welcome to the fest

Can anyone explain this one to me, I'm kinda lost here. I just barely know what GIJoe is, maybe that's the problem. (I'm also not an English native speaker, if there is an intregate pun I'm not getting :-p)

I do get why the comic doesn't like trans people, since they hold up gender stereotypes which imprison women and men (though to my understanding obviously women a lot more in the US and the vast majority of the world). But shouldn't that mean that the comic should like gender non-conformative people, for breaking these society rules? For example the dude at the very right in the (oh sooo cliché) cooking gear. Shouldn't that be a positive role-model for fighting the notion of women who have to do the cooking?

Or is my sarcasm-meter just going off wrongly and these are really "real american hero[es]"?

Also, I know I'm not the primary target audience here, as a non-US gal. Thanks for indulging me

G.I.Joe was (kinda is) the ultimate male-fantasy made to flesh in most American way possible, with bulging biceps, guns, ninjas and all American-way fighting against the evil terrorists and/or evil corporations that were also evil terrorists in the end.

Though in actuality it had some most kick-ass female members who were actually sensibly clothed for most time (minority yes, but for its time it was actually quite revolutionary even), while the men were big piles of oiled muscle with good chunck (hunk?) of the males running around topless or at least with open shirts or just some leather straps covering their bod.

So yeah, 'cose it was male hero-fantasy with lot of action (and force, like Action Force or something...). And 'cose this comic at time jabs at things at random. Like the male-ally line when I believe the creator still kinda-sorta-male-ish? And probably sees themselves as an ally to radical feminist movement?

And in regards males wanting "play-pretend" to be female, I believe the reason behind that hatred was that such creatures only work to muddle the line between male and female and work to justify bad treatment towards women, 'cose it's not about gender-identity when even men can be women... It was a bit confused to be all honest, but I'm sure there'll be very angry comment explaining it further soon enough.

My impression from this comic is that he’s actually giving a thumbs up to Gender Non-conforming men, but...admittedly...it is a bit confusing which way he is going here. With any luck he’ll have a few more strips with these guys so it becomes clear whether the “real American hero” is a sincere gesture or tongue-in-cheek.

I recently heard of a non-gender Barbie coming out, possibly in time for Christmas. Maybe this story-arc is related?

For those who don't know, the Barbie doll is allegedly a 16-18 year old girl which a super thin waist and extra large boobs, painted in place eyes, and different hair styles, coming out in 1959 as both a blonde and a brunette. Her basic doll set used to come in a bathing suit with a wedding gown as her actual outfit (nothing useful for day to day stuff). It was based originally on a German doll that was invented as a sexy doll (Lilli, a high-end call girl originally introduced in a comic in the Hamburg [i]Bild-Zeitung[/i] newspaper and sold to adults as the Bild-Lilli doll -- they were not toys for little girls and often ended up as gag gifts for guys or bachelor party gifts). Its measurements at about 11.5" tall were unbelievably unreal when attempting to make the doll life size. Originally the Barbie doll was a fashion doll for little girls that you had to buy extra clothes for (and that added up), some girls in the 1950's, '60's and '70's (and maybe later) would just sew their own clothes for her because of the expense. Over time she ended up with a boyfriend named Ken, a little sister named Skipper (who was smaller in size and had no curves to indicate sexiness), a friend named Midge (also sexy curves), and some other friend dolls the names of which I can't remember. The Ken doll, by the way, was not as built and hunky as the GI-Joe doll. They could make him out to be some popular kid in school sort of thing, maybe football player, but honestly, GI-Joe would have wiped the field with him. Over time, the feminist movement must have put in some pushing so that Barbie became whatever little girls wanted to be (astronauts, scientists, high tech computer wizard programmers, you name it, not just the usual pretty face thing like beauty queen and nurse/teacher/fashion model), complete with extra sets of clothing and accessories to buy for the liberated Barbie. Barbie's fantasy curves in 2016 to different sizes because of its impossible ratios (the curvy Barbie is considered "fat"). Also, she started out as white only, but after a while, a black-skinned Barbie came out, and there is an Hispanic Barbie as well. I think other ethnicities have also been covered by the Barbie line of dolls. If you're interested, you can go here: https://time.com/3731483/barbie-history/ to get that German doll influence history as most other histories of the Barbie doll do not include that bit of information. Wikipedia and Mattel's (toy company) website have official histories of the Barbie doll that don't include her German adult doll influence.

I'm interested to see where the comic master takes this story-arc. I used to watch the GI-Joe cartoons on Saturday mornings, even though they were really just designed to sell the toys. Sometimes they had fun story lines.

Just an odd reflection but I consider Cobra Commander a bit more gender non-conforming. Whoever is under the mask can be whatever gender you want them to be but doesn't need to change costume to represent that. Even though I know the commander is identified as a male and has that physique, you never really know.

I definitely think this cartoon is specifically aimed at the new gender neutral Barbie. If you have seen any of the ads for this new Barbie - it has a changeable wig that will let the Barbie have long or short hair and also a variety of clothes - just do an image search and you will see. None of these gender neutral Barbies have the classic 'boobs' of the old style Barb and it is very obvious they are marketing to the gender fluid child stereotype.

What I like about Tat's depiction is what is evident in the whole problem of the culture deciding our gender roles - if you are 'feminine' (female, woman) then you will wear heels, apron, pearls... you will cook, you will knit, you will clean and you will look sexy. There are no other ways for a woman to be. Also, this comic stresses the whole one extreme or the other nature of how the culture wants to look at gender non-conformity.

I am not too sure what I feel about the Barbie thing. Quite frankly, in my opinion all the options end up looking too sanitized. There are no depictions that look particularly rugged. Of course it is after all Barbie - the fashion doll - so it is keeping with its own brand I guess.

I am really hoping the gender non-conforming commercial interest is just a fad - which like all fads will have its peak and then fade away. Then people can just do what they like without the crappy 'uncanny valley' lens of the advertising world.

I agree with rikkitikkitavi, the strip pretty much just goes to show how inane that commodified gender non-conformity really is when it comes to actually helping society to accept and welcome gender non-conforming people. It's truly just a new way to "other" women and men who don't fit the traditional gender stereotypes. While pretending that's not what they're doing, but it's not that clever y'know.

This comic is so all over the place, one day its current Tat and the next day he seamlessly incorporates a strip that could have originated in 2013.





...



also, after seeing todays sunday strip, maybe other people might find this as funny as I did. Just happened to be in the neighborhood.

Thanks a lot, you all. Your thoughts really helped me here. I think it's making a lot of sense that it doesn't help society anything, if you're putting on womens clothes just to be "in", as it's no help to shoot lipstick-shells.

I was also not aware of that GIJoe is such a big doll/actionfigure merch thing, so I didn't make the connection to the new barbie at all. On the thoughts of that, it's surely a step of Martel to come with such a non-heteronormative doll, but it's not that new at all. When I was young (close to 30 years ago) I had a clown as a doll. So much clown makeup, you couldn't assign a gender at all. I liked it a lot :-p

The way I understand it, it's definetly 1) men wearing high heels and lipstick only goes so far as a political act (not terribly far, though they certainly should be able to wear it without judgement or being attacked) and 2) its an active distraction tactic, when a man changes his asthetic to appear less threatening, but he is still doing the same old macho behaviour and even violence. Also it's making me think of how militaries across the world exclude LGBT minorities, but their inclusion isn't the ultimate political win either, because ultimately the military - diverse or not - is part of the establishment and of a world that deals in violence and oppression. To me this strip is on the pseudo-empowerment that is sold to various minorities and oppressed groups, but really doesn't go very far. If it pays the bills - like employment in military does - good, but not good enough ultimately. If we can, let's shoot for more than rainbow coloring and bare subsitence.

Ruby wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 29, 2019 2:52 pm

This comic is so all over the place, one day its current Tat and the next day he seamlessly incorporates a strip that could have originated in 2013.





...



also, after seeing todays sunday strip, maybe other people might find this as funny as I did. Just happened to be in the neighborhood.

I believe you've missed the point. The Gender Non-conforming G.I. Joe strip is not mocking gender non-conforming people. It's mocking the hijacking of that agenda by massive corporations in order to sell products without actually changing anything in culture os society. It's just virtual signaling for profits, it's empty of ideology or culture-changing intent.

Z6IIAB wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 04, 2019 8:39 pm

Ruby wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 29, 2019 2:52 pm

This comic is so all over the place, one day its current Tat and the next day he seamlessly incorporates a strip that could have originated in 2013.





...



also, after seeing todays sunday strip, maybe other people might find this as funny as I did. Just happened to be in the neighborhood.

I believe you've missed the point. The Gender Non-conforming G.I. Joe strip is not mocking gender non-conforming people. It's mocking the hijacking of that agenda by massive corporations in order to sell products without actually changing anything in culture os society. It's just virtual signaling for profits, it's empty of ideology or culture-changing intent.

Bingo! The Big Corporations: "We really don't care about your agenda or what you identify as. We just know your money is just as good." So corporations tailor their products to the new niche audience and suddenly everyone thinks they are 'woke' and it's a big win for the community.

There's a skit where John Goodman plays the KFC Colonel saying he loves Gays vs. Chick Fil A. But says when no one is looking "I don't give a damn. You're just a bunch of money mouths taking and eating." (paraphrasing) That pretty much sums it up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSBFTKI-zIM Here's the link to the skit.