Sexism In Comics

I didn't say "done well"—I said "mature".

The problem with sexiness and sexuality in comics is that it's basically a juvenile afterthought. "Hm. I need something to boost audience interest right quick...I know, an ass shot!" I'm actually a proponent of pro-sex feminism, because part of the problem with sexism in media is that sexuality is seen as a type of magic by an immature, inexperienced crowd. A good way to combat that is for the writing to seek to please, but also treat the subject matter with some respect.

Instead of having women like Elektra, Psylocke, and Power Girl running around in skimpy clothing for no reason while trying to be taken seriously as martial artists or feminists, instead let them dress in combat-appropriate gear while you use the characters it actually makes sense for as spank material. It's not like we don't have plenty to choose from. Starfire is an exhibitionist, but she's also a Flying Brick. She doesn't need armor or much clothing, so feel free to milk her allure for all it's worth. This even goes for characters like Catwoman—when the entire point to her character is that she gets a sexual thrill out of the interplay of danger and flirtation. And then you have characters that should be used this way and arent, like Mystique. Mystique has actually said at various points that her powers require that she be technically "naked" at all times, because she uses her own natural flesh to shapeshift. And besides that, she's not beyond using her charisma, looks, or even sex to get what she wants. So let her and the aforementioned character be the Ms. Fanservice while the other women are valued more for their ability equally or greater than their sex appeal.

Wait, why does Starfire count for Flying Brick immunity but Power Girl doesn't?

As I said, Power Girl is meant to be the penultimate feminist character.

I mentioned before that I have no problem with pro-sex feminism and I have even less problems with a feminist character that flaunts her goods. However, writers portray Power Girl as lamenting the attention her costume attracts and being bitchy when people stare at the Cleavage Window rather than her face. ^note Now, I'm not saying it's unreasonable for a woman to show off and still want to be respectable; it's perfectly possible for a woman to look however she wants and not wish to be objectified.

This doesn't make her a feminist—it makes her a Straw Feminist as misogynists see them. She simultaneously craves attention but then sends mixed messages by verbally or physically lambasting the men who take the bait. The writers can't have it both ways—either she's an empowered woman or she's their pet argument against feminism. And frankly, Power Girl would be more useful to the genre as an actually pro-feminist character than a non-feminist one.

Starfire is a much better model for pro-sex feminism, and it's already a major factor of her character, so she should keep it. Also, her costume is supposed to be made of alien metal. She's capable of flying at ludicrous speeds without tearing it to shreds because of that. Power Girl's classic costume, however, is an aerodynamic nightmare. As I said, feminist costumes need to be both pragmatic and tailored to the character's personality. Power Girl's classic costume did neither.

edited 14th Sep '12 6:11:34 AM by KingZeal

I have no problem with any of these "mature" themes in theory. The problem's this: with vanishly few exceptions, I simply have no faith that the major creators & editors at the major publishers have the maturity, talent, or emotional healthiness needed to handle them adequately and with integrity. Worse: I'm not sure that enough of the audience has enough of those traits to appreciate it if they did.

That's something the media and its fans have to get over. This is commercial art, which means there's a constant flip-flop between "art" (risk) and "commercial" (no risk).

edited 14th Sep '12 7:54:04 AM by KingZeal

Sure—I'm just pointing out that in practice, the risk:reward ratio is too high to realistically justify the choice. So seldom does it pay off artistically, that "artistic risk" isn't really a credible motivation. Therefore, there's really no point in considering it anything but a vector of juvenile Fanservice. And in light of that, no one should be shocked if it's regarded as such by people capable of adult relations with women ... much less feminists.

No it isn't. That's a myth. Most of the sexism we're talking about is excessive fluff that doesn't help sales proportionately equal to the gain of female readership. In fact, it often hurts sales more than it helps.

I'm not clear on which part is the "myth" you're referring to. However, you're probably right that it doesn't pay a large role in moving issues off the shelf. I'd guess it's more related to the creators' personal proclivities and qualities, and to what they imagine the average reader's proclivities to be. (And even if they're right about the latter, it might well not be a powerful enough factor to affect sales much.)

It's more like modern comics creators are Promoted Fanboys who grew up wanting to bang Wonder Woman and thus do the next best thing. Even Joe Siegel used Lois Lane as a soapbox for his sexual frustrations (she was modeled after the Alpha Bitch who never gave him the time of day in high school). Bob Kane had some decidedly sexist reasons for creating Catwoman (he said she was borne off of his own sexual frustrations and his belief that women were naturally untrustworthy) and based her off of a character he had Perverse Sexual Lust for.

The reason it's become worse over time is because each generation of promoted fanboy is simply trying to outdo the last.

And, of course, let's not forget Wonder Woman's creator, Dr. William Marston, who...was a submissive and believed that world peace could only be achieved if all men became subservient to women.

Huh.

Well, yes and no. He was actually in a polyamorous relationship with his wife and their mutual lover. He was the dominant to one of them (symbolized by WW always being tied up in most issues) and submissive to the other (symbolized by WW being superior to her boyfriend, Steve Trevor).

Honestly, though, we've discarded so much from the early days. Why can't modern writers work past the creators' emotional baggage? I honestly don't think this excuse works very well.

Re: Power Girl: I think it would be neat if they did a story where Power Girl laments how much she gets oggled, but she's got a merchandising deal In-Universe, and is contractually obligated not to change her costume.

Honestly, I like how it is in Gray/Palmiotti run, where she's just kinda snarky about it.

Of course, the chest window is gone, so it's a moot point.

edited 14th Sep '12 11:25:48 AM by Wackd

Because that emotional baggage becomes someone else's emotional baggage. It's symbolic, which means that people relate to it. Lots of boys grew up wishing he was Superman and being frustrated with Lois Lane for dismissing the dorky Clark. Young men grew up watching the cat and mouse chases of Catwoman and fantasizing about what they'd do if she were finally caught. And these young men grew up watching Wonder Woman act assertive enough to seem powerful, yet vulnerable enough to need love.

Those boys eventually grew up to write these stories, and from there you can do the math.

It would be really amusing. Although, I could see her making the pitch that if she changed costume, they'd sell more action figures. And then they try to get a say in her new costume.

Your stance on Power Girl makes sense to me. I was not really aware that she had serious issues with men (and presumably women) being distracted by her cleavage window. Then again, it would be interesting if she did it, but was presented as a hypocrite.

Yeah, but given the presence of the cleavage window, those issues came off as a little silly. She once gave the excuse that the presence of the window was to indicate that she hadn't been able to come up with an emblem, but that had to be the stupidest explanation for having a hole in your shirt that I've ever heard. I can understand her having issues with people gawking at her in general, given her physique, but the cleavage window issue could be easily solved by, you know, closing it. Which they've done now, but the various justifications writers have tried to give for it over the years always just came off as ridiculous.

I'm sorry King Zeal, but I don't accept the idea that Power Girl needs to wear any type of armor for practicality when she is outright invulnerable to harm whereas Starfire does not have too even thought she only has an increased durability to physical harm making her weaker than Power Girl.

Power Girl originally said that she didn't want to be, or be thought of as, just a female copy of her cousin. In fact she explicitly rejected Star-Spangled Kid's created "P" symbol as being too derivative. (This was before the Cleavage Window.)

The main trouble with PG is that she hasn't had a consistent long-term team, or consistent writing, or consistent anything.

Well, the various reasons were kind of ridiculous, but I understand the attempts. The external (non-story) reason for the design has always been up-front, blatant Fanservice—additionally hallowed by being the creation of the great Wally Wood. That's the real reason, end of story.

But writers (justifiably) tend to hanker after internal plausibility. If I were a DC writer, and my character wore a suit that no strong, confident, level-headed woman would ever consent to walk around in in real life, she'd seem less real and less "alive" to me. If I couldn't persuade DC to change the costume, I'd be tempted to come up with some conceivable motive for wearing such a get-up ... something that the characters around her could respect if she & they were real.

edited 26th Sep '12 8:11:34 AM by Jhimmibhob

I didn't say Power Girl needed armor for practicality. I said that since she's the premier feminist character in the DC Universe (maybe second to Wonder Woman), and since she clearly has been shown to hate it when people judge her by her outfit, she should probably wear something that emphasizes practicality and power.

Starfire, on the other hand, is a pro-sexuality character. She has actually stated many times that her armor is just for show, and that if she could, she'd actually fly around naked in a heartbeat if it weren't for our planet's silly taboos. She makes far more sense as a character that emphasizes pro-sex feminism, because she doesn't care about armor regardless of her vulnerabilities.

Of course, "wear as little clothing as possible" does not translate to "wear something implausible and absurdly uncomfortable looking."

Power Girl doesn't care, ok?

She is way too much aware that people find her hot.

Here, I will just quote her from the first chapter of the Conner/Gray/Palmiotti run of her.

No, but even that is Depending on the Writer.

As I mentioned before, it's not unacceptable for a woman to want to dress in a way that shows off her body and still expect to be respected. The problem is that they portray Power Girl as a Straw Feminist who becomes passive-aggressive whenever a guy stares at a chest she shamelessly puts on display.

So to that end, she can "overlook" a guy looking at her chest? Why does he need your consent to use his eyes and why should we care that you forgive him?

edited 26th Sep '12 1:22:45 PM by KingZeal

She was contracting him.

You would know this, if you knew anything about her besides her trope page.

edited 26th Sep '12 1:29:12 PM by fakeangelbr