Sexism In Comics

I probably phrased that incorrectly - I'm not talking about how evopsych explains homosexuality so much as how the research done on sexual behavior focuses almost entirely on straight couples, and usually only uses straight couples as subjects. It's part of the problem with evo-psych research in general - more often than not, the only thing they bother to control for is gender and then extend the results of their studies beyond what can reasonably be assumed to apply to.

Also not true. I was just reading about experiments in Samoa (a community in which homosexuality is accepted and raised as a "third" gender) that are attempting to prove or disprove evopsych theories about homosexuality.

That isn't true at all, really. She was rather promiscuous from the beginning, but not in a "Sex has no emotional meaning" sort of way. In fact, it was the opposite. She was promiscuous BECAUSE sex was an emotional investment for her.

How was she promiscuous, exactly? Prior to her political marriage during Crisis on Infinite Earths, Starfire had two on-screen relationships; she fell in love with a Hive spy, who was killed by the Hive when, because of his feelings for her, he refused to betray her. Her relationship with this fellow is never portrayed as sexual, only emotional. After that, she had her longstanding relationship with Dick Grayson, which was famously revealed to be sexual in a scene showing the two in bed together in the first issue of The New Teen Titans deluxe book. After her political marriage, it's indicated that she had sex with her husband because it was expected of her, but once she returns to Earth, she's back with Grayson (after she manages to convince him that her marriage is "in name only") again until the two broke up in the mid-90's. Again, I'm only referring to her characterization under Marv Wolfman, one of her creators, back during his run on The New Teen Titans. Having only two sexual relationships, only one of which is entirely of her own volition, doesn't strike me as promiscuous. It was frequently indicated that she was a sex-slave while a prisoner of the Gordanians, but that hardly counts when ascertaining her bahavior.

It's kind of an impression given by the way she's portrayed. One of the first things she does when introduced to the book is go out of her way to kiss Dick and offhandedly gives Beast Boy a "maybe later" when he asks for one. While she doesn't quite hop into bed with anything that moves, she isn't afraid to openly flirt or entertain the possibility of a physical relationship.

I personally, at least, always got the impression that Starfire's sex life went by the Law of Conservation of Detail: if it wasn't important to the plot, it didn't need to be mentioned, but it wasn't explicitly stated to not exist.

As in the animated series, it's made fairly clear that she kisses Dick in order to learn English, as Tamaraneans absorb language through physical contact (not that she didn't enjoy it; she even says she didn't necessarily have to kiss him, but that it was "more fun" that way). As for the rest, I suppose that's a matter for interpretation. As you say, it's never explicitly stated that she wasn't having sexual relationships, but nor is it explicitly stated that she was. Still, flirty is a long way from promiscuous. I've always been of the opinion that if something doesn't happen onscreen or is at least referred to by the characters, whether or not it happened is an entirely subjective affair.

As you say, though, whatever her actions, it was never an emotionless business for her. She was meant to be a sweet natured free spirit, not a jaded sexbot.

The problem with Starfire now is that she is being written by someone who is too lazy to get into her head and really figure out her sexuality. As a result, we get pandering to the perceived comic book audience - heterosexual males. Unless it was editorially mandated, which is worse than cynical.

Why does the portrayal of characters like Starfire now bother us? Why are some comic book superheroines' costumes so horrible? Because most artists are too lazy to figure out why. Why do these characters choose to dress up like this while fighting crime?

Alan Moore tried to figure out what would happen if real people dressed up and did what superheroes are supposed to do. The results were depressing.

Now, not every comic should be as much of a downer as Watchmen - but if writers tried to engage in what these characters realistically would feel about their superheroic identities could help us evolve beyond these Unfortunate Implications clusterfucks.

Again, that describes a symptom without curing the disease.

.*sigh* Okay, look fellow comic tropers, there's something that's been bugging me for a while on every complaint that people make about comic books: namely, "be better writers" isn't a way to fix things.

Everybody who states "writers need to make better work/do better x/have better y" isn't saying anything that's actually useful. It's like saying that the way to fix crime is for people to stop hurting each other. No kidding. "Be a better writer" doesn't actually say anything worthwhile, unfortunately, without context. And even if a writer becomes "better" and makes it up to the illustrious GOOD WRITER accolade (or, hell better yet, the GREAT WRITER one) there are many many MANY examples of writers who are, were, or have once been great writers and did something positively dumb. You can't use the "better writer" argument on these people: they are already established as titans of the industry and have several books which are still hailed as masterpieces. That isn't to say that when the fail, they don't fail BADLY, but unless you specify exactly what should and should not do, simply demanding that they write better is not a sound cricitism. For all you know, when they put it from pen to paper, it seemed like pure genius in their eyes.

You have a point, we are all human and even the talented will screw up eventually. But isn't that true of all of us? Editors will sometimes allow their biases to affect their judgement, companies will fail to plan ahead wisely, and fans will fail to give a series an even chance. It happens.

What should be done (by ALL of us) is A) accept this fallibility on our parts AND the others' and B) work together to get a good project realized. But often our egos won't let us, especially in recent times. I liked comics in the old days because I felt there was a respect at all levels (of course I wasn't aware of all the bad going-ons behind the scenes, but, at least in public, everybody tried to work together.) These days? Creators get way too much control, companies act like they don't give a d@mn about their characters' fans, and the fans couldn't be more divided amongst themselves.Comics reading just doesn't feel like the nice simple hobby it used to be.

edited 18th Feb '12 8:20:12 AM by Sijo

As far as something constructive, how about asking writers to respect their audience's intelligence? We don't mind sexualized characters. Some of them are awesome and interesting. Emma Frost is clearly sexualized, but it works for her. Empowered is a comic where the main character winds up naked and tied up almost every time she leaves the house, but fans love it. Not because she ends up naked and tied up, but because the writer respects his audience.

But then you get the recent Starfire fiasco. It went over like a lead balloon because the writer was basically insulting his audience's intelligence. He was saying, "Hey, this is what you guys like, right? Women as sexual objects? That's what makes Starfire popular?" It wasn't just degrading to the character, it was degrading to the reader.

How about Amanda Waller? A strong female character who isn't attractive by any conventional standard. What do they do with her in the reboot? Make her a hot skinny chick with her tits showing. Again, taking a character that readers loved, and turning her into a sex object. I doubt changing her brought in a single reader, and it probably cost several readers, who felt insulted that someone decided that yet another walking pair of tits was what people wanted to see.

There are countless examples of this. And it's not so much that it's bad writing, it's a low opinion of the audience. And that's what needs to go away. Even poor writing can be acceptable when the writer is genuinely trying, and genuinely respects his audience. New Mutants, under Dn A, has had largely mediocre writing, but I've been thoroughly enjoying it, because Dn A don't think I'm an idiot.

Still too vague and it assumes malice on the part of the writer.

Let's assume, just for now, that every time a writer makes something like Starfire or the Catwoman/Batman scene or the Amanda Waller revision, that they're not twirling their mustaches and intentionally setting out to piss off the audience

We should also avoid hyperbole, like this:

Yeah, you're right. She was changed in order to make her more attractive. Everything you said was true except that last sentence. Which was a very extreme exaggeration.◊ It's a modest amount of cleavage—less than I would actually see in your average government job. Still more sexualized than she was before, but the reaction is sensationalist. That tends to hurt arguments of sexism, not help.

edited 18th Feb '12 7:23:25 AM by KingZeal

How is that a modest amount of cleavage? Only if you judge by super hero comic standards because I think in a respectable setting this would normally be inappropriate.

Yes, I would definitely not go to a workplace wearing that.

edited 18th Feb '12 12:39:06 PM by WarriorEowyn

If I can tell what type of bra she's wearing (brown w/ black lace trim.), it is not a "modest" amount.

edited 18th Feb '12 12:48:57 PM by Sparkysharps

Well, point to the ladies, then.

I personally have seen far worse on a regular basis in a corporate setting.

I have not. To be fair though that's the most sexualized waller gets in the series, so far at least.

edited 18th Feb '12 5:25:20 PM by captainpat

Yeah, clearly working at Wrigley Gum for 3 years has colored my view on what is inappropriate for a workplace.

Seriously, the women working at that place would have made Waller look like a nun.

Anyhow, are there any interview explaining waller's weight? Was it because of the Green Lantern movie version? because if it was, talk about betting on the wrong horse.

Where do I sign up?

That would seem like a fair assumption to make. Though why they didn't get a more bankable or recognisable BBW like say Queen Latifah or Octavia Spencer in the first place is beyond me.

Don't give me that look, Queen Latifah can be daymn intimidating.

Because Hollywood has the unfortunate problem of not knowing how many black people they have other than Denzel Washington, Will Smith, and Halle Berry.

A better question would be why they thought Waller needed to be IN the GL movie in the first place.

edited 19th Feb '12 6:14:05 AM by KingZeal

I know it sounds unlikely but I thought they wanted their "Nick Furry" of dc cinematic universe.

Comic Alliance put up an article about when Over-Sexualization kills the story. It's pretty good read and man, Ed Benes, that guy just has no care in the world about tone or character appropriateness when it comes to cheesecake. It's interesting to see the difference between his artwork and more restrained ones from Cliff Chiang.

edited 19th Feb '12 9:53:10 AM by captainpat

In the case of superhero comics a lot of it is because many writers operate under the theory "No man wants to put his boots under a warrior's bed" like John Wayne said in Rooster Cogburn. They figure since most readers are male they won't accept a female character unless she's Ms. Fanservice or a damsel constantly in need of rescuing. Female readers? Nevah heard of`em unless you mean non heroic books like Archie Comics.

In the case of usually non heroic newspaper comics it's because many legacy strip writers and fans came of age at a time when Stay in the Kitchen was the normal acceptable attitude and the only goals a woman should aspire to are being a housewife or if she's older dispensing sage wisdom (usually of the Stay in the Kitchen variety) to younger characters. Many younger writers often ape the style of the older writers. They believe fans who came of age in that time period and at the other end of the extreme young kids who think "Girls have cooties" are the only people who read comic strips.

Any of you lot read, or have opinions about, Wonder Woman #7? Yikes....

Wait... Wonder Woman? The book that so many articles have been saying is a way to do female characters right?

Yep.

Is there anything DC's done since the reboot that's been even remotely progressive, besides finally getting rid of PG's boob window?

edited 9th Apr '12 9:47:29 AM by Wackd