Sexism In Comics

Y The Last Man managed to avoid it, in my opinion.

Probably because it involved killing the male portion of the population and dealing with the consequences there of.

The problem with a lot of this type of thing is assuming greater meaning in what the creators are saying when most of them likely focus entirely on telling a story they think is interesting. It's why things change Depending on the Writer.

Thing is, fictional works do not exist in a vacuum, and thus can convey messages the authors did not intend. Pervasive use of Rape Is Love and Rape as Redemption in media, for instance, can normalise and even partially legitimise that behaviour regardless of authorial intent - a society's moral norms are very much shaped by its culture, of which art is an element.

Yeah, aggregate tropes and what not. Dislike those things myself.

Even without being aggregate, authorial intent is completely worthless. We've been dealing with that problem throughout the wiki for some years now. For example, it's almost a fact that most examples of Stay in the Kitchen from before the 70s weren't inherently trying to be sexist or consider themselves sexist, but that's how it looks after 50 years of progress.

I did a little blogpost about this.

Leave my Vampirella alone.

But in all seriousness, I've been dealing with this exact problem in designing my superheroine characters lately. The problem is that comics are a visual medium, so it's almost expected for female superheroines to look attactive in one way or another. There's also the caveat in that superheroes are by nature designed to be attention whores (not just the females) rather than for practicality.

The crux of the problem is where the line is drawn between aesthetics and practicality. The really funny this is that I think kids' shows get it right (Teen Titans, Kim Possible) but adults are the ones who get bored without boobs and butts.

You can be flashy without being sexualised. Try taking some more inspiration from male superheroes.

Most male superheroes still wear body condoms. Double Standards doesn't allow the same reactions when a male does it and when a female does it.

Look closer. Male outfits are more likely to have an armoured appearance (especially if the hero in question doesn't have invulnerability as part of his powerset), and less likely to show exposed skin. They'll also be designed to convey a sense of bulk, emphasising the wearer's physical power. Consider even a really simple costume, like Superman's, where the triangular S-badge and massive cape exaggerate the width of his shoulders. Now compare Power Girl's getup, which mostly serves to emphasise the boob-window at its centre.

Now look at Psylocke and Darkseid. They both wear leotards, right? So it's just the same? Not exactly. Darkseid's doesn't emphasise his ass like Psylocke's - the leg-holes are cut lower, almost like a Roman tunic, rather than lovingly displaying his buttocks up to the waist. A very subtle difference, sure, but one that has quite a significant impact.

I'm aware of this. But most of what you're talking about isn't a costume design conundrum as much as it's an artistic rendition. For example, Wonder Woman's costume and how far the neckline has plunged over the years and how thong-like her leotard is. Let's look at Jade in a Green Lantern costume◊ versus Hal Jordan◊. The way the artists choose to draw them is completely different, and the costume clings to their different "assets" depending entirely on gender. But, the costume itself is identical. Jade, however, is in a more submissive pose while Hal is in a more dominant pose.

Even fully-armored characters, like Commander Shepard◊ looks inherently different when all you do is make the armor conform to a female body◊.

Yeah, no kidding that artists like to draw women in submissive poses and tailor their costumes to account for fetish. Artists and fans are wont to do that. My point, though, is that making female characters too masculine often makes them less relatable to girls, but costumes also can't look like evening-wear or swimwear. As I said, it's difficult to find just the right balance, but kid shows do just fine.

edited 12th Apr '12 9:41:48 AM by KingZeal

Regarding the armour thing, Breast Plate is actually somewhat unrealistic. It's a good rule of thumb that you need really big gazongas if you're going to have to mould the armour around them like that. ME is also a good example of the subtle stuff, like the guys getting wider, bulkier shoulder armour to make them more imposing (though that got toned down a bit in the sequels), and the girls getting higher, more prominent leg articulation to emphasise their backsides. It's not the same armour - one is designed to look more powerful, whilst the other is designed to look sexier.

I thought Breast Plate was when a cuirass showed cleavage or other improbable amounts of skin.

But the armor is "inspired by" the male version...which was my point...and the only majorly noticeable difference is that it's smaller (because Fem!Shep is smaller) and has cups on the breasts. And honestly, whether or not Fem!Shep has big breasts is not relevant, because you might have female characters that actually are busty (meaning they're not just there to invoke Most Common Superpower). I'm not sure if the cups will be that noticeable, but even in Real Life, the army is developing new uniforms◊ for female soldiers that will better contort to their busts and hips. The difference between an army uniform and a superhero costume, once again, is that superheroes are attention whores. Even the pseudo-military versions usually wear something skintight.

edited 12th Apr '12 9:55:46 AM by KingZeal

Something I get tired of seeing is the age-old surprised reaction of male characters to a female warrior/ action heroine type. The "What? You're a girl?!?" reaction that you still see cropping up occasionally. So much could be accomplished, I think, if females in these roles were just taken as a matter of course rather than an oddity (so long as such a reaction would be historically/culturally accurate within the fiction in question's environment; wouldn't work in medieval Europe, for instance).

Yeah some male characters should just stop being surprised unless it actually makes sense for their individual established character, like for example some jerk that thinks that all women are good for are making babies and sandwiches. And as for Commander Shepard, there really doesn't actually seemed to be that much drastic difference in the effect of both the male and the female character. I mean nothing about the female Shepard seem to indicate anything other than "tough girl that means business" similar to the male Shepard, solely looking at the design.

edited 8th Aug '12 11:27:24 AM by KSonik

One piece of anecdata I'd like to toss in here (I forget where I heard it, so take it with a block of salt): Apparently, comics like Lady Death and Tarot Witch Of The Black Rose, which I doubt anyone here would dispute seem to exist primarily as a breast-deployment platform, sell fairly well to female comic-readers. If I had to make a wild guess, I'd say that's because there are SO FEW comics with female main characters that even those look good.

Or I could be wrong.

That seems a trifle unlikely - the Spartan men, who were about as far from 'feminine' as you can get while still having at least one X chromosome, often had long hair, too. One theory I heard was that the Amazons were partially based on the Scythians, who apparently had woman-warriors.

edited 6th Sep '12 10:38:47 AM by arbane

I just read through this whole thread, so know this about why I lead this with a response to a post that was made last year. Anyways, I first wanted to respond to that post with the Grant Morrison quote where he disparaged Alan Moore. While I understand where he's coming from (while still respecting Alan Moore as a writer, of course), I do have to say his inaccuracy in what he said. Specifically, he did write a character who was raped. In Doom Patrol, he created the character of Crazy Jane, who had multiple personalities where each personality had a different superpower. He kept hinting at things, but finally revealed near the end of his run that her split psyche is the result of physical (and possibly sexual) abuse by her father and that, after running away from home and seeking solace in a church, she's raped in a confessional booth, which lead to the death of her primary personality. So, even though his point is important, he needs to remember to review the facts and know that he did have a female character get raped.

Onto other bits: people mention men needing to be sexualized like women, and the only option I can think of where people can see just that in superhero comics is the company Class Comics. I won't link them because of subject matter, so search for them at your own peril. Basically, it's gay porn superhero comics featuring all original characters, which makes it sad that these are the only men I can think of in the superhero world that are done like their female counterparts, and it's done that way BECAUSE it's supposed to be sexual, in an environment where they never need to explain any of it away.

A couple female characters to look to favorably in presentation are in the Bat-family: Batgirl and Batwoman. Granted, I haven't been reading Batgirl (limited money on my part, or else I would surely be supporting Gail Simone—not just because she's female, but that she's a darn good writer), but I think her costume applies in this. These are characters who cover themselves up and in ways that make themselves fit in the Batman mold. Sure, they show their hair through their cowls, but at least it's justified with Batwoman. And as far as portrayal, Batwoman is never shown in poses that are there because they're sexy. She's powerful in battle and imposing, just like male characters. Ever since she had that little run headlining Detective, as well, she has also had realistic footwear, not high heels. She really is a female Batman in a lot of regards, while being her own character.

Also, I find it odd that Lobdell wrote something so offensive in Red Hood and the Outlaws, considering when I was in high school, I had a subscription to Generation X, which he was writing at the time. The characters there were not idealized for the most part (Emma Frost even was relegated to only sparing fanservice, generally dressing far more conervatively than her current incarnation most of the time). Maybe it's because they were mainly kids, but the characters reacted far more innocently (I can remember the Halloween issue I have, where Husk and M take off from everyone else to try on some silly sunglasses they see a vendor selling, because it's silly sunglasses—it's fun to try those on). But the characterization of the adults was not what you would expect from seeing his depiction of Starfire. Banshee and Emma would bicker and there was an underlying idea that they might have been developing feelings for each other, but nothing was overt. With a character like Emma Frost, to keep the fanservice generally coy and not have her be provocative at the tip of a hat must be a difficult thing to do.

One way to look at things, as well, that wasn't mentioned much here, is to look at the dynamics af two Marvel Comics male superheroes and their female counterparts. First, we have the Hulk. He has She-Hulk (well, and that other She-Hulk and Red She-Hulk, but I am sticking with his cousin here, though it could apply to them, too), who should theoretically have the same powers as him, but while he becomes a muscle-bound beheamoth, she basically becaomes Wonder Woman with green skin. Apparently, she was originally supposed to be as muscular as her cousin, looking like a female bodybuilder just like he looked like the men, but that artists preferred to draw her less muscular, which in my opinion is counterintuitive. The other character to look at is the Thing, with his counterpart, She-Thing. Unlike She-Hulk, She-Thing was never made sexier (which is pretty darn difficult to do with a walking pile of rocks, I understand), which would be awesome, if she didn't fade away, only to return as the butt of jokes or that brief bit of Secret Invasion where I think she was a Skrull. Both these characters are operating off of the same concept, but their execution at least shows reader tastes in characters, since the "sexy" She-Hulk lasted while "ugly" She-Thing was cast aside, but it does also show that the creators are more likely to want to work with the sexy (as evidenced by making She-Hulk sexy, for instance, but even just using her—there are ways to do She-Thing well, too).

But this also makes me think of one of the articles linked and how it mentions that men don't show cleavage—which is wrong. It's just that these men are usually shirtless (which is really what they would have the women be, if they could get away with it)—Namor is an oft-cited example, but Hulk and the Thing are also prominent shirtless male characters. But as you guys mention, this is always played for power, not sexiness (and, disturbingly, the Hulk often doesn't even have nipples—I always notice that and it bugs me). The closest a male character has gotten to having an outfit which showed cleavage like women's outfits was Nightwing, when he had the low-cut top. Sure, it didn't show much, but like Power Girl's cleavage window, I could imagine artists slowly making it meander down to show more chest while still covering the pecs.

Didn't Nightwing at one point have a costume with a V-neck line that went below his pecs? Or is that what you were talking about?

The depth of the "v-neck" depended on the artist; George Perez had it ending just below the cleft in Nightwing's pecs, while other artists had it all the way down to his navel.

I completely agree that overly revealing and/or sexed up costumes are just silly. I fully accept that superheroes wear tights and capes and whatnot, but seeing a character in fetish gear or a string bikini and passing it off as a costume just pulls me right out of things.

I guess I'm just used to the Perez version, since I haven't read any Nightwing or Titans books (or even seen the show).

No, originally she-hulk wasn't as big as her cousin. It was something she worked up too gaining control of her hulk outs, showing it was worth working for is better.

There was even a sub plot where she figured how to exponentially increase her strength and eventually had to accept being the (She)Hulk all the time wasn't really practical to everyday living. Shrinking She-Hulk back down to size seems to be missing the entire point...she has a smaller form already that she can take on whenever she wants to.

I haven't had time to read through this entire thread but I thought I'd throw in my two cents even if it makes me look like a complete moron.

I consider myself to be a feminist/equalist, if such a thing exists. Sexism in comics is a problem yet at the same time it can be a very variable issue (Ha ha) depending on the era. In the golden and silver age, this was arguably a bigger problem yet at the same time that was the way things were back then. With America's ideal family image in the early Cold War and even before then, it was always traditional for women to be a supportive role and never an empowering one. This is a problem that lies largely in the past.

However, these days the problem isn't just sexism but writers/artists not getting the idea of strong female characters even if they try. Linkara of Atop The Fourth Wall talks about this issue a lot and I agree with him on a lot of these points (he's actually influenced some of my writing, if even just a little). The main problem these days isn't having characters be sexual, as it's a very Your Mileage May Vary thing on what both readers and creators consider to be sexy. This can apply to the male characters but the females as well, however the issue is with the exploitation of sex.

Far too many writers and artists focus on this, ignoring all other character traits and doing as much ass shots or sultry dialogue as possible. From what little I've read of it, the New 52 Catwoman comics are pretty much exhibit A. It's needless and offensive, not just to women but to the intelligence of the readers. Why have compelling characters when we can have ridiculous anatomy that is somehow considered attractive?

I actually agree with you, but for the opposite reason.

I agree that "exploitation" of sex is a problem, but not in the sense that there's too much of it. If anything, I don't think there's enough sexual content (sexual here meaning Fanservice, titillation, discussion of a character's sexuality, etc.) because these are subjects which are extremely powerful to a person's characterization, but most objections are caused when they are not handled maturely—which is most of the time.

Should probably have put that in. Too many writers do it poorly. When it's done well, it's done well.

To say that sex in comics is okay if done well isn't really helpful...almost anything will work if "done well" and will suck if "done poorly." I think you've hit the nail on the head though when you say that the problem of sex in comics is when it's exploitive, which is the problem with the handling of sex in virtually any form of storytelling media. Too often sex is just included to get asses in seats, and doesn't serve any real purpose in the story.