II: Attack of the Princess Naked) by Suzanne Scott: “The ‘Oh, You Sexy Geek!’ panel was at capacity, so if/when it […]

  6. […] mission to ask important and uncomfortable questions of DC Comics. -The good and the bad from the SDCC ‘Oh, You Sexy Geek!’ panel. -Female creators are having to go to extreme lengths to get a writing gig at DC these […]

  7. Frog says:

    Hi,
    I’m not exactly sure what I want to say.
    I have been a gamer and a cosplayer for quite some time. I have never been to ComicCon. And I actually feel a bit apprehensive of going after all I’ve read about the changing culture especially regarding women. But I have been to the Otakon anime convention in Baltimore for 11 yrs. It is disturbing having so few options for female characters that don’t completely depend on being seen as sexual objects. There are girls who I suspect wear the skimpiest outfit possible just because it is a skimpy outfit more than because she is a fan of the character. I have always found that annoying and cheap. But I understand it to some extent. Everyone wants to be sexy, popular and garner attention. What I wanted to mention is that skimpy female character outfits are not the only option. Cross-play, portraying a character of the opposite gender, is a very popular alternative. Many women choose to portray a character who is male because they like that character and relate better than the mindless, female eye-candy who follows him around. True, that speaks to the dearth of relatable, strong female characters. But it also presents an opportunity to cosplay someone you like without devolving into a simple sexual role. A LOT of women/girls ignore the attention-seeking nudity for the cross-play option. I hope if there is another panel on the problems of cosplay that cross-play is discussed.
    I also construct my costume 98% of the time. It’s a point of pride that it is my craftsmanship or creativity on display. So I hope that issue is discussed as well.
    This year I cosplayed as Sailor Mars despite being much older and somewhat heavier than my teenage counterparts. The costume is skin-tight with a short skirt. It caused an enormous amount of anxiety because I didn’t fit that media stereotype of who “should” wear that sort of outfit. But I pressed forward because she was a strong, female character I loved ever since I was 10. It was a very powerful experience. I had been looking at my other Sailor Scout cosplayers who were not the cookie-cutter image of sexuality in a negative way. I had missed the point. The point was that they were showing their love for a character they identified with since childhood. Very few people identify themselves with a particular sailor scout simply because they are pretty or sexy. They choose Mercury because she is smart and shy. Or Neptune because she is charming and graceful. Or Uranus because she is a tomboy and proud. I chose Sailor Mars because she is firey and fearless. I am glad to be reminded of the importance of embracing something you love no matter how atypical you might look from the outside. I’m glad for all those women who ignored the stereotype and wore the Sailor Scout outfit because they loved the character. I am glad to now be part of their ranks.

  8. suzannescott says:

    As always, thoughtful and thought-provoking stuff, Mel. Thanks for linking! I think the fact that this conversation has to moved beyond those who attended the panel (and, I should note, some video of the panel is now available at http://www.geeknation.com/) speaks to the broader issues/concerns it sparked. I hope that once the “controversy” dies down, the conversations continue.

  9. […] reasons. Another reason is probably that geek cultures tend to think we’re beyond feminism, and Suzanne Scott claims that the panel devolved into a postfeminist panel, in which feminism was invoked and then discarded as no longer […]

  10. […] reasons. Another reason is probably that geek cultures tend to think we’re beyond feminism, and Suzanne Scott claims that the panel devolved into a postfeminist panel, in which feminism was invoked and then discarded as no longer […]

  11. […] rea­son is prob­a­bly that geek cul­tures tend to think we’re beyond fem­i­nism, and Suzanne Scott claims that the panel devolved into a post­fem­i­nist panel, in which fem­i­nism was invoked and then dis­carded […]

  12. […]  I have written about the “Princess Naked” and/or “Dr. Girlfriend” gendered Comic-Con stereotypes forwarded by the popular press on this blog in the past, but articles like this one are part of a […]

  13. […] blog about Comic-Con 2011′s “Sexy Geek” Panel. Suzanne Scott pointed it out when blogging about that incident before me as well as in her excellent dissertation Revenge of the Fanboy: Convergence Culture and the […]

  14. […] on the premise that women aren’t actually fans, but instead—as Suzanne Scott points out in the blog post that prompted me to look into this incident in the first place—”female attendees are constructed through and defined by their male cohort’s gaze and […]

  15. Thank you for the auspicious writeup. It in reality was once a amusement account it.
    Glance advanced to more delivered agreeable from you! By the way,
    how could we be in contact?

Leave a Reply