Sexism In Comics

Hold on, is that blog under the impression that everyone complaining about the outlaws or Catwoman actually bought the book or will buy future books?

Let me make a point in saying that the market doesn't usually work the way Eric Stephenson is claiming it works.

I'll give you two examples: Elektra and Catwoman.

Did anyone here actually pay money to see those movies? Raise your hand if you actually shelled out legitimate money to watch either of those movies when it premiered. If you did, you are a minority. The rest of us did exactly what he said we should: we saw something that was stupid (if not sexist) and refused to support it with our dollars. Both movies tanked at the box office and sent a clear message to the producers and filmmakers that we aren't idiots and we won't stand for that shit, right?

So what did that message teach them? Well, to paraphrase, "the film-going audience doesn't want to see female superheroes".

No, I'm not joking. I've heard that this was exactly the memo going through Hollywood after those movies tanked. It wasn't that they made two dumbass movies that had nothing to do with the source material. It wasn't that these movies were horribly plotted vehicles for two actresses who were desperately trying to bolster their careers. It wasn't the sexism, or the campiness, or the ridiculousness of the plot, bad special effects, terrible acting, terrible scripting, etc.

No. It was because the protagonists lacked a penis. That's it.

Now, don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that NOT paying for something you don't want doesn't work. I'm not saying you should support a comic (or movie) that has something offensive or regressive just so that your favorite character continues to see publication (although I have been known to do that myself). I'm saying that you need to learn how the market works, and how to make sure your message REALLY gets through. If DC Comics sees that people aren't buying Power Girl, they aren't going to automatically think "her boobs are the problem". They're going to just think, "Oh. There wasn't enough crossovers, high profile character deaths, and shameless cameos by Wolverine".

edited 3rd Oct '11 4:28:49 AM by KingZeal

The problem is that the industry isn't going to go 'Oh this sold badly because of T&A. It sold badly because it's a shit comic.' And there's truth to that because many readers, myself among them, don't really care if the comic itself is good. The problem comes from a pervasive idea that sex will help sell, which is demeaning to women and insulting to men.

What's worse is this shit is in supposedly All Ages comics. Give all the justifications for Starfire's nymphomania you like, but when a girl picks up the comic because she liked the cartoon and then sees what DC did to her, bam DC Comics just lost a reader.

The problem is not the readers, or rather not the main problem. The problem is that comics are not trying to expand past their insular group of teen-twenty something males.

edited 3rd Oct '11 4:49:38 AM by Malkavian

Because the comics industry and its fans are incestuously inbred to a level that 17th Century European Royalty would be uncomfortable with? How many modern, mainstream (superhero) comic book writers are not Ascended Fanboys playing with the favourite imaginary toys of their childhood? How many people that would self-identify as fans of a given new book came into comics for the first time via that book, and not simply out of the (relatively) tiny pool of comic fans when they managed to get some extra money, or a prior book they liked got cancelled or annoyed them?

I realize that the latter may have changed, at least temporarily, with the DC relaunch, but I'm skeptical as to how long it will last.

Add to that the fact that the big two are now controlled by Hollywood interests (Disney and Time-Warner), which are so conservative that they're not entirely sure they approve of this newfangled 'wheel' business, and react to change with all the grace and alacrity of a kneecapped sloth, and you have an excellent recipe for isolationism and stagnation, where proven talent is hired almost exclusively, and sequels and retreads are 'safe'.

Also in the mix is that comics is a rabidly competitive industry, and the fact that writing and art are still considered to be rather non-traditional careers for women, so that there's a smaller selection pool to start with, exacerbating the problem.

Teal Deer version: There are fewer women applying who are less likely to get into any of the tiny number of jobs (due to a variety of factors), resulting in the writing, art, and editorial boards of comics being a sausagefest.

There was an interesting article talking about how DC turned away a good deal of female writers simply because their art style doesn't conform to what DC wants. Evidently Marvel is better about this which is why they have more female artists.

Of course 5 is more than 4, so...

To be fair, that's not their fault. Starfire's been characterized that way for a long, long time. I can't recall if she started out that way in the original 80s series, but for as long as I've been reading comics, she's been pretty much a Good Bad Girl. It isn't the comic's fault that the character was Bowdlerized in order to reach a young market in the cartoon, but that's the problem you face when you adapt a character for specific audiences over and over again. Modern Batman, for example, is a mish-mash of all the different film, TV and radio adaptations that have existed over the years.

EDIT:

I also want to make a point to say that it's isn't just "bad comics" that are using Sex Sells or are riddled with fanservice. The aforementioned Teen Titans were highly acclaimed in the eighties, and both of the female members of the team are pioneers for Stripperiffic and Evil Costume Switch. This panel from issue #100 (1993) is a perfect example.◊ The comic was highly acclaimed throughout the 80s and early 90s, but that didn't mean it wasn't full of sexuality and perverseness.

The problem is that when it IS used to cover up for a comic's other flaws, fans come to see it as cheap even when it in fact isn't. Birds of Prey is another good example. The inevitable fanservice you get from having three highly attractive female protagonists is secondary to how actually good the book is (usually), but the way some people tell it, you'd think the book got by on just about nothing but stuff like this◊.

edited 3rd Oct '11 5:20:43 AM by KingZeal

She started out being a much more chipper and friendly person and continued to be for as long as I read Teen Titans, which was about until it started sucking. Might be a correlation there. She's also like that in 52.

Let me put it this way.

You're rebooting a franchise to get new readers. There's this character that's really bad but her adaptation in a cartoon is really popular.

Do you

A: Choose to incorporate the adaptation into your comic to provide a better character and familiarity for new readers?

B: Choose to make a total ho-bag that's a boring character because you need to reach that horny teenager demographic and you're a sham?

And don't get me started on Catwoman.

On another issue concerning sexism, Grant Morrison had a pretty great Take That! against Alan Moore.

"I mean, he's a great writer but almost every single one of his stories involves rape and beating women. I like to think I'm a pretty good writer and I've gone my whole career with having a woman raped in my stories."

Good comics do use fanservice and that's a problem as well, or at least the type of fanservice is a problem because then I get things like.

Me: This comic is really good, trust me!

Girl: (looks at skimpy-clad girl) Yeah, no.

I will say this isn't a problem that is unique to comics by any means, but limited readership and lingering stigma do make it a bigger one than for, say, television.

edited 3rd Oct '11 5:26:23 AM by Malkavian

Honestly, neither of those options are very appealing. For one thing, if you're concerned about feminism, the Starfire of the cartoon was a hormone-addled Love Interest whose major characterization was having a crush on a boy and being socially awkward. I'm not saying it didn't work, but it's not exactly the pinnacle of three-dimensional characterization. Yes, she was popular, but that was for an entirely different audience.

Secondly, I'm not understanding why the scene we're talking about makes her a "ho-bag". She off-handedly offered someone a casual tryst. It's not like she walked into a room full of guys, threw off her clothes and challenged them to see how many of them she could fit at once. It's kind of a BLAM scene, especially since we're seeing it completely out of context, and I'm not saying it was the best way to illustrate her sexuality. However, as I said before, Starfire's sexuality has been a major part of the character for a LONG time and removing it just to regress her back to being a Moe doesn't strike me as feminist.

That's why I asked earlier: what could they have done to better characterize that without pandering to the base? No one ever gave me an answer.

edited 3rd Oct '11 5:31:15 AM by KingZeal

Again, I'm fully convinced that being more like the cartoon is better characterization. Yes, she had a thing for Robin, Yes, she didn't understand social norms, but there was more than that to her. She was friendly, kind, she believed in other people, she did what she could to help the group, she was an alien who had escaped home, she tried not to fight but wouldn't back down from one, and she grew throughout the series. Being a feminist character isn't about being perfect or a role model. It's about being a good character, which Starfire in the cartoon was. She wasn't Lady Mac Beth, but if you're going to knock a character because she's not perfectly done...

The reason her character is sexist and slutty in the comic is again because her actions are made to please male readers and not herself. it's submission with a pathetic veneer of sex positivism.

For contrast, Gail Simone showed Huntress' sexual activity in one of many ways by showing her go to a male strip club. This is most certainly not for the male readers to jill off to and more for characterization, which is why it didn't get the hate.

Also, it's about what's appropriate for an all-ages comic. Chipper, friendly, moe Starfire is someone everyone can enjoy. "emotions are for pussies, let's fuck" Starfire cuts out children which is a pretty big potential market.

edited 3rd Oct '11 5:39:14 AM by Malkavian

My problem is that you're saying this as if the Starfire in the comics wasn't a good character. She was. Just about every quality you're describing about the TV Starfire can also be contributed to the one from the comics continuity.

And I'll say it a third time: Starfire's sexuality has been a part of her character for a long time. We have already established that DC handled it badly because it was Pandering to the Base. Now, what SHOULD they have done in order to keep that characterization, but make it less of an appeal to the audience?'

EDIT: A male strip club might be a decent start, but you don't have to be promiscuous to enjoy a strip club. Plenty of people can go to a strip club and be otherwise chaste or monogamous. The entire point to that scene was to illustrate that Starfire thought nothing of sex and that she isn't shy about her own body.

edited 3rd Oct '11 5:41:16 AM by KingZeal

They shouldn't have. It's a terrible characterization and it's a terrible idea. Full stop. There is nothing about that Starfire that makes me want to read more. I'm saying this as if Starfire in that comic isn't a good character because she isn't.

^No, the entire point was to show off gorgeous alien tits to the reader. It's easy to confuse the two, though.

edited 3rd Oct '11 5:42:29 AM by Malkavian

Make it subtle? Less is more after all. I don't really know the character so I really can't say either way.

Then it's not a problem of pandering to the base. It's a problem of not pandering to the base you belong to.

Also, there's nothing wrong with showing off alien tit. The problem was with how they did it.

edited 3rd Oct '11 5:45:01 AM by KingZeal

If you say the base I'm not part of is the base that loves juvenile wank fantasies then...

well, actually you're completely right.

And there are a lot of people not part of that base too, and DC is alienating them.

And there is something wrong with showing off in Alien tit in, and I repeat, AN ALL AGES COMIC.

If it were Witchblade or Hack/Slash I wouldn't give as much of a crap since those are understood to be guilty pleasure explotation comics. This is the big two releasing a book meant to be accessible to kids.

edited 3rd Oct '11 5:49:02 AM by Malkavian

I'm saying that the fanbase you (seemingly, because I don't know you) belong to would take a character that is one "juvenile" male fetish (a lovestruck moe) over another male fetish (an aromantic Ms. Fanservice).

The juvenility isn't the archetypes, but how they are executed. As I've already admitted, that scene was horrible execution of the idea. That doesn't mean I think the idea itself was bad.

edited 3rd Oct '11 5:52:31 AM by KingZeal

I'll grant that a sex-positivist female not concerned with nudity taboos could possibly be done well, but what reason do I have to trust any DC writer will pull it off and not turn her into a walking piece of ass?

By comparison, we have proof that writers have done moe Starfire well.

And once again, you keep dancing around the fact that a character like that does not belong in an all-ages book.

Actually, come to think of it American superhero comics could use some moeblobs, if only for some more goddamn variety

edited 3rd Oct '11 5:55:52 AM by Malkavian

I'm not dancing around it—it's just irrelevant. I don't have any expectations when it comes to characters' sexualities and "all ages" books. We already have tropes like Parent Service and Getting Crap Past the Radar for just these sorts of occasions. I've already acknowledged that it could have been handled better, and that includes not being so utterly blatant that it was obvious what they were doing.

And yes, your first point is EXACTLY what I'm driving at. Creators aren't being held to the standard they should be, because everyone assumes that they would fail even if they tried to. So, they do the safe thing (retread the Moe angle) or they go the controversial route (throw blatant fanservice in your face). Either way, the writer doesn't have to actually try.

Agreed about needing more Moeblobs, though.

edited 3rd Oct '11 6:10:19 AM by KingZeal

Personally, I think the biggest way to improve Starfire's reboot characterization would be to give her an inner life. Tell the story from her perspective, explain why she acts the way she does, what enjoyment she gets out of it (including showing how she sees the world, which gives you opportunity to show a bit of beefcake).

Make Starfire's sexuality about what she wants, rather than how much people want her.

I'd say we are holding them to a reasonable standard, and they keep failing. Sexuality is a complicated topic though, and I think most writers in general, not just comic writers, would have trouble with said sex-positivist archetype. Things like this are going to raise a lot of eyebrows and questions and so you have to know what the hell you're doing. When it comes to blowing up planets and people in Dracula cosplay fighting Bozo the clown, I think DC Comics writers have it down. Women and gender politics... not so much.

I also feel adding such an idea to a comic that was supposed to be badass anitheroes that everyone hated anyways kicking ass. In the context of such a comic, how could anyone see it as a feminist character rather than male wish fulfillment. If I genuinely felt the aim in the comic was to present a different take on sexuality I might cut the comic a little slack. That's not what I get though.

I think an example of 'good' fanservice is actually in the Wonder Woman reboot. She's hot, you see her in her bed with nothing but a sheet covering, her and dem delicious legs are always apparent.

However, she never seems weak, there's never any pained stances, and as sexy as she is there is no question that this lady is going to Fuck. You. Up.

edited 3rd Oct '11 6:25:16 AM by Malkavian

why do you keep refering to red hood as an all ages comic book, it isnt, its rated teen, as in teenagers when people become sexualy currious, and its message could be interpated as "girls, you dont have to wait on the man, you are free to live as you wish, you want no strings attached sex, and you feel sexualy confidant to take it, you take it. dont let the man dictate sex to you."

Really? By walking up to a guy you barely know and just of the blue asking if he wants to sex you? If there's supposed some kind of positive message about sex I must have missed with all of that fanservice◊ and contorted body positions◊. Do really expect teenage girls to look past that stuff? Clearly it's not marketed towards them.

never said that was my oppion, just a possible veiwpoint to consider.

Considering the content of this books it's a bit too much of stretch for me to consider that kind of viewpoint.

In general, I tend to be harsh on the idea that sexuality = shallow and fanservice = juvenile. Like all tools for writing, they can be used in amateurish and juvenile ways, but they aren't in themselves juvenile just because they're there.

The problem I have with the overall scene is, again, how much of a Big-Lipped Alligator Moment it is. It's just right out of nowhere and so overtly blatant that you can't help but feel browbeat by it. I wouldn't have a problem with it if happened later on the book when (if we're assuming that someone is a new reader) we could have had a chance to build into it AFTER getting to know a bit about their characters. But, to just have it shoved right into our noses from the first sign? Yeah, way to go, DC.

For the record, I also don't even have a problem with the poses Starfire makes here. As I said, for as long as I've been reading the story, she has always been an exhibitionist. Starfire's method of expression has, since I can recall, been to shove T&A in someone's face and show zero apology for it. I don't find it "weak" or "sexist" inherently because I dislike the Unfortunate Implications that a woman who likes being an object is weak. I've known strong women who enjoy being sexually submissive but will dominate your ass in every other aspect of their lives.

Short answer about what they could do - don't put in sex scenes that don't advance the plot. Don't build any character's characterization around their sex life (e.g.: the first thing a guy says about a female teammate should not be "yep, I've had sex with her"); focus on their family, friends, ideals, fears, goals, emotional relationships with love interest if you're going to have love interests, and put in scenes of that rather than ones that are just there to show off female characters' bodies.

Beyond that - have more female characters who wear costumes that cover their entire legs and torso, and are not insanely tight or revealing. People who clearly exist as characters rather than fanservice. Alright, maybe some female superheroes like to show off their bodies; there should also me some who don't, and just want something comfortable to wear to go superheroing in. Make female characters reasonably proportioned.

If female readers can see that a comic is acting as a stand-in for Playboy rather than as a story, they're not going to want to read it. If enough comics are like that, they'll get sick of reading comics at all.