Feelin' Venomous.

Comics Should Be Good has another Urban Legends post up.

This one's got a particularly interesting one that involves Venom, who was originally conceived as a woman.

Hey, cool! I think to myself, because the whole Venom character's backstory involving a woman would have been pretty nifty. But then, there's a quote from David Michelinie about the idea, emphasis is mine:

"The cabbie doesn't see the husband and accidentally hits and kills the guy. The woman sees her husband splattered in front of her just as she goes into labor. She loses the child and her mind at the same time, and is institutionalized. Though she eventually gets her mind back, she blames Spider-Man for the death of her husband and her child."

Oh brother. See, this reeks of sexism to me. Even beyond the response that the audience wouldn't buy a woman as a serious threat. Which is idiotic anyway.

But even the premise is horrifically sexist. This isn't the first idea to use the loss of husband and/or children to cause a crazy female villainess (Scarlet Witch anyone?). In fact, I'd say it's one of the most common motivations around.

But when men lose their wives and children? Well, just look at Michael Holt, he's a freakin' *hero*! (He's not the only one either, I'm sure we can all name a few more). So what, when women lose their families they become irrational and crazy? But men find new purpose in their hunt for justice?!

What the hell is that? What? Is it that women care more about families than men do? That family is more intrinsic to a woman's life that she can't define herself without one? That a man's innate protective urge is so strong that when he loses the outlet it goes elsewhere, but a woman's tie to her family is more visceral than protective and she lashes out?!

Hell, the only woman I can think of to lose a husband/child and not go completely fucking nuts was Donna Troy. And well...that's a whole damn other kettle of fish.

Hmm, maybe I'm making too big of a deal with this though. It is just a first idea after all, and he probably wanted a vaguely sympathetic villain.

But as he said, after it was turned down, he came up with Eddie Brock. Eddie Brock is, of course the same concept in reverse, a widower who saw his wife and child killed and blames Spiderman and is gunning for him!

Wait? You mean...he's not?

He's a reporter who's big score got ruined by Spiderman? Who lost his job, got disowned by his father, divorced from his wife?

Heh, we take a concept where Venom is attracted to a human whose taken a serious devastating blow in life and irrationally blames Spiderman. For a woman, the devastating blow is personal, familial, she loses her husband and child. For a man, the blow is *professional*. Everything else he loses is in terms of said professional loss (and father and ex-wife are still alive, damnit).

Why can't the man lose his family? Why can't the woman experience the professional blow?! There should be nothing inherently gendered about either of these scenarios. But someone decided there was. And it's bullshit.

(Besides, how awesome would it be to have a Golden Age Lois Lane style ballbreaker lose everything in that professional capacity and go after Spiderman with all that icy fury? Without any of the innate sympathy that comes from being widowed or losing a child? Just cold, materialistic, control-freak rage? It'd be *fantastic*.)

Oh well, never was a Spider-fan anyway.