PDA

View Full Version : Sexy vs Sexist: Where do you draw the line?



mathew101281
05-29-2014, 04:48 PM
Often when issues of sexism in geek culture come up I here someone say "I don't have a problem with sexuality in (what ever medium or genre they are talking about) but..." . This brings up the issue of of where the line of demarcation between sexy and sexist is. What are your views on the difference?

Dispenser Of Truth
05-29-2014, 05:23 PM
Honesty. I could care less about porn or some artist doing a cheesecake book, but something like Starfire's revamp or the Power Girl boob window or Ed Benes' entire career where creators have to brush it off or craft some bullshit about how it makes total sense in the comic itself--as if that removes the actual reasons for skimpy costumes--annoys me. You want to sexualize cartoon characters, fine, that's your thing, but don't do it in the actual books to the point where something is being done clearly for the sake of that and that alone.

afrocarter
05-29-2014, 06:23 PM
I always approach this question via the story: if a female superhero, for instance, is suiting up to fight/investigate crime, is she more likely to pick out something that's sexy and shows off her curves? Or will she pick out something that is functional and protective? Sometimes the answer is the former, but I would argue that in most cases it usually won't make any sense for the heroine to have her breasts bursting out of a ridiculously low-cut top. If there's no logic to it, chances are it's exploitative.

ed2962
05-29-2014, 06:26 PM
While I'm pretty sure I know what you're asking, I think the title kinda confuses a couple of different concepts. I mean, Sexism is more about gender relations/politics while "sexy" is more, uh...what turns a person on?

It's possible to produce hardcore pornography that's not sexist. It's definitely possible to be sexist or express sexism without appealing to purient interests. Sure, there's overlap and discussing one often leads to discussing the other, but anyway...

If the question is where do you draw the line between sexy and exploitative or demeaning, I think for me it has a lot to do with the content and the execution, then the intent and the platform. I think it's valid to explore say sexual dysfunction using the comics medium, but it that really you want to see in Justice League? It's valid to do a straight up raunch fest, but why put that in Spider Man?

t hedge coke
05-29-2014, 06:42 PM
I wish I could find Donald Rooum's Wildcat strip about the difference between the two, but the upshot is, they're not the same thing. No amount of being sexy can make something sexist, but something can be sexist without being sexy at all, to anyone. Objectification, either physical or in characterization, gender essentialism, that's sexist. How women or men are portrayed irrationally or for the sake of pandering in relation to how the opposite sex are portrayed, that can easily be sexist. But, sexy is something else, even if they may often go hand in hand with an artist or writer who's got personal hang ups (especially unexamined personal hang ups).

Thongs aren't sexist. All the women in your comic wearing thongs while the men where full-legged outfits, jutting their chest out in unnatural an uncomfortable poses that you defend as "helping with her martial arts," in situations that the rest of the sane world realizes are impractical and unreasonable, that's sexist. Unless, y'know, satire. And, even then, your mileage may, as they say, vary.

ExcelsiorPrime
05-29-2014, 07:03 PM
Not being a woman...for me it comes down to story first. Is the character doing something in the comic beyond being a sexual object to ogle?

Sue DeConnick said something about a sexy lamp...which is perfect. If the character can be replaced by a sexy lamp and the story not suffer...there is a problem.

I think that is a fair litmus test.

CSTowle
05-29-2014, 07:06 PM
Since I started reading comics when as a small child (X-Men comics, with Psylocke's ninja-thong outfit) I pretty much don't notice "sexy" outfits on female superheroes anymore. It's sort of expected. I do notice things like the Black Widow butt-jut in the Avengers group shot, and that does take me out of the comic. And while I grew up during the "bad girl" trend in comics I learned pretty quickly that comics with women writhing around on the cover like a porn star tended to have bad stories inside. I've been assured Zenescope's line of comics have some quality books, but when I see covers like this:

NSFW link (http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/scale_large/11/110802/2328190-gft_presents_alice_in_wonderland_4d.jpg)

I won't even grab for it to see what's inside. And I'd imagine more than a few women see that and walk out of the shop altogether (not to mention parents with young children). As someone said earlier, if it serves the story I'm fine with "sexy". It's just that most of the time (at least in the superhero comics I read) it doesn't.

Edit: For clarity, since the previous editor didn't bother, the NSFW link is to a typical Zenescope cover with no nudity (though barely, as with most of their covers).

Paradox
05-29-2014, 09:00 PM
There are no "lines of demarcation". It doesn't work that way (almost nothing outside of hard sciences do). There's lots of factors to take into account, including but not limited to venue, intended audience and intent of the artist.

ExcelsiorPrime
05-29-2014, 09:15 PM
There are no "lines of demarcation". It doesn't work that way (almost nothing outside of hard sciences do). There's lots of factors to take into account, including but not limited to venue, intended audience and intent of the artist.

Exactly. Some women love artwork featuring what some would call sexist art-- its all about content and context.

Marvel_Is
05-29-2014, 11:01 PM
Is there really a difference between the two? Some people find some things deemed sexist as sexy.

Paradox
05-29-2014, 11:03 PM
Yes, in fact, they're nothing at all alike or connected.

Unless you're Nigel Tufnel.

Alan2099
05-29-2014, 11:33 PM
I'm fine with the existence of books like Lady Death, Tarot, Witchblade, Vampirella, and all those other books about women running around and posing in under sized underwear. Sometimes they're even enjoyable. If that's your thing, more power to ya'.

But I'd just prefer it if they kept that kinda stuff out of books like Avengers, Teen Titans, or Wonder Woman. Let's keep the mainstream books suitable for a mainstream audience and let the characters that actually have some dignity keep it.

t hedge coke
05-30-2014, 02:02 AM
Is there really a difference between the two? Some people find some things deemed sexist as sexy.

They have some crossover, but so does sexism and, say, money. But sexism isn't money, and it will never transition into money. Likewise, sexism doesn't transition, at any point, into sexy, and sexy doesn't transition into sexy. Some things can simply by about sex and sexist, and some things can be about (or portray) money and be sexist.

MikeP
05-30-2014, 10:01 AM
"I can't define it, but I know it when I see it"

ScottSummers
05-30-2014, 10:16 AM
Often when issues of sexism in geek culture come up I here someone say "I don't have a problem with sexuality in (what ever medium or genre they are talking about) but..." . This brings up the issue of of where the line of demarcation between sexy and sexist is. What are your views on the difference?
There's no clear line to analyze. I wouldn't overthink it. There was a judge who famously quipped about porn versus art saying "you know it when you see it".

ScottSummers
05-30-2014, 10:17 AM
"I can't define it, but I know it when I see it"
Ha! I didn't even see your post but immediately thought of the same quote viewing the thread.

Lady Warp Spasm
05-30-2014, 10:22 AM
If it works for the character and story, that's sexy.

If it's purposely gratuitous it could cross the line depending on the intent of the creators.

It's difficult for me to measure given my love of trashy (mostly) Italian Eurocult films from the 1960s and 1970s (which could be seen as both and misogynistic at times too.) I don't read many comics to begin with so...

Ghostwise
05-30-2014, 12:51 PM
Often when issues of sexism in geek culture come up I here someone say "I don't have a problem with sexuality in (what ever medium or genre they are talking about) but..."

That people fill the need to point out that they're not prude before expressing unhappiness about exploitative crap makes me a sad kitty.

Lax
05-30-2014, 12:58 PM
Often when issues of sexism in geek culture come up I here someone say "I don't have a problem with sexuality in (what ever medium or genre they are talking about) but..." . This brings up the issue of of where the line of demarcation between sexy and sexist is. What are your views on the difference?

Being art and all, I take it by a case by case basis.

ed2962
05-30-2014, 05:31 PM
That people fill the need to point out that they're not prude before expressing unhappiness about exploitative crap makes me a sad kitty.

That's cuz the first thing defenders of said material will say...that you're some sort of uptight kill joy trying to squash everyone's fun.

Next of course is that you're a PC tyrant forcing your views down everyone's throat.

TroubleWithTrebles
05-30-2014, 07:09 PM
Long answer for deciding sexy versus sexist:

Take the sold hardcopy units and divide that by the proportion of women in the readership of the comic featuring the image multiplied by the non returnable hardcopy sales divided by 15% of the total # of negative fb rants and bitchy tweets leveled against the image.

This is then again adjusted by the cultural cachet of the people responsible for the image; are they Anne Heche who traded unfairly on her Ellen Thing, are they people who have done Richard Corben style material, or are they P Craig Russell types depicting anthropologically accurate [raunchy] mostly nude depictions of Boudicca "topping" male members of her pre christian celtic harem of men beholden to serve her with both sword and "sword".

Tonamelt
05-30-2014, 07:51 PM
Here, let me draw the line for you...

Sexy:

3037

Sexist:

3038


Something or someone is sexy when he/she/it has the potential to physically attract others, or to cause certain arousal.

Something or someone is sexist when his/her/its main objective is to offend someone directly because of his/her gender.

TroubleWithTrebles
05-30-2014, 08:11 PM
You think Frazetta and Benny Hill and Kamen set out specifically to offend someone/anyone?

mathew101281
05-30-2014, 10:49 PM
Honesty. I could care less about porn or some artist doing a cheesecake book, but something like Starfire's revamp or the Power Girl boob window or Ed Benes' entire career where creators have to brush it off or craft some bullshit about how it makes total sense in the comic itself--as if that removes the actual reasons for skimpy costumes--annoys me. You want to sexualize cartoon characters, fine, that's your thing, but don't do it in the actual books to the point where something is being done clearly for the sake of that and that alone.

I guess that what I'm asking isn't so much a sexism vs sexy dividing line, but rather oversexualization vs adequately sexy or asexual. For example many people got upset when Miss Marvel(captain Marvel) got her new costume and when Powergirl got her new costume post flashpoint. Some people even lumped these two characters together, holding them up as Political correctness gone amuck. But to me those two situations are completely different. Miss Marvel was never meant to be as sexualized as she became over time.
https://encrypted-tbn1.************/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTGfbYU1wtJ_TDw9yAPzQXs3VG3snmJ6 EmQiqrYmx1Wsft555pf

Plus her oversexualization never made sense with the characters backstory and general disposition. Powergirl on the other hand was completely different. From the very beginning she was an abrasive in your face character and they gave her an in your face costume to match.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-K_AL5H-hXAw/U2p_fnbw2JI/AAAAAAAAaC0/aGTZaykHBh4/s1600/Power+Girl+All+Star+Comics+58.jpg
In the case of this character their was actually an attempt to desexualize from the original version.

Then you have characters like Phantom Lady whose whole purpose for existing was sexualization.
http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090709205357/marvel_dc/images/1/19/Phantom_Lady_(Fox)_Vol_1_17.jpg

ed2962
05-31-2014, 06:49 AM
I guess that what I'm asking isn't so much a sexism vs sexy dividing line, but rather oversexualization vs adequately sexy or asexual. For example many people got upset when Miss Marvel(captain Marvel) got her new costume and when Powergirl got her new costume post flashpoint. Some people even lumped these two characters together, holding them up as Political correctness gone amuck. But to me those two situations are completely different. Miss Marvel was never meant to be as sexualized as she became over time.
https://encrypted-tbn1.************/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTGfbYU1wtJ_TDw9yAPzQXs3VG3snmJ6 EmQiqrYmx1Wsft555pf

Plus her oversexualization never made sense with the characters backstory and general disposition. Powergirl on the other hand was completely different. From the very beginning she was an abrasive in your face character and they gave her an in your face costume to match.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-K_AL5H-hXAw/U2p_fnbw2JI/AAAAAAAAaC0/aGTZaykHBh4/s1600/Power+Girl+All+Star+Comics+58.jpg
In the case of this character their was actually an attempt to desexualize from the original version.

Then you have characters like Phantom Lady whose whole purpose for existing was sexualization.
http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090709205357/marvel_dc/images/1/19/Phantom_Lady_(Fox)_Vol_1_17.jpg



With the first two examples you give, it's interesting because those images come from a time when most superhero comics were still under the comics code authority. The women were drawn sexy but still kind of modest. Dave Cockrum's version of Carol's black suit was still kept in the bonds of "good taste" and miles apart from some of the depictions that Mike Deodato did with the exact same suit. The Power Girl panel by Wally Wood is almost quaint in how tame it is compared to some drawings of modern PG. No doubt about it, Phantom Lady was created to be cheesecake, but at least the artist has a reasonable grasp of anatomy. You're not looking at it and going, "Breasts don't work that way."


I'll admit, I've used some version of "I'm not anti-sex, but..." Usually it's when I thought something was explicit but in the wrong format. Or when the pandering was so obvious that it took me out of the story. Or sometimes when I just thought the cheesecake was just really poorly done. For some reason a lot of bad art gets a passed just cuz it's supposedly "sexy".

I'll just throw out there, it's not always about the skimpy costumes though. You have characters like Catwoman and Black Widow whose suits are supposed to cover their whole bodies but some artists insist on drawing them with their zippers open past their navels.

CliffHanger2
05-31-2014, 07:46 AM
Here, let me draw the line for you...

Sexy:

3037

Sexist:

3038


Something or someone is sexy when he/she/it has the potential to physically attract others, or to cause certain arousal.

Something or someone is sexist when his/her/its main objective is to offend someone directly because of his/her gender.

I'd say this was a very good example even though people would probably be more offended by the first picture. Because it's more sexual.

DS1
06-01-2014, 08:44 AM
As far as I'm concerned, sexy designs, even over-the-top and impractical ones, are not inherently sexist. The problem is that to many people, such designs inherently make the female characters inferior in their eyes. Even people who supposedly believe in gender equality can't stop acting as if sexualized female designs make them look weak, and are distracting.

What matters most is how the female characters are treated. If they're treated like crap, and are portrayed as utterly helpless damsels in distress, and dumb bimbos, then it doesn't matter if the women are fully dressed or not. Women in most of the middle east are one example of that. They're covered from head to toe. Do they seem liberated and respected to anyone here? Sometimes I wonder if the aversion to sexualized designs isn't in itself a form a sexism, albeit an unintentional kind.

It may just be me, but when I see a nearly, or completely naked woman, I don't think "piece of meat". I can take them seriously as characters, and quite frankly, it annoys me to see the less attractive, and often more boringly dressed male characters treated as a bigger deal. When I see a beautiful gal, I want her to also have a great personality, and brains. I want her to be able to take care of herself, and kick ass. So what I'm saying, a woman's sexiness does not automathically equate inferiority to men, to me, like it apparently does many people.

I really wouldn't mind men being sexualized more. That wouldn't necessarily mean the Punisher walking around in only a skull speedo, but more sexualized pictures of him when he's not on duty, like taking a shower and such. And since I do believe in gender equality, I'm okay with women wearing more practical and/or less revealing outfits, so long as they don't desperatly try to make them respectable to prudes and misogynist losers by avoiding even slightly sexualized panels like the plague. Those people will never respect women anyway, so screw them.

So again, and to conclude, the problem isn't sexy designs. The problem is degrading portrayals. Am I really supposed to believe that a woman who can single handly defeat an army does not count as a tough one if she is practically nude? That to me reeks of a rather infantile view of sexuality. Sure, it might not be realistic, but then again, Batman and unrealistic feats of strenght tend to go hand in hand, and he is more "respectably" dressed. "Unrealistic", like sexiness, does not automathically equate "degrading".

Kencana
06-01-2014, 12:16 PM
Tbh, every explanation used to justify why female superheroes wear sexy clothing is just sad. Just admit that you think sexy scantily women are hot. EVERYONE think that. Using excuse like "it's iconic", "she's a strong independent woman" seems ridiculous. They are fictional character. The creator made a conscious decision to put her in sexy outfit to attract male reader. And it sells.

Take Emma Frost for example. I love Emma Frost. She's one of my favorite character. I never think, "She wear that outfit cause she's so liberated". I think, "The creator made her wear that outift cause she's hot."

So is sexy scantily woman sexist? Idk. They are there to attract male reader. It's depend how they're treated in canon.

Alan2099
06-01-2014, 01:03 PM
I really wouldn't mind men being sexualized more. That wouldn't necessarily mean the Punisher walking around in only a skull speedo, but more sexualized pictures of him when he's not on duty, like taking a shower and such. And since I do believe in gender equality, I'm okay with women wearing more practical and/or less revealing outfits, so long as they don't desperatly try to make them respectable to prudes and misogynist losers by avoiding even slightly sexualized panels like the plague. Those people will never respect women anyway, so screw them.
Namor needs a series again, and they need to stop trying to put him in pants and just let him run around in his chainmail bikini briefs.

ed2962
06-01-2014, 04:30 PM
Tbh, every explanation used to justify why female superheroes wear sexy clothing is just sad. Just admit that you think sexy scantily women are hot. EVERYONE think that. Using excuse like "it's iconic", "she's a strong independent woman" seems ridiculous. They are fictional character. The creator made a conscious decision to put her in sexy outfit to attract male reader. And it sells.

Take Emma Frost for example. I love Emma Frost. She's one of my favorite character. I never think, "She wear that outfit cause she's so liberated". I think, "The creator made her wear that outift cause she's hot."

So is sexy scantily woman sexist? Idk. They are there to attract male reader. It's depend how they're treated in canon.



Emma Frost is probably a special case. When she was introduced she was a bad guy and the whole point was that the Hellfire Club was a secret group that was into some kinky stuff. Maybe someone's got a scan, but there's a Claremont/Bolton (?) page where she basically tell another woman, "We dress this way to use sex as a weapon." My comic book reading in the 90's was kinda sporatic, but I think they toned her down when she became a good guy in Gen X. I'd say it's since the 2000's that they kicked it back up.


Having said that, I think John Cassady's redesign is probably the best one she's had over the last maybe fifteen years. It's sexy, yet reasonable. And it works the way clothes work.

TroubleWithTrebles
06-02-2014, 03:14 AM
Bill Black's indie portfolio publication in the manilla folder packaging back in the early 1980s was sexist while aiming for sexy.

The sex scenes in Elfquest by Pini from the late 70s to 1983 involved sex, but were romantic and sexy, not exploitation.

Paradox
06-02-2014, 03:25 AM
The only reason Emma dressed that way at the beginning was that Claremont was knocking off the Hellfire Club from the British TV series, the Avengers. There was no "real" reason, other than ones someone later pulled out of their ass.

http://i.imgbox.com/apFZc34m.jpg

EDIT: Darnit, the pic wasn't showing up. Fixed.

Kencana
06-02-2014, 04:01 AM
Don't get me wrong. There's nothing wrong with enjoying 'sexy' picture. I'm a woman myself and like 'sexy' superheroine art as long as it's anatomically correct. If I'm said it's sexist, it's like saying "This product is not made to appeal me. Unforgivable!" But when people suddenly 'defend' sexualized superheroine, I'm a bit confused. Isn't it obvious it's to attract reader? The creator put them in that situation.

I like DC Bombshells. They are pretty. When I went to Kinokuniya months ago, I spent minutes staring at DC Bombshells figure. Even there's a woman that cosplay DC Bombshell Harley Quinn.

The funny thing is... this is DC Bombshells art for Starfire :

3201

This is her regular clothing:

http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130131055242/marvel_dc/images/d/d3/Starfire_007.jpg

*dying of laughter cause DC Bombhells Starfire is actually more clothed than the current comic book Starfire* :cool:

TroubleWithTrebles
06-02-2014, 06:39 PM
Fastner and Larson
Hildebrandt Bros
Pander Bros
Paul Smith
Gene Colan:

sexy

Chaos Comics
Image before 2006
Bisley (despite my love of his painting technique):

Sexist

Tonamelt
06-02-2014, 10:11 PM
Don't get me wrong. There's nothing wrong with enjoying 'sexy' picture. I'm a woman myself and like 'sexy' superheroine art as long as it's anatomically correct. If I'm said it's sexist, it's like saying "This product is not made to appeal me. Unforgivable!" But when people suddenly 'defend' sexualized superheroine, I'm a bit confused. Isn't it obvious it's to attract reader? The creator put them in that situation.

You are totally right, characters are what creators (or the editorial) want them to be.

But in the case of Emma Frost, she started being a villain and it was pretty clear from the beginning that oversexualization was part of her personality, the same way as many real life women prefer sexy clothes than conservative ones.

3274

3273

Making a conservative Emma just for the sake of political correctness would feel out of character.

t hedge coke
06-02-2014, 11:04 PM
Emma's den mother period from Gen X amuses me, because her style of clothes really took a turn. First, she was wrapped tight in layers, then eventually, swimming in big shapeless things.

This wasn't done to be "PC" of course, or to appease some imaginary audience out there who'd rage against another superheroine fighting in her panties, but because, well, she was a reliable and caring teacher, motherly and all and that, consciously or subconsciously, facilitated a style change.

Tonamelt
06-02-2014, 11:34 PM
Emma's den mother period from Gen X amuses me, because her style of clothes really took a turn. First, she was wrapped tight in layers, then eventually, swimming in big shapeless things.

This wasn't done to be "PC" of course, or to appease some imaginary audience out there who'd rage against another superheroine fighting in her panties, but because, well, she was a reliable and caring teacher, motherly and all and that, consciously or subconsciously, facilitated a style change.

Well, let's be honest... She was out of character.

ed2962
06-03-2014, 03:50 AM
You are totally right, characters are what creators (or the editorial) want them to be.

But in the case of Emma Frost, she started being a villain and it was pretty clear from the beginning that oversexualization was part of her personality, the same way as many real life women prefer sexy clothes than conservative ones.

3274

3273

Making a conservative Emma just for the sake of political correctness would feel out of character.


This was the speech I was thinking of from before.

Once she's no longer part of the Hellfire Club though, it makes sense that she'd tone it down a notch. She wouldn't have be wearing a burka. Heck, she could still be a little flamboyant, just without the bondage wear. I get that they were trying to contrast her "bad girl" with Jean's "girl next door" but the Quietly design, I personally felt was awful.

Ghostwise
06-03-2014, 09:34 AM
Well, let's be honest... She was out of character.

Characters evolve. This was a pretty clear case of such, and her crushing guilt over the death of the Hellions has been an important part of her characterisation for many years now.

People Of The Earth
06-03-2014, 11:39 AM
Tbh, every explanation used to justify why female superheroes wear sexy clothing is just sad. Just admit that you think sexy scantily women are hot. EVERYONE think that. Using excuse like "it's iconic", "she's a strong independent woman" seems ridiculous. They are fictional character. The creator made a conscious decision to put her in sexy outfit to attract male reader. And it sells.

Take Emma Frost for example. I love Emma Frost. She's one of my favorite character. I never think, "She wear that outfit cause she's so liberated". I think, "The creator made her wear that outift cause she's hot."

So is sexy scantily woman sexist? Idk. They are there to attract male reader. It's depend how they're treated in canon.

Clearly.

Personally, I can't help but notice everytime I see an outfit clearly designed more for eye-catching the male audience than for being practical to the heroin, how difficult it would be to rock the costume itself while superheroing around.
Ms. Marvel or Psylocke used to be quite a challenge in that regard, so many impossibilities that the artist made possible with them and their costumes...

Ugh.

Alan2099
06-03-2014, 11:52 AM
Well, let's be honest... She was out of character.

Actually I feel she had more character development in her Generation X issues than she's gotten sense. She's actually became less deep and mature of a character.

Back then she was having to face being in a coma for a long time, her students all dying, trying to be a more positive role model, and the fact that she was getting older. She didn't always handle it well, and sometime she'd do the wrong thing, but you could see the growth.

... then she joined the X-men and all that got ignored.

... and she got at least ten years younger.

t hedge coke
06-03-2014, 11:56 AM
Character growth is fine. Conflating maturity with mumus and compassion or good teaching with a progressively spacy den mother caricaturing is... awkward.

And, she was a pretty good teacher, all told, in Morrison's NXM. Heck, arguably, she's not any worse a teacher overall than any other x-teacher, particularly Mr Dodgy, Professor X.

Tonamelt
06-03-2014, 02:05 PM
Emma Frost's supposed growth was just a phase, just like the X-Men using leather jackets instead of spandex...

Today's Emma is still oversexualized and she enjoys sending unprepared and weak students to dangerous missions (Uncanny X-Men vol. 3 #14).

And you know what? No big deal, because unlike DC, Marvel has balance, yes there is an Emma Frost, but there is also a Kitty Pryde.

3304

TroubleWithTrebles
06-03-2014, 04:29 PM
Don't get me wrong. There's nothing wrong with enjoying 'sexy' picture. I'm a woman myself and like 'sexy' superheroine art as long as it's anatomically correct.

I assume that you are therefore comfy with The Bakshi Babe and The Frazetta Woman, since both tropes are very much an organic goddess style life drawing model image. Yes/no?

Mark
06-04-2014, 01:45 PM
How the costume is cut is a big part of the problem.
3360



I guess that what I'm asking isn't so much a sexism vs sexy dividing line, but rather oversexualization vs adequately sexy or asexual. For example many people got upset when Miss Marvel(captain Marvel) got her new costume and when Powergirl got her new costume post flashpoint. Some people even lumped these two characters together, holding them up as Political correctness gone amuck. But to me those two situations are completely different. Miss Marvel was never meant to be as sexualized as she became over time.
https://encrypted-tbn1.************/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTGfbYU1wtJ_TDw9yAPzQXs3VG3snmJ6 EmQiqrYmx1Wsft555pf

Plus her oversexualization never made sense with the characters backstory and general disposition. Powergirl on the other hand was completely different. From the very beginning she was an abrasive in your face character and they gave her an in your face costume to match.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-K_AL5H-hXAw/U2p_fnbw2JI/AAAAAAAAaC0/aGTZaykHBh4/s1600/Power+Girl+All+Star+Comics+58.jpg
In the case of this character their was actually an attempt to desexualize from the original version.

Then you have characters like Phantom Lady whose whole purpose for existing was sexualization.
http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090709205357/marvel_dc/images/1/19/Phantom_Lady_(Fox)_Vol_1_17.jpg

Michael P
06-04-2014, 01:57 PM
How the costume is cut is a big part of the problem.
3360

As is the composition of the image. There are a lot of angles from which to depict Wonder Woman being arrested; why go with the one that gives you an ass shot?

TroubleWithTrebles
06-04-2014, 02:26 PM
Because it is a call back to Gorgeous Ladies of Wrestling/"G.L.O.W."?

PwrdOn
06-04-2014, 02:47 PM
The only reason Emma dressed that way at the beginning was that Claremont was knocking off the Hellfire Club from the British TV series, the Avengers. There was no "real" reason, other than ones someone later pulled out of their ass.

http://i.imgbox.com/apFZc34m.jpg

EDIT: Darnit, the pic wasn't showing up. Fixed.

Yeah but that picture doesn't really excuse Emma's costume because, well, it's Jean Grey. Emma's costume is quite a bit different and in any event, Jean only wore that outfit as part of the story and didn't continue to sport it up until the present day. The contrast between the two women is fairly striking, Jean has had plenty of outfits that could be construed as sexy but they were never as vulgar or explicit as Emma's wardrobe, and this ties in to how the characters are treated in-universe - Emma is routinely mocked and abused by her compatriots while Jean is handled with almost religious deference.

Frankly, Emma's talk about her style of dress being empowering is too absurd to be credible. Jean does a much better job of toeing the line between sexuality and respectability, projecting an image that is both youthful and feminine without demeaning herself in the process.

TroubleWithTrebles
06-04-2014, 02:52 PM
Both shots look like the crap-ass coffe table book by Madonna from 20 odd years ago .

Mark
06-04-2014, 03:13 PM
As is the composition of the image. There are a lot of angles from which to depict Wonder Woman being arrested; why go with the one that gives you an ass shot?

Sometimes just any angle is a problem. Basically though the less of the costume there is the less sexy it becomes and the more exploitative.
Original costume
3363
2000's version
3364
unless you have a costume that doesn't change and was designed with the character.
3365

Paradox
06-05-2014, 07:17 AM
PwrdOn wanders about:

Yeah but that picture doesn't really excuse Emma's costume because, well, it's Jean Grey.

It's the Hellfire Club outfit. It's not "excusing" anything.


Emma's costume is quite a bit different...

The only significant difference was the color. Emma's was in white.

The rest I wasn't even addressing. That's where Emma's original outfit came from. That's why she dressed that way. It was more or less a uniform. Any "reason" for her "dressing sexy" is tacked on later.

harashkupo
06-05-2014, 09:39 AM
I know this is somewhat off topic but does anime get this type of scrutiny? In my experience I've met more female fans than male who enjoy anime and many shows push the line, for example going out there way to give out of proportion breast size to the majority and making sure they bounce often. Does that seem just as or more sexist than broken back poses or is there an unspoken understanding that this kind of thing is par for the course? Lately I've felt that what passes for one medium doesn't fly for comics and I just wondered what the disconnect may be.

Sorry if this derails the discussion.

Beaux
06-05-2014, 11:14 AM
Yeah, discussions like these are still pretty common in the anime fandom, at least on the forums I frequent. And as we also have here, there isn't really a single good answer.

As for the topic at hand, I am far from an expert on the subject. My experience in the few times I have gone to comic shops (given that I don't have a local comic shop) is that regardless of whether or not the individual costumes are pushing good taste, the sheer amount of comics on the walls featuring sexy outfits is disproportionate to the frequency of such outfits in real life. Obviously, we don't have superheroes in real life so I don't know what the actual trends in costumes would be, but I figure that it would still be pretty in line with people's general fashion sense and mixed with whatever is practical for their powers. Going by this logic, I would expect a lot more variation as well as some more casual outfits for the less bombastic heroes, especially psychics who don't need as much physical properties in their costumes. That said, I think a lot of this is just that it's the way things are conventionally done rather than anything intentional, but that could be said for most sexism nowadays.

CliffHanger2
06-05-2014, 12:11 PM
I know this is somewhat off topic but does anime get this type of scrutiny? In my experience I've met more female fans than male who enjoy anime and many shows push the line, for example going out there way to give out of proportion breast size to the majority and making sure they bounce often. Does that seem just as or more sexist than broken back poses or is there an unspoken understanding that this kind of thing is par for the course? Lately I've felt that what passes for one medium doesn't fly for comics and I just wondered what the disconnect may be.

Sorry if this derails the discussion.

I also wonder about European or independent comics. Why the focus is usually on superhero comics is baffling to a certain degree, considering there are a lot of international posters here.

TroubleWithTrebles
06-05-2014, 02:23 PM
I also wonder about European or independent comics. Why the focus is usually on superhero comics is baffling to a certain degree, considering there are a lot of international posters here.

codeword: Barbarella (originally an Italian comic)

Mark
06-05-2014, 02:53 PM
codeword: Barbarella (originally an Italian comic)

Or the Blonde. But really I don't have any European comics in my collection so I can't really say.

Lucette
06-05-2014, 03:36 PM
I always approach this question via the story: if a female superhero, for instance, is suiting up to fight/investigate crime, is she more likely to pick out something that's sexy and shows off her curves? Or will she pick out something that is functional and protective? Sometimes the answer is the former, but I would argue that in most cases it usually won't make any sense for the heroine to have her breasts bursting out of a ridiculously low-cut top. If there's no logic to it, chances are it's exploitative.

This is not what I thought the topic was about. I tend to not trust any guy who uses the word sexy since I don't really think that a person who uses the word cares about my thoughts or opinions at all. That really looks good on you would be better.

I have poor health so waiting isn't an option - I've got to get a few things for a future grandchild now while I am still mobile - which makes it difficult not knowing whether it will be a he or a she. If the grandchild is a he, I don't want him to be sexist which means that I want him to think that girls can be superheroes too and that it is not an all boys club. If the grandchild is a girl, I want her to see that there are a few superheroes made in her image.

What I am looking for are female super heroes which don't look like they do burlesque. All the ones wearing bras as shirts are out. Those who fight in one piece bathing suits are ok.

Women don't get superheroes who look like Phillippe Candelero during one of his strip-tease figure skating routines or Evgeni Pleshenko's fake body suit (think Alanis Morrisette at the Junos) as he skated to Tom Jones's Sex bomb.

Too many of the women look like their purpose in comics is the same as a Bob Rae on the Rick Mercer show. Not that this former leader of a political party went skinny dipping on prime time TV wearing nothing but a pair of digital swimming trunks.

Mark
06-05-2014, 04:35 PM
Well if it means anything I was watching the She-Ra dvd while I ate supper. Not a bad show for a little girl. Kim Possible comes to mind as well.


This is not what I thought the topic was about. I tend to not trust any guy who uses the word sexy since I don't really think that a person who uses the word cares about my thoughts or opinions at all. That really looks good on you would be better.

I have poor health so waiting isn't an option - I've got to get a few things for a future grandchild now while I am still mobile - which makes it difficult not knowing whether it will be a he or a she. If the grandchild is a he, I don't want him to be sexist which means that I want him to think that girls can be superheroes too and that it is not an all boys club. If the grandchild is a girl, I want her to see that there are a few superheroes made in her image.

What I am looking for are female super heroes which don't look like they do burlesque. All the ones wearing bras as shirts are out. Those who fight in one piece bathing suits are ok.

Women don't get superheroes who look like Phillippe Candelero during one of his strip-tease figure skating routines or Evgeni Pleshenko's fake body suit (think Alanis Morrisette at the Junos) as he skated to Tom Jones's Sex bomb.

Too many of the women look like their purpose in comics is the same as a Bob Rae on the Rick Mercer show. Not that this former leader of a political party went skinny dipping on prime time TV wearing nothing but a pair of digital swimming trunks.

TroubleWithTrebles
06-05-2014, 05:19 PM
This is not what I thought the topic was about. I tend to not trust any guy who uses the word sexy since I don't really think that a person who uses the word cares about my thoughts or opinions at all. That really looks good on you would be better.

I have poor health so waiting isn't an option - I've got to get a few things for a future grandchild now while I am still mobile - which makes it difficult not knowing whether it will be a he or a she. If the grandchild is a he, I don't want him to be sexist which means that I want him to think that girls can be superheroes too and that it is not an all boys club. If the grandchild is a girl, I want her to see that there are a few superheroes made in her image.

What I am looking for are female super heroes which don't look like they do burlesque. All the ones wearing bras as shirts are out. Those who fight in one piece bathing suits are ok.

Women don't get superheroes who look like Phillippe Candelero during one of his strip-tease figure skating routines or Evgeni Pleshenko's fake body suit (think Alanis Morrisette at the Junos) as he skated to Tom Jones's Sex bomb.

Too many of the women look like their purpose in comics is the same as a Bob Rae on the Rick Mercer show. Not that this former leader of a political party went skinny dipping on prime time TV wearing nothing but a pair of digital swimming trunks.

Even when freelancers or salaried artists want to do what you ask, the editors who can allow such female characters as you and I want to see in comics tend to veto it one way or another because most companies making superhero comics are owned by media conglom corporations, or want to be.

If artists had someone willing to pay us a lousy $20 per hour to do the pages with the characters you want, we would. But competive pages take at least 16 hrs, often over 22 hrs ( which is why you see teams of 3 people working on every page to make monthly comic deadlines).

The publishers perceive that they have a choice to sell 5 comics to someone like you but 5000 comics to people who like Dukes of Hazzard and Baywatch. Which is why you see 100 tv shows like those for every Fringe or Vicar of Dibley.

since the first Pro Con in Oakland, pros have bemoaned the fact that most comics are concieved with films dvds toys as the end result. They are often printed ads for product.

ed2962
06-05-2014, 05:49 PM
It's the Hellfire Club outfit. It's not "excusing" anything.



The only significant difference was the color. Emma's was in white.

The rest I wasn't even addressing. That's where Emma's original outfit came from. That's why she dressed that way. It was more or less a uniform. Any "reason" for her "dressing sexy" is tacked on later.

Thing is, the reason she gave made sense at the time being a bad guy and with the origins of the character and the parallels to the real Hellfire Club ( there's also modern S+M clubs that use the name as well). Emma, "I dress this way cuz I like looking kinky and messing with people." She's basically saying that she's knowingly exploiting her sexuality. Now, we can argue if that's a good thing or a bad thing or if she's deluding herself, but that's her reason and it's somewhat logical. I wear a sleazy corset cuz I'm trying to be sexy. Being sexy makes me feel powerful. Cuz I'm a bad guy, i like exerting my power by screwing with people.

It's a way more realistic reason than what what we've gotten from some other characters. Power Girl has a cleavage window cuz she couldn't think of an emblem? It's borderline insulting when you remember that women have in the past and continue today to wear blouses and dresses that have cleavage windows. Just say, "I thought it'd look cute and sexy," and move on.

Most insulting is "it distracts my enemies in battle."

Mark
06-05-2014, 05:55 PM
Thing is, the reason she gave made sense at the time being a bad guy and with the origins of the character and the parallels to the real Hellfire Club ( there's also modern S+M clubs that use the name as well). Emma, "I dress this way cuz I like looking kinky and messing with people." She's basically saying that she's knowingly exploiting her sexuality. Now, we can argue if that's a good thing or a bad thing or if she's deluding herself, but that's her reason and it's somewhat logical. I wear a sleazy corset cuz I'm trying to be sexy. Being sexy makes me feel powerful. Cuz I'm a bad guy, i like exerting my power by screwing with people.

It's a way more realistic reason than what what we've gotten from some other characters. Power Girl has a cleavage window cuz she couldn't think of an emblem? It's borderline insulting when you remember that women have in the past and continue today to wear blouses and dresses that have cleavage windows. Just say, "I thought it'd look cute and sexy," and move on.

Most insulting is "it distracts my enemies in battle."

Which if you were Power Girl it sort of did. In Emma's case given the characters turn around into X-man I figured the costume was her way of acting the role of a villainess. Let's face it the Hellfire Club -even in the tv show episode- was over the top cosplay (before the term was invented) for most of the members. It was only the inner circle that did more than play act.

But a good point to be made is that you'll never see Dr. Doom in a Red Sonja style suit of armor, so there is a double standard that exists.

ed2962
06-05-2014, 06:00 PM
If artists had someone willing to pay us a lousy $20 per hour to do the pages with the characters you want, we would. But competive pages take at least 16 hrs, often over 22 hrs ( which is why you see teams of 3 people working on every page to make monthly comic deadlines).



While I think I get the overall point you're trying to make ( about more respectable images not being as profitable as more exploitable). I'm totally confused by the statement above. Comic book artists don't get paid by the hour, they get a page rate and royalties. If you have a 9 to 5 job and you're paid 20/hr that's not bad. Minimum Wage is less than $10/hr.

TroubleWithTrebles
06-05-2014, 07:51 PM
While I think I get the overall point you're trying to make ( about more respectable images not being as profitable as more exploitable). I'm totally confused by the statement above. Comic book artists don't get paid by the hour, they get a page rate and royalties. If you have a 9 to 5 job and you're paid 20/hr that's not bad. Minimum Wage is less than $10/hr.



The odds are Lucette has worked per hour vs $per page, so I played the odds to put it in a way that would be immediately grokkable, since most people who - unlike me - have not worked for page rates for the big 4 and more do not get how :

getting paid less than $200 per completed page means artists cannot spend the time required to create a Barry Windsor Smith style of Norn or New Female Archetype as per Lucette's request , in the time it took Nyberg to ink Nexus back in the 1980s. Or a Toth page for Warren mags.

You cannot keep a roof overhead on a page that takes over 22 hrs if you are getting less than $90 to DO that page, plus the time to scan it etc. or send real pages to the publisher. Because it comes out to less than $4.20 per hour. You make more at KFC. And lets ask Lucette: would you allow your daughter or grandaughter to be exploited by working 22 hrs for $90 or less?

Also, craptacularly c0ckless wannabe comicbook garbage graphics created by ad agencies and digital media companies are VERY OFTEN paid by the hour, not by the page, such as the Phantom Poker Machine art for the gambling industry, even though those pixelmonkeys have never taken a life drawing class. This is also true of comics for social initiatives (always badly drawn) such as Hep B protection (worthy cause denigrated by lazy ass pseudo artists, too often).

ed2962
06-06-2014, 04:14 AM
The odds are Lucette has worked per hour vs $per page, so I played the odds to put it in a way that would be immediately grokkable, since most people who - unlike me - have not worked for page rates for the big 4 and more do not get how :

getting paid less than $200 per completed page means artists cannot spend the time required to create a Barry Windsor Smith style of Norn or New Female Archetype as per Lucette's request , in the time it took Nyberg to ink Nexus back in the 1980s. Or a Toth page for Warren mags.

You cannot keep a roof overhead on a page that takes over 22 hrs if you are getting less than $90 to DO that page, plus the time to scan it etc. or send real pages to the publisher. Because it comes out to less than $4.20 per hour. You make more at KFC. And lets ask Lucette: would you allow your daughter or grandaughter to be exploited by working 22 hrs for $90 or less?

Also, craptacularly c0ckless wannabe comicbook garbage graphics created by ad agencies and digital media companies are VERY OFTEN paid by the hour, not by the page, such as the Phantom Poker Machine art for the gambling industry, even though those pixelmonkeys have never taken a life drawing class. This is also true of comics for social initiatives (always badly drawn) such as Hep B protection (worthy cause denigrated by lazy ass pseudo artists, too often).



Ok, i understand where you're coming from a little better, but I don't think it helps you're general point much. If an artist is producing something that's sexist or exploitive, it really has more to attitude and intent than skill level or the amount of labor involved. It doesn't really take more time to not draw a woman's breast the size for her head. I don't know much about say Ross Andru's work habits, but I'm willing to bet it didn't take him more time to draw Wonder Woman's suit as shorts and it takes Ed Benes to draw it as a thong.

Lucette
06-06-2014, 05:34 AM
The odds are Lucette has worked per hour vs $per page, so I played the odds to put it in a way that would be immediately grokkable, since most people who - unlike me - have not worked for page rates for the big 4 and more do not get how/

I can't draw well enough for anyone to pay me anything for it, though I have created a couple of really nice cross stitches.


Even when freelancers or salaried artists want to do what you ask, the editors who can allow such female characters as you and I want to see in comics tend to veto it one way or another because most companies making superhero comics are owned by media conglom corporations, or want to be.

The publishers perceive that they have a choice to sell 5 comics to someone like you but 5000 comics to people who like Dukes of Hazzard and Baywatch.


Sadly, you have a point - though the law of reciprocity dictates that if you are going to scrimp on clothing for the female characters, you've got to do the same for the males.

Since they wear more clothes usually, maybe the purpose of the superhero outfit is to keep attention off the face so they are not recognised - unless you have a better theory.


Can't get into the message thing.

Mark
06-06-2014, 05:58 AM
I can't draw well enough for anyone to pay me anything for it, though I have created a couple of really nice cross stitches.




Sadly, you have a point - though the law of reciprocity dictates that if you are going to scrimp on clothing for the female characters, you've got to do the same for the males.

Since they wear more clothes usually, maybe the purpose of the superhero outfit is to keep attention off the face so they are not recognised - unless you have a better theory.


Can't get into the message thing.

No, let's face it the reason that artist draw female characters with less clothing than male characters is to make them more appealing to the male audience. The trick is how far that goes. This shot of Bullet Girl is eye catching without being sexist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulletman_and_Bulletgirl

but I'd say this shot of Wonder Woman is a little sexist, but since this series was humerous and made a lot of jokes like this I didn't mind.

http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/File:Body_Doubles_Vol_1_4.jpg

Lucette
06-06-2014, 09:50 AM
Power Girl has a cleavage window cuz she couldn't think of an emblem? It's borderline insulting when you remember that women have in the past and continue today to wear blouses and dresses that have cleavage windows. Just say, "I thought it'd look cute and sexy," and move on.

Most insulting is "it distracts my enemies in battle."

The mouth on her in the picture looks like a blow up doll - I know what they look like because there were a couple used for Ugly Kid Joe's song (I Hate) Everything About You.

The two women beside Wonder Woman are wearing less clothes - drawn in a way where you almost expect there to be a wardrobe malfunction. That cover picture is drawn so that WW's chest seems almost 3D.

Speaking of Wonder Woman ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PrLVgR6J84


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogpwrc6oCKM

Mark
06-06-2014, 02:35 PM
That was intentional. The Body Doubles series was just 4 issues of wildly exploitative fun. Well it was for me anyway.



The mouth on her in the picture looks like a blow up doll - I know what they look like because there were a couple used for Ugly Kid Joe's song (I Hate) Everything About You.

The two women beside Wonder Woman are wearing less clothes - drawn in a way where you almost expect there to be a wardrobe malfunction. That cover picture is drawn so that WW's chest seems almost 3D.

Speaking of Wonder Woman ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PrLVgR6J84


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogpwrc6oCKM

TroubleWithTrebles
06-06-2014, 02:40 PM
The mouth on her in the picture looks like a blow up doll - I know what they look like because there were a couple used for Ugly Kid Joe's song (I Hate) Everything About You.

The two women beside Wonder Woman are wearing less clothes - drawn in a way where you almost expect there to be a wardrobe malfunction. That cover picture is drawn so that WW's chest seems almost 3D.

Speaking of Wonder Woman ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PrLVgR6J84


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogpwrc6oCKM



If Bolland makes a hero out of Queen Elizabeth II for Dial H it takes a lot longer than any pic of WW by Andru or any recent guy.

What some don't understand is that even if an artist does what lucette asks, it can be watered down or vetoed by an editor or even an assistant editor.

But the point still stands and we seem to agree that there has to be a carrot for the corporate donkey to follow. If lucette approved designs - used in actionfigures and hi end vidgames - could be proven to have even 50% of the current ancillary market, female character trademarks would be made for these and they'd be used in the comics.

TroubleWithTrebles
06-06-2014, 02:43 PM
Also, RE reciprocity, if an artist draws a male character in ways that are "attractive" and even slightly sexy rather than Butch, guess what the reaction is.

Lucette
06-06-2014, 09:52 PM
I am thinking about which female action figures will be appropriate for a 4-8 year old of yet undetermined gender who will exist some time in the future. Already have chesterfields/sofas/couches for them (get mixed up which is the American term). If the female action figure looks like they do burlesque, or, in the case of one of them, has a pink outline on her pants where her crotch is, odds are I am not buying that one.

Would love to be able to get a Mii Marten / Equinox from Justice League United because I think that that one would be a good looking figure, Canadian, and drawn in a way where a girl feels like she doesn't have to sex herself up if she wants to play with the boys. Actually, would skip a meal to get two of those if they ever came out.

Female action figures, male barbies (though all I have so far is Beast, from Beauty and the Beast on clearance, because I figure that it would appeal to a boy exposed to transformers / animorphs.

I am also thinking about, if the comic book companies feel that they must sell the women as eye candy that they should, at the very minimum, treat the guys the same way. And not just JLU's Hawkman who looks so thin after being in captivity that something other than his hips must be keeping his pants up.

Paradox
06-06-2014, 10:07 PM
Lucette shows our indecisiveness:

Already have chesterfields/sofas/couches for them (get mixed up which is the American term).

All of them. And add "davenport". :)

TroubleWithTrebles
06-06-2014, 10:10 PM
Freelancers have tried to "treat the male characters the same way". How do you think that worked out for them?

TroubleWithTrebles
06-06-2014, 10:29 PM
Again this comes down to pay to play, as per the Hollywood phrase. There is no magic faerie which allows the artist(s) required to make these characters for free, , or for $50 per page or less x 24 pages plus cover plus promo art, and not be homeless - and homeless folk don't have the circumstantial necessities to make the pages. Not in the super hero genre at any rate.

And no, nobody gets to say "what about Saga?" Because

1: Lucette can resort to Saga; problem solved

or

2: we accept that Saga did well because it was illustrated by Fiona, and she was a corporate comics fan fave award winner and made a sh!tload of $$$ before Saga thus allowing her the freedom to illustrate Saga.

It started with her getting PAID.

heretic
06-07-2014, 05:23 AM
One thing to consider is that 'Sexy' (attractive) and 'Sexist' (insulting, demeaning, and impractical) are not really part of the same axis. You can have attractive superheroines, even ones in tight/revealing outfits, without depicting them as mindless weaklings, drawing them in contorted poses, and dismissing human anatomy out of hand.

End of Time
06-07-2014, 05:48 AM
Also, RE reciprocity, if an artist draws a male character in ways that are "attractive" and even slightly sexy rather than Butch, guess what the reaction is.

absolute silence because nobody gives a crap?

TroubleWithTrebles
06-07-2014, 03:40 PM
absolute silence because nobody gives a crap?

Absolutely wrong. Letters of complaint, editors worried about reafer reactions, artists suddenly getting "labelled" and sometimes, even if beforehand they were in the running for a top 10 book, suddenly "not".

Sometimes verified by agents.

So I appreciate your flippant retort for its humor, but RE lucette's comment and my reply, you are completely full of the alchemical opposite to "gold". *wink*

Lucette
06-07-2014, 04:35 PM
All of them. And add "davenport". :)

:)


One thing to consider is that 'Sexy' (attractive)

The thing is that there is a difference between being attractive (ie pretty or beautiful if female, handsome if male) and sexy (ie sexually arousing). Often, the two go hand in hand, but not always.

And one can have a promiscuous character who looks like a normal person or a virgin character who dresses like wicked wanda (ie a dominatrix).

But it is also true that a male can only think with one head at once. Could it be that female characters are drawn a certain way so as to distract male readers from the plot? That if a writer as certain of his or her talent as a writer, they would not resort to such visualizations as much?

And how would the male version of cat woman flirting with batgirl be taken?

Mark
06-07-2014, 05:23 PM
I saw a cartoon once in Knights of the Dinner Table, don't have the scan but the cartoon showed a husky man in Red Sonja style armor and he was saying to his friend "There's gotta be something to this outfit. I swear I never her get scratched or cold or nothin!"

TroubleWithTrebles
06-07-2014, 09:14 PM
:)

And how would the male version of cat woman flirting with batgirl be taken?

As someone who has worked for similar companies, It'd be taken as a prank by a member of Friends of Lulu and summarily ignored, with a very pol correct statement from any editor with influence over Batstuff that comics are neither charities nor not for profits, so if you wanted something like that, such desires unfulfilled by corporate publishers is why CROWDFUNDING began. Where you can ask 5 wealthy women (OR men, or queerfolk) to fund the budget needed for this stuff or ask 500 such people to contribute 10% as much.

Which circumvents asking people paid to do batstuff, people who have spent money on hard materials and travelling to cons and years (if not decades) of their lives to GET a Bat Job, to risk these incredibly sought after jobs [which over 100000 people per year would compete for] and likely lose those coveted jobs.

What are YOU offering in return, in terms of an equal sacrifice, from YOUR life? I mean if you are not willing to sacrifice 3 hrs out of your week to make a change, or start some proper protest movement, do you not deserve
a reply from Bat Artists along the line of "Easy to say from the armchair watching the TV show that offends you but have you ever waited 5 hours in line for an audition?"

CliffHanger2
06-08-2014, 07:39 AM
I saw a cartoon once in Knights of the Dinner Table, don't have the scan but the cartoon showed a husky man in Red Sonja style armor and he was saying to his friend "There's gotta be something to this outfit. I swear I never her get scratched or cold or nothin!"

Yeah honestly I fail to see how putting a man in womenswear illustrates the point of sexism. Its like yeah men look dumb wearing bikinis that doesn't make bikinis bad or sexist.

Mark
06-08-2014, 08:34 AM
Yeah honestly I fail to see how putting a man in womenswear illustrates the point of sexism. Its like yeah men look dumb wearing bikinis that doesn't make bikinis bad or sexist.

It was a good joke.

CliffHanger2
06-08-2014, 08:59 AM
It was a good joke.

Oh damn Lol.

Arvandor
06-08-2014, 09:07 AM
It was a good joke.

But bad satire.

t hedge coke
06-08-2014, 09:37 AM
Yeah honestly I fail to see how putting a man in womenswear illustrates the point of sexism. Its like yeah men look dumb wearing bikinis that doesn't make bikinis bad or sexist.

Red Sonja style armor isn't "womenswear."

Real women in any kind of combat don't wear chainmail bikinis. As a piece of fantasy costuming, it has no defense as armor. It's used because it allows the character to be more sexualized and show more skin despite the situations she's likely to face.

CliffHanger2
06-08-2014, 11:33 AM
Red Sonja style armor isn't "womenswear."

Real women in any kind of combat don't wear chainmail bikinis. As a piece of fantasy costuming, it has no defense as armor. It's used because it allows the character to be more sexualized and show more skin despite the situations she's likely to face.

In the context of comics Red Sonja's outfit is womenswear. Its a fantasy so real combat really doesn't come into play even though in some cultures warriors fight nude. As to sexualization I guess so even though I never really found her outfit to be sexy or sexist.

t hedge coke
06-08-2014, 11:34 AM
In the context of comics Red Sonja's outfit is womenswear. Its a fantasy so real combat really doesn't come into play even though in some cultures warriors fight nude. As to sexualization I guess so even though I never really found her outfit to be sexy or sexist.

That's good for you.

If you think it was designed for any reason but to be sexy, though, you're fooling yourself.

Same for any martial arts thong. Thongs do not help with jumping and high kicks. They just help the audience see butt cheeks.

CliffHanger2
06-08-2014, 11:51 AM
That's good for you.

If you think it was designed for any reason but to be sexy, though, you're fooling yourself.

Same for any martial arts thong. Thongs do not help with jumping and high kicks. They just help the audience see butt cheeks.

I guess it was but I don't think that makes it automatically sexist. The functionality of thongs in battle is debatable because its also quite common for male warriors in other cultures to wear them. But yeah I understand how someone would be offended by it.

Fervidor
06-08-2014, 01:57 PM
Basically, I draw the line where I can't suspend my disbelief of the artist's intentions. Usually, that's around the point when I look at a character and immidiately decide that no sane person would voluntarily dress and/or behave like that - the Chainmail Bikini Threshold, if you will. That sort of thing is maybe okay when done with a pinch of irony and humour, but not when played straight.

I'm generally fine with sexy, really, as long as it's all in good fun. It just starts to bother me when it's so blatant or tasteless I that I can't even pretend it's a stylistic thing and I can almost see the artist winking at me, going: "Eh? Eh? Nudge-nudge, know what I mean?"

Tonamelt
06-08-2014, 07:15 PM
It's funny how many people complain about the "infamous" bikini chainmail armor (and how unrealistic it is, even when it belongs to a fantasy comic), and they also complain about women being objetified in comics.

And then you go to a convention and see things like this:

3608

Real life women that actually enjoy cosplaying as those "objetified" characters.

Paradox
06-08-2014, 09:07 PM
Cosplay is all about being "objectified" (the broader definition, not necessarily sexual) just like acting.

Tonamelt
06-08-2014, 09:18 PM
Cosplay is all about being "objectified" (the broader definition, not necessarily sexual) just like acting.

And perhaps comics are just the same?

Paradox
06-08-2014, 09:30 PM
In the broader definition, a case could be made. If we're talking about sexual objectification, it becomes more iffy. The cosplayer voluntarily dressed like that, specifically for a role. Ed Benes drawing upskirts constantly isn't in the same category. :)

TroubleWithTrebles
06-08-2014, 09:53 PM
1: I have always hated the Red Sonja outfit.

2: Then again, knowing that Cimmerian meant "Scottish" from the age of 8, I hated the depiction of Conan, too.

Both outfits are LAUGHABLY "not the pre christian cultural ethnotypyes the characters are fraudulently presented as being".

Realistically Conan would look like bloody HAGRID.

Paradox
06-08-2014, 10:18 PM
Cimmerian doesn't mean "Scottish", they were people living north of the Caucuses in 1300 BC. Are you thinking maybe of Picts?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cimmerians

TroubleWithTrebles
06-08-2014, 10:27 PM
I was going off the Oxford PRINT dictionary definition as opposed to the Wikipedia entries. Since according to wiki I don't even exist despite having credits on amazon which defy wikipleadia ( which we must remember is only a semi vetted source of data at the best of times).

Tonamelt
06-08-2014, 10:49 PM
In the broader definition, a case could be made. If we're talking about sexual objectification, it becomes more iffy. The cosplayer voluntarily dressed like that, specifically for a role.

Sexy characters represent real life people who likes to dress sexy. And before you say nobody dresses like Emma Frost or Red Sonja while going to work or something, you have to remember they belong to fantasy worlds and her outfits are PERFECTLY justified on them.


Ed Benes drawing upskirts constantly isn't in the same category. :)

You are totally right... However, to anyone complaining about that I would say: It's 2014, deal with it. :)

Unless you are a puritan from the 16th Centruy. :p

ed2962
06-09-2014, 04:43 AM
It's funny how many people complain about the "infamous" bikini chainmail armor (and how unrealistic it is, even when it belongs to a fantasy comic), and they also complain about women being objetified in comics.

And then you go to a convention and see things like this:

Real life women that actually enjoy cosplaying as those "objetified" characters.

Ok. But that doesn't prove or disprove anything one way or another. That's as if someone said, "Playboy objectifies women," and your comeback was but Kim Bassinger and Jenny McCarthy posed for them.

Personally, i don't have a problem with Playboy and I make an argument either for or against Chainmail bikinis but saying that someone wore to a comic con misses the larger point.

ed2962
06-09-2014, 04:52 AM
Sexy characters represent real life people who likes to dress sexy. And before you say nobody dresses like Emma Frost or Red Sonja while going to work or something, you have to remember they belong to fantasy worlds and her outfits are PERFECTLY justified on them.



I think most people's problem isn't that there's sexy people in comics. It's that sometimes women are being portrayed as "sexy" in unbalanced and often ludicrous ways compared to the men. And in many times in situations that aren't about sex or romance. It's one thing to photoshop porn in something that's supposed to be a love scene well, ok...but when you photoshop porn and but it in a fight scene, well that's an issue that people are going to talk about.

Paradox
06-09-2014, 04:54 AM
And unless they're posing for a certain type of picture, no one juts their buttocks out and looks coyly at you over their shoulder.

Tonamelt
06-09-2014, 01:01 PM
I think most people's problem isn't that there's sexy people in comics. It's that sometimes women are being portrayed as "sexy" in unbalanced and often ludicrous ways compared to the men. And in many times in situations that aren't about sex or romance. It's one thing to photoshop porn in something that's supposed to be a love scene well, ok...but when you photoshop porn and but it in a fight scene, well that's an issue that people are going to talk about.

Because photoshoping something into a comic is a lack of creativty.

3642


However, people will always love original sexy designs.

That being said, I don't support or complain about oversexualized characters because I don't mind if characters are oversexualized or politically correct (whatever that means) as long as I can read a good story. That's why it's not a big deal to me. :)

I'm a heterosexual man who reads X-books, and you will never see me complaining about Colossus being objetified, or those panels with shirtless Cyclops. I don't mind Anka's pro-feminist style either, In fact, I kinda like it.

Mecegirl
06-09-2014, 01:18 PM
I'm a heterosexual man who reads X-books, and you will never see me complaining about Colossus being objetified, or those panels with shirtless Cyclops. I don't mind Anka's pro-feminist style either, In fact, I kinda like it.

Shirtless Cyclops...That's your go to? No one cares if you don't complain about something as petty as a shirtless panel when 90% of the time Cyclops is both completely covered or not drawn with his assets pointing towards the reader. You aren't some beacon of reason for not caring about something so insignificant. That's like telling a man who lost his arm that he doesn't need to go to the doctor because you didn't go that time you pricked your finger.

Lucette
06-09-2014, 01:23 PM
Ok. But that doesn't prove or disprove anything one way or another. That's as if someone said, "Playboy objectifies women," and your comeback was but Kim Bassinger and Jenny McCarthy posed for them.

Good point! One can always find someone who is willing to be objectified or to appear in various state of dress or undress. I remember someone showing a picture of someone who broke up an argument between the pro Israel and pro Palestinian faction of the Toronto Pride parade - some guy carrying a sign saying "Born naked, stay naked" - if you are wondering where he put his car keys, fanny pacs are not considered clothing!

While I support a person's right to wear either a hijab or a bikini - I do object when the women are dressed in a way that would make it impossible to avoid a wardrobe malfunction in real life while the men have very little skin exposed.


Shirtless Cyclops...That's your go to? No one cares if you don't complain about something as petty as a shirtless panel when 90% of the time Cyclops is both completely covered or not drawn with his assets pointing towards the reader.

Yes! That doesn't come close to what the female super heroes have to deal with from comic book artists.


I think most people's problem isn't that there's sexy people in comics. It's that sometimes women are being portrayed as "sexy" in unbalanced and often ludicrous ways compared to the men. And in many times in situations that aren't about sex or romance. It's one thing to photoshop porn in something that's supposed to be a love scene well, ok...but when you photoshop porn and but it in a fight scene, well that's an issue that people are going to talk about.

Ludicrous is right. It is as if women are not full and equal partners in the fight - that they are there merely as a distraction, to titillate or jut their assets. The men are perceived as competent - there for their abilities rather than their ability to make fans drool.

Personally, I found the red sonya joke funny, but also true on many levels - that women are there to look appealing - which is why the outfit leaves a person without scratches - and keeps a person warm even at - 40 C / F when the F-35 needs a heated garage in Texas. Maybe the F-35 should be made to wear a red Sonja outfit! It could not hurt.

Minority women have historically been sexualized to justify abuse against them - from the exotic black woman to justify slave owners taking certain liberties with impunity to the sexualisation of First Nation / Native American women where they are more apt to be raped and murdered than white women. You will never see Equinox in a red sonya outfit for that reason. If she was put in one, you would never hear the end of it from the AFN Assembly of First Nations, Idle No More or certain MPs in parliament who, in general, have nothing against having sex.

This brings up another point, sexy is not about having sex per see, but a porn version of women as existing solely for the pleasure of men - and the outfit highlighting that. This the view of women portrayed in Alice Cooper's Cold Ethyl as existing only to please men and having no desires or goals outside of that purpose.

The law of reciprocity would dictate that if one is going to legitimize such a view point that, every once in a while, one should imagine, not just a man in red Sonja armour, but what it would be like if the men were, not just window dressing, but beings who gained their identity and purpose by how pleasing they could be to women. If men provided the distraction and eye candy while the women super heroes got down to the serious work.

I can hear the rebuttal right now - but that would never sell - translation: I am male, that is not how I want to see myself when I fantasize about being a super hero. That would be too degrading!

Tonamelt
06-09-2014, 01:38 PM
Shirtless Cyclops...That's your go to? No one cares if you don't complain about something as petty as a shirtless panel when 90% of the time Cyclops is both completely covered or not drawn with his assets pointing towards the reader. You aren't some beacon of reason for not caring about something so insignificant. That's like telling a man who lost his arm that he doesn't need to go to the doctor because you didn't go that time you pricked your finger.

Yeah, that's the point, no one cares...

Now, comparing a man who lost his arm to someone who complains about art is waaaay out of proportion.

cranger
06-09-2014, 01:43 PM
I can hear the rebuttal right now - but that would never sell - translation: I am male, that is not how I want to see myself when I fantasize about being a super hero. That would be too degrading!I do not mean to pick this out as an argument against the rest of what you wrote, but in a lot of other media there is room for differing interests. And I say interests because not every male who would dislike reading that kind of comic would do so because they find it degrading, it simply would not appeal to their interests. My wife watches and reads (novels) all sorts of stuff that arguably objectifies men and empowers women that simply does not appeal to me but I do not find it offensive. So let someone write comics like that for people who want to read them.

I personally don't require the female characters in the comics I read to be there as some sort of porn fantasy, but removing comics that do in some way lean that way is not the solution to making comics appeal to a broader crowd. Comics are a product, if there is a market for what you are describing, someone will try to capture it because people will buy it.

Mark
06-09-2014, 01:57 PM
I think one way to define the difference is that sexy is designed to look attractive but encompasses the entire body, creating a persona. I think Emma Frost has worn outfits like this. Where sexist is designed to look attractive but focuses on those parts of that body that society has deemed more important for sexual function than they actually are.

Tonamelt
06-09-2014, 02:05 PM
I do not mean to pick this out as an argument against the rest of what you wrote, but in a lot of other media there is room for differing interests. And I say interests because not every male who would dislike reading that kind of comic would do so because they find it degrading, it simply would not appeal to their interests. My wife watches and reads (novels) all sorts of stuff that arguably objectifies men and empowers women that simply does not appeal to me but I do not find it offensive. So let someone write comics like that for people who want to read them.

I personally don't require the female characters in the comics I read to be there as some sort of porn fantasy, but removing comics that do in some way lean that way is not the solution to making comics appeal to a broader crowd. Comics are a product, if there is a market for what you are describing, someone will try to capture it because people will buy it.

I completely agree with you... Being inclusive doesn't mean "let's complain about certain products that certain people like and that I don't like".

Arvandor
06-09-2014, 02:07 PM
It is hard to define.

All I know is - I have never harassed, molested, wolf-whistled or done anything in any way to make any woman feel threatened or uncomfortable. But I do like my sexy bad girl art.

The Darknight Detective
06-09-2014, 02:14 PM
It's a way more realistic reason than what what we've gotten from some other characters. Power Girl has a cleavage window cuz she couldn't think of an emblem? It's borderline insulting when you remember that women have in the past and continue today to wear blouses and dresses that have cleavage windows. Just say, "I thought it'd look cute and sexy," and move on.

Most insulting is "it distracts my enemies in battle."

Yep. I have said the same thing in the past myself.

Animeality
06-09-2014, 03:04 PM
where the line of demarcation between sexy and sexist is. What are your views on the difference?

The line, for me, is Naruto and Buffy.

In Naruto, women rarely get a chance to shine in battle, and when they do they're crippled by something until one of the more fleshed-out, competent male leads steps in. Most of the ones seen are horribly incompetent and non-influential, minus the current villain and the actual heroine.

In Buffy, the main character is a play on the "teenage horror movie victim", and her male sidekick is a mostly incompetent butt monkey early on in the show. Despite that, Xander has 'character', and 'some' competence, and 'some' moments of badassery and growth, whereas characters like Sakura and Mei usually take steps backward in character development, or get knocked out/rescued way too often.

Lucette
06-09-2014, 03:35 PM
Yeah, that's the point, no one cares...

Now, comparing a man who lost his arm to someone who complains about art is waaaay out of proportion.

Do female super heroes lose arms? How often?


My wife watches and reads (novels) all sorts of stuff that arguably objectifies men and empowers women that simply does not appeal to me but I do not find it offensive. So let someone write comics like that for people who want to read them.

Do they not appeal to you because they objectify men and empower women - or for some reason unrelated to this dynamic?

Speaking of products and commodities, usually to become a commodity, a woman must strip herself of everything which makes her distinctly human. Ergo, the way a character is drawn may influence how they are portrayed, and how they are portrayed teaches boys and girls certain things about gender roles and gender expectations. Whether you want to consume a particular product or not, there is no getting away from that.

It is about how you want your son to see girls or how you want your daughter to see herself. And that is your business, technically.

The Darknight Detective
06-09-2014, 03:38 PM
Do female super heroes lose arms? How often?

There isn't an Arm-Fall-Off Girl? ;)

PwrdOn
06-09-2014, 05:05 PM
I feel like the whole armor issue gets people way more riled up than it really should. There's no real historical precedent for what women's armor should look like, and it's not as if men's armor is depicted all that realistically either, what with all the spikes and skulls inconveniently placed all over. And style always factored just as much as function in armor design, from those muscle breastplates of the classical era to the extravagantly fancy plate armor of the late middle ages. Not to mention that heavy armor was always pretty rare, most people went into battle wearing little to no armor and some even went completely naked for psychological impact.

Sure, some like Joan of Arc did wear full plate armor on the battlefield, but you have to remember that she was also deeply committed to ideals of Christian modesty and her armor was patterned off the kind worn by men, there was hardly a standard type designed specifically for women. On top of that, it was mostly a symbolic gesture since she didn't really do much actual fighting, preferring to wave a banner and inspire troops around her rather than swing a sword. And there have been plenty of women who didn't follow this path, Alexander the Great's mother Olympias used to lead armies wearing quite provocative regalia, counting that the spectacle of her appearance would outweigh any tactical considerations.

TroubleWithTrebles
06-09-2014, 05:37 PM
http://s20.postimg.org/9mi0y8vfx/Great_Love.jpg



Based off an LGBTQ ex of mine.

Comfy refurbished workfit denim, loose fitting unisex shirt, sensible hairdo. Pose is completely accurate as per poses she would strike while putting a [perceived] nincompoop in their place.

So, lucette, is this image what you asked for RE sensible clothing, or is it sexist?

The Darknight Detective
06-09-2014, 05:40 PM
I feel like the whole armor issue gets people way more riled up than it really should. There's no real historical precedent for what women's armor should look like, and it's not as if men's armor is depicted all that realistically either, what with all the spikes and skulls inconveniently placed all over. And style always factored just as much as function in armor design, from those muscle breastplates of the classical era to the extravagantly fancy plate armor of the late middle ages. Not to mention that heavy armor was always pretty rare, most people went into battle wearing little to no armor and some even went completely naked for psychological impact.

Sure, some like Joan of Arc did wear full plate armor on the battlefield, but you have to remember that she was also deeply committed to ideals of Christian modesty and her armor was patterned off the kind worn by men, there was hardly a standard type designed specifically for women. On top of that, it was mostly a symbolic gesture since she didn't really do much actual fighting, preferring to wave a banner and inspire troops around her rather than swing a sword. And there have been plenty of women who didn't follow this path, Alexander the Great's mother Olympias used to lead armies wearing quite provocative regalia, counting that the spectacle of her appearance would outweigh any tactical considerations.

Do we really need to go to historical accounts in order to find out what a 21st century woman would wear today? Since I believe most women would be smart enough not to fight super baddies half naked, they would have some type of armor covering up most of their bodies. Certainly if they were not invulnerable.

PwrdOn
06-09-2014, 06:02 PM
Do we really need to go to historical accounts in order to find out what a 21st century woman would wear today? Since I believe most women would be smart enough not to fight super baddies half naked, they would have some type of armor covering up most of their bodies. Certainly if they were not invulnerable.

Why though? Armor is not necessary and there are plenty of reasons to avoid wearing it, including the all-important factor of not being able to take a dump without getting someone to help you take the armor off. Real life is not like some RPG where armor just boosts your defensive stats and makes you look cool, there are plenty of reasons you would want a relatively light uniform. Naked barbarian warriors were a real thing after all, and those same people used to also bleach their skin to reflect sunlight and spike their hair up with wax to make for an unsettling and intimidating appearance in battle. Sure it wasn't totally practical, but warfare isn't really based on logic anyway and if something like this was accepted practice in reality I think you can accept it in fiction as well.

Michael P
06-09-2014, 06:12 PM
Q: Why is a chain-mail bikini unrealistic?

A: Ever tried wearing one?

ed2962
06-09-2014, 06:24 PM
I do not mean to pick this out as an argument against the rest of what you wrote, but in a lot of other media there is room for differing interests. And I say interests because not every male who would dislike reading that kind of comic would do so because they find it degrading, it simply would not appeal to their interests. My wife watches and reads (novels) all sorts of stuff that arguably objectifies men and empowers women that simply does not appeal to me but I do not find it offensive. So let someone write comics like that for people who want to read them.

I personally don't require the female characters in the comics I read to be there as some sort of porn fantasy, but removing comics that do in some way lean that way is not the solution to making comics appeal to a broader crowd. Comics are a product, if there is a market for what you are describing, someone will try to capture it because people will buy it.


But is that market in Spider Man and Batman comics? I'd argue that the superhero comics market has been hurt by turning off women and kids (and some men) who otherwise would like cape comics. Notice that DC/Marvel has toned down the "skankification" of a few of their female heroes. If those comics were selling a million copies this wouldn't be happening.

And again, I don't think anyone is arguing that we need to get rid of sexy women or that every girl has to wear a burka. Just that you don't have to trace over Hustler in order to make women look pretty.

cranger
06-09-2014, 06:28 PM
Do they not appeal to you because they objectify men and empower women - or for some reason unrelated to this dynamic?Unrelated. Don't get me wrong, I completely understand what people object to, in the sense of a discussion of why they do not read a particular title or even genre as a whole. It is just that I find so many comics these days that, for lack of a better term, offend me. However, I do not expect those books to change for me, I just do not bother with them.

As for what my kids get exposed to, again I make that choice. There are plenty of comics that have nothing to do with gender issues that I would not let them read either.

ed2962
06-09-2014, 06:41 PM
I completely agree with you... Being inclusive doesn't mean "let's complain about certain products that certain people like and that I don't like".

I think this is a healthy debate to have as long as all of us keep it civil. Whether it's sex or violence or too many events or writing for trade or too many Batman appearances...some one is going to complain and someone is going to disagree. It's all fair game.

anyajenkins
06-09-2014, 08:14 PM
I feel like the whole armor issue gets people way more riled up than it really should. There's no real historical precedent for what women's armor should look like...
I don't think one need historical precedent to know that 'armor' that doesn't even cover any vital organs is utterly useless.

PwrdOn
06-09-2014, 08:37 PM
I don't think one need historical precedent to know that 'armor' that doesn't even cover any vital organs is utterly useless.

I'm not arguing that chainmail bikini would actually be a helpful piece of armor, but that armor in general is pretty overrated and designed more to be fashionable than functional. If anything, wearing a skimpy costume in battle helps to keep dirty bits of clothing from infecting your wounds, a far more prolific killer of soldiers than combat.

On a grander point, the entire purpose of this costume debate is to depict women in a more modern and progressive manner, and I can't think of anything more backward than sticking people in clunky suits of metal armor.

t hedge coke
06-09-2014, 09:00 PM
On a grander point, the entire purpose of this costume debate is to depict women in a more modern and progressive manner, and I can't think of anything more backward than sticking people in clunky suits of metal armor.

Because?

You really think chainmail bikinis, that offer no protection, would chafe horribly, hamper movement by being, again, chainmail bikinis, is more "progressive" than full body armor?

I'm thinking, even today, right now, somebody'd rather have some body armor out in combat or just policing the streets, than a set of chainmail panties and bra. And that, in the past, this was probably also much desired, as I can't really think of too many cultures who had developed metals or clothing to the degree to make armor who forewent it entirely, or ran into battle wearing battle bikinis. (Of course, police worldwide make sure there's the option of a belly window on all their uniforms, because.)

Historical representations of women in combat:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7f/Lathgertha_by_Morris_Meredith_Williams.png/640px-Lathgertha_by_Morris_Meredith_Williams.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/71/Hangaku_Gozen_by_Yoshitoshi.jpg/402px-Hangaku_Gozen_by_Yoshitoshi.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9d/Black_Agnes%2C_from_a_children%27s_history_book.jp g/640px-Black_Agnes%2C_from_a_children%27s_history_book.jp g

I get the appeal of battle bikini outfits. I'm not even wholly opposed to these kinds of outfits. But to pretend they're useful as actual armor is ridiculous. To pretend that, in world, they wouldn't be problematic, difficult, and useless except as adornment, as a costume, seems to me, ridiculous, if not insulting. When something's absurd, deal with the absurdity. When something begs a reason, give a genuine reason.

Paradox
06-09-2014, 09:35 PM
TroubleWithTrebles wonders about the clothing?:

http://s20.postimg.org/9mi0y8vfx/Great_Love.jpg



Based off an LGBTQ ex of mine.

Comfy refurbished workfit denim, loose fitting unisex shirt, sensible hairdo. Pose is completely accurate as per poses she would strike while putting a [perceived] nincompoop in their place.

So, lucette, is this image what you asked for RE sensible clothing, or is it sexist?

It's hard for me to tell about the clothing when the entire focus of the picture is a gigantic unrealistic ass.

Paradox
06-09-2014, 09:39 PM
The entire "chain mail bikini" argument is a joke. Of course it's sexist and it was deliberately made so by Frank Thorne. This is how Barry Smith originally drew Red Sonja.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v309/Predabot/Junk/sonja.jpg

End of Time
06-09-2014, 10:58 PM
The New Normal

... got canceled. :'(

TroubleWithTrebles
06-10-2014, 12:16 AM
... got canceled. :'(


So did Carnivale and Scrubs. AND Futurama.

Alan2099
06-10-2014, 12:44 AM
I'm not arguing that chainmail bikini would actually be a helpful piece of armor, but that armor in general is pretty overrated and designed more to be fashionable than functional. If anything, wearing a skimpy costume in battle helps to keep dirty bits of clothing from infecting your wounds, a far more prolific killer of soldiers than combat.
Have you ever had a job that required you to actually wear armor?

I have. Now granted, a FLAK jacket, knee pads, and a kevlar helmet are a far cry from full plate mail, but I'd rather have that little bit of protection than no protection at all, and yes, it has helped me on quite a few occasions.

And frankly, I have to laugh out loud at your comment on wearing less clothes prevents the cloth from getting into wounds, because you're going to get a lot LESS wounds if you have protection than if you don't.

TroubleWithTrebles
06-10-2014, 01:29 AM
SO many butch women in the SCA wear and fight in recreated ACCURATE chainmail.

The SCA's founders include Len Wein, btw.

So why don't we ask a butch from the SCA sbout the WARNINGS of what will happen to anyone's skin if they don't wear the requisite leather undergarment beneath it?

They will tell you (as they tell many new members of the SCA) that the overlapping flattened links that make up the chainmail will EAT the skin beneath it the moment anyone wearing it moves in any way which could be considered 'dynamic'. E.G. swinging ANY iron age or bronze age weapon.

So 'comic style' chainmail is OUT. And what Sonja wears is not even chainmail; it's bullpuckey 'silver coin' mail.

Next guy that defends the (not chaimail) tbat Sonja wears, is challenge to wear REAL chainmail SPEEDOS over bare skin and nads.

Put up Or Shut Up.

ed2962
06-10-2014, 04:52 AM
Also, I think an interesting discussion was happening over in the Batman thread regarding the "popularity" of White Rabbit. It sort of relates to the sexy debate here. For people who don't know, DC's WG is a villains whose suit is bunny ears, lingerie, and thigh high boots.

Lucette
06-10-2014, 10:03 PM
There isn't an Arm-Fall-Off Girl? ;)

The point is that a male warrior that is a bit disfigured is portrayed as being braver and tougher - that it is almost a badge of honour - yet with girls it would be seen as taking away her only true value - which is assumed not to be her personality or brains or fighting skill or willingness to keep fighting no matter the odds.

That said, I still remember my high school history teacher pointing to a person with an eye patch on the cover of the text book and telling us that his eye got eaten away with gonereha (sp). Eye patches seemed much less sexy after that.


There's no real historical precedent for what women's armor should look like,


Historical representations of women in combat:

Priceless!


I get the appeal of battle bikini outfits. I'm not even wholly opposed to these kinds of outfits. But to pretend they're useful as actual armor is ridiculous. To pretend that, in world, they wouldn't be problematic, difficult, and useless except as adornment, as a costume, seems to me, ridiculous, if not insulting.

True.

Remember a cartoon of a goalie as a guest on one of those daytime talk show with the host saying (paraphrasing): so you wear plastic underwear to work and they call you the dominator? Then again, there are reasons why hockey goaltenders don't play naked!

Anyone see the spoof of the Jacques Plante minute on Rick Mercer where, instead of Plante becoming the first goalie to wear a mask in a game after getting hit the the face, he was the fictional Jacques Trappe?


It's hard for me to tell about the clothing when the entire focus of the picture is a gigantic unrealistic ass.

She looks like she had a transplant - inflatable buttocks. Anyone read The Day my Butt Went Psycho - that looks like the cover of the book The Day My Butt Found Love - can't wait until he has to babysit the little farts.


Also, I think an interesting discussion was happening over in the Batman thread regarding the "popularity" of White Rabbit. It sort of relates to the sexy debate here. For people who don't know, DC's WG is a villains whose suit is bunny ears, lingerie, and thigh high boots.

Know the song and picturing Batman as sort of a male Alice - being small. Can anyone make a Batman / White Rabbit video of this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOyasacx9vQ

Mikekerr3
06-10-2014, 10:14 PM
I feel like the whole armor issue gets people way more riled up than it really should. There's no real historical precedent for what women's armor should look like, and it's not as if men's armor is depicted all that realistically either, what with all the spikes and skulls inconveniently placed all over. And style always factored just as much as function in armor design, from those muscle breastplates of the classical era to the extravagantly fancy plate armor of the late middle ages. Not to mention that heavy armor was always pretty rare, most people went into battle wearing little to no armor and some even went completely naked for psychological impact.

Sure, some like Joan of Arc did wear full plate armor on the battlefield, but you have to remember that she was also deeply committed to ideals of Christian modesty and her armor was patterned off the kind worn by men, there was hardly a standard type designed specifically for women. On top of that, it was mostly a symbolic gesture since she didn't really do much actual fighting, preferring to wave a banner and inspire troops around her rather than swing a sword. And there have been plenty of women who didn't follow this path, Alexander the Great's mother Olympias used to lead armies wearing quite provocative regalia, counting that the spectacle of her appearance would outweigh any tactical considerations.
Armor is a very pragmatic thing, the armour that people complain about provides no protection and serves no purpose other than decoration. Tens of thousands of American Women , military and police wear armor on a regular basis today, That armor provides the same coverage as men's armourt since it is protect the same vital organs. metal bikinis are not armor they are fetish wear.

There is a historical record out of France, China, Korea and japan of the armor women wore, amazingly it was the same basic things men wore.

Mikekerr3
06-10-2014, 10:18 PM
Do we really need to go to historical accounts in order to find out what a 21st century woman would wear today? Since I believe most women would be smart enough not to fight super baddies half naked, they would have some type of armor covering up most of their bodies. Certainly if they were not invulnerable.
You can see what armor wear today quite regularly on the news from Afghanistan, a lot of HEAVY armor. all modern mitarys operate in combat using armour unless they are too poor to formant d it. US grunt wear over 50 ponds of it, and get in trouble if they try to skip it since being willfully stupid is a crime in the military.

Mikekerr3
06-10-2014, 10:22 PM
I'm not arguing that chainmail bikini would actually be a helpful piece of armor, but that armor in general is pretty overrated and designed more to be fashionable than functional. If anything, wearing a skimpy costume in battle helps to keep dirty bits of clothing from infecting your wounds, a far more prolific killer of soldiers than combat.

On a grander point, the entire purpose of this costume debate is to depict women in a more modern and progressive manner, and I can't think of anything more backward than sticking people in clunky suits of metal armor.

Do you think the mitary spendss thousands of dollars on armor per troop to be fashionable. armor works very well, being able to get shot in the chest with a AK at point blank and living to tell about is not something that is overrated, even if it is fairly common today.

Tonamelt
06-10-2014, 10:32 PM
Comparing fantasy with history is pointless because we know fantasy relies on things that can't possibly be done in real life, and that of course, never happened in the past.

Discussing about the pragmatism of armor on a fictional story that isn't supposed to be realistic, it's the same as saying that magic users and monsters shouldn't exist on those worlds because they never existed in the real world.

Red Sonja cannot be compared with the women on those historical images because she is a Barbarian woman from a fantasy setting, her outfit is actually an archetype of the fantasy barbarian woman (make a Google Image search of "Barbarian woman" if you don't believe me). I doesn't mean real life women wore that, I doesn't even mean barbarians wore that. It's just fantasy targeted at men. But that doesn't mean is wrong or something.

The same way those shirtless werewolves from Twilight were targeted at women.

I mean, is it wrong that a product is targeted to a certain demographic? Nobody is forcing people to buy Red Sonja after all...

t hedge coke
06-10-2014, 10:40 PM
Nobody is forcing people to buy Red Sonja after all...

And nobody's trying to take Red Sonja away from anyone, either.

And, if you don't think a bunch of fanboys who love battle bikinis never complain if a guy gets shirtless... I wanna be in the community you're in, because here in the rest of the world, there is a gigantic double standard when it comes to overt sexualizing. Batman with with a Power Girl style cut-out, bending over to "humorously" show his butt on every other cover would result in a ton of fanboys yelling their heads off. Captain America leaving his costume unzipped down the front, exposing chest and belly a la Black Widow, would cause quite an outcry, and not because there aren't straight women and gay men who would be entertained by that on occasion (I doubt much of anyone would want it to be a permanent change).

Tonamelt
06-10-2014, 10:49 PM
And nobody's trying to take Red Sonja away from anyone, either.

And, if you don't think a bunch of fanboys who love battle bikinis never complain if a guy gets shirtless... I wanna be in the community you're in, because here in the rest of the world, there is a gigantic double standard when it comes to overt sexualizing. Batman with with a Power Girl style cut-out, bending over to "humorously" show his butt on every other cover would result in a ton of fanboys yelling their heads off. Captain America leaving his costume unzipped down the front, exposing chest and belly a la Black Widow, would cause quite an outcry, and not because there aren't straight women and gay men who would be entertained by that on occasion (I doubt much of anyone would want it to be a permanent change).

You can come to Mexico whenever you can, it's still part of the rest of the world :), here we don't mind if a male character is shirtless, I mean we love Box and Wrestling where they fight shirtless, so... yeah.

PwrdOn
06-10-2014, 10:52 PM
And nobody's trying to take Red Sonja away from anyone, either.

And, if you don't think a bunch of fanboys who love battle bikinis never complain if a guy gets shirtless... I wanna be in the community you're in, because here in the rest of the world, there is a gigantic double standard when it comes to overt sexualizing. Batman with with a Power Girl style cut-out, bending over to "humorously" show his butt on every other cover would result in a ton of fanboys yelling their heads off. Captain America leaving his costume unzipped down the front, exposing chest and belly a la Black Widow, would cause quite an outcry, and not because there aren't straight women and gay men who would be entertained by that on occasion (I doubt much of anyone would want it to be a permanent change).

Perhaps fanboys aren't exactly all too amenable towards shirtless men in general, but when it comes to this particular topic I think it's something that people have mostly gotten used to. Depictions of naked warriors go all the way back to antiquity and I doubt there were too many people complaining about Conan or He-Man or anyone like that. Even something like 300 which was practically overflowing with homoerotic subtext still attracted a primarily male audience, and there weren't exactly theaters packed with fanboys recoiling in horror. Armor simply doesn't look very heroic, if you show up to a fight wearing a full plate you don't look like a badass, you look like a cheater at best and a coward at worst.

thor
06-10-2014, 10:55 PM
And the bad female representation outweighs the good. I'm all for women wearing whatever the heck they want in comics but the thing is that they're not wearing what THEY want, they're wearing what their straight male artist wants them to wear. Not empowering, not equal.

indigim25
06-10-2014, 11:51 PM
And the bad female representation outweighs the good. I'm all for women wearing whatever the heck they want in comics but the thing is that they're not wearing what THEY want, they're wearing what their straight male artist wants them to wear. Not empowering, not equal.

Then there's nothing to do.

Alan2099
06-11-2014, 12:33 AM
Armor simply doesn't look very heroic, if you show up to a fight wearing a full plate you don't look like a badass, you look like a cheater at best and a coward at worst.
King Arthur, Joan of Arc, Ironman, Samus Aran, many of the modern incarnations of Batman. Your thoughts on seeing these characters are that they aren't heroes, they're cheaters and cowards?

Tonamelt
06-11-2014, 12:41 AM
I don't know why, but this thread reminds me of this image:

3731

The Darknight Detective
06-11-2014, 03:24 AM
You can see what armor wear today quite regularly on the news from Afghanistan, a lot of HEAVY armor. all modern mitarys operate in combat using armour unless they are too poor to formant d it. US grunt wear over 50 ponds of it, and get in trouble if they try to skip it since being willfully stupid is a crime in the military.

Right. It would be asinine not to use it when armor is obviously a life saver.

The Darknight Detective
06-11-2014, 03:32 AM
Perhaps fanboys aren't exactly all too amenable towards shirtless men in general, but when it comes to this particular topic I think it's something that people have mostly gotten used to. Depictions of naked warriors go all the way back to antiquity and I doubt there were too many people complaining about Conan or He-Man or anyone like that. Even something like 300 which was practically overflowing with homoerotic subtext still attracted a primarily male audience, and there weren't exactly theaters packed with fanboys recoiling in horror. Armor simply doesn't look very heroic, if you show up to a fight wearing a full plate you don't look like a badass, you look like a cheater at best and a coward at worst.

If you're representing a specific time in history in a comic-book story when warriors went into battle naked (the ancient Celts, i.e.), then, fine, make them naked (well, implied, anyway). However, if you're representing a specific time in history in a comic-book story when warriors didn't go into battle naked (IOW, the vast majority of the time), then cover them up. It's just illogical to do the opposite. BTW, that goes for men, too.

The Darknight Detective
06-11-2014, 03:40 AM
Comparing fantasy with history is pointless because we know fantasy relies on things that can't possibly be done in real life, and that of course, never happened in the past.

Discussing about the pragmatism of armor on a fictional story that isn't supposed to be realistic, it's the same as saying that magic users and monsters shouldn't exist on those worlds because they never existed in the real world.

I really, really hate this argument every time it's used. The DCnU should be our world if it had super powers, magic, etc. Those characters should act the way we would if we had those advantages, not differently.To say differently is to rationalize something illogical, that's all.

The Darknight Detective
06-11-2014, 03:43 AM
The point is that a male warrior that is a bit disfigured is portrayed as being braver and tougher - that it is almost a badge of honour - yet with girls it would be seen as taking away her only true value - which is assumed not to be her personality or brains or fighting skill or willingness to keep fighting no matter the odds.

My only point was... to make a joke, Lucette. ;)

ed2962
06-11-2014, 03:46 AM
I don't know why, but this thread reminds me of this image:

3731

Sorta false equivalency. There's a She Ra doll out there that no one complains about either. Probably cuz although she's feminized, she's still a warrior. And they stop short of making her look like a sex fantasy.

ed2962
06-11-2014, 04:09 AM
Also, for what it's worth, a fair amount of fanboys DO complain about Twilight. "It's unrealistic!" "It gives girls bad ideas about relationships!" "It's a sex fantasy for tweens!" "It's just guys with their shirts off!" "It's ruined vampires!"

Mark
06-11-2014, 04:37 AM
Sorta false equivalency. There's a She Ra doll out there that no one complains about either. Probably cuz although she's feminized, she's still a warrior. And they stop short of making her look like a sex fantasy.

I watched the She-Ra dvd last week and one the commentary track they mentioned that they had to make sure her skirt wouldn't flare up. They talked about how good a role model she was and I think that's true. While I always considered her beautiful I never considered her sexy, not in the same way I did Sue Richards or Wonder Woman. Possibly that was because of the stock footage animation that they used, she never seemed very real to me.

The Darknight Detective
06-11-2014, 04:40 AM
Funny you don't think you're the one rationalizing something illogical. Both the DC & Marvel U are far from representing how the earth would really be if humans had superpowers. In our non-superpowered real world, Batman wouldn't last a week.

Actually, I have commented on that quite a few times here at CBR, so I'm not rationalizing anything.

EDIT: Besides, no one makes up excuses for Bats being able to get out of scrapes that human beings in reality couldn't do in the same way others do when it comes to female skin in comics, anyway.

CliffHanger2
06-11-2014, 06:45 AM
Actually, I have commented on that quite a few times here at CBR, so I'm not rationalizing anything.

EDIT: Besides, no one makes up excuses for Bats being able to get out of scrapes that human beings in reality couldn't do in the same way others do when it comes to female skin in comics, anyway.

Oh yes they do, they say "He's the batgod! and with prep time Batman could beat anybody!"lol.

Mecegirl
06-11-2014, 06:45 AM
Yeah, that's the point, no one cares...

Now, comparing a man who lost his arm to someone who complains about art is waaaay out of proportion.

You know exactally what I mean. Your complaints about the complaining are meaningless. They won't stop people from complaining, because unlike you they actually have something to complain about.

The Darknight Detective
06-11-2014, 07:01 AM
Oh yes they do, they say "He's the batgod! and with prep time Batman could beat anybody!"lol.

It's not the same, though, because anybody who says that is not trying to hide their own feelings about having Bruce ascendant. Besides, prep time could help in many cases in actuality (though, admittedly, not nearly to the extreme many Batman fanatics go with it - as an obvious Batman fan, I don't like the Batgod silliness myself). However, when I start hearing how "empowered" women are when they are half-naked as superheroes, then we're not really getting the whole truth as to why they want to maintain the status quo.

CliffHanger2
06-11-2014, 07:28 AM
It's not the same, though, because anybody who says that is not trying to hide their own feelings about having Bruce ascendant. Besides, prep time could help in many cases in actuality (though, admittedly, not nearly to the extreme many Batman fanatics go with it - as an obvious Batman fan, I don't like the Batgod silliness myself). However, when I start hearing how "empowered" women are when they are half-naked as superheroes, then we're not really getting the whole truth as to why they want to maintain the status quo.

I think that rings true on both sides though. You have people who wave the feminist banner and will post a picture of She-Hulk in a bikini and say "See this is why I said she was a slut." Or "I don't like that Starfire is ho!" And it's like okay you're not a feminist your somebody with some sexual hang-ups and issues with women.

Then you have people that just don't like the superhero genre and don't even read the comics but every time this issue comes up they will speak with authority while not even acknowledging titles like Ms. Marvel, Black widow,She-Hulk etc. and it just comes across as phony.

Mikekerr3
06-11-2014, 09:20 AM
Then there's nothing to do.

Push for artists who don't like what pubescent boys drool over perhaps?

PwrdOn
06-11-2014, 09:38 AM
Sorta false equivalency. There's a She Ra doll out there that no one complains about either. Probably cuz although she's feminized, she's still a warrior. And they stop short of making her look like a sex fantasy.

She-Ra is a bit different though, because she was designed to sell dolls to little girls rather than to titillate adolescent boys. Still though, her costume checks off just about every item on the list of usual female costume gripes.

http://www.sweetskirt.com/gallery/var/albums/Anime-Sweet-Skirts-%26-dresses/She-Ra/sh2.jpg?m=1370830490

- Extremely skimpy minidress
- High heeled boots
- Headpiece with easy to grab frills
- Flowing red cape that can get caught on stuff
- Long hair loose instead of tied up

Granted, she does come off a bit more like some fantasy Barbie doll princess playing at soldier rather than a serious badass warrior woman or anything like that, but if that's what people wanted to see who can blame them? For what it's worth she did come off a lot more intelligent and capable than her brother, who was just a meatheaded bro most of the time.

Tonamelt
06-11-2014, 02:05 PM
Then you have people that just don't like the superhero genre and don't even read the comics but every time this issue comes up they will speak with authority while not even acknowledging titles like Ms. Marvel, Black widow,She-Hulk etc. and it just comes across as phony.

Most people who complain about Emma Frost have confessed they don't even read any X-Book, so basically what you say is true... They complain about Emma's outfit just for the LULZ...

The Darknight Detective
06-11-2014, 02:18 PM
I think that rings true on both sides though. You have people who wave the feminist banner and will post a picture of She-Hulk in a bikini and say "See this is why I said she was a slut." Or "I don't like that Starfire is ho!" And it's like okay you're not a feminist your somebody with some sexual hang-ups and issues with women.

Then you have people that just don't like the superhero genre and don't even read the comics but every time this issue comes up they will speak with authority while not even acknowledging titles like Ms. Marvel, Black widow,She-Hulk etc. and it just comes across as phony.

This is where I come down on the subject: I want the industry to survive. The best way for that to happen is, obviously, to have more people buy the product. If the industry can do this by making comics more friendlier to women without scaring the majority of present-day male readers, I say go for it.

Tonamelt
06-11-2014, 03:16 PM
This is where I come down on the subject: I want the industry to survive. The best way for that to happen is, obviously, to have more people buy the product. If the industry can do this by making comics more friendlier to women without scaring the majority of present-day male readers, I say go for it.

The industry (as a whole) is already friendly, the problem is people that focus their attention on those products that aren't targeted at them, while conveniently ingnoring those products that are actually targeted at them.

You will never see me complaining about Lumberjanes becasue I know it's not targeted at me.

So as I was saying complaining about those oversexualized female Marvel characters like Emma Frost while forgetting there are pro-feminist characters like Kitty Pryde is either a total lack of knowledge of the comics they are critizicing, or just pure trolling.

Marvel is inclusive, DC is having trouble with that but I'm sure they will realize that being inclusive sells more, so they will change their mind or perish.

But complaining about the oversexualization of Red Sonja, a Dynamite comic, an Editorial which specializes on selling male fantasies is like complaining about LGBT comics for being LGBT...

ed2962
06-11-2014, 05:24 PM
She-Ra is a bit different though, because she was designed to sell dolls to little girls rather than to titillate adolescent boys. Still though, her costume checks off just about every item on the list of usual female costume gripes.

http://www.sweetskirt.com/gallery/var/albums/Anime-Sweet-Skirts-%26-dresses/She-Ra/sh2.jpg?m=1370830490

- Extremely skimpy minidress
- High heeled boots
- Headpiece with easy to grab frills
- Flowing red cape that can get caught on stuff
- Long hair loose instead of tied up

Granted, she does come off a bit more like some fantasy Barbie doll princess playing at soldier rather than a serious badass warrior woman or anything like that, but if that's what people wanted to see who can blame them? For what it's worth she did come off a lot more intelligent and capable than her brother, who was just a meatheaded bro most of the time.

Sure. but the comparison between Barbie and He Man is still moot. It's a weak attempt at the old "nobody complains about the men" dismissive argument. I brought up She Ra cuz she's an idealized female that's part of the same line that most people aren't bothered by. So I don't think it's a case of "feminists" making a big deal out of every little thing. I could have brought up GI Joe which is a boy's toy that folks have complained about (jingolism, violence), but I didn't want to risk derailing the thread.

On the other hand, you're right...She Ra's suit is every bit as non-practical as many superheroines in the big 2.

On the the third hand, like you also mentioned, she's a kid friendly character so they made her pretty without eroticizing her.

Which I guess goes back to the OP's original question

PwrdOn
06-11-2014, 06:02 PM
She-Ra is an interesting case because while she's certainly depicted as a strong-willed and courageous fighter, she's also far from being a tomboy and is every bit the magical princess without any acknowledged contradiction between the two roles. Whether that is a realistic fantasy is debatable, but it seems to fall more in line with a typical girl's fantasy than the standard action heroine who dresses plainly and just wants to be one of the guys or whatever. And while she's not explicitly sexualized, it's definitely not hard to see her that way if you chose to, since she's not exactly a paragon of modesty either.

Perhaps comics would do well to introduce more characters that fit this kind of profile. Women of all ages absolutely adored Elsa even though, objectively speaking, she didn't do a whole hell of a lot in the movie and her big liberation number involved her trading her modest outfit for that far more provocative ice dress. Compare that to someone like Merida who was more of the expected impulsive and reckless tomboy type, and who was arguably a far more proactive and driven lead character that serves as a much better role model, but didn't get nearly the same degree of reaction from audiences.

CliffHanger2
06-11-2014, 06:16 PM
Most people who complain about Emma Frost have confessed they don't even read any X-Book, so basically what you say is true... They complain about Emma's outfit just for the LULZ...

Yeah trolling is a good word for it, those same types still complain about W.Ws thong that she hasn't worn in something like a decade. As for the current run of W.W oh they don't read that, never read the past issues either.

CliffHanger2
06-11-2014, 06:23 PM
This is where I come down on the subject: I want the industry to survive. The best way for that to happen is, obviously, to have more people buy the product. If the industry can do this by making comics more friendlier to women without scaring the majority of present-day male readers, I say go for it.

The thing is Marvel/DC have books aimed at a younger crowd I've seen them in comic stores. Books based on the cartoons, Marvel has a good deal of female friendly titles now. Now if the people who say they want that never talk about those books or even buy them for that matter,why should these companies care?

I remember posting about some of those titles and people basically found every excuse to say basically "It doesn't matter" I even pointed out how CapMarvel was aimed at feminists now "Oh no it's not." Then that title ended up on a feminists list of comics lol. It's like at some point people have to support what they say they want verbally and with dollars otherwise they're just trolling.

TroubleWithTrebles
06-11-2014, 06:30 PM
Push for artists who don't like what pubescent boys drool over perhaps?

AGAIN, folks need to stop assuming this is in the hands of the artists. If an EDITOR, who hires/fires/approves paychecks for the artist, wants Benes or Bill Black artists or late 90s Image clone wannabe Silvestri cameltoe shots with torpedo boobs, meaning all the sexist art complained about here, then the artist - AS A HIRED EMPLOYEE with more to lose than 5 people seeking change in a thread - has no say.

Some artists make the choice to cheescake it up, others would be FAR happier to draw women ala Fiona Staples and Colleen Doran.

Stop taking the weak ass position of blaming an employee for middle-management policy (which may often be unspoken and unwritten but always there, like racism, as Dwayne McDuffie back in the day could attest to).

This thread, though, can be divided into"what's proper" and "what's possible soon".

Everything lucette has said, and Laird Hedgercoke has said, is ethically true, valid and important.

PRAGMATICALLY anyone following their views must make a pragmatic change in what they and their friends buy/sell in comics if they want to see depictions of women in standard genre comics change.

Just like bus boycotts and buying from non racist merchants despite agonized feet and difficult shopping made the difference in civil rights.

How much sexploitatation as complained about here has been on Game of Thrones and The Tudors on TV? And demographically how many women watched and loved those shows (and worked on the Tudors which was hardly "accurate"?)

anyajenkins
06-11-2014, 08:44 PM
She-Ra is a bit different though, because she was designed to sell dolls to little girls rather than to titillate adolescent boys. Still though, her costume checks off just about every item on the list of usual female costume gripes.

http://www.sweetskirt.com/gallery/var/albums/Anime-Sweet-Skirts-%26-dresses/She-Ra/sh2.jpg?m=1370830490

- Extremely skimpy minidress
- High heeled boots
- Headpiece with easy to grab frills
- Flowing red cape that can get caught on stuff
- Long hair loose instead of tied up

Granted, she does come off a bit more like some fantasy Barbie doll princess playing at soldier rather than a serious badass warrior woman or anything like that, but if that's what people wanted to see who can blame them? For what it's worth she did come off a lot more intelligent and capable than her brother, who was just a meatheaded bro most of the time.
Isn't that kind of the point? Some were complaining about the outfits, other people said you can't apply real world standards to a fantasy, but the people 'complaining' aren't advocating 'real world'. No one is saying everyone should were flak jackets and helmuts all the time. just don't have the girls look like blow up dolls. In this case, it's not the most practically outfit, but she doesn't look like a blow up doll. Although from a practical standpoint, it wouldn't rip her skin off like bad chain mail, and she doesn't have a perpetually wedgie/thong and her skirt magically stays put all the time. ;)

Paradox
06-11-2014, 09:16 PM
Tonamelt doesn't see the difference: http://community.comicbookresources.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://community.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?4805-Sexy-vs-Sexist-Where-do-you-draw-the-line&p=182148&viewfull=1#post182148)

I don't know why, but this thread reminds me of this image:

3731

This whole thread's been reminding me of this image, but I'm very aware of why.

http://nb9.stumbleupon.netdna-cdn.com/17KczcopE_OBMd3kcT0Czw

t hedge coke
06-11-2014, 09:20 PM
AGAIN, folks need to stop assuming this is in the hands of the artists. If an EDITOR, who hires/fires/approves paychecks for the artist, wants Benes or Bill Black artists or late 90s Image clone wannabe Silvestri cameltoe shots with torpedo boobs, meaning all the sexist art complained about here, then the artist - AS A HIRED EMPLOYEE with more to lose than 5 people seeking change in a thread - has no say.

Partially true, though Bill Black probably isn't the best example.

Heck, Silvestri's a weird case in that, yeah, his Marvel work was full of swimsuit-costumes and plunging necklines, but he was also the one who put Havok in a "goblin queen" outfit and has probably given more money Wolverine and X-Men shots than any other pro artist drawing sexy X-Men (as opposed to X-Women). But, when he went to do Cyberforce, you get a wider variety of men and women, almost immediately, including different breast sizes, but also jackets, armor, men with bared chests flexing not un-erotically, women standing tall and fierce without twisting for a butt-n-boob shot, and nary a gigantic butt thrust at the reader just 'cause.

Changing from working for an editor, for a publisher with whom many things were fait accompli, Marc Silvestri's cache of conceits and go-to elements changes, the same way Superman has less bondage in it than one of his creator's other work could, but Superman did, for a long time, have a bitter misogynistic streak (aka the Spanking Era or How Lois Proved to Be a Nosy Snoopy Girl Ruining The Fun Instead of a Reporter Doing Her Job) because the editor was a virulent bitter man who dictated quite a bit of that noise.

Editors, Publishers, et al, can dictate content quite strongly. They can demand changes, or have others make the changes later.

The biggest fail in Larry Hama's Wolverine was a story where the X-Men lecture Wolverine that their neighbor, who is beating and terrifying his wife and children, shouldn't be attacked, shouldn't have the cops called on him, and shouldn't be actively stopped, because he's their neighbor and just some family man. It's a stupid conclusion to a good build up, and Hama undoes it a few issues later by stealth-killing the neighbor. By all accounts, that was a script change handed down, that wrecks the point of the story and sends out a very unhealthy message.

The Gen 13 story where a friend/relative of Fairchild's is being abused by her significant other, whom Fairchild proceeds to put the fear of god and fists into, ran roughly at the same time, and no "private home thing is private home thing" comes up, presumably because there was less corporate overhead and dodgy editorial practices with Image/WildStorm. Not that Gen 13 wasn't a comic that spent an entire father and daughter reunite and bond scene with five pages of the daughter's butt, which isn't necessarily a sexist choice, but is pretty questionable, and something that-era Marvel probably wouldn't have run.

TroubleWithTrebles
06-11-2014, 11:30 PM
Partially true, though Bill Black probably isn't the best example.

Heck, Silvestri's a weird case in that, yeah, his Marvel work was full of swimsuit-costumes and plunging necklines, but he was also the one who put Havok in a "goblin queen" outfit and has probably given more money Wolverine and X-Men shots than any other pro artist drawing sexy X-Men (as opposed to X-Women). But, when he went to do Cyberforce, you get a wider variety of men and women, almost immediately, including different breast sizes, but also jackets, armor, men with bared chests flexing not un-erotically, women standing tall and fierce without twisting for a butt-n-boob shot, and nary a gigantic butt thrust at the reader just 'cause.

Changing from working for an editor, for a publisher with whom many things were fait accompli, Marc Silvestri's cache of conceits and go-to elements changes, the same way Superman has less bondage in it than one of his creator's other work could, but Superman did, for a long time, have a bitter misogynistic streak (aka the Spanking Era or How Lois Proved to Be a Nosy Snoopy Girl Ruining The Fun Instead of a Reporter Doing Her Job) because the editor was a virulent bitter man who dictated quite a bit of that noise.

Editors, Publishers, et al, can dictate content quite strongly. They can demand changes, or have others make the changes later.

The biggest fail in Larry Hama's Wolverine was a story where the X-Men lecture Wolverine that their neighbor, who is beating and terrifying his wife and children, shouldn't be attacked, shouldn't have the cops called on him, and shouldn't be actively stopped, because he's their neighbor and just some family man. It's a stupid conclusion to a good build up, and Hama undoes it a few issues later by stealth-killing the neighbor. By all accounts, that was a script change handed down, that wrecks the point of the story and sends out a very unhealthy message.

The Gen 13 story where a friend/relative of Fairchild's is being abused by her significant other, whom Fairchild proceeds to put the fear of god and fists into, ran roughly at the same time, and no "private home thing is private home thing" comes up, presumably because there was less corporate overhead and dodgy editorial practices with Image/WildStorm. Not that Gen 13 wasn't a comic that spent an entire father and daughter reunite and bond scene with five pages of the daughter's butt, which isn't necessarily a sexist choice, but is pretty questionable, and something that-era Marvel probably wouldn't have run.

Agreed, but that is why I said WANNABE Silvestries, and not impune the work of the man himself.


Also I invoked Bill Black as a PUBLISHER not an artist in my post above since he would decide who drew Femforce, why, how, and if they got paid for doing ehat he wanted. The way he wanted. Like worm's eye view shots of pudendums.

mathew101281
06-12-2014, 12:29 AM
This whole thread's been reminding me of this image, but I'm very aware of why.

http://nb9.stumbleupon.netdna-cdn.com/17KczcopE_OBMd3kcT0Czw

This whole thread in comicbook form.

Tonamelt
06-12-2014, 01:28 AM
This whole thread's been reminding me of this image, but I'm very aware of why.

http://nb9.stumbleupon.netdna-cdn.com/17KczcopE_OBMd3kcT0Czw

So...

The best way to create a Batman that appeals to women is to draw him as a frog-like creature? :confused:

I'd rather have the anime version of Bruce Wayne, it appeals to women and it doesn't look like a fish/frog/whatever that is.

3774

Paradox
06-12-2014, 02:04 AM
Right, because that's the whole point...how to specifically draw Batman, and not the idiotic false equivalence issue.

Tonamelt
06-12-2014, 02:25 AM
The only false equivalence I see in that manipulative comic/propaganda is to think that oversexualized female characters are the same thing that male frog-like creatures that would make both men and women uncomfortable, because it looks STUPID.

Let me show you something that could actually appeal to women and make some men uncomfortable, and at the same time looks cool:

3775

StoneGold
06-12-2014, 02:26 AM
This whole thread's been reminding me of this image, but I'm very aware of why.

http://nb9.stumbleupon.netdna-cdn.com/17KczcopE_OBMd3kcT0Czw

Here's my problem with this cartoon -- it assumes that all media should be acceptable for all people.

This is why there should be more explosions and full frontal nudity in romantic comedies, because they aren't meeting my personal entertainment needs. I mean, I really want to see a movie about teenagers with cancer who fall in love, but it doesn't meet enough of my personal requirements to enjoy it fully. This is why there are different categories of porn, so we don't all have to jack it to the same stuff.

Tonamelt
06-12-2014, 02:30 AM
Here's my problem with this cartoon -- it assumes that all media should be acceptable for all people.

This is why there should be more explosions and full frontal nudity in romantic comedies, because they aren't meeting my personal entertainment needs. I mean, I really want to see a movie about teenagers with cancer who fall in love, but it doesn't meet enough of my personal requirements to enjoy it fully. This is why there are different categories of porn, so we don't all have to jack it to the same stuff.

I agree with you, next time I see a romantic movie, I want to see explosions and bullets flying, And I want to see Bruce Willis fighting Jackie Chan and what about the horn from inception duuuun duuuun duuuun, and maybe some intellectual shit, like philosophy about life and death, and dreams and outer space and time travel... Because a romantic story is not inclusive enough to everyone, so... yeah.

StoneGold
06-12-2014, 02:38 AM
I agree with you, next time I see a romantic movie, I want to see explosions and bullets flying, And I want to see Bruce Willis fighting Jackie Chan and what about the horn from inception duuuun duuuun duuuun, and maybe some intellectual shit, like philosophy about life and death, and dreams and outer space and time travel... Because a romantic story is not inclusive enough to everyone, so... yeah.

And hey, every once in a while, you get something with crossover potential. Hunger Games. Non-threatening male leads looking pensive AND action sequences. But that doesn't mean the cancer teen movie can't exist, or... I dunno, let's say Drive Angry, which may be one of the most awesome, violent, booby filled movies ever made. Really, it's an awesome exploitation flick that no one saw.

Paradox
06-12-2014, 04:49 AM
StoneGold reads a lot in:

Here's my problem with this cartoon -- it assumes that all media should be acceptable for all people.

Really? Because it looks to me like it's explaining how the old "women aren't drawn exploitively because men are all muscly" argument is a load of hoo ha, because what women find attractive isn't the same thing men do. It's not saying anything about media or acceptability, it's saying "if what you're saying were true, it'd be like THIS", not that it SHOULD be.

ed2962
06-12-2014, 04:56 AM
Thing is, the all things aren't for every audience argument is valid when we're talking about stuff like say Zenoscope comics or Tarot or something. But for the most part, we've been talking about Marvel/DC superheroes, and these characters were intended to appeal to a large and broad audience. The whole reason Dick Grayson even exists is cuz the company wanted to make Batman more kid friendly.

The truth of the matter is that boys AND girls watched BATS and X-Men Evolution. Men AND women went to see The Avengers and Man Of Steel movies. College age guys AND gals play video games based on these heroes. The depictions of these characters in other media are able to appeal to a variety of males and female across different age groups. But if when we come back to the comics that inspired them, we occasionally get the message of " Oh no, this is poorly drawn boarder line wank bait only for a small group post adolescent dudes," then there's a disconnect.

ed2962
06-12-2014, 05:00 AM
Here's my problem with this cartoon -- it assumes that all media should be acceptable for all people.

This is why there should be more explosions and full frontal nudity in romantic comedies, because they aren't meeting my personal entertainment needs. I mean, I really want to see a movie about teenagers with cancer who fall in love, but it doesn't meet enough of my personal requirements to enjoy it fully. This is why there are different categories of porn, so we don't all have to jack it to the same stuff.


No, it doesn't. It assumes that Batman should be for everyone. And you're right when you say that there are different categories of porn for people of different tastes, but Batman comics published by DC aren't supposed to be porn.

t hedge coke
06-12-2014, 05:34 AM
No, it doesn't. It assumes that Batman should be for everyone. And you're right when you say that there are different categories of porn for people of different tastes, but Batman comics published by DC aren't supposed to be porn.

It doesn't even suggest that much. It just shows, at most, that people shouldn't try to pull bs false equivalencies to defend how many female comics characters are dressed or posed as "the same" as broad-chested, standing tall heroic and usually fully-dressed men. The strip doesn't say there shouldn't be cheesecake or whatever, just that cheesecake or belly windows are not the same as standing-tall-heroic-muscle-shots and bat-emblems. Power Girl's keyhole is not the same, does not have the same power or do the same things, as Superman's S-shield. To pretend they're the same, because they're both centered on a chest, is as silly as saying that Batman is as objectified as Catwoman. When Captain America and Batman spend every appearance with their fronts zipped down to their pubes, that might approach being true, but right now, no.

http://nb9.stumbleupon.netdna-cdn.com/17KczcopE_OBMd3kcT0Czw[/QUOTE]

Looking a the actual words, or what's shown, there no part where anyone says Batman should be drawn like that. There's no part anyone says "all media should be for all people." The dude says X and Y are the same. The woman says they're not and explains why they're different. That's it. At no point are there attempts to say "Batman must be sexy to me" or "Character X can't be sexy to you or in ways you like." It doesn't even say Batman has to be for everyone. Just that Batman being muscled and rich and standing heroic in the night is not the same as belly windows and butt shots, even if both are similarly "unlikely" or unlikely to be achieved by the reader.

CliffHanger2
06-12-2014, 06:41 AM
So there are no women who find big muscle men attractive/sexy? It's strictly a male power fantasy? Tell that to the girls on jersey shore.:cool:

Kieran_Frost
06-12-2014, 07:24 AM
So there are no women who find big muscle men attractive/sexy? It's strictly a male power fantasy? Tell that to the girls on jersey shore.:cool:
Big muscles (since Ancient Greece) have been a symbol of masculinity; it is a power fantasy. Huge tits, and sticking your butt out while posing haven't been a symbol of femininity EVER! There is a massive difference. It's not that women (and men) can't find big muscles attractive (though most women and men I know think "huge muscles" - body builder big AREN'T attractive); it's that it's not (by default) sexualized. Even with big muscles, I rarely see male heroes sexualized; put in a pose or situation for obvious titillation.

Arvandor
06-12-2014, 07:40 AM
Put it this way.

I like cheesecake t&a comics. And one of the reasons I've given up on the Big Two is because there just isn't enough of it. I feel neglected.

t hedge coke
06-12-2014, 08:03 AM
If anyone thinks a superheroine with her front undone to her waist is empowering and heroic the way a cape around the neck is, I want you to try to imagine children, on the playground, deliberately dressing that way to beat up imaginary badguys. If you think the twist pose where a comics character shows off their whole butt and both breasts in a way that would be incredibly uncomfortable if not unhealthy for an actual human being is heroic and badass the way that hands on hips, back straight, determined chin is...

If we're going to talk superheroes, Batman and the like, I really don't care much how any of us, as adults, feel, I care about kids on playgrounds and what "You tie a towel on your neck! And you wear sunglasses to keep your laser eyes in check! And you... you should wear a swimsuit, and have a cleavage window" plays in that arena. Corporate superheroes that are on a bunch of lunchboxes and sleeping bags for kids, should be available to, and friendly for kids. That Cartoon Network can make entire seasons of a Teen Titans cartoon without ever resorting to the kind of objectification you'll find in almost any Titans comic from the past ten years isn't a miracle, what's astonishing is that DC won't go more than three months without putting the emphasis on a teen's boobs or impractically low-cut top to show off those breasts. (It's kind of funny that Nolan managed to present the least objectified version of Catwoman we've had in movies/TV, and he managed to do it while dressing her up in a maid costume. DC, y'know, can't even not put lipstick and eyeshadow on Wonder Woman in panels where the text is saying she doesn't wear lipstick or make up. Lipstick, itself, isn't sexist, but a flat refusal to even try, when the story calls for it, to not apply the stuff... is odd, and not something you'd see with Batman, who can, and has, appeared with a five o'clock shadow, with scars, with missing teeth or a busted nose. If DC published the equivalent of RIP with Wonder Woman, homeless, drugged, amnesiac and post-heart attack, she'd still be sporting tiny tiny shorts and have full make up or DC probably would have the colorist do it again to fix it.)

CliffHanger2
06-12-2014, 09:22 AM
Big muscles (since Ancient Greece) have been a symbol of masculinity; it is a power fantasy. Huge tits, and sticking your butt out while posing haven't been a symbol of femininity EVER! There is a massive difference. It's not that women (and men) can't find big muscles attractive (though most women and men I know think "huge muscles" - body builder big AREN'T attractive); it's that it's not (by default) sexualized. Even with big muscles, I rarely see male heroes sexualized; put in a pose or situation for obvious titillation.

I'm gonna have to disagree that huge breasts and a woman sticking her butt out have never been symbols of femininity or that they currently aren't. As to males being put in poses of obvious titillation this is true, but then most women don't find that attractive either. They tend to find suggestion or subtlety more appealing, men are different.

ScottSummers
06-12-2014, 09:59 AM
What's sexualized on women, and what's sexualized on men is different and always has been. We're sexually polar creatures. What we like seems to always be a back and forth. Going back as long as art has existed. Although it doesn't seem that way now, the Mona Lisa and David are both exaggerated, just by different preferences than what exist today. That's something the Batman strip there sort of misses. It's presenting this as if it's static. As if Batman would never be drawn that way to appeal to men. But that's false. Pink used to be a "boys" color, and drab colors used to be for women. Now it's the other way around. Men dress in unaccented clothes, while women doll themselves up. Men may one day be valued for "full lips" (in fact that's already becoming a 'thing') or big eyes. Just as fat used to be desirable because it meant the person was [probably] rich and had access to lots of food (which was a more common problem of the past). Now we prefer "skinny" or "fit" people because fat is common and frequently associated with lesser status.

Pop culture is highly generalized because it has to be. It's trying to appeal to a common and broad audience so as to make the most money.

For me someone who complains endlessly about the generalization used to tell what basically amounts of childish revenge fantasies that take place in world's suffering from the Just World Fallacy are frankly just not getting out enough. I own comics, but I don't spend enough time reading them that such things would bother me. If someone is having so much trouble divorcing themselves from the world of comics that it becomes "background" noise they need to start living with us normies. I know NOBODY who has this problem outside of the bloggers of the net. I mean, I know a few now that I think about it, but they are very lonely people who don't socialize (or drink and call it "socializing") or broaden their horizons. Comics are selling idealized worlds, and yes the "sensitive male" such as the Batman depicted is gaining popularity. But this is not a new thing. It started way back in the 80s when they put Mr. Mom in a Batsuit. And has been reaching it's zenith since they put Robert Downey Jr. in an Iron Man outfit. Both of those stars are the sensitive man's action hero. Before those two the mold was Arnold and that chick from Flavor of Love.

Similarly we're seeing the redux of the strong female lead that's been around since Alien. Remember Weaver was not some big-boobed, perfect hair sex kitten. Nor was the original Sarah Connor, who was also flanked by a sensitive male counterpart.

This isn't a backlash against sexism, it's simply a change in the market demand. People are just using it to frame a pretend agenda that isn't going on. Male and female forms have always shifted, as has the taste. You've always had Hercules and Apollo. But this has very little to do with reality. Most guys do not date women trying as close as they can to replicate a Victoria Secret model. Again, the only few I can think of are highly sexually immature and despite their claims of banging scores of women can never seem to land one girlfriend (huh? fancy that?).

Kieran_Frost
06-12-2014, 10:00 AM
I'm gonna have to disagree that huge breasts and a woman sticking her butt out have never been symbols of femininity or that they currently aren't.
This is feminine

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0b/Sandro_Botticelli_-_La_nascita_di_Venere_-_Google_Art_Project_-_edited.jpg/1280px-Sandro_Botticelli_-_La_nascita_di_Venere_-_Google_Art_Project_-_edited.jpg

This is NOT!
http://wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net/80450F/comicsalliance.com/files/2010/04/heroes-for-hire-tentacle-rape-1.jpg

Despite Venus having far more flesh on display, her pose is gentle and feminine. Venus' breasts aren't ridiculously overblown, she isn't oozing sex, nor is her waist ridiculously minuscule; nor is her body there to evoke an erection. It's there to evoke beauty. It's a very obvious difference.


As to males being put in poses of obvious titillation this is true.
Thank-you. :)

ScottSummers
06-12-2014, 10:07 AM
This is feminine

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0b/Sandro_Botticelli_-_La_nascita_di_Venere_-_Google_Art_Project_-_edited.jpg/1280px-Sandro_Botticelli_-_La_nascita_di_Venere_-_Google_Art_Project_-_edited.jpg

This is NOT!
http://wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net/80450F/comicsalliance.com/files/2010/04/heroes-for-hire-tentacle-rape-1.jpg
Both are feminine and both are equally anatomically incorrect. There's no reason to believe people back then would find the bottom one sexy but the top one not sexy. They probably got all sorts of boners about Venus. You didn't live during the time of the former so you can't appreciate the taste of that era and what led them to depict women as looking that way. It may have even been sexist.

ScottSummers
06-12-2014, 10:43 AM
Thing is, the all things aren't for every audience argument is valid when we're talking about stuff like say Zenoscope comics or Tarot or something. But for the most part, we've been talking about Marvel/DC superheroes, and these characters were intended to appeal to a large and broad audience. The whole reason Dick Grayson even exists is cuz the company wanted to make Batman more kid friendly.

The truth of the matter is that boys AND girls watched BATS and X-Men Evolution. Men AND women went to see The Avengers and Man Of Steel movies. College age guys AND gals play video games based on these heroes. The depictions of these characters in other media are able to appeal to a variety of males and female across different age groups. But if when we come back to the comics that inspired them, we occasionally get the message of " Oh no, this is poorly drawn boarder line wank bait only for a small group post adolescent dudes," then there's a disconnect.
This. Think of Marvel and DC as the McDonalds of comics. It's usually mediocre, but it's made with consistency and predictability to please a broad audience with low expectations. No one wants to open up Spider-Man and find him drinking coffee with Harvey Peckar and discussing the merits of post-modernism.

PwrdOn
06-12-2014, 10:55 AM
Just in general, it's a bad idea to categorize by artistic merit. Sure most pornography is crudely and untastefully done, but that doesn't mean that if a particular piece were really well done it would suddenly become something other than pornography. And at the same time, it's unfair to apply ridiculous standards to comic art, which is churned out on an assembly line for mass consumption, not meant to be displayed at some highbrow art gallery or whatever.

ScottSummers
06-12-2014, 10:57 AM
Just in general, it's a bad idea to categorize by artistic merit. Sure most pornography is crudely and untastefully done, but that doesn't mean that if a particular piece were really well done it would suddenly become something other than pornography. And at the same time, it's unfair to apply ridiculous standards to comic art, which is churned out on an assembly line for mass consumption, not meant to be displayed at some highbrow art gallery or whatever.
That's sort of my point, actually. Which is why I said usually artistic merit is decided at a later date. It's not some knee-jerk reaction, it's usually that the impact of the piece is felt for a long time and eventually it earns a reputation. This idea that we can just look at things and go "art", "not art", "sexist", "not sexist" right away is absurd.

Like you say most of these "sexist" comics will end up in a 3 for a dollar bin and never heard from again precisely because they are mass-produced cheap crap. There will be a select few that live on, but not many.

PwrdOn
06-12-2014, 11:06 AM
That's sort of my point, actually. Which is why I said usually artistic merit is decided at a later date. It's not some knee-jerk reaction, it's usually that the impact of the piece is felt for a long time and eventually it earns a reputation. This idea that we can just look at things and go "art", "not art", "sexist", "not sexist" right away is absurd.

Like you say most of these "sexist" comics will end up in a 3 for a dollar bin and never heard from again precisely because they are mass-produced cheap crap. There will be a select few that live on, but not many.

Well if you think about it, among the most famous and memorable comic book covers of all time, there are almost none that feature lewd or vulgar depictions of women. Then again, part of that is because few of them show any women, period, meaning that if you just go by the art you would get the impression that female characters were even less important to comics than they actually are. I imagine that a big reason for this is because the conservative morality of the comics code severely restricted any kind of overt sexualization of women, and in turn artists saw no need to feature them prominently which lead to the wholly unbalanced sausage fest we have now.

StoneGold
06-12-2014, 11:18 AM
Really? Because it looks to me like it's explaining how the old "women aren't drawn exploitively because men are all muscly" argument is a load of hoo ha, because what women find attractive isn't the same thing men do. It's not saying anything about media or acceptability, it's saying "if what you're saying were true, it'd be like THIS", not that it SHOULD be.

Oh, it's exploitation. My question being is exploitation wrong in and of itself? Twilight Batman in the later panel is exploitation in its own way as well.

StoneGold
06-12-2014, 11:22 AM
No, it doesn't. It assumes that Batman should be for everyone. And you're right when you say that there are different categories of porn for people of different tastes, but Batman comics published by DC aren't supposed to be porn.

Yeah, that's kind of crap. If you want to narrow it down to Batman, as opposed to all media, fine. But to that, I call BS. Batman is not meant for everyone either. Batman, at its core, is about punching evil in the face. There is a large part of the audience for whom punching evil in the face is a storyline they just don't want to read about. You don't change Batman to appeal to those that would rather see a romantic tale of life in the 1850s because the core concept of Batman doesn't appeal to them.

It's basic marketing -- is it worth alienating your core audience in an attempt to reach out to a wider, currently mostly unexisting audience?

Stony
06-12-2014, 12:05 PM
Keep it civil, please
Thank you

Tonamelt
06-12-2014, 12:08 PM
Thing is, the all things aren't for every audience argument is valid when we're talking about stuff like say Zenoscope comics or Tarot or something. But for the most part, we've been talking about Marvel/DC superheroes, and these characters were intended to appeal to a large and broad audience. The whole reason Dick Grayson even exists is cuz the company wanted to make Batman more kid friendly.

The truth of the matter is that boys AND girls watched BATS and X-Men Evolution. Men AND women went to see The Avengers and Man Of Steel movies. College age guys AND gals play video games based on these heroes. The depictions of these characters in other media are able to appeal to a variety of males and female across different age groups. But if when we come back to the comics that inspired them, we occasionally get the message of " Oh no, this is poorly drawn boarder line wank bait only for a small group post adolescent dudes," then there's a disconnect.

That whole argument only shows that the same characters can have different versions in order to appeal to a broader audience... That doesn't mean one single version could appeal to everyone.

Batman the Brave and the Bold was a cartoon that could be watched by everyone, and children enjoyed it... while most adults think it was entertaining but everyone agrees that's just one "face" of the Batman franchise.

But when reading Batman or Detective Comics, it's obvious you will find violence, blood, murders, corpses, unhinged characters and all the sick stuff Bats has to deal every night while protecting Gotham. So it's kind of incorrect to assume that Batman comics, which are supposed to have a serious tone, have to be the same that a saturday morning cartoon.

Michael P
06-12-2014, 12:10 PM
Who says Batman comics are "supposed" to have a serious tone?

And since when is half-hearted grand guignol "serious"?

Tonamelt
06-12-2014, 12:20 PM
The very essence of the Batman franchise is to have a serious tone, that was the original idea after all...

3795

ScottSummers
06-12-2014, 01:29 PM
What's funny to me about *most* internet sexism (and rape) discussion is they tend to focus around things society deems sexy. Like in the rape culture thread it's mostly about hot-sweaty jocks trying to get with cheerleaders, or subtle rape-y vibes on TV and movies that involve conventionally attractive actresses. Even here in the sexism thread the discussion is mostly "Wonder Woman's boob-a-licious" costume. It's not "hey let's talk about the south side of town where there's a prostitution ring being run out of an abandoned building" or "hey, let's talk about the rape that goes on between staff and retirees in old folks homes" (which is way more common than the dubious statistical "certainty" one would be raped in college - even though the FBI estimates the college demographic accounts for less than 2% of all alleged rapes, and that's assuming 98% were not reported, reported is less than 1%). The funny thing to me is the most common victims of gross acts of misogyny or rape probably lack the resources to even purchase a comic, let alone fall victim to whatever subliminal message it may or may not have. They've probably never even heard of Wonder Woman. It's the classic scenario of watching the news and thinking it's going on in our backyard, even when it's really happening on the south side of Chicago and never leaving.

It seems to me these pop culture discussion are just attempting to erect a scapegoat to send off into the woods so we can ignore the really pressing issues.

TroubleWithTrebles
06-12-2014, 01:34 PM
Big muscles (since Ancient Greece) have been a symbol of masculinity; it is a power fantasy. Huge tits, and sticking your butt out while posing haven't been a symbol of femininity EVER! There is a massive difference. It's not that women (and men) can't find big muscles attractive (though most women and men I know think "huge muscles" - body builder big AREN'T attractive); it's that it's not (by default) sexualized. Even with big muscles, I rarely see male heroes sexualized; put in a pose or situation for obvious titillation.

https://m.artsy.net/artwork/jean-auguste-dominique-ingres-la-grande-odalisque

https://m.artsy.net/artwork/diego-velazquez-the-toilet-of-venus-the-rokeby-venus

https://m.artsy.net/artwork/albrecht-durer-four-naked-women-b-75-m-dot-holl-69-s-dot-m-s-17


All from men considered members of the greatest artists in history.

Historically the fine art side of the argument denies you. Your points aside from that are well placed.

Mbast1
06-12-2014, 01:44 PM
Often when issues of sexism in geek culture come up I here someone say "I don't have a problem with sexuality in (what ever medium or genre they are talking about) but..." . This brings up the issue of of where the line of demarcation between sexy and sexist is. What are your views on the difference?

Difficult question, especially when we're dealing with fictional characters. Where in a real person, you can say "they choose this or that", you can't do that with a fictional character. When it's tried, and it is, it looks self-serving.
For me, it's somewhere around a confluence of things. Is it gratuitous, does it pander to the audience (or a segment of the audience), are there alternatives (that is, if THIS person is in a skimpy costume or there plenty of others who aren't, or are they part of a trend/pattern?), and is it something that a person in real life would find insulting if the character were real.
IRL some women, for example, DO dress in tight/skimpy clothes. Their choice. But, in comics that is the norm, it's almost required, and that (IMO) is a problem.

CliffHanger2
06-12-2014, 02:02 PM
Big muscles (since Ancient Greece) have been a symbol of masculinity; it is a power fantasy. Huge tits, and sticking your butt out while posing haven't been a symbol of femininity EVER! There is a massive difference. It's not that women (and men) can't find big muscles attractive (though most women and men I know think "huge muscles" - body builder big AREN'T attractive); it's that it's not (by default) sexualized. Even with big muscles, I rarely see male heroes sexualized; put in a pose or situation for obvious titillation.

Allow me to introduce you to the Venus of Willendorf.
http://i1359.photobucket.com/albums/q789/Bobo302/venus3_zps609509d1.jpg

And the Victorian bustle dress.
http://i1359.photobucket.com/albums/q789/Bobo302/bustledress_zps1589813b.jpg

TroubleWithTrebles
06-12-2014, 02:03 PM
One of Ingres most famous paintings which inspired Velasquez to recreate it was indubitably designed to draw attention to the female figure's rumpus. As does the image of Venus by Ruebens. Does the image make people like Dan Savage cringe? Yes. But not Germaine Greer or Camille Paglia.

All 3 artists are always in the top 30 art genius of all time I believe.

Arvandor
06-12-2014, 02:27 PM
This is NOT!
http://wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net/80450F/comicsalliance.com/files/2010/04/heroes-for-hire-tentacle-rape-1.jpg

Yet another example of a female artist producing work that's kinkier and more sexual than most male artists would dream of. There's no shortage of them, and they have no need of editorial to encourage them.

PwrdOn
06-12-2014, 02:30 PM
What's funny to me about *most* internet sexism (and rape) discussion is they tend to focus around things society deems sexy. Like in the rape culture thread it's mostly about hot-sweaty jocks trying to get with cheerleaders, or subtle rape-y vibes on TV and movies that involve conventionally attractive actresses. Even here in the sexism thread the discussion is mostly "Wonder Woman's boob-a-licious" costume. It's not "hey let's talk about the south side of town where there's a prostitution ring being run out of an abandoned building" or "hey, let's talk about the rape that goes on between staff and retirees in old folks homes" (which is way more common than the dubious statistical "certainty" one would be raped in college - even though the FBI estimates the college demographic accounts for less than 2% of all alleged rapes, and that's assuming 98% were not reported, reported is less than 1%). The funny thing to me is the most common victims of gross acts of misogyny or rape probably lack the resources to even purchase a comic, let alone fall victim to whatever subliminal message it may or may not have. They've probably never even heard of Wonder Woman. It's the classic scenario of watching the news and thinking it's going on in our backyard, even when it's really happening on the south side of Chicago and never leaving.

It seems to me these pop culture discussion are just attempting to erect a scapegoat to send off into the woods so we can ignore the really pressing issues.

Probably the greatest shortcoming of feminism ideologically is that it was essentially developed by well-educated, upper class women as a means to address their concerns, which are fundamentally different from the problems faced by the vast majority of women around the world. It is perhaps unfortunate that a corporate executive isn't getting the same pay or advancement opportunities as her male colleagues, but I seriously doubt that this sort of thing is the primary obstacle holding women back in wider society. Granted, they have gotten better at promoting awareness of the kind of issues that spring up in third world countries with the female genital mutilation and child marriage and all that, but they haven't really come up with any kind of feasible solutions for those problems either, probably because they don't have the right kind of perspective for that.

Tonamelt
06-12-2014, 03:29 PM
Probably the greatest shortcoming of feminism ideologically is that it was essentially developed by well-educated, upper class women as a means to address their concerns, which are fundamentally different from the problems faced by the vast majority of women around the world. It is perhaps unfortunate that a corporate executive isn't getting the same pay or advancement opportunities as her male colleagues, but I seriously doubt that this sort of thing is the primary obstacle holding women back in wider society. Granted, they have gotten better at promoting awareness of the kind of issues that spring up in third world countries with the female genital mutilation and child marriage and all that, but they haven't really come up with any kind of feasible solutions for those problems either, probably because they don't have the right kind of perspective for that.

I think you are into something really important.

I remember in that other thread that some people were talking about micro-aggressions towards women, and making a big deal about them... Meanwhile I was thinking those were just Big-City-Girl concerns. And many of these things happened also to men by the way.

But nobody was talking about women who get beaten by their husbands... Nobody talked about the discrimination some women receive every day just for being single mothers... What about pregnant women who get rejected when asking for a job?... So, Mom and Dad both have jobs outside home, yet still Mom has to take care of the children and the house, while Dad watches TV... Well, those are real life problems that affect MOST women, not just a niche of a few who victimize themselves into thinking some art in a comicbook is degrading them.

That's why I think people complaining about comicbook covers that they haven't read is just pure trolling, no matter how you see it.

TroubleWithTrebles
06-12-2014, 03:56 PM
I think you are into something really important.

I remember in that other thread that some people were talking about micro-aggressions towards women, and making a big deal about them... Meanwhile I was thinking those were just Big-City-Girl concerns. And many of these things happened also to men by the way.

But nobody was talking about women who get beaten by their husbands... Nobody talked about the discrimination some women receive every day just for being single mothers... What about pregnant women who get rejected when asking for a job?... So, Mom and Dad both have jobs outside home, yet still Mom has to take care of the children and the house, while Dad watches TV... Well, those are real life problems that affect MOST women, not just a niche of a few who victimize themselves into thinking some art in a comicbook is degrading them.

That's why I think people complaining about comicbook covers that they haven't read is just pure trolling, no matter how you see it.

I agree up til the final paragraph. Care must be taken not to label tetchy disagreement as trolling since it will devalue later anti trolling sentiment when serious trolling occurs.

Also, attempting to be even handed (yet as stated agreeing with 90% of your post), covers are prominantly displayed in shops, so even when you go in to buy a Sandman TPB or a monthly of Dial H your eyeballs still get the tentaclecrap by accident and the beeeewbage by accident no matter your tastes. With TV, you are somewhat safer since advertisers have to wait til after hours to advertise bonerpills (as Craig Fergusson calls them). E.G there is a difference between comics and tv regarding what you are accidentally seeing because all covers are like tv channels, and always "on".

If someone enters a shop to buy the new Miracleman or Bechdel, they still see covers that are basically posters for 'skinimax' naughty naughty movies.

Pl Rua
06-12-2014, 04:47 PM
What's funny to me about *most* internet sexism (and rape) discussion is they tend to focus around things society deems sexy. Like in the rape culture thread it's mostly about hot-sweaty jocks trying to get with cheerleaders, or subtle rape-y vibes on TV and movies that involve conventionally attractive actresses. Even here in the sexism thread the discussion is mostly "Wonder Woman's boob-a-licious" costume. It's not "hey let's talk about the south side of town where there's a prostitution ring being run out of an abandoned building" or "hey, let's talk about the rape that goes on between staff and retirees in old folks homes" (which is way more common than the dubious statistical "certainty" one would be raped in college - even though the FBI estimates the college demographic accounts for less than 2% of all alleged rapes, and that's assuming 98% were not reported, reported is less than 1%). The funny thing to me is the most common victims of gross acts of misogyny or rape probably lack the resources to even purchase a comic, let alone fall victim to whatever subliminal message it may or may not have. They've probably never even heard of Wonder Woman. It's the classic scenario of watching the news and thinking it's going on in our backyard, even when it's really happening on the south side of Chicago and never leaving.

It seems to me these pop culture discussion are just attempting to erect a scapegoat to send off into the woods so we can ignore the really pressing issues.

Deflection.
"Why should we care about (thing a) when (thing b) is happening?"
It's a typical tactic when people don't want to address the issue at all. Yes, there are worse things than sexism in comic books happening in the world, but human beings ARE actually capable of dealing with more than one issue at a time.

Here's the deal. Everyone loves comics. And that includes women. The comic store where I work has a 50% female customer base. A friend of mine runs an after-school cartooning class and the majority of his keenest and most active students are girls. I've seen the enthusiasm and passion for comics that these kids have. And the fact that so much of mainstream comics are unwelcoming or actively hostile to female readers IS a problem.

TroubleWithTrebles
06-12-2014, 05:03 PM
Deflection.
"Why should we care about (thing a) when (thing b) is happening?"
It's a typical tactic when people don't want to address the issue at all. Yes, there are worse things than sexism in comic books happening in the world, but human beings ARE actually capable of dealing with more than one issue at a time.

Here's the deal. Everyone loves comics. And that includes women. The comic store where I work has a 50% female customer base. A friend of mine runs an after-school cartooning class and the majority of his keenest and most active students are girls. I've seen the enthusiasm and passion for comics that these kids have. And the fact that so much of mainstream comics are unwelcoming or actively hostile to female readers IS a problem.

Agreed, but another problem that gets deflected ( as per your choice of phrasing) is that there is a difference between cartooning and comics. They are not the same despite springing from the same source. There is a vast disparity in the numbers of women whom cartoon their figures, versus Marie Severin and Nicolle Scott and Fiona Staples or Rebecca Guay drawing/painting their figures in a comicbook style. Crumping is not tap dancing and tap is not ballet despite all of them being born from "dance".

ed2962
06-12-2014, 05:21 PM
It doesn't even suggest that much. It just shows, at most, that people shouldn't try to pull bs false equivalencies to defend how many female comics characters are dressed or posed as "the same" as broad-chested, standing tall heroic and usually fully-dressed men. The strip doesn't say there shouldn't be cheesecake or whatever, just that cheesecake or belly windows are not the same as standing-tall-heroic-muscle-shots and bat-emblems. Power Girl's keyhole is not the same, does not have the same power or do the same things, as Superman's S-shield. To pretend they're the same, because they're both centered on a chest, is as silly as saying that Batman is as objectified as Catwoman. When Captain America and Batman spend every appearance with their fronts zipped down to their pubes, that might approach being true, but right now, no.

http://nb9.stumbleupon.netdna-cdn.com/17KczcopE_OBMd3kcT0Czw

Looking a the actual words, or what's shown, there no part where anyone says Batman should be drawn like that. There's no part anyone says "all media should be for all people." The dude says X and Y are the same. The woman says they're not and explains why they're different. That's it. At no point are there attempts to say "Batman must be sexy to me" or "Character X can't be sexy to you or in ways you like." It doesn't even say Batman has to be for everyone. Just that Batman being muscled and rich and standing heroic in the night is not the same as belly windows and butt shots, even if both are similarly "unlikely" or unlikely to be achieved by the reader.

I didn't mean that literally. I get that the strip is about mocking the false equivalency that often gets brought into these discussions. I probably
used a poor choice of words cuz a few people seem to think that I wanted to talk about Batman.

When I said "Batman is for everyone" I was trying to dispute the idea that mainstream superheroes are this rarefied field for only the manliest of men and that drawing women less porn-y is somehow destroying the genre or making it something it's not.

PwrdOn
06-12-2014, 05:34 PM
Deflection.
"Why should we care about (thing a) when (thing b) is happening?"
It's a typical tactic when people don't want to address the issue at all. Yes, there are worse things than sexism in comic books happening in the world, but human beings ARE actually capable of dealing with more than one issue at a time.

Here's the deal. Everyone loves comics. And that includes women. The comic store where I work has a 50% female customer base. A friend of mine runs an after-school cartooning class and the majority of his keenest and most active students are girls. I've seen the enthusiasm and passion for comics that these kids have. And the fact that so much of mainstream comics are unwelcoming or actively hostile to female readers IS a problem.

The thing is, this extreme focus on cheesecake is itself deflection from the primary issue that the vast majority of superheroines are poorly conceived, poorly characterized travesties that have an extremely difficult time even justifying their existence without the possibility of bringing sex appeal to an otherwise all-male cast. And while people love to make a fuss about oversexualization in general, whenever you try to single out a particular character as being an egregious example her die-hard fans inevitably rush to her defense meaning that it's impossible to make any kind of real progress.

Take Psylocke for example, who is not the worst character around but in general contributes very little to any narrative other than T&A. You could conceivably cover her up and portray her more respectably, but given her overall concept you're not leaving yourself a whole lot to work with and you'll have a hard time finding something for her to actually do. And there are a ton of characters at Marvel and DC who fit a similar profile, including many beloved fan favorites who tend in general to be far more popular than the relatively few heroines who weren't created with sex appeal in mind, like Kitty Pryde or Sue Storm. Only a tiny minority of female characters were ever designed to serve as reader inserts the same way that most male heroes are, the rest simply don't have the background or personality to really work as anything more than disposable sex objects.

ed2962
06-12-2014, 05:35 PM
Yeah, that's kind of crap. If you want to narrow it down to Batman, as opposed to all media, fine. But to that, I call BS. Batman is not meant for everyone either. Batman, at its core, is about punching evil in the face. There is a large part of the audience for whom punching evil in the face is a storyline they just don't want to read about. You don't change Batman to appeal to those that would rather see a romantic tale of life in the 1850s because the core concept of Batman doesn't appeal to them.

It's basic marketing -- is it worth alienating your core audience in an attempt to reach out to a wider, currently mostly unexisting audience?


I admit it...I probably should have thought that statement out more cuz don't want to narrow it down to just Batman. BUT batman has been about punching evil in the face for over 70yrs and has appealed to a broad audience over the decades. No one is saying that you have to change Bats into a Victorian romance...and zipping up Catwoman's shirt isn't going to change it into that.

I AM saying the core audience for DC/Marvel cape comics was/should be the general public and when you trace over porn an stick it in a fight scene, you ARE alienating your core audience.

t hedge coke
06-12-2014, 05:36 PM
Yet another example of a female artist producing work that's kinkier and more sexual than most male artists would dream of. There's no shortage of them, and they have no need of editorial to encourage them.

Actually, she was pretty clear that she thought this is what the publisher wanted, and had she known the women in question were tough, take no crap heroes, she wouldn't have done it like this.

Which, is even sadder, really. She assumed on some level, that the audience and publisher were only down for seeing some bleeding, scared women threatened by offpage rape monsters.

(And applauded a photoshopped clean up a fan did, to remove some fluids and change the facial expressions to something fiercer.)

Ghost Rider TheHellfireDemon
06-12-2014, 05:39 PM
I always approach this question via the story: if a female superhero, for instance, is suiting up to fight/investigate crime, is she more likely to pick out something that's sexy and shows off her curves? Or will she pick out something that is functional and protective? Sometimes the answer is the former, but I would argue that in most cases it usually won't make any sense for the heroine to have her breasts bursting out of a ridiculously low-cut top. If there's no logic to it, chances are it's exploitative.

That or it's the result of sex sells, and a male dominated business.
Serious question is there a logical reason why black canary wears fishnet pantyhose does it give her legs some protection?

Zatanna
Her costume is designed to attract a crowd but can't deny it's still skimpy even with that success.
Wonder Woman
Again more eye candy is not functional or protective a one piece swimsuit as it's been called but really underwear. Shows off for curves and sexy. Plus seriously so far from functional with a high chance of wardrobe malfunction? I know it's fiction but like the superman doesn't get recognized because Clark wears glasses is astounding.
Other than the bracelets protective and functional, functional boots, tiara a accessory but I guess if it keeps her hair out of her face then can't deny it's great. Plus it does make her a singular character.

A fair litmus test is the female character important for the plot as she's responsible for getting information from a super villain citizen or neutral character , defeating a super villain that was creating destruction where others failed, etc.

If not when she does get shown fighting or something constantly the SI swimsuit kind of pictures.
If I recall right the Justice League before the reboot had Wonder Woman when she did get shown it was objectivity with butt shots and her butt hanging out of the skimpy underwear.


If this sounds related or familiar to excelsioPrime it's because I did read his post on page one.

Mbast1
06-12-2014, 05:49 PM
I remember in that other thread that some people were talking about micro-aggressions towards women, and making a big deal about them... Meanwhile I was thinking those were just Big-City-Girl concerns. And many of these things happened also to men by the way.

I've read about this for years, and it is an issue feminists have brought up and are addressing, that non-white and non-rich women don't have enough say in the discussions. But, it's being addressed by them.


But nobody was talking about women who get beaten by their husbands... Nobody talked about the discrimination some women receive every day just for being single mothers... What about pregnant women who get rejected when asking for a job?... So, Mom and Dad both have jobs outside home, yet still Mom has to take care of the children and the house, while Dad watches TV...

Those are all separate issues, being addressed by feminists. But, not on a comic book discussion site. I don't find that odd.


Well, those are real life problems that affect MOST women, not just a niche of a few who victimize themselves into thinking some art in a comicbook is degrading them.

Again, this is a comic book site. The issues discussed here are likely to revolve around comics. But, this is a common enough way of trying to stop a discussion, talk about how it's not a "real" problem.


That's why I think people complaining about comicbook covers that they haven't read is just pure trolling, no matter how you see it.

Of course it is.

ed2962
06-12-2014, 06:04 PM
That whole argument only shows that the same characters can have different versions in order to appeal to a broader audience... That doesn't mean one single version could appeal to everyone.

Batman the Brave and the Bold was a cartoon that could be watched by everyone, and children enjoyed it... while most adults think it was entertaining but everyone agrees that's just one "face" of the Batman franchise.

But when reading Batman or Detective Comics, it's obvious you will find violence, blood, murders, corpses, unhinged characters and all the sick stuff Bats has to deal every night while protecting Gotham. So it's kind of incorrect to assume that Batman comics, which are supposed to have a serious tone, have to be the same that a saturday morning cartoon.

That wasn't the point I was trying to make at all.

I was refuting the idea that superheroes are this men only club that only macho guys understand and we need sexy broads in order for it to work and that the only way to be sexy is to have double d's and thongs.

Cuz I'm the goof that inadvertently made this about Batman, I can still use Batman to defend my point...Batman:Year One, The Dark Knight Returns, and The Killing Joke are a few of the most revered Batman stories ever. These are all "serious" Batman stories. None of the stories present the female characters in an overly sexualized way. Despite that fact that Catwoman may or may not have been a prostitute. Despite the fact that Joker shoots Barbara Gordon and then takes photos for her naked. Despite the fact that Carrie Kelly is a teen-aged girl in shorts!

The visuals are not done in a way titillate the reader. The artist don't go for the shots that Land or Benes or a few others would go for. And not having those shots didn't alienate the audience or hurt the sales of those comics.

ScottSummers
06-12-2014, 06:13 PM
I think you are into something really important.

I remember in that other thread that some people were talking about micro-aggressions towards women, and making a big deal about them... Meanwhile I was thinking those were just Big-City-Girl concerns. And many of these things happened also to men by the way.

But nobody was talking about women who get beaten by their husbands... Nobody talked about the discrimination some women receive every day just for being single mothers... What about pregnant women who get rejected when asking for a job?... So, Mom and Dad both have jobs outside home, yet still Mom has to take care of the children and the house, while Dad watches TV... Well, those are real life problems that affect MOST women, not just a niche of a few who victimize themselves into thinking some art in a comicbook is degrading them.

That's why I think people complaining about comicbook covers that they haven't read is just pure trolling, no matter how you see it.
Problems don't trickle down, they trickle up. These discussion tend to almost elites or elit-ist cabals like the comic and entertainment industry force feed some alternate reality onto us, that on the really extreme end is causing violence and rape and all that. It's more the entertainment industry knows lowest common denominators sell better. They know that shocking, provocative, immoral and sexy sell.

I have no doubt many micro-transgressions, like say being leered at by a skeevy dude at a bar have some connection to the same base instincts that might make someone rape or beat their wife, but at the end of the day they aren't the same thing, and it's not like one morphs into the other at some later time. This idea that we could minority report a criminal just by watching him, or be like Batman and have that sixth sense he has is bullocks. They best you can do is control the environment so it doesn't descend into the wild west. That's why, and not to open this can of worms but, Japanese has two gun deaths a year, and many European countries have 10-15, and even Switzerland counts too, but obviously for different reasons (training, certification, learned responsibility and regulation of guns).

Also misogyny is part of human nature, I believe, and that's why usually those with enough education are usually only guilty of micro-transgressions. And honestly most people I know who are educated and successful are nice people, who at least have the decency to find harmless outlets for their flaws.

Also if someone beats a woman and then blames "society" or "comic books" they're just being an a** and people shouldn't give them any legitimacy. Anyone who believes that is being nave.

ed2962
06-12-2014, 06:27 PM
The thing is, this extreme focus on cheesecake is itself deflection from the primary issue that the vast majority of superheroines are poorly conceived, poorly characterized travesties that have an extremely difficult time even justifying their existence without the possibility of bringing sex appeal to an otherwise all-male cast. And while people love to make a fuss about oversexualization in general, whenever you try to single out a particular character as being an egregious example her die-hard fans inevitably rush to her defense meaning that it's impossible to make any kind of real progress.

Take Psylocke for example, who is not the worst character around but in general contributes very little to any narrative other than T&A. You could conceivably cover her up and portray her more respectably, but given her overall concept you're not leaving yourself a whole lot to work with and you'll have a hard time finding something for her to actually do. And there are a ton of characters at Marvel and DC who fit a similar profile, including many beloved fan favorites who tend in general to be far more popular than the relatively few heroines who weren't created with sex appeal in mind, like Kitty Pryde or Sue Storm. Only a tiny minority of female characters were ever designed to serve as reader inserts the same way that most male heroes are, the rest simply don't have the background or personality to really work as anything more than disposable sex objects.



Sure, but then the onus is on the creators to make those characters more than just that. Take a character like Wolverine...he was pretty thin when he first appeared. He was really just some a-hole that somehow fell into the X-Men and frequently got his butt kicked. Legend has it that Claremont thought Logan sucked and wanted to get rid of him but Byrne was like, "Instead of dumping him, let's make him not suck." Slowly you started to get the whole mysterious past and best there is at what I do. Slowly he began to gain more and more fans.

ScottSummers
06-12-2014, 06:38 PM
Sure, but then the onus is on the creators to make those characters more than just that. Take a character like Wolverine...he was pretty thin when he first appeared. He was really just some a-hole that somehow fell into the X-Men and frequently got his butt kicked. Legend has it that Claremont thought Logan sucked and wanted to get rid of him but Byrne was like, "Instead of dumping him, let's make him not suck." Slowly you started to get the whole mysterious past and best there is at what I do. Slowly he began to gain more and more fans.
I don't know if I'd call Psylocke uncomplicated. She was pretty well written well up through the late ninties. It's only been since she's fallen by the wayside. Emma Frost as well, clearly is sexualized, but a great character. You may not like them but I think they were well developed. I agree though that until Remender, Psylocke had basically been rendered meaningless, but this happens to many.

Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, Wolverine, Spider-Man, Lois Lane, Sue Storm, Storm and Mary Janeare in my opinion thus far been consistently well written with no "flat" periods except maybe MJ and perhaps now Lois, but I think she'll be alright. I don't think independent is synonymous with loner. I think people try to paint these paired characters as one sided too. Many people root for them to fall in love, not for one to get the other. I know for me the "love story" aspect is what you stayed for. So I think to imply the female character "needs a man" is disingenuous. People want to see them "get together".

PwrdOn
06-12-2014, 07:03 PM
Sure, but then the onus is on the creators to make those characters more than just that. Take a character like Wolverine...he was pretty thin when he first appeared. He was really just some a-hole that somehow fell into the X-Men and frequently got his butt kicked. Legend has it that Claremont thought Logan sucked and wanted to get rid of him but Byrne was like, "Instead of dumping him, let's make him not suck." Slowly you started to get the whole mysterious past and best there is at what I do. Slowly he began to gain more and more fans.

Well I think people perhaps exaggerate the degree to which favorable writing can make any character popular. Wolverine wasn't very fleshed out at the beginning, but he always had a strong concept with plenty of inherent appeal that just needed to be brought out in the right way. Most female characters, on the other hand, have weak or non-existent concepts so unless the writers want to completely reinvent them, which has its own pitfalls, they have very little to work with or build on which makes it very difficult to get any kind of momentum going. This is also the reason why many team books still have only the single token female character, when they're all basically interchangeable there's no real justification for including multiple ones.

Tonamelt
06-12-2014, 08:03 PM
Zatanna
Her costume is designed to attract a crowd but can't deny it's still skimpy even with that success.

No... her costume was inspired on the circus female mage archetype

3820


Wonder Woman
Again more eye candy is not functional or protective a one piece swimsuit as it's been called but really underwear. Shows off for curves and sexy. Plus seriously so far from functional with a high chance of wardrobe malfunction? I know it's fiction but like the superman doesn't get recognized because Clark wears glasses is astounding.
Other than the bracelets protective and functional, functional boots, tiara a accessory but I guess if it keeps her hair out of her face then can't deny it's great. Plus it does make her a singular character.

Wonder Woman is an amazon inspired by Greek Mythology, those people weren't ashamed of their own bodies.

3821

TroubleWithTrebles
06-12-2014, 08:35 PM
Wonder Woman is an amazon inspired by Greek Mythology, those people weren't ashamed of their own bodies.

3821

That would be the *same* Greek culture that provided the art that many claim is the basis for Western High Art, including sculptures of women with protruding bulbous buttocks (beloved by the Lemon Community) and leading to the word....

"callipygian" (like Val Bertinelli in Season 1 of Hot in Cleveland),

Yes? *wink*

(realistic sculptures one might add...)

t hedge coke
06-12-2014, 09:02 PM
Wonder Woman is an amazon inspired by Greek Mythology, those people weren't ashamed of their own bodies.

3821

Classical Greek culture was exceptionally misogynistic, though.

And, yes, historically, the records do show there was a good bit of body-shaming, unless you had the right body in the right place displayed the right way.

The "Amazons" themselves, classically, are quite an ugly picture concocted out of ancient Greek misogyny, as is the story of the doll that comes to life (while her maker is feeling her up). The original creators of Wonder Woman were educated people deliberately turning these stories around, not because they thought the Greeks ("traditional" enemy of the Amazons) were grand feminists or equal opportunity players.

Tonamelt
06-12-2014, 09:19 PM
Classical Greek culture was exceptionally misogynistic, though.

And, yes, historically, the records do show there was a good bit of body-shaming, unless you had the right body in the right place displayed the right way.

The "Amazons" themselves, classically, are quite an ugly picture concocted out of ancient Greek misogyny, as is the story of the doll that comes to life (while her maker is feeling her up). The original creators of Wonder Woman were educated people deliberately turning these stories around, not because they thought the Greeks ("traditional" enemy of the Amazons) were grand feminists or equal opportunity players.

That explains Wonder Woman's outift and why she must dress it. Because it was based on a mysogynistic concept.

t hedge coke
06-12-2014, 09:39 PM
That explains Wonder Woman's outift and why she must dress it. Because it was based on a mysogynistic concept.

There's a big difference between her earliest costumes and the "thrust her tits to the reader despite all logic" tiny swimsuit she was sporting not too long ago.

Now... the fetish outfits they used to draw the Amazon doctors in...

Still, not so sexist as just pervy, but nobody's going to argue old Wonder Woman comics weren't pervy.

Tonamelt
06-12-2014, 09:54 PM
There's a big difference between her earliest costumes and the "thrust her tits to the reader despite all logic" tiny swimsuit she was sporting not too long ago.

Now... the fetish outfits they used to draw the Amazon doctors in...

Still, not so sexist as just pervy, but nobody's going to argue old Wonder Woman comics weren't pervy.

Well, as I said in another post... Marvel is inclusive, DC is having trouble at that... What I meant is, that yes, current DC (New 52) is mysogynistic.

It was pretty clear since the legendary #1's of the New 52 line-up, people didn't talk about it, because, you know... hype.

But... yeah.

t hedge coke
06-12-2014, 10:26 PM
Well, as I said in another post... Marvel is inclusive, DC is having trouble at that... What I meant is, that yes, current DC (New 52) is mysogynistic.

It was pretty clear since the legendary #1's of the New 52 line-up, people didn't talk about it, because, you know... hype.

But... yeah.

I get you.

Stony
06-13-2014, 01:17 AM
http://www.thedailycrate.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/5DBUE5RKTE4_zpsunpkjgjp.gif

This thread is closed.