Sexism In Comics

So, how long do you think it's going to last?

That being said, the new costume works for me, (it always made sense to me that Power Girl would go bare-armed. She's a very Sleeves Are for Wimps sort of girl.) and I'm really hoping it sticks.

Also, finally on the ab window removal. I swear nothing makes a costume look more annoyingly 90s than a midrift.

edited 10th Feb '12 1:07:06 PM by Sparkysharps

Ah, of course he's DC. Fair enough then.

About Power Girl, I have to say...WOO HOO! Finally, she found an insignia to fill up her hole! Oops, did I just say that out loud?

Things have taken a step forward!

Wait.....Oh God.. The Power Girl cosplayers, NOOOOOOOOO!

@ Raven Wilder: That's a bad arguement. You're basically saying that only hetero males and lesbians should expect to get what they like in comic books and anybody else doesn't have to bother voicing their opinion. It seems that's the attitude in the industry at the same time comic book sales are down and the big two talk about how they want to attract female customers. See how the two statements clash?
I'm pretty sure that sexy and sensible can be combined - I chose Huntress as an example because while I'm not particular fond of PG's boob window invulnerability means she could keep it. Yes, it has no purpose but unlike other's high heels it's not a hinderance either.
Also, let's be honest: isn't skin tight itself alot of fan service?
Concerning Power Girl: I'm glad the window is gone(I think the ridges have become her new costume trait?) but I'm kinda sad there's no blue in her uniform anymore. :( I liked her boots/gloves alot.Well, can't have everything I guess.
I don't think it matters that my specific example is a bit old the point holds up. If you want, we can talk about Harley Quinn's new costume same difference.

edited 11th Feb '12 3:08:57 PM by soulseller

The belly window has actually been gone since the Huntress miniseries.

I don't think only lesbians and heterosexual males should be able to enjoy comics; I'd be perfectly fine with them upping the male Fanservice. Like maybe, instead of creating costumes with his ring, the Green Lantern just goes around naked, surrounded by a transparent green aura that only grows opaque around his naughty bits. Or maybe Iron Man could design his metallic suit to be more anatomically correct.

However, the big comic publishers have a bad habit of just catering to the shrinking fanbase they already have instead of drawing in new readers, so don't expect to see that happen.

Taking the "more male fanservice" note a little more seriously, I honestly would not have a problem with that. For example, the new Ray spends half of his first book naked—and even after that, it's explained that since he's become living energy, he can't wear clothes. So, basically he bends light around him to create the illusion that he's clothed (I'm not even going to bother on the Fridge Logic of how that works, but whatever).

The nude Lantern and Iron Dong argument above is just strawmanning, though.

Well, I'm not going to say no to more fan service... but I don't think it's the most important problem in comics right now. How about a medium that doesn't make feel female readers uncomfortable reading it? It's not just outfits - things like that delightful dialogue/(mis-)chracterisation in RHATO, rapes or the practice of disposable women.
I don't expect the companies to get enlightned anytime soon but tackling the problem without at least hoping they might do it would make any discussion null and void.
My guess is the fact that naked / big penis are not fan service for females but rather males. Gals often look for other qualities in their porn.

edited 11th Feb '12 7:49:44 PM by soulseller

Who's strawmanning? I actually would be perfectly okay with naked Green Lantern and sculpted figure Iron Man.

I assumed when you said "anatomically correct" Iron Man, you were calling for him to slap a penis on the Armor.

That being said, I don't have a problem with an Adonis-sculpted armor. It would actually make sense, considering Tony's massive ego and the fact that, as a celebrity, he'd want to look impressive and impressionable.

And Naked Lanterns? Sounds like the erotic fanfic of my dreams.

Personally, I find all his muscled arms + technology porn or the "I'm just clothed in this shadow see how I put my armor on while guessing at what else is there" alot more appealing/ nng-worthy.

Noted.

Also noted. *cue akward silence*

Oh God look what I just found. As the saying goes, "Its funny because its true".

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/MsKyle08/news/?a=47664

That saying surely applies here.
Another concern is support. There`s a reason sports bras exist and the reason is "breasts always get in the way". Edit: Sorry, switched from QWERTZ to QWERTY.

edited 13th Feb '12 7:07:06 AM by frumfrum

I just assume that their costumes cling to them so tightly that anyone without their superhuman toughness would be crushed to death.

Not specifically about superheroes, but this is interesting to watch, nonetheless:

http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/team-nchick/nostalgia-chick/34233-top-ten-qhottestq-animated-guys

Basically, the Nostalgia Chick goes into a list of the Top 10 democratically-elected "Hottest Animated Guys". She speaks about the fact that while most guys will pick their list based on physical attributes (Psylocke is almost always on a hottest comic chick list and Jessica Rabbit will be on every animated list until the end of time), girls tend to like men who are either a) tortured b) a "project (they can be changed) or c) accessible—bonus points of you're all three (Aladdin).

That goes into what I was saying about Twilight a little ways back—Edward Cullen (and to an extent, Jacob) are what "objectified" men in womens' fiction amounts to. Men are interested in shallow physical attributes and women whom, no matter how many Elite Mooks they beat up or tanks they cut in to shreds, will still submit herself for your pleasure at the end of the day. Women are interested in guys who are physical displays of power and strength, but at the same time are tortured bad boys that they can slowly convince into being their personal Hercules.

Not saying anything's wrong with either. It's just something interesting to learn.

edited 13th Feb '12 8:35:01 AM by KingZeal

[Looks at list]

[Looks at own list]

Me and the rest of my gender evidently have a huge deal of disagreement.

Granted, a significant amount of this is probably due to her cutoff point (What do you mean Kotetsu's disqualified? /a/ invented a new fetish because of him!), as well as the relative obscurity of all the characters on my list, but pretty much all the characters on my list aren't tortured or "projects" so much as they're pretty dorks.

I don`t agree, too. Or, I think, it`s a definition problem. I think the main point involved in all of them is - they show emotion. Not anywhere, anytime - but the characters open up in some emotionally even if it`s privately just for their love interests and maybe friends. In my opinion this is also a factor that makes genre like slash, fluff or angst so appealing - that the men break out from the societal pressure to be The Stoic all the time, to always take charge and be the one comforting.

Well, when I personally think about why I crush/used to crush on certain animated characters. I don't really take in account personal appearance all that much.

The thing is, it's not in the least bit because I'm not shallow. Oh no. It's because I grew up on anime, and the general rule about anime is that even the loser everyman is on the pretty side of Generic Cuteness. Thus when your physical options are pretty and... well, more pretty, you start looking for other traits to narrow it all down like whether or not they're adorkable or a Deadpan Snarker.

I'm sort of in the idea that your "type" is something you learn, so to speak, rather than anything particularly innate (which would probably explain why I'm far more attracted to effeminate Asian prettyboys more than anything else). It's one of those ideas you pick up when you do study a lot of social psychology. One of the suggestions there, for example is that how much you value physical appearance is a factor of how much you're allowed to value physical appearance. If you combine it with the social norm that men are allowed to be shallow horndogs and women should only be attracted to inner qualities, it seems to explain things.

(On a side note, I do think that 2002 cutoff point might have something to do with it. The Bad Boy with a heart of gold is a very 90s sort of thing - which is where most of the list comes from. I'm not sure I can pinpoint the biggest trend at the moment, but I'm parsing that it's more "weird" than "tortured angsty soul." Then again, I hang around the parts of the internet that think Jacuzzi Splot is the most adorable thing in animation, so who knows)

edited 13th Feb '12 9:57:33 AM by Sparkysharps

Evolutionary psychology also has theories as to why people are attracted to certain things. For example, if we have a Five-Man Band and only one character in that band is female, it's likely that guys will feel some attraction to her, regardless of what she looks like. I think it might be kind of an alpha male instinct.

I'm not sure if women come to the same conclusion.

Oh, I know about evo-psych. I also know a) how it's hilariously misrepresented in popculture and b) is not very good in backing up its hypotheses with surefire evidence (and also does a piss poor job of taking into account things like, y'know gay people.)

I'm not the sort that says evopsych is bunk, but I am very incredulous about many of its claims on sexual behavior on account of its difficulty in (if not outright refusal of) taking into consideration social and environmental factors.

edited 13th Feb '12 10:25:11 AM by Sparkysharps

That's not my experience. I've actually seen quite a few evo psych theories that do a pretty decent job of accounting for homosexuality and bisexuality. Especially since it's becoming increasingly accepted that there are genetic factors which determine sexual orientation.

What's interesting about Starfire is, if you go back to the way she was handled in Wolfman/Perez's New Teen Titans of the '80's, despite how she looks and dresses, her portrayal is not particularly sexualized. Her personality is akin to her (much more exaggerated) portrayal on the Teen Titans animated series in that she was kind of a hearts and flowers innocent/fish out of water who is also a particularly fierce warrior. Tamaraneans were described as being a lot more liberal with their sexuality, but Starfire was never portrayed as promiscuous or even sexually adventurous. So yeah, she was wearing the improbable metal bikini, but she was by no means, originally anyhow, portrayed as a bed-hopper.