How is this:
different from this?
Now I’m fairly well-known around some parts for having a deplorable lack of knowledge of all things comic book-related, but I’m going to hazard a guess and suggest that the difference is that the second picture, which is apparently of Wonder Woman, might just be a teensy bit objectifying compared to the picture of Superman. But not everyone thinks so, I learned from reading Karen at Oddity Collector. (Hat tip, Zuzu.) Karen saw some fan boys trying to argue that in the comic books world, women and men’s bodies are portrayed with equality in the sexual objectification arena.
Now before I get besieged with men whining, “You hate erections!” yet again, I want to explain that we here at Pandagon are generally pro-sexual objectification in theory. (Though it’s safe to say that we’re currently only 1/3 in favor of having friends with erections in our bedrooms.) We’re just wary of a world where one sex does the majority of the objectifying and the other has to do the majority of the posing with their asses arched and lips slightly parted, that’s all. I think that’s fair. To even it out, I even looked for a photograph approximating the described Superman pose instead of a mere drawing, so the erections-in-personal-bedrooms fans in the house could enjoy it. (UPDATE: For the mega-literalists out there, who like comic books for reasons I can’t quite grasp, I’ve changed it to an actual drawing. Sorry, ladies.)
In true Church of the Ornery style, Karen has decided therefore to show her male fellows in the comic book fan world what it would look like if male superheroes were drawn like Wonder Woman is here.
I pronounce her a high priestess. May the Great Cat bless all her endeavors into the field of humorously making sexists squirmy.*
*They so damn cute when they squirm, too.
143 Responses to “Superheroes get ornery”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Well, I was gonna say before the cut that one’s live-action and the other one looks like fan-art.
Of course, this is nowhere near a Rob Leifield piece. Men with shoulders the size of the Holland Tunnel and six-pack that come in six-packs, and women with medicine ball attached to their chests, waists thinner than a dime, dislocated hips and neither of them having feet.
Now this would make me read comics more … oo–la-la.
But they don’t draw em this way. To draw these equally objectifying, Superman’s package needs to be bigger than what Karen has drawn.
But the butt looks really, really good.
Of course, this is nowhere near a Rob Leifield piece. Men with shoulders the size of the Holland Tunnel and six-pack that come in six-packs, and women with medicine ball attached to their chests, waists thinner than a dime, dislocated hips and neither of them having feet.
Heh. Rob Leifield was a running joke in the Comics department at MCAD. Nothing like hearing the teachers going off for hours on why he sucked. And then you’ve got Frank Miller’s block-shaped slab men and pornstar women, and Jim Lee’s Leifield variants, and Michael Turner’s sofcore pinups . . .
What really made me grimace was hearing so many (sadly stereotypical) comic geekboys going on about how so-and-so was a “powerful female character” without actually clarifying why. Apparently being female and having your own title is all that is necessary, besides the perfunctory skimpy uniform and gratuitious poses. For some reason they drew the line at Dazzler, though. . .
I’m out of the loop, but the second pic is supposed to be cover art, according to the blogger. The first was me trying to approximate what the commenter said, and I found a pic I thought was sexy-ish.
Awww…you left out the picture of Batman’s butt!
But seriously, folks, WW has been the token woman in the Justice League for the past fifty years, just like Jean Grey was the token woman in the first X-men, the Invisible Girl was the token woman in the Fantastic Four, and so forth. Mostly because writers, artists, publishers and fans have been almost exclusively male. Thankfully, that’s changing with artists like Colleen Doran, Vertigo editor Karen Berger, writers like Caitlin Kiernan, etc. And today’s male comic book writers like Will Shetterly, Greg Rucka, Bill Willingham, and others are more egalitarian. Partly because folks are more enlightened these days, and partly because the comic book world wants more female customers.
At least Wonder’s come a long way from the 70’s, where most of the stories seemed to be reenactments of the creators’ creepy bondage fantasies. (”I know! Let’s have the evil submarine captain tie Wonder Woman up with her magic lasso, then fasten a ball and chain around her neck, and fire her out of a torpedo tube!” “YEAH!”)
Blue Jean:
Wasn’t that every comic of Wonder Woman in the 70s? And 60s. And 50s.
In the 40s I think she was just the Justice League’s secretary, which wasn’t a whole lot better.
http://www.trinarobbins.com/
Highly recommend checking out Trina’s site. In addition to being one of the first women to write for comics, she’s a really wonderful person.
Actually, the first thing that caught my eye in that apparent Wonder Woman picture was the bottom of the rib cage. What the heck kind of deformity is that? It almost looks like she’s grown a third breast there, only half-covered by the tight, skimpy top.
No matter how bad these get, both in the anatomical and objectification departments, at least they aren’t crotches ala muir.
“Of course, this is nowhere near a Rob Leifield piece. Men with shoulders the size of the Holland Tunnel and six-pack that come in six-packs, and women with medicine ball attached to their chests, waists thinner than a dime, dislocated hips and neither of them having feet.”
Patkin May 9th, 2006 at 9:13 pm
Aside from the foot comment, I think you’re speaking more in terms of Jim Lee’s renditions of women.
All of what you said was correct. There wasn’t a woman or even young girl he didn’t draw like they should have been plastered on a playboy centerfold after a million dollars spent on cosmetic and enhancement surgury.
It really did cause some concern back in the early 90’s when both Lee and Liefeld were at their peak in terms of totally unrealistic poses. Neither one has really improved much but they have toned down the gratuitous sexuality of the poses. Mainly their renditions of the X-Men females who all stood with hips thrust out and boobs so large you wondered how they could stand without tipping over or so spherical you could calibrate PI to them.
Truly ugly stuff.
MYOB’
.
It’s not really relevant to a serious discussion, but you guys might get a kick out of Superdickery. If nothing else, an interesting look at comics from the past…
Re Wonder Woman:
http://rotten.com/library/bio/mad-science/william_marston/
The original Wonder Woman had a whole “women must save the world by subjecting men to loving bondage” theme. Seriously.
But I love the comics that are drawn by folks who have oviously never seen a woman naked. Or up close.
I don’t know, I’m looking for to Muir’s Camel Toe #18
That second picture is not seriously a piece of DC Wonder Woman art, is it? Because gods, I can draw better than that.
I think the Green Lantern’s pose would appeal more to gay men with the butt cheeks so prominently displayed and all.
I agree that the Wonder Woman drawing is awful. Those aren’t even the correct colors. Green and brown? Blech. And what’s with the horribly curly hair? It looks like she got a bad perm.
The second picture appears to be something by Frank Miller, so yeah, I suspect it’s something DC is planning on using in a comic book.
There are times I think DC should just tell Miller to run along and go gum up Marvel’s books for a while…
That definitely is real DC Wonder Woman art, Garnet. It’s going to be the *cover* of the next issue of All-Star Batman & Robin (or something like that) and is drawn, if I may use the word lightly, by Frank Miller. In the larger shot here, you can be even more disgusted by where the asshat chose to sign it.
John said: “Actually, the first thing that caught my eye in that apparent Wonder Woman picture was the bottom of the rib cage. What the heck kind of deformity is that? It almost looks like she’s grown a third breast there, only half-covered by the tight, skimpy top.”
There’s a theory about that, actually.
To be fair to Frank Miller, who drew the Wonder Woman cover, he does draw more scenes of full-frontal male nudity than any mainstream comic artist around. His Sin City books are full of eight-page long pole dances (a lot when the whole book is 22 pages) and women cunningly draped in that same miracle fabric Wonder Woman’s wearing, but they are also full of men’s muscular, naked asses and flopping genitals. He’s even drawn Daredevil’s wang, and somehow got Marvel to publish it. It might not get on the cover, but it’s out there. Unfortunately, his men are as just as scribbly and have just as bizarre anatomy as his women, so it’s hard to know who he’s objectifying more.
*clears throat. which hurts, because of the annual bout with strep*
First, Wonder Woman has not been the token woman on the Justice League. She was the token woman on the pre-crisis justice league. post crisis, the token woman of the founding seven was Black Canary. and yes, she was created as a bondage fantasy. seriously, the creator and his wife actually played out wonder woman scenarios for a couple years before he pitched the idea for a book to DC. “her bracelets allow her to deflect bullets UNLESS they get tied together, which strips her of all power and makes her as weak as a kitten?”
of course, I’ve had this complaint for years, even less out of annoyance at the sexism than the plausibility thing. since few, if any heroes are actually tailors, I imagine they must have a trusted confidant who makes their uniforms (remember the midget from The Incredibles?) I would imagine the very first question, after anyone of either gender says “I want to wear nothing but thigh high spandex boots, a thong, and pasties” would be “are you bulletproof? are you otherwise superhumanly durable. because even with the superpower to dodge bullets, explosions will happen near you, you’ll fall down, and you’ll get bruises and cuts, at the very least. and unless you’re a professional boxer, they might be hard to explain to people in your life. you DO want to keep your identity secret, right?”
addressing the “strong women in comics” thing, you shouldn’t ask “which character is it” but “who wrote it?” Jeff Loeb/Tim Sale writing/drawing team give you some of the best, most mature, and least sexist portrayals you could ever find, even of characters who in the hands of lesser men are nothing but bimbos with EEE tits on a 20 inch waist.
I’d have more, with links to cite just how terrible Rob Liefeld is, and what a respectible looking superheroine looks like, but the sore throat kind of makes it hurt to breathe. hopefully I’ll be well enough tomarrow to respond properly.
Comic books have obviously slid into immorality with the rest of our society. Equally obvious is that it is fault of the hippie pinko commies who have trashed traditional family values even in our beloved and wholesome comic books.
Such filth, packages, boobs, thighs and ewwwww.
I suggest we ban comic book spandex and and spandex like costumes from both super heores and super heroines. Modesty will be the watch word for moral heros. A burka perhaps (plenty of room to hide crime fighting gadgets under that), or maybe a tasteful demin skirt and cotton long sleeve blouse. Maybe, an amish ensemble for our heros and heroines. We could call them “Plain Heros”. In any case we should not stray too far from Godly modesty. At best our heros should be seen dressed as everyday people when out beating down crime lords and mad scientists. You know, in conservative suit and tie and skirt and sensible heels. Gray or Black preferably, no flashy ties and pointy toed high heels. Our heroines might fall and get a boo-boo.
I think the Green Lantern’s pose would appeal more to gay men with the butt cheeks so prominently displayed and all.
Adds a layer of meaning to the little lantern symbol, too.
No, j swift, the Comics Code Authority’s main job was always to keep Teh Gay out of comics. And everyone knows that giant boobs are like kryptonite to Teh Gay. Which is why comic fanboys are the masculinest of men, and feared by all.
Actually, the Comics Code’s main job was to put EC Comics out of business. Everything else was just an indirect consequence.
I loved the 1940’s Wonder Woman as a girl. Yeah, now I can see the heavy BDSM themes, but she still kicked ass and took names (with the help of her friends from the all-girls college). And the theme seemed to be that women needed to stand on thier own two feet . That, or saving the world from fascism. And the justice league was not even around. It was just her, saving the world and teaching the ladies not to take shit from men.
Also, she first appeared in a skirt, but it was too hard to draw a skirt in the action scenes without revealing too much, so she changed into shorts. What young, tree-climbing girl can’t identify with that?
LOL, Houdini’s Ghost. That’s true. In fact, Frederic Wertham, creator of Seduction of The Innocent, and TEH harbringer of the Comics Code, thought the true danger to Young America was the supposed gay relationship between Batman and Robin. WW ran a distant second (apparently because she was corrupting girls instead of boys, and we all know girls are less important than the Men of Tomorrow).
Patkin;
You’re probably right, but the 70’s comics were all I had to read when I was a kid, so I can’t judge. I’ve read some of the very early ones that were recently reissued, with Etta Candy and Steve Trevor, and she’s much better. Whenever she walks into the Justice League, some writers think she leaves her brain at the door.
Strangely enough, Wertham, the guy who could see The Love That Dare Not Speak Its Name, never spoke about WW’s bondage theme in the early comics. (To those who do see it; I’m not saying you’re wrong, but consider the source. Having a porn dictionary saying that WW endorses sexual bondage is like NAMBLA saying that Batman and Robin endorse their program.) According to Wertham, she corrupted girls because she was “unnatural”; if she’d just stayed home, did housework, and tended her husband and baby, then she would be a true “Wonder Woman.” (Of course, that would have made for some dull comics, like “Wonder Woman Declares War On The Dust Bunnies!” but you can’t have everything.) She was “frightening” to boys because, well, she hit men sometimes, and that’s a reversal of the natural order. Besides, she refused to get married, and how is an impressionable boy supposed to cope with such montrosity?
Anyway, karpad, I hope you get well soon, and be sure to drink some warm tea for your throat.
By the way, I want to give a shout out to William Messner-Loeb, who wrote Amazonia
as a sly spoof on the usual bondage theme, with Jack the Ripper thrown in. And to Gail Simone, whose Oracle proved that you can be a bespectacled, stubborn, know-it-all librarian in a wheelchair and still get the guy. Simone, you rule.
Actually, Wonder Woman was explicitly created to appeal to BDSM impulses. William Moulton Marston was a psychologist with some idiosyncratic ideas about sexuality, and he created Wonder Woman as a sort of sociological experiment to confirm his idea that men want someone who is submissive in public to help him feel powerful, but secretly dominating. Hence, the low-key, submissive alter ego, and the bondage and heels after dark. Marston also had an open marriage and invented the polygraph. The wikipedia article also has this quote about the desirability of establishing a matriarchy:
The only hope for peace is to teach people who are full of pep and unbound force to enjoy being bound … Only when the control of self by others is more pleasant than the unbound assertion of self in human relationships can we hope for a stable, peaceful human society. … Giving to others, being controlled by them, submitting to other people cannot possibly be enjoyable without a strong erotic element.
That’s not what it says here. Whatever his private life was, Marston’s first thought was to create a female superhero. He was primarily a feminist, not a fetishist. If he was, he would have been writing Tiajuana comics instead of trying to grapple with the Comics Code.
Psst…BTW, Wikipedia can be written by anyone with the right software.
j swift:
Yeah, maybe we should make our superheroes dress sensibliy. Then me and the rest of my girl comic-fiend friends wouldn’t have to howl at the implausibility of flying/diving/falling/getting zapped by lasers with only a skimpy bikini top or spandex skinsuit as armor.
Seriously. I hate the nutjobs who whine about ‘modesty’ and ‘femininity’ as much as the next sane person, but there is nothing more demeaning than setting up an allegedly strong, intelligent or formidable (or god forbid, all three!) female character and then making her run around in stuff that wouldn’t be out of place in a Sex World outlet. I refuse to believe that getting the enemy to stare at your chest is a legitimate strategy.
And read up on your comics history before making random accusations.
The problem with that cover is twofold: the inherent sexism in comics, and the fact that Frank Miller is pretty fuckin’ wacky.
The first is pretty easy to explain — I am a comics-loving bisexual feminist, so I’ve always been just a little conflicted on the whole objectification thing; but the main constituency of the comics is, sadly, the stereotype, the kind of person who sits in the back corner of the comic shop playing Magic: the Gathering and looking up in shock when a girl walks into the store. (That’s been my experience, anyway.)
The second? Frank Miller is crazy. Sin City was good, no joke. Batman: Year One was fantastic. Everything else? Shit. Daddy issues. Mommy issues. Evreything-issues. I’m-the-goddamn-Batman issues. Frank Miller tries to take his issues out on the comic-reading public, and that’s his main problem.
I still like comics. But I’m much more likely to read someting like Hellblazer or The Authority, something that doesn’t treat women as such ridiculous pieces of meat.
(I apologize if this makes little sense; I’m a little intoxicated at the moment. Finals just ended for me.)
Well, the first one’s a photograph whereas the second one’s a drawing. So there’s your main problem right there.
The drawing is definitely drawn by Frank Miller — I’m not mistaken, it’s from “The Dark Knight Strikes Again.” (and most likely inked/painted by his wife Lynn Varley)
Most of you may probably Frank Miller as the guy who did “Sin City.” Over the years he’s gone from writing amazing genre fiction to revolutionizing those genres to parodying those genres to (in the past 10 years) just totally succumbing to gratuitous self-parody. this drawing is definitely from the latter part of his career.
Using this to represent what superhero comic books look like is both unfair to him and highly inaccurate as an example of what most comics are like. For one thing, Miller is hardly your average comic book artist. Highly influentual, sure– but few people actually draw or write anything like him. Also, the comic this panel comes from is the only superhero comic he’s done in about 15 years.
In hesitantly attempting to defend Miller, I would argue that this drawing in particular is not even really supposed to represent a woman. It’s a parody of an exxaguration of a stylized representation of an archetype– and it’s meant to be. Of course, you could argue that it’s still contributing to the cultural representations of women, and you’d be right — it is. But it’s also important to view it in context.
Now, I’m certainly not claiming that Miller has any sort of track record as a feminist– for one thing, he’s got a virgin/whore complex the size of the titanic, and his idea of empowering female characters is simultaneosly hypersexualize them while making them act just as masculine as the male characters. Then again, his male characters are even more two-dimensional– so, there you go.
Back in the 80’s, before he started doing more politically explicit comics, Miller was often accused of having fascist tendancies (his recent ones are full of frothing-at-the-mouth anti-Bush-criticisms, leaving little room for doubt about where his politics-o-meter is set). At the time I always just thought of him as more of a misanthope than a fascist…
Along the same lines, he’s not quite a misogynyst — his heart’s in the right place, but his methods are irrevocably soaked in gallons and gallons of cowboy-drama black/white good/bad male/female archetype posturing. He wants to have his cake and eat it too, which is why 90% of his female characters are scantily-clad hookers with hearts of gold and gigantic samurai swords that they use to disembowel rapists. He wants to write empowering female characters, but he’s so consumed with his own genre obsessions and sexual complexes that what finally ends up on the page is pretty different. The idea of a non-sexualized female character, or a non-violent character of any gender, might never cross his mind. It’s a particular box that he’s incapable of thinking outside of, as a writer.
—————-
As for Superhero comics in general — the degree of gender-stereotype anatomical exxaguration is pretty extreme for both genders, just applied differently — for women it’s the T&A whereas in the men all the focus is about muscles and accessories, not a tight package. It helps to remember that superhero comics are essentially early-20th century adolescent-male power-fantasies; because a lot of them are marketed towards pre-teen boys who are more comfortable interacting socially with other boys than with girls, a lot of them also come out as sort of pseudo-homo-erotic as well.
It’s a lot like professional Wrestling — complicated soap operas filled with muscle-bound man-on-man combat, with women as disposable props or masculinized participants.
(one notable and oft-overlooked exception might be the early-60s Superman comics, which are a lot more like Archie-and-Veronica-style episodic romance comics than most of thier superhero contemporaries — there’s very rarely anything at stake other than whether Lois will discover Superman’s identity and whether Superman will marry Lois or not — on the rare occasions when the planet needs saving it’s always just a subplot to the Clark/Lois thing. plus, the comics are just absurdly stupid, even by superhero standards, which is fun.)
Heck, I’d settle for just giving the superheroines some sneakers, instead of making them wear spike heels. Any woman who’s ever worn heels knows that it’s next to impossible to move fast in them, let alone run, jump, leap tall buidlings, etc.
Gee… it’s like everything I ever learned from watching Chasing Amy was wrong! *sob*
Any woman who’s ever worn heels knows that it’s next to impossible to move fast in them, let alone run, jump, leap tall buidlings, etc.
But that’s part of how you know they’re super! I mean, Batman, Superman, Green Lantern, you don’t see them screwing around with uncomfortable and impractical footwear while trying to fight super-powered villains, do you? Bunch of wusses.
of course, I’ve had this complaint for years, even less out of annoyance at the sexism than the plausibility thing. since few, if any heroes are actually tailors, I imagine they must have a trusted confidant who makes their uniforms
Au contraire, they are, in fact, all tailors. Consulting my copy of How to Be a Superhero (Save the Universe in 30 Days or Your Money Back), we have this passage, in Q&A format:
I mean, Batman, Superman, Green Lantern, you don’t see them screwing around with uncomfortable and impractical footwear while trying to fight super-powered villains, do you?
Judge Dredd, on the other hand…
Back when sci fi fantasy art was big (thanks to Molly Hatchet album covers) you constantly saw the art of Frank Frazetta, Boris Vallejo and a host of lesser knowns. In one of those pieces of art a woman was battling a dragon. She had on a leather top, but nothing on the bottom. My friend (male) went off about how stupid and impractical it was to draw her that way, how no warrior female would leave herself so “open and vunerable”
google “modest superheroes and you will get Jewish Superheroes
http://www.jewishsuperhero.com/
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/jonathan/mark121198.asp
O btw Green Lantern butt (above) I love it. But then I like checking out guy’s butts.
Blue Jean: Of course it’s always wise to be skeptical of Wikipedia articles, but that one (which I wrote about half of) is unusually well sourced and I encourage you to check out the books listed under References. The IMDb mini-bio you linked to, though it’s not inaccurate, doesn’t begin to do justice to the guy.
Jesus, how many caveats do I have to put in there before people believe that I’m fully in support of disgusting, degrading objectification and would love to see it dished out to men in the same amount it’s dished out to women? I’m not anti-sex and I’m not even anti-objectification so much as I’m sick of men who can dish it out but can’t take it.
Have to object/counter argue to at least a few of the implications here.
First of all, the comment up top about the Fantastic Four: calling Sue Storm the “token” female is asinine. There were four of them, of which one was female. Of the three males, one was her fiance, the other her brother, hence the connection not really too unconvincing. Additionally, Marvel and Stan Lee worked hard during the 60’s to empower the role of Sue Storm: she was one of the first long-term characters that drew female readers to comics, my mom included. The company struggled with the issue of Sue and Reed Richards finally getting married because it was weighed as a possible affront to how Sue represented the rising movement of independent empowered women. Contrary to a lot of female superheroes, Sue didn’t waltz around half-naked- hell, her power was to not be visible- in fact, I would argue that in the Silver age of comics at a minimum, Sue Storm is probably the worst example you could find of a comic company failing to project fairness of role in a female character. Argue the tokenism of the X-Men, Batman, etc, but leave Sue Storm alone.
Second, the Wonder Woman cover at the top of the post is by Frank Miller, he of the admittedly-misogynst Sin City series… in contrast, he’s also one of the few comic artists out there who does draw full-frontal male nudity in his books. On a side note, almost all of his color work and some inking is done by his own wife, Lynn Varley, who in later years has shared co-credit with Miller on many of his books.
Third, at least on a small level, comics fans are getting a little better about the unfairness in costuming. A few years back Jim Less revamped the costume for the Batman character Huntress, and replaced her full-body kevlar bodysuit with a 2-piece outfit that exposed her entire midriff and upper body. Fans whined for weeks about the ridiculousness of the character choosing to switch to a costume that made it almost an invitation to be shot directly in the chest.
Also, to be misogynist’s advocate for a moment, the other big issue at hand here isn’t what’s being drawn, it’s who’s drawing them. The reason you’re getting so many cheesecake covers of female superheroes is not just because readers buy them, but because artists are drawing them. The roster of female artists at the Big Three is staggering low, and that needs to change.
I still vote for R. Crumb.
cryptile: Highly recommend checking out Trina’s site. In addition to being one of the first women to write for comics, she’s a really wonderful person.
Ooooh, I have a book by her called, “From Girls to Grrrlz” which is the history of girl comics and is extremely fascinating from a comic book reader point of view and from a feminist point of view.
Incidentally, I absolutely abhore most of the mainstream comic-book artists. Give me Wendy Pini or David Mack any day, but Miller? Eugh.
Strangely enough, Wertham, the guy who could see The Love That Dare Not Speak Its Name, never spoke about WW’s bondage theme in the early comics.
Well, he never saw this panel, then. (Thanks, Ms. Smith, for the indirect reminder about superdickery.) And bondage was in no way incompatible with Marston’s feminism. Bondage is not a priori simply about subjugating helpless women. Or, uh, so I’ve heard…
Hi, my name is.. um.. the Pope, and I am a comic reader.
[Hi Pope]
I’m a comic collector, and Deity knows that I don’t have a problem with some objectification in my comics (I’m with Amanda on that one), but I will have to say that an equal footing for the sexes would be a nice start. Odd as it may be, Wonder Woman actually IS (when written well) a very strong feminist character. Other times, eh, not so much. Other characters have not fared as well. Image comics I think was founded on the premise that no amount of female T&A was too much, and that no gun can be too large, as long as the guy carrying it has arm muscles larger than his head. Every picture was a Playboy-ready pose. Like I said, I have nothing against a little exploitation, but they felt more like softcore than comic books.
The one character who has, in recent years, made dealing with her breast size an important part of her character is Power Girl. After a period of having her artist increase her breast size about a cup a month (just to see if he could) it came to a point where even the character couldn’t just ignore it any more. It became a storyline.
Let’s be fair. If women’s breasts in comics can attain such gravity-defying proportions I fully expect to see the occasional banana-hammock shown. This exploitation thing works both ways. Hey, just about every hero seems to wear spandex. The fact that they seem to be about as anatomically correct as a Ken doll seems a little weird.
Admittedly, I read Marvel comics and not DC, but of the covers prominently featuring women that I can quickly call to mind (a couple of Elektra and Storm covers I googled and Generation X #6), there’s more “strong woman” poses than “ridiculously sexy” poses, and for the “ridiculously sexy” ones, I’d chalk it up more to our society’s tendency to sexualize anything with boobs (consider http://www.comiccovers.com/watermark.php?src=comiccovers-280/Storm%20%5bMarvel%5d%20Mini%201/0001.jpg - you see male characters like Magneto in similar poses pretty frequently. If there’s anything sexual about it, it isn’t the pose). I guess I’m trying to say that it’s not just an issue of portrayal; I think we as readers are bringing a lot of baggage to our responses.
Oh, I forgot to mention that I don’t think the Miller cover is really representative. Even the sexualized covers you’ll see around usually have more going on than just tits ‘n ass (e.g. Elektra posed over some woman she’s just beaten up).
[…] Thanks to the universally edifying Amanda (who has it from Zuzu), I have just found out that, crazy as it sounds, there are people in the world of comic book fandom who actually believe that human objectification in comics is equally distributed between the sexes. Oh how I laughed. […]
Hey, I wanted to pick the brains of the comic book gurus here …
I’ve heard Det. Renee Montoya is going to be one of the featured characters in the new DC ‘52′ Limited Series … hell, I’ve even heard rumours she is in the running to be the next Batwoman …
The thing is, she came out as lesbian, and is a latina-american … I know she has the rep. as being tough as nails … so how has she been portrayed? What do you think this new series is going to be like?
I’m just interested, as I was a comic book fan when I was little, but have a hard time coming back to them as an adult … particularly as a chick, and a lesbian.
Oh, and I am SO agreeing with Amanda here …
There were four of them, of which one was female. Of the three males, one was her fiance, the other her brother, hence the connection not really too unconvincing.
Yes, because the fact that her presence needs to be justified by making her emotionally involved with two of the main male characters make her less of a stereotypical token female.
She may not have been as overly sexualized as some, they may have even managed to act as is she was important in her own right occasionaly, but, yeah, she’s a token.
> Ooooh, I have a book by her called, “From Girls to Grrrlz� which is the history of girl
> comics and is extremely fascinating from a comic book reader point of view and from
> a feminist point of view.
If you can find it, try “the Great Women Cartoonists” by the same author (Trina Robbins). It’s far more substantial and informative, in that it spends less time making broad arguments about a very few popular artists, and more time just attempting to describe the historical range of women comics-artists and their work.
Basically, there’s less talking about the work and more reprinting of the otherwise-unfindable work, which for me is what makes a good comics-history-anthology.
“how many caveats do I have to put in there before people believe that I’m fully in support of disgusting, degrading objectification and would love to see it dished out to men in the same amount it’s dished out to women? I’m not anti-sex and I’m not even anti-objectification so much as I’m sick of men who can dish it out but can’t take it.”
But men’s bodies are ugly, especially their packages. Objectifying them will not make for aesthetically pleasing comics.
“Now, I’m certainly not claiming that Miller has any sort of track record as a feminist– for one thing, he’s got a virgin/whore complex the size of the titanic, and his idea of empowering female characters is simultaneosly hypersexualize them while making them act just as masculine as the male characters.”
So what’s the proper feminine way of capturing bad guys, vandalizing bad guys’ property, and stopping them from killing good guys?
Additionally, Marvel and Stan Lee worked hard during the 60’s to empower the role of Sue Storm: she was one of the first long-term characters that drew female readers to comics, my mom included.
Sue Storm is worthless: Part One, Part Two, Part Three, Part Four
But men’s bodies are ugly, especially their packages.
Michelangelo and I beg to differ.
Yes, because the fact that her presence needs to be justified by making her emotionally involved with two of the main male characters make her less of a stereotypical token female.
She may not have been as overly sexualized as some, they may have even managed to act as is she was important in her own right occasionaly, but, yeah, she’s a token.
geez louise, she is *not* a token female; she is one of the main characters in a book about a family of heroes. she was always important to the stories, and she was not “sexualized” at all. just becuase she was not the only star of the book does not make her a token female. there are plenty of occasions whaere this is true, why force it into a situation where it’s not?
But men’s bodies are ugly, especially their packages.
Maybe all the men YOU know are ugly with ugly packages.
Objectifying them will not make for aesthetically pleasing comics.
Oh, okay. Discussion over, then; Ken has spoken!
also, who reads comics to look at scantily clad women *or* men? i read comics because i like them. i don’t care what the people look like, as long as the stories are good. am i in the minority here?
To be honest in the X-Men storyline Jean Grey has always played a rather integeral role, far beyond what one would characterize as a token. As to the Fantastic Dour, Given that at the time it orignate the United States wasnt even cloe to allowing women into space, Sue Storm’s inclusion on the team was rather progressive.
I read them also. But I don’t read them expecting people to look real. That said, the Green Lantern fantasy cover is hot. I’d buy it.
Ken:
I’m about as heterosexual as they come (no pun intended), but even I can go a little bit aflutter at the sight of a perfectly constructed male body.
Now you want to get a crappy comic line with hirrible sexualized poses, that’s where “Witchblade” comes in, good god, I regret the fact that I downloaded the enire run one a whim, its likean issue aof maxim with a cheesy sci-fi/fantasy storyline, (though admittedly the heroine is rather feminist in her values and in the values the comic porays as a whiole the art is just too horrible for words.
No argument here about the sexism of comics in general and Frank Miller’s work in particular. I just want to say how completely awesome it is that this comments thread immediately went for the Liefield-bashing. Incidentally, I’m pretty sure he and a lot of other 90’s artists based their drawings on porn, which would explain a lot of the incongruous poses (and breasts). Sometimes it looks like they just traced a playgirl centerfold and drew in a twelve-pack.
Now you want to get a crappy comic line with hirrible sexualized poses, that’s where “Witchblade� comes in, good god, I regret the fact that I downloaded the enire run one a whim, its likean issue aof maxim with a cheesy sci-fi/fantasy storyline, (though admittedly the heroine is rather feminist in her values and in the values the comic porays as a whiole the art is just too horrible for words.
You know, I actually really enjoyed the TV series version of that comic. They totally had the main character NOT do the whole b-grade porn clothing thing (jeans, crew-neck t-shirts and no heels). Hell, the woman had MUCLES! *drool*
Sure, the acting was a touch over-blown and not exactly …. um, Shakespearian … but it was FUN, and having a wonderfully strong female character was just awesome. But then, I still watch Xena off and on, so my yardstick for this kind of stuff isn’t high (actual drama mind you, different story).
I was SO hoping she’d come out …
I’m just interested, as I was a comic book fan when I was little, but have a hard time coming back to them as an adult … particularly as a chick, and a lesbian.
Montoya is actually one of the best written characters I’ve seen in a long while. and unlike sooooo many “lesbian” characters in comics, it’s not a point of titilation, it’s just a statement of sexual attraction.
If memory serves, she’s not even actually seeing anyone at the moment. But the writers who handle her have been very careful to not do that whole “straight, unless they want a cheesecake shot, then she’ll tongue kiss some chick in spandex” (I’m having a hard time explaining in words exactly what I mean, but anyone who has read even 3 pages of an Image book knows what I mean)
Miller is a tool. his books get exponentially less readable the more female characters he tries to write. 300, his Graphic Novel on the Battle of Thermapolae, is fantastic. Batman Year One is still pretty damn good, since the primary characters are Bats and Jim Gordon, so his horrible writing on Selina Kyle doesn’t leave the one page she’s on. Sin City, with it’s 7 or 8 strippers or hookers, is ENTIRELY unreadable. and anyone who says otherwise is either trying to fake the IMS thing for comic books, or is a threat to themselves and others, and you should run for the hills.and his “Batman Fights Al Qaida” book coming out later this year is going to be the most retarded thing ever written. he pitched the idea in 2002, to work out his 9/11 issues.
which would be great, if Captain America didn’t do the same thing in early 2002. and better than the likes of Miller could possibly hope. Cap kills a terrorist leader (a pastiche of Atta) and tells everyone that he doesn’t have any qualms about it. that he did the right thing. and then he starts to thinking: if this was the right thing now, why wouldn’t it have been the right thing when Baron Zemo killed Bucky? why should the Red Skull have lived a moment after he found him? you know, ACTUAL issues presented by the whole “war on terror” thing.
now then, per Objectification: the only male objectification I have EVER seen in a commerical comic that even comes close to the scale of objectification of women was in a comic book adaptation of the Thundercats circa 2004. quite NSFW
Hey, how can we go an entire thread and not point out that Joss Whedon is helming the Wonder Woman movie adaptation?
One of Joss’ motivations behind Buffy the Vampire Slayer was, of course, to develop a female superhero … and the show was clearly about giving us empowered women (Buffy, Willow, Tara, Faith). Probably not perfect, but a damn good run of it.
So it’ll be interesting to see his take on Wonder Woman, addressing the issue of a strong female lead character who doesn’t need the men to come save her, but whose costume was obviously designed by, and for, men.
One more note about Wonder Woman: I think in recent years she’s gotten a lot more respect at DC. The recent Infinity Crisis series explicitly made her one of the top three heroes on Earth (and iconic representations of the DC universe), alongside Superman and Batman. That’s pretty interesting.
As long as they don’t mess with the squirrel and moose, I could care less.
Ken sayeth:
“But men’s bodies are ugly, especially their packages. Objectifying them will not make for aesthetically pleasing comics.”
Ah, the stupid reason given for NOT objectifying the male body. Or is the underlying truth that men are threatened by the packages of other men. (speaking of straight here).
Personally I think done well they are more pleasing than the filled with helium basketball boobs and sapling thin waist typical comic female darwings.
In fact, Frederic Wertham, creator of Seduction of The Innocent, and TEH harbringer of the Comics Code, thought the true danger to Young America was the supposed gay relationship between Batman and Robin.
Having once read this entire book on microfiche (god), I have to point out that he only mentioned this, like, once.
He spent the rest of the time babbling about hidden depictions of female genitalia, violence, criminals not being punished properly, and Superman not instilling a proper respect for the laws of physics.
And, yeah, what I heard about the original Wonder Woman was that the creator wasn’t a fetishist, just really really naive about what he was actually putting in his book. He had these theories about how women should be in charge because they were less aggressive and more level-headed, or something, and if you read a lot of old Wonder Woman comics, this comes out a lot. I remember reading a comic for class that depicted a future where women ruled and (I think) men were prohibited from participating in politics (or maybe they just didn’t do so), and apparently this was some kind of ideal future.
Also, I have to paraphrase a book I read about female superheroes once…lots of ink has been spilled about bondage in Wonder Woman, who is powerless when her bracelets are chained together, but Captain Marvel was constantly getting tied up and gagged so that he couldn’t use his magic word.
Of course, this is old Wonder Woman. New Wonder Woman is a totally different animal.
….sorry, I’ve been through multiple academic courses on comic book history. It’s made me all pedantic.
Just a few thoughts on the issue of comics here, first and foremost the reason that it is primarily women being objectified or hypersexualized in comics is because the primary producers and comsumers of comics are adolescent men or older men with adolescent tendencies. So to expect an equal distribution of beefcake to t&a is a tad unreasonable. Now as a fan of comics, I realize that for the most part they represent the mythological and emotional id of young men. They reflect fantasies of power and control, and of course, sex. Save the day, get the girl, etc. You can trace this trope back to Homer and probably even further back than that. Comic art has always been about exagerration, and sex is certainly a part of that, (Frank Miller being a perfect example.) Being unrealistic about body proportions in men and women is part of the genre. Male superheroes are hardly rendered in a way that’s even close to realistic, and have their own fetishistic qualities to them, whether intentional or not. Superhero comics provide an interesting, mostly silly, but not entirely inauthentic or exploitative expression of male fantasy. As for the idea that super-hot, ass kicking women dressed like strippers is “empowering” to women, I say its up to the viewer to decide how to interperate the art. To the average consumer/producer of comics the idea of a uber sexy woman displaying expertise in the fields of hand to hand combat, firearms, and or swords certainly seems empowering or more likely just powerful, because to the average teenage boy most regular women seem way out of their league. So I say let the fanboys oggle Wonder Woman or Nancy from Sin City, its all pure fantasy, which is why comics remain such a powerful cultural force.
PS-to Whimsy, Sin City and Year One were both great, but how could you leave out Dark Knight Returns?
I think it’s all down to wish-fulfilment. Superhero comics are generally created by geeky men, for geeky men. Generally they create male characters that they’d like to be like themselves, and female characters they’d like to be with - so all the men are heroic, assertive and ludicrously muscular, and all the women are preposterous pneumatic beauties. Luckily for them, this fits in nicely with your typical gender stereotypes anyway.
It’s not necessarily a conscious thing. I first noticed the phenomenon on reading a book about the history of various superhero comics, in which the writers mentioned wish-fulfilment, and I suddenly realised that all the characters I drew were attractive. I vowed to be a bit more varied in future.
But men’s bodies are ugly, especially their packages. Objectifying them will not make for aesthetically pleasing comics.
Not to you, maybe.
Yes, because the fact that her presence needs to be justified by making her emotionally involved with two of the main male characters make her less of a stereotypical token female.
She may not have been as overly sexualized as some, they may have even managed to act as is she was important in her own right occasionaly, but, yeah, she’s a token.
Huh? Show me a single superhero comic predating the Fantastic Four where two romantically involved characters decided to become superheroes together. Your accusations of “stereotyping” are just nonsense. The entire family concept of FF is what made it lasting and groundbreaking.
Yes, there was a lot of progress to be made, but Sue was hardly a token. Compare Sue to Lois Lane, who for the most part of the first decade of Superman played a bitch who hated Clark Kent with a firey passion and served merely as the woman Supes had to rescue when she dared to butt her pretty little head into some complicated scheme. The point about a family connection to Sue was just that- she wasn’t just the “team girl,” they were a friggin’ family who decided everyone in the family worked together. Issue 1 wasn’t Reed and Ben flying off into space saying “boy I sure hope we can protect Sue with our new powers, good thing this is man’s work”, it was Sue saying “I’m your fiance and I’m doing this with you” and Reed saying “okay.”
Ok, I really did think Storm was a strong female character. When I was young I read all the reprints from the 70s leading up to the Phoenix saga and the years afterwards. She was unfairly beautiful, but I think she wasn’t obscene back then. Also, I always thought she was strong because she was clearly the strongest leader of all of them, and she was the most powerful. Now, is it problematic that they made the sole black character the only truly strong woman? And that they did not sexualize her as much as they did Jean Grey, maybe because Storm was black and the male characters white? I also hate that she ended up with Forge (Native American) who was clearly a much worse match for her than some of the white male characters - it just seemed like they felt they needed to keep the minorities together.
I miss the days of Storm & Shadowcat (who was definitely a questionable rendering of a woman as weak, unless you remember that she was 14 and thus also supposed to be much younger than the others). Two smart women, strong, not ridiculously sexualized.
Also, before anyone starts on how Storm being mistaken for a weather goddess in Africa was offensive, keep in mind that Nightcrawler was mistaken for a demon in Germany. I think they were trying to make a broader point about humanity characterizing the new in old offensive terms, but I admit that it was questionable.
Oh, also, I love objectifying men, but it always bugged me that the X-men reached the point where they had muscles that don’t even exist on real men, much less me. I have a body that could have been that of Scott Summers or Bobby Drake in the 70s. In the 90s, Scott had reached the point where he had these side muscles I’ve never even seen on body builders.
That’s the great thing about super hero teams. I used to be able to aspire to be Bobby or Scott and still drool over Colossus and Logan. Perfect! Now, if only Logan and Bobby got together.
I wonder how many superhero comics have actually made the male obsession with bosoms into an actual part of the storyline, and managed to do it without making the female readers all feel hideously embarassed– for both ourselves and the guys reading.
The only one I can think of is one of the later issues of Zot!, and by that time it was more or less a superhero book in name only anyway… Then again, I’ve barely looked at comics in about a decade, so… Anyone ?
I refuse to believe that getting the enemy to stare at your chest is a legitimate strategy.
At least one character used this strategy regularly: Modesty Blaise, a 60’s female counterpart to James Bond. In the books, her favorite ploy was to enter a room naked to the waist; while the men were staring, she and/or her sidekick would do whatever was needed to defeat them. (She didn’t do this in the 1966 movie version, and I kind of doubt she did it in the comics; objectification didn’t go quite that far.)
Ken said:
One of the most famous statues in the world is the stylized male form: Michelangelo’s David.
On a personal note, my ex used to try this “men are ugly, you should like women” argument on me and it always sorely puzzled me; shouldn’t a straight woman find men’s bodies attractive? Not to mention the question of why he was trying to convince his girlfriend that men were unattractive.
I don’t mind if you don’t like looking at men’s bodies, but I wish people would stop trying to convince me there’s something wrong with my aesthetic sense because I like looking at guys.
karpad wrote:
Speaking of which, but slightly OT, I noticed this Slashdot item (yeah, I know), titled “Captain America vs. the Patriot Act?”, about Marvel’s Civil War miniseries, calling it “a gutsy comic-book series focusing on the whole debate over homeland security and tighter government controls in the name of public safety.” I haven’t been following comics at all in a while, and not much even back then; any thoughts on whether it’ll be any good? I mean, given that I don’t necessarily expect deep philosophical statements from comic books in general.
Spatterdash is on point with this:
“I think it’s all down to wish-fulfilment. Superhero comics are generally created by geeky men, for geeky men. Generally they create male characters that they’d like to be like themselves, and female characters they’d like to be with - so all the men are heroic, assertive and ludicrously muscular, and all the women are preposterous pneumatic beauties.”
Comics have always primarily been the indulgence of nerdy guys. And please know that I don’t use the term “nerd” in a blanketly negative way (I reserve that for the writers at Powerline and the National Review.) For the most part I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the adolesecent male wish-fulfillment fantasy on display in comic books. Now, anytime you have adults taking their fantasy life too seriously, you have a problem. If your fantasy life eclipses reality and becomes a stumbling block for maturity or self-awareness then it becomes a negative (religion provides a good example of this phenomenon.) Overall, the superhero genre is harmless fun. I would rather have guys dealing with feelings of powerlessness and sexual desire through an artistic medium or through creative outlets, than, oh I don’t know, lets say projecting that need/wish fufillment onto politicians/authority figures (Dear Leader much?) For those of you interested in comics that are both serious art and literature check out anything by Alan Moore. Watchmen in particular, its the anti-hero comic book in every sense of the word.
Civil War is just getting started. if you have a local comic shop, they might still have copies of the first issue. the premise is set up thusly:
A group of young, reckless and materialistic super teens have their own reality show. like Cops, but with supers. they go after a villian who is far outside of their league, who has the power to blow shit up. and he does. and it kills that team. and the school they were fighting near. killing some 800 children. This predictably calls for government intervention: laws are proposed for heroes to be liscensed and funded by the government. they get a salary and training, so things like that don’t happen.
This is obviously going to divide much of the spandex wearing community. Some, like the Fantastic Four and Tony Stark (that’s iron man) haven’t had secret identities for years, if ever. Registration seems reasonable, like saying people should have to get liscenses to own firearms, as superpowers can be even more dangerous. Hell, in DC, Batman has kept a list of all known supers and how to take them down, just in case, for YEARS. (of course, Ra’s Al-ghul stole the files a few years ago, and then in the last year in Infinite Crisis, the computerized monitoring system he had for observing and, if need be, fighting the supers went rogue and killed a bunch of people. but the marvel characters have no way of knowing all that.)
Others, like the X-men, Spiderman, and Cap, see a multitude of downsides. the X-men remember all those cries for “mutant registration” and, as the mutant population has been decimated (after a recent event, only 1 in 10 mutants worldwide still have their powers. the significant ones, older heroes and villians, number 198.) fear it would make that anti-mutant genocide that much easier. Spidey says matter of factly that if he has to register, he’s hanging up the tights, because if he tells the government, ultimately anyone could find out, so the government salary sounds great until he comes home one day to find his wife impaled on one of Doc Ock’s tentacles. Cap, who has been a government agent for years, still doesn’t support the law, saying that if the government gets to set up that kind of organization, it’s a short step to giving all supers marching orders, and telling them who the supervillians are. heroes are supposed to be heroes, not weapons, and though the government came to him to lead their forces against anyone who would violate the law, he says flatly he isn’t going to fight people who put their lives on the line to help people every day.
it’s a bit depressing to think about. The writers have made clear: this isn’t a “oh, (Supervillian) was really manipulating the whole thing behind the scenes, and now that we know it, we beat him and return to the status quo” one way or another, it’s gonna mean drastic changes, and none of them can be for the better.
if the anti-registration forces win, it’ll require tooth and nail fighting against other heroes, as well as shield troops. so you have Spidey and Captain America fighting against innocent people at best, or old friends at worst.
if the registration forces win, what, is Iron Man going to arrest Captain America? if he resists, kill him? who benefits from such a thing? Wouldn’t it amount to criminalizing being a good samaritan?
This has actually been a good year for me in terms of comics. for Marvel, Exiles, Excalibur, and X-Factor are fantastic ongoing series, and a few miniseries and crossovers, such as Annihilation and Civil War are quite good.
DC finished Infinite Crisis last week, and is beginning 52. The One Year Later titles have been fantastic. Supergirl has been kinda trippy lately, but still quite good.
Independent titles still have a few that appeal to me. Hatter M, a short series (which I believe is on hiatus and incomplete) is a pretty interesting reinterpretation of Alice in Wonderland with fantastic art, and Usagi Yojimbo has been a favorite of mine for more than a decade.
also, Sarah in Chicago, you asked, I answer, everything I named there is good. very good. like “John Wayne rises from the grave and does an Eval Kineval jump over a ravine full of ravenous Fonz/Shark hybrids.”
You know what really kills me? Every time this comes up, a torrent of people–mostly comics geeks, some just assholes–pour in to inform us that comics are drawn like that because It Sells–except, wait, no it fucking *doesn’t.* Western comics are actually read and purchased by a TINY market of twenty-something to forty-something men, and that market has been shrinking since the seventies and is getting smaller by the minute. The reasons are more than just the idiotic art–the fact that both superhero companies are run by jerkoff manchildren who’ve made a fetish of their nostalgia and do everything possible to keep new readers away is quite a large factor–but defending woman-hating art with the magical logic of capitalism is not only missing the damn point, it’s NOT EVEN TRUE.
(and I say this as a woman who spent over two thousand dollars in 18 months of comics fannishness before finally giving up in disgust. GOOD WORK, GUYS, THE INVISIBLE HAND WINS AGAIN.)
Okay karpad hon, I definitely trust your tastes … so, the obivous question would be … where to begin? I hate starting things mid way though is all …
SiC:
I know you asked karpad, but just for you….
http://www.uncannyxmen.net/covers/mini/firestar4.jpghttp://www.uncannyxmen.net/covers/mini/firestar4.jpg
SiC:
I know you didn’t ask me but just for you…
http://www.uncannyxmen.net/covers/mini/firestar4.jpghttp://www.uncannyxmen.net/covers/mini/firestar4.jpg
52 starts this week. any back information you would need is gonna be on the Infinite Crisis wikipedia article. and since the primary characters are the Question and Renee Montoya, it should be quite enjoyable.
Civil War is just getting started, only had 1 issue so far, and it doesn’t require any real background.
X-Factor is still a young series, around 7 or so, and the first page of each issue is a solid “the story thus far.”
for you, I’m also gonna recommend The Invisibles. it’s ancient, but graphic novels are still availible. I believe you can get the whole series for under 100 bucks. The main characters are a Liverpudlian delinquint who may be the reincarnation of buddha, a gracefully aging conspiracy theorist, his time travelling on again off again SO, an ex cop, and a brazillian transexual shaman. it’s quite surreal and weird, but it’s Grant Morrison, so damn well written. also, since it’s complete and in graphic novel format, you don’t have to worry about joining in the middle.
Damn, double damn.
Okay, thanks ever so much, Magis and karpad *kisses to you both* I’ve copied your notes (love mac ‘Stickies’!!) and I’ll see about looking them up …
Just a few thoughts on the issue of comics here, first and foremost the reason that it is primarily women being objectified or hypersexualized in comics is because the primary producers and comsumers of comics are adolescent men or older men with adolescent tendencies. So to expect an equal distribution of beefcake to t&a is a tad unreasonable.
Well there’s a circular, self-fulfilling argument!
Myself, I have a bunch of the Dark Horse Star Wars ones. Some T&A, but a lot less on the whole - no special skimpy uniforms for female Rebel soldiers and pilots, a la Star Trek: TOS.
And I second (third, fourth) everyone who said that male bodies can be as beautiful as women’s. It would be wierd for the continuation of the species if one half were objectively unattractive, and thus unattractive to the other. But, as an hour with any decent art history book can show, most humans - male or female, straight or gay or bi - throughout most of history have thought that naked men were pretty darn gorgeous and ought to be used to decorate even the outsides of public buildings (like my high school, built in 1919…)
Ken’s argument is the same one geeky fanboys drag out every time. What they really mean is that it makes them uncomfortable to look at sexy and/or sexualized images of men. They realize on some level how lame this sounds though, so they come up with the ludicrous proposition that only female bodies can be aesthetically beautiful.
I put the blame for a lot of this on the comic artists. Frank Miller admits that the ‘dirty little secret’ of most artists is that they draw what they like to see; if they’re typical hetero geekboys, they don’t want to see hot sexy men, so they don’t draw men that way.
The other dirty little secret is that many artists use porn as their models. So Captain Warrioress looks like a Playboy centerfold because that’s what the artist was looking at when he drew her.
Alsis39.9,
One of the recent issues of JSA Classified (I think) made a deal out of Power Girl’s breast size, but handled it in what I thought was a decently feminist manner. She stated that she didn’t need to wear a mask as guys never looked at her face, but she was kind of irate about that, and in other story lines (notably the lamented Justice League Europe) frequently spent time defending herself from her notably sexist co-workers Booster Gold and Blue Beetle.
I thought that she handled the issue well, and in a definite strong feminist manner (despite the way she was obviously drawn), but I may be wrong. Heck, I pack a penis, and I am, after all, a comic geek, so my opinion may be off. My wife (who’s favorite t-shirt is her “This is What a Feminist Looks Like” one.. sorry, I don’t know a better way of giving her short-hand feminist cred) liked the story though, so I’m willing to go with my gut reaction.
-Pope Impious XXIII, ULC, RSVp, EIEIO
Two points:
1)Wonder Woman hasn’t been the token female on the JLA since the early seventies, when Black Canary joined as well (later followed by Zatanna, then Hawkgirl in the same decade).
2)My problem with CIVIL WAR is that they make the same assumption every other comic dealing with this issue does (DC’s LEGENDS, for instance), that what we readers call “super heroes” instantly translates into a legal definition. Captain America doesn’t have powers; why is he required to register (actually he already works under authorization from a government committee but the writers seem to have forgotten that)? Night Thrasher (one of the team that screwed up to kick this thing off) doesn’t have powers or super-weapons (as opposed to Cap’s shield), so if he’s legally a super-hero, wouldn’t NYC’s real-world Guardian Angels have counted? Tony Stark has no powers, and he has let other people use the suit, so why does he count? What about ETs whose powers are actually native and not (by their standards) super at all?
Magis: here’s the corrected link, but I gotta warn you, Chris Muir is going to be jealous of those crotch lines.
for you, I’m also gonna recommend The Invisibles. it’s ancient, but graphic novels are still availible. I believe you can get the whole series for under 100 bucks. The main characters are a Liverpudlian delinquint who may be the reincarnation of buddha,
Assuming the Buddha ever had serious attitude problems
a gracefully aging conspiracy theorist,
Who may or may not be a super-spy, an assassin, and a devotee of the Scorpion-Loa
his time travelling on again off again SO,
Who may be dreaming all of this.
an ex cop,
Who may or may not be.
and a brazillian transexual shaman.
About the most straightforward of the characters.
Worth reading, Sarah.
One of the recent issues of JSA Classified (I think) made a deal out of Power Girl’s breast size, but handled it in what I thought was a decently feminist manner. She stated that she didn’t need to wear a mask as guys never looked at her face, but she was kind of irate about that, and in other story lines (notably the lamented Justice League Europe) frequently spent time defending herself from her notably sexist co-workers Booster Gold and Blue Beetle.
Powergirl also had one of the most heartbreaking monologues I’ve read, and it actually pertained to her gratuitous cleavage costume.
“People always ask me why I have this hole right here. They think I’m just showing off… or just being lewd. But the first time I made this costume, I wanted to have a symbol, like you. I just… I couldn’t think of anything. I thought eventually, I’d figure it out. And close the hole. But I haven’t.” and she’s sad. really, really sad.
Fraser, Cap has powers. he has superhuman strength, durability, and endurance. He’s the product of a WW2 era “serum to create a super soldier” project.
and as you can see from my position on it, I’m very much anti-registration, including the “what’s a legal definition of a super hero?” although phrased differently.
I am, however, ALL in favor of making Iron Man register. it’s one thing to be granted powers by an accident and then try to use them for good, then you’re just a good samaritan. it’s quite another to spend a fortune building a hyperpowered battlesuit that could take out a small army. It’s a deadly weapon, and should be registered just like any gun.
Beltrays- Well there’s a circular, self-fulfilling argument!
Its also one that happens to be true. What about the fact that comics are created and consumed by horny geeks don’t you get?
Um… Fronts, comics are perused by horny straight male geeks because they contain elements that appeal only to horny straight male geeks. If you lack one of these elements, then you won’t buy comics. It’s not because comics in and of themselves appeal only to that small market segment, it’s because they’re advertised in a way that turns off other segments.
Make a comic book for horny straight female geeks, and they’ll read it.
Anyway, I dislike the objectification of women in comics for reasons that are generally not even that feminist. See, I like both adolescent power fantasies and cheesecake. But do I want the rest of the world to know that? If I bring a copy of some Witchblade-style book up to the cashier I might as well just announce “I am a sexist idiot with no life” to the entire store.
I mean, come on, give me some plausible deniability here! If I buy a cover that just has Batman’s ass on it, then I can be proud that I don’t have a bunch of hang-ups about male sexuality. Even little things like equal-opportunity exploitation or practical costumes for woman warriors can elevate something from the “Worthless porn” category to the “fun romp” category.
And I’m much more likely to buy things from the latter category.
What about Promethea by Alan Moore and Alias by Brian Michael Bendis (as alternatives to the typical male fantasy comics)? Both feature strong and complicated female protagonists and also have exceptional artists. Michael Gaydos, who drew Alias, has a refreshingly different style.
I think the real problem with this cover is that instead of looking like a hardbodied badass that could beat you up, Wonder Woman is left looking like a slender, skinny-hipped, ribcagey weakling.
It’s not so much that she’s sexy, for me sexy is not the problem. It’s just that she looks totally weak and helpless. She doesn’t even have any arms. I kind of think that people with super-strength should look, I dunno, super-strong.
I’d just like to say that the Green Lantern looks awfully inviting
~
Even that image of Firestar that was linked to…crotch lines not withstanding, there’s strong shoulders, bulging, muscular thighs. Fists. She looks strong, not lithe and skinny.
Christopher,
I’m not sure where we are disagreeing here, the vast majority of superhero comics appeal only to teenage guys or adults in varying states of arrested development. Superhero comics are largely created for and marketed to teenage guys. There are plenty of great comics that are created for the more adult, female-friendly, and literate among us. I would recommend anything by Daniel Clowes, Charles Burns on the indie/underground side or Alan Moore and Niel Gaiman, on the more traditional comic side. Its the superhero books in particular that have always been mostly about appealing to adolescent male fantasy. So once again, I’m not sure why stating that for the most part comics about guys with big guns and women with big boobs appeal to mostly immature, horny, straight men because they are largely created by immature, horny, straight men. That being said, there are loads of indie comics that aren’t superhero related that would appeal to a much larger range of people. Seriously though read “Watchmen” if you haven’t yet.
I thought of this thread (and Ken’s comment) when I was reading my mother’s copy of Sci-Fi Magazine and saw this picture (the filename lists Halle Berry, but trust me, I ain’t looking at Halle Berry).
Then there is the whole Ultimate X-men run, which frankly hasn’t been all that impressive (especially compared to Whedon’s Astonishing X-men run) but features a male gay relationship,, in a relatively mainstream book, (Jean Paul Gauiter (sp) and Colossus) that in terms on mainstream comics (thus excluding the Authority, etc.) is kind of unprecedented.
As for seires, if you’ve never read it and can find it either in a store or online, I’d hihgly recommend both Transmetropolitan (which yes, at this point seems eerily prophetic) or Preacher, both of whihc presnet strong characters regardless of gender, the same goes for alias, which is probably the most interesting female centered comic I’ve read, just an amazing run.
Yeah, whatever, I read Sin City back in the day and I liked it a lot. I liked the movie because I felt nostalgic about the books and, also, it was beautiful. Fortunately I read the books back when I could pretend that sexism didn’t exist and I found super-visceral violence satisfying (still do kind of). If I read them for the first time now I’d probably hate them, like so many other things that suck now but didn’t back when i was still growing up.
Anyway, there are like 10,000 excellent (and non-sexist) comic books out there, a lot of female writers/artists (maybe not mainstream, but who cares mainstream artists are pretty bad most of the time anyway), and it pisses me off when people are like “girls are into comics now whoa” because they’ve been saying that for ~20 yrs. And they don’t just read ‘girl-friendly’ ones either but just tend to do so more often because not everyone has amazingly developed male-identification powers.
In conclusion, it is not cool to not grow up ever. You can continue to be creative, youthful, not a boring adult, and like fun things like comic books without being a clueless jerk stuck in a misguided adolescent fantasy, who actually thinks that women look aesthetically pleasing drawn that creepily.
My recommendation to the world: Preacher.
Ack! I tried to read through all the comments but got a headache. I had to skip ahead when someone said that Miller’s heart was in the right place. Please! Did you read the script for All-Star Batman and Robin #1? And how most of the women he writes are prosititutes, strippers, or drug addicts who get slapped around by the males? Did you watch Sin City? Miller’s the purest form of misogynist I’ve ever seen in comics. And annoyingly, people still firking buy his firking unreadable CRAP.
*ahem* Sorry, I’ve had problems with his work for a while.
Oh, and to the person who pointed out that WW was the Justice Society’s secretary at first — you’re right. And wrong. Most people picture her answering phones and making coffee when they read that statement. But in the All-Star archives that I’ve read she was acting as the Secretary in the same way that Green Lantern was the Chairman. She took the minutes and went through the mail and the news and brought stuff to their attention. When it came time to fight, she was right there with the men in the fray. According tothis site, though, she was put in the Society because she won a reader’s poll. But there was a rule, no one would be a full member if they had their own book, so she started out as an honorary member (and secretary) until that rule was taken out.
And, I figure it you made it to this comment, you’re interested in Feminism and Comics, so check out the collection of blog posts and column articles on When Fangirls Attack — all about women and how they’re portrayed and treated by the comic book industry.
Also, the Green Lantern pic is hot. I think that the main reason women are traditionally less visually aroused than men is that we hardly ever get to see men’s bodies, let alone a variety of body types, and therefore don’t build the proper neural pathway for that kind of thing until much later, if at all.
geez louise, she is *not* a token female
Maybe, maybe not. I’ve only seen the movie (ow! ow! my eyes - even Horatio Hornblower can’t save them from melting! Especially in that awful getup….) so I wouldn’t know. My point was not about Susan Storm in particular, but that rhapsodizing at length about the fact that a certain female character is defined in large part by her relationship to men - like most female characters in existence - is hardly going to convince me otherwise.
she is one of the main characters in a book about a family of heroes.
A family? See that suggests that all the characters had non-worked defined relationships to each other, not just that she was emotionaly tied to the men. If so, the movie fucked up even more than I thought possible, since the guys were only loosely connected to each other, but she was pretty much dating or a blood relation to all but one.
she was not “sexualized� at all
Umm…it’s really hard not to draw a woman in a superhero comic and not sexualize her and still sell the damn comic. Hell, just about every picture of a woman in mass media is sexualized. She may have been less sexuallized, but….did I mention the dating?
she was always important to the stories…just becuase she was not the only star of the book does not make her a token female
I think we are disagreeing on what “token” means.
Token does not meant the character can’t be badass.
Token does not mean the character can’t be important.
Token doesn’t even (necessarily) mean that the character was simply added to make things look less homogenous.
Token doesn’t even really mean they are the only one of that “kind.”
This is because being a token character can simply mean being a stand in for all characters of that “kind”. Zoe and Book on Firefly are not token characters, after all, not just because they are both black, but because their characters are not written in a way that tries to make them representative of all blacks.
So, again, arguing that Susan Storm isn’t a token character becauser she is so important because she -insert stereotype here-, isn’t terribly convincing. After all, Princess Allura was a pretty damn important member of Voltron, but she was most definitely the token girl.
Chris said-
“Um… Fronts, comics are perused by horny straight male geeks because they contain elements that appeal only to horny straight male geeks. If you lack one of these elements, then you won’t buy comics. It’s not because comics in and of themselves appeal only to that small market segment, it’s because they’re advertised in a way that turns off other segments.”
Gee, um I love Spiderman and have collected almost all of Johnny Quest (had a double suscription, one to read and one to store)
Last I checked I was/am a girl.
What about Promethea by Alan Moore and Alias by Brian Michael Bendis (as alternatives to the typical male fantasy comics)? Both feature strong and complicated female protagonists and also have exceptional artists. Michael Gaydos, who drew Alias, has a refreshingly different style.
Let’s see - I have book three on my desk now.
Cover features head-over-shoulders look-above-nice-ass of one character over a strong-pose-exposing-cleavage of another.
Now, the interior features male and female nudity or cheesecake which is thematic, related to magical symbology, so kudos for that. Alas, the main characters - teh Prometheas - tend to either be in chainmail bikinis or wandering around in wisps of clothing with breasts exposed.
Given that it can be taken as a myth based on the male fantasy of a warrior woman gone seriously metastatic, this is acceptable. But it does have a T&A factor to it.
Gee, um I love Spiderman and have collected almost all of Johnny Quest (had a double suscription, one to read and one to store)
Last I checked I was/am a girl.
well of course you do. because that spider dexterity is a magical aphrodesiac. the ladies all love a guy that flexible.
lol … I never thought of it that way.
Well, some women do enjoy comics with elements of male fantasy. For example, I like Love and Rockets, and man, can those Bros draw a woman! But the main deal is that they flesh out the characters and don’t make it all about how ‘hot’ they are. I have to admit I am more on the indie side, as I’m the kind of person who wonders why Deena always wears a crop top in the first GN of Powers…
Here’s the thing. Female comics fans aren’t angry solely because the art is exploitative. If it were just the art, you know what? I could deal. I’d still find it a little hinky that Jim Lee had Huntress running around with a bare midriff, considering the woman’s been gut-shot before and should probably cover that shit *up*, but I could deal. I could deal with Supergirl looking and dressing like Super Paris Hilton, with Jade’s ass cleavage, with Wonder Girl morphing from a goggle-wearing bewigged preteen to yet another blonde nymphette– all of it, i could deal with, if it weren’t for the writing.
Jesus god, the writing. Why can’t anyone come up with a better way to put their (nearly always male) heroes through the wringer than by offing their girlfriends in (nearly always sexualized) ways? Why does Robin II have a case in the Batcave, when Robin IV seems to have been forgotten entirely by everyone but her best friend? Why does editorial let their writers get away with goddamn *lazy* storytelling, when it’s so often at the expense of female characters? For that matter, how is the mentality that led DC editorial to tell Alan Moore to “cripple the bitch” in The Killing Joke still– fucking *still*– the one that dictates the lives of the characters I love?
I wish I were a Marvel fan too, so I could give you cites that aren’t DC– but then, *not* being a Marvel fan means I only read the stuff that comes recommended, so I can be happy about Jessica Jones or the Young Avengers without having to deal with all the bullshit.
For a while there, I was dropping close to $50 a month on comics. These days, when I bother at all, there are maybe three books I’m still willing to buy. And if DC doesn’t seem to want my money, why should i bother? What’s the point in being a fan, when all it means it that I know enough about the medium to be consistently pissed off at the way female characters get marginalized, objectified, killed off and forgotten?
well of course you do. because that spider dexterity is a magical aphrodesiac. the ladies all love a guy that flexible.
Yeah, right - was PlasticMan a chick-magnet?
Yeah, right - was PlasticMan a chick-magnet?
You tell me, Phoe.
August J. Pollak: Viciously bitchy Lois Lane of the 1940s was actually better than brainless nuisance Lois Lane of the 1950s. What’s sad, is, Jerry Siegel tried more than once to turn her into an asset for Superman, either as his confidante or as a co-superhero, but was vetoed by the publisher.
Rex Little: Yes, Modesty Blaise did use “the Nailer” in the newspaper comic strip. European comics are not like USAn ones.
Everstar: Maybe your boyfriend wanted you to think of male bodies as all being ugly so that he wouldn’t have to try to compete with other men?
Karpad: Strictly speaking, Captain America doesn’t have SUPER-powers, just the absolute best strength, agility, stamina, &c. that he could possibly have, if he had been carefully trained and nourished from infancy. Only instead he took drugs to get that body. He was later used as an anti-steroid spokesman. Go figure.
As for Iron Man’s armor being registered like any gun: also like any airplane. He can be classified as an experimental job and be exempt from many aviation regulations, but not all.
Mickle: The Fantastic Four are most definitely a family, bound by ties as strong as those of blood. It’s what makes them different from other “team” books. That’s why, whenever they try to break up, they always wind up back together. Well, that and the title of the comic is “Fantastic Four”.
Everybody: Sin City is an extreme example of the phenomenon I’ve seen more often over the years, of writers who say they want to create “a strong woman who’s not afraid to use her sexuality to get what she wants”. They’ve heard of such characters, but never seen one, so instead of Katharine Hepburn we get a homicidal maniac who dresses like a streetwalker (or in Miller’s case, who is a streetwalker).
Karpad: I so very much loved that Plastic Man image. I wonder what she did in the next page? If she flew into a rage and chased Plastic Man off, then she’d be naked. So, did she have to go all the way back up to her room before confronting him?
Sure there’s T&A in Promethea but it never seemed gratuitous to me (more like Greek statue T&A rather than porn T&A) unlike most mainstream comics. I like to play a game with comics where if the female characters are ridiculously well-endowed, I look for whether the male characters are also well-endowed. So far, Frank Quitely’s the only one who’s come close but then again, sometimes the female characters have packages too.
I don’t know if any of you have followed Queen and Country - it was a comic series about British spies. It was so great for awhile, the lead character was a female and very tough and smart. The artist also had a very sparse cartoony style that was very appropriate. Perhaps he was too understated because they got a new artist who put the lead in fishnet tops while the guy still wore suits. There was an uproar and the editor defended the artist by saying it was “feminist” and his girlfriend thought so too so there. Anyway, I wrote a letter saying that if you were going to have the female spy run around all gothy, at least get the guys in thongs so hetero females and gay males would have something to ogle too. The editor didn’t like that idea too much.
A coule of points:
Sue Storm did not really start out as a beacon of female empowerment. Sure, her very presence was pretty revolutionary, and I won’t deny that - but for the most part she was there mainly to get kidnapped/stand around and be useless (see the “Invisible Girl is Worthless” links someone else posted further up). It wasn’t until later on that she was given force fields to add to her mostly defensive power, and later still (Byrne’s run, I believe) that she began asserting herself and going by the Invisible Woman. Subsequent writers have established that she’s the most powerful member of the team by far. She’s never really been too hyper-sexualized, aside from that regrettable period while Reed was “dead” and she ran around in that ridiculous skimpy costume with the stupid “4″ peekaboo cutout.
Fronts: See, I get that superhero comics are mostly produced by men, for men. The thing is, there’s no good reason why things SHOULD be that way. There’s nothing inherently male about the concept of the superhero. Judging from my own experience, and from the number of comments I’ve seen from women on this issue, there are plenty of women who read and love superheroes. The reason you don’t see more is because we’re all but ignored by the majority of comics creators. So when you say, “comics are written to appeal to guys,” that, to me, is not an acceptable state of affairs. Not to mention, it’s bad writing AND bad business!
Not to mention, why aren’t men offended by this? Doesn’t anyone find it insulting to be treated like you can’t deal with complex, somewhat-normally proportioned, sexy but not sexualized, real, honest-to-god WOMEN?
Nona, you managed to sum up the whole “women in refrigerators” comics discussion in one paragraph!
Since it’s a problem which is systemic in all adventure fiction, and something we (female fen) tend to internalize and thus overlook in order to get to the “good parts” along with all the other misogyny we overlook and tolerate in order to get what we want from life, even if we think of ourselves as feminists, I rec that everyone follow that link and associated links and think about how different it would be if women weren’t considered the Pawns for the male heroes - Passive vs Active roles.
Another thing to think of is how passive female nudes tend to be, vs male nudes being in athletic poses. There is the rare male odelisque, true - very rare; I’m trying to come up with any action-nude poses for girls beyond the occasional Athena or Amazon (usually being defeated by a guy anyway) in classical art. That funny ad for condoms with the nude fencing women really pointed that up - how often do you see nude women in art doing anything but sitting or lying still to be looked at, often faceless…?
And Christopher, thanks for trying to inject some logic into the debate. I know logic is something beyond the ken of most sexists (who are also all usually sophists), but it’s the thought that counts…
Also? anyone else here read Artesia? Gorgeous AU-Renaissance-Persian-Mythos with a warrior queen who rose from the ranks of the concubines and took command of the kingdom’s armies, leading armies composed of both men and women? Since they tend to be in full armor, all you usually see of the women is hands and faces, and it’s authentic-styled renaissance plate, not bronze-bra gamer nonsense. The only nudes are ghosts, and they’re not around enough (or solid enough) to be particularly sexy let alone exploitative.
It is astoundingly gory, however, albeit in a very artistic way. And expensive. But you do get women working together as good friends and partners (and lovers) and working with men who are their friends and partners (and lovers) as well.
For a feminist history-junkie it’s like a fine wine…
Okay, a shameless plug for what’s only the best comic ever by a woman. I swear, the fact that she’s been a close friend of mine for over twenty years is just a coincidence. Really.
women are traditionally less visually aroused than men
You know how the ’studies show’ that women are less visually aroused than men? Show them a lot of traditionalist, sexist, boob-job-y, aimed-at-men het porn. Naturally, more men than women demonstrate arousal. QED.
holy crap, Alsis. you know her? about 4 or 5 months after Dicebox started, I got introduced and read backissues, and loved it.
then my computer got fried, and it, along with all my other ritual reading webby comics (daily, weekly, and such) went away, and I never did recover it all.
Men in comics have impossibly perfect physiques, they are always strong, they always know what to do, they are super men.
That is not an unrealistic expectation for men?
Oh god the poor women!
What really sucks is that men worked their asses off to create the comic industry and feminists have to mock it.
It is perfectly ok to mock and denigrate straight male culture but some guy writes a book about manly men and disliking “metros” and he is a sexist close minded intolerant pig.
So what does that make the creator of this comic cover?
In my opinion a sexist close-minded intolerant pig.
He feminists! Why not create your own industries and leave straight male culture alone you ethnocentric bigots!
[bows to karpad] Yes, I have to settle for such reflected glory, since I gave up the comics racket myself.
You know how the ’studies show’ that women are less visually aroused than men? Show them a lot of traditionalist, sexist, boob-job-y, aimed-at-men het porn. Naturally, more men than women demonstrate arousal. QED.
Which is really one of the biggest reasons I can never say I’m anti porn, even though I generally loathe the porn industry and everything about it. It took me years to figure out that those studies are bullshit and that I do like porn - just not the kind that usually gets made. So, I’m not giving it up anytime soon.
What really sucks is that men worked their asses off to create the comic industry and feminists have to mock it.
Well, you know, we don’t want to lose our membership. I hear they make you watch every single Steven Segal movie - twice - before they’ll reinstate you.
Why not create your own industries and leave straight male culture alone you ethnocentric bigots!
You realize “ethnocentric” doesn’t just mean “something that sucks,” right?
Shut the fuck up, Hujo. Actually working in a comic shop (and hanging out in far too many comics forums) I hear that shit way, way too much. that reading comics isn’t FOR girls, so any complaints they have aren’t valid.
by that standard, no criticisms of any body of work is ever valid, as it can always be deflected as not for you.
The amazing misogyny from the more unpleasant of comic book nerds is outstanding. it’s like they internalized the datelessness of high school as it being something wrong with ALL WOMEN EVER and not their going on endlessly about what their night elf did on WoW.
And I swear, if I hear one more idiot respond to the Women in Refridgerator syndrome as “those feminists don’t CARE about the violence against male characters, they just don’t want women characters hurt.” which is a strawman that completely misses the point, and invariably when WiR comes up, some idiot says that.
No ethnocentrism means feeling your culture is somehow superior. Which in turn might lead a “feminish” to denigrate and mock an aspect of male culture, like comic books, seeing how the market is a majority adolesent male.
Oh? but we must all be forced to appeal to all markets? Ooops there goes gay culture! And feminism!
Oh wait only straight male culture has to appeal to all cultures otherwise its sexist and discriminatory, everyone else can cater to a specific group without those labels, I forgot.
How are comic books a part of straight male culture? It’s a *medium.* That’s like saying film is a part of gay culture, or books are a part black culture. It’s a medium in which all sorts of different cultural artifacts are created.
And you’re totally missing the point, Hujo. As I see it the Frank Miller cover was off not because it was sexualized, but because Wonder Woman looks so wimpy. Aren’t superheroes supposed to be physically strong and stuff? That Wonder Woman looks like she’d break in two. *I* could take her.
Not to mention her skirt is the wrong color. Green? WTF?
See, here’s my question: Why would you purposefully alienate half of your prospective audience? Especially when you’re already in a small struggling buisness like the comics industry? And ESPECIALLY when said audience isn’t requesting that you stop doing what you’re doing, and is only asking that you do it in a more equitable fashion?
How hard would it be to do a cover with Batman’s ass?
This is part of what I was trying to say in my original comment. I like the silly cheesecakey, power fantasy stylings of the Superhero genre. But the one-sidedness of Superhero books makes me uncomfortable, and I end up retreating into more sophisticated books.
It’s not something I like, in other words.
On the subject of comics by women, has anybody else ever read Finder, by Carla Speed-McNeil?
Well, Christopher, you’re obviously not really male! [/hujologic] Didn’t you *know* that Male was an ethnic group?
Seriously, don’t you wonder how these guys can even tie their own shoes in the morning? Although the “not for you icky girls, even though we’re losing money we could easily rake in by appealing to the other half of the human race simply by not insulting them” mindset is something that afflicts the computer industry, too. I guess the shrinking marketshare of comics is just Darwinian selection in action. (I used to be amazed by graphics software makers who would snottily insist that there was no reason for them to work on developing Windows versions of any of their programs, since all REAL graphic designers ONLY used Macs, thereby cutting themselves off from a good chunk of potential customers and alienating them in one go. “Here, I’m trying to hand you money, you’re telling me it isn’t good enough?” And never realizing how they were marginalizing themselves.)
Face it you make fun of rednecks and those intolerant of other cultures and pretend to be all-liberal and tolerant and you routinely denigrate straight male culture!
You’re hypocrites.
Yes comics were created by men and marketed to boys, the majority of readers are still boys and men, it wasn’t until the 70’s when big sister forced them to include batgirl and she hulk and that stuff.
Really it’s not hard to see feminists are intolerant of straight males, this is one example. You’re no different than Mansfield, or any conservative redneck that mocks lesbian culture or metros what have you.
Exact same animal.
Ethnocentrism was an incorrect term. What is the term for being intolerant of the other genders culture? There is straight male/female culture gay male/female culture.
Perhaps I should have just said intolerant hypocrites and left it there sorry.
the majority of readers are still boys and men,
… and will remain so as long as they keep driving the women readers away. But it’s not as if there aren’t lots of women interested in superhero stories, power fantasy drawing styles and all, or as if more might not stay interested if the comics were made in a way less slanted against women.
And it’s not as if it’s that hard to draw Wonder Woman in a way that makes her look both strong and sexy (instead of sexy and incredibly wimpy), sometimes show Batman’s ass, and be a bit more even-handed about the fates of male and female characters.
Besides, it’s not just comics that are that way, it’s just about anything remotely connected to an action genre. It’s disappointments like having Indiana Jones have a girl friend that’s actually fun for a woman to relate to in his first movie, hearing he’s paired with a different woman in the second movie, and just knowing (and being right) that the women in that series are going to slide downhill. It’s having the Sigourney Weaver character in Alien still be a rarity, because it’s still true that most characters that use their brains to overcome the monster are male, and that the rare “strong” female characters are shown with much more emphasis on T&A even when heading off to fight than corresponding male characters.
Though action movies are in a better position commercially to get away with annoying women, and have more women that will watch them anyway despite their flaws. (Possibly the fact that movies do sometimes give a good view of a handsome guy’s ass helps.)
You know how the ’studies show’ that women are less visually aroused than men? Show them a lot of traditionalist, sexist, boob-job-y, aimed-at-men het porn. Naturally, more men than women demonstrate arousal. QED.
And I’m torn between wanting to buy that I’m naturally less visually aroused than men, because it beats the idea that I dislike sexist, boob-job-y, aimed-at-men het porn only because I’ve internalized some societal prudishness (no, I like sex and that’s not the kind of sexiness I find fun), and not wanting to buy it, because even if I don’t see myself personally as all that visual, one-sided cheesecake and no beefcake really annoys me.
Hujo, we’re just intolerant of stupidity and bigotry.
I know that for conservative peabrains this equals ZOMGLiebrulsRHipp-Hypo-Um, I can’t spell that word, but guess what, it really doesn’t equal hypocrisy, YOU don’t get to speak for all males in the world that have ever lived, you don’t get to say that excluding and objectifying women is a masculine right, and if you think that you’re the Great God of Comic Books who gets to decide who they’re for and who doesn’t get to read them - think again, peabrain.
And I’m torn between wanting to buy that I’m naturally less visually aroused than men, because it beats the idea that I dislike sexist, boob-job-y, aimed-at-men het porn only because I’ve internalized some societal prudishness (no, I like sex and that’s not the kind of sexiness I find fun), and not wanting to buy it, because even if I don’t see myself personally as all that visual, one-sided cheesecake and no beefcake really annoys me.
Lynn, how bout disliking sexist, boob-job-y, aimed-at-men het porn not because you’ve internalized some societal prudishness but because you’re not willing to look at sexist, boob-job-y, aimed-at-men het porn and call it “egalitarian erotica” and pretend that this is sex positivity instead of the same old, same old, getting women to endorse our own subjugation and telling us we’re free-er that way? Does that work for you?
One of these days I’m going to paint a series of male odalisques in the baroque fashion, with fantasy-classical trappings, all languor and golden-creamy sking (and mahogany-bronze!) and everything open to the Gaze.
And the art world will freak out, and they won’t know what to do because they will want to call it “homoerotic,” and yet my history of PAP smears will put the lie to that. And the ordinary viewers will freak out, and not know if they’re allowed to like them, or not, and why these are different from the “respectable” naked women on the walls of every art museum in the world…
Yes comics were created by men and marketed to boys, the majority of readers are still boys and men, it wasn’t until the 70’s when big sister forced them to include batgirl and she hulk and that stuff.
except that just isn’t true. Batgirl was first introduced in the 50s, as a sidekick to Batwoman, so that they dodge the “y’all gay” stuff.
and She-hulk, like SOOO many other female characters, were introduced as cheesecake, and later writers realized “we have a character here who is entirely undeveloped.” The same reason Power Girl got on board with women’s rights, Oliver Queen and Hal Jordan got political, and Silver Surfer got his own series.
“big sister” never forced anyone to include anything in comics.
As a longtime comic fan and even comic creator (see my site for more), I have to say that I don’t particularly find female superhero characters any more or less sexual than male ones. As someone who is attracted to males, I think it’s pretty easy to see the overt grappling, skintight costumes, male camaraderie, and other blatantly homoerotic overtones, but it’s also very easy for people to push them aside. For whatever reason, we always have ‘feminists’ running around crying ‘discrimination! objectification!’ when there’s a woman who dresses in a flashy outfit. But you’re forgetting exactly what comics really more or less are.
They function, in most every way, as modern-day myths. These are idealized forms, idealized heroes and heroines, that we can read and perhaps wish we could be. They have bodies that really nobody could have, minds keener than they should, and lives more charmed than anyone would in their situation. They wield powers beyond imagination and dress in clothes usually unimaginable for anyone else. And, yes, most of these clothes show off their physiques, whether skintight or simply revealing. And many of these costumes are created to titillate, certainly, in a very mild manner, since for a very long time boys were indeed the main audiences of comics. However, that’s not to say no women ever read comics (obviously!) or that male characters never titillated. Personally I found it quite fulfilling when I was younger to flip through many of my comics, most of which involved at least one shirtless (if not even more scantily-clad) man in it, usually very muscular and handsome…shirtless men are apparently ‘acceptable’, and especially when they’re fighting a foe and end up all near-naked…but somehow, if someone draws a character wearing a sexy outfit, they’re the antichrist and the most sexist person alive.
I mean, for goodness sakes, my room is plastered with Alphonse Mucha prints, mostly beautiful women in diaphanous clothing, beautiful curvy forms, and soft colors. Does that mean I’m a lesbian or that I get some sort of sexual gratification from it? No. They’re just nice to look at. That’s really all that this means in comics. Idealized characters, forms, and so forth are a nice escape; they’re nice to look at (depending on who’s drawing them, admittedly, if you like their style!) I’m not saying sexism doesn’t exist, but Wonder Woman? She was my role model growing up, and still is in many ways. I haven’t read her book for some time, but to me she was always very powerful, and even if she did have weaknesses…what hero doesn’t? And isn’t it more inspiring to see her transcend her weaknesses and triumph anyway? Apparently there’s something to it, or else I suppose I wouldn’t have all this Wonder Woman stuff around…I’ve always found her to be inspiring. And if you have a problem with her costume, kindly look to her source material: Greek design. If you look back in the first few issues of volume 2 of Wonder Woman, you can see some of this. As a lover of Greek culture, I could also point out that if they really wanted to be exploitational, they could’ve had her go very ’summer-Greek’ and bare her breasts at all times. After all, it wouldn’t be inconsistent with Greek attire.
But honestly, I don’t see the problem with these outfits. What I have a problem with is when people neglect little things, like the little gap between a woman’s thighs (anatomically due to hips and the crotch itself), at least some bulge between a man’s (which is much less disturbing than seeing absolutely no presence; at least think about him wearing a cup, maybe?!), nipples on men (no excuse for omitting these), and so forth. And if you’re being paid to draw people, at least try to look at a picture or two. Some comic artists draw like they’ve apparently never seen a picture of a person’s body. I mean, it’s not a bad thing when you’re an artist to look at a model sometimes!
Anyway, that’s my two cents. Sorry to go on so long. But I really think there are too many people who snip right up on the bandwagon about things like this. So what if Wonder Woman wears a skirt? As noted, so did the original. And when people have muscular or well-toned buttocks, their thin-fabric skirt is going to hang in ways to suggest that *gasp* there is a pair of well-toned buttocks beneath it. It’s the same way that when Steve Rogers wears a tank top, you can see how hard he works to maintain his ‘Captain America’ physique. Not to mention Matt Murdock’s perky little behind, Wally West’s everything (he walked around almost every issue in tiny undies in the first few issues of Flash v2), furthermore Warren Worthington’s everything, Iceman’s everything (did we forget his ’speedo and boots’ outfit?) and so on…