Sexism In Comics

Right, but that isn't the sort of thing that guys would inherently find objectifying. If it (forgive my vulgarity) "gets him a ton of pussy", then most guys would still see it as male fantasy. There's a reason why Playgirl was more popular amongst gay men than straight women.

Like, take Namor for instance...still the only consistent male example in comics. There aren't many guys who bemoan Namor because, despite everything, he's a still a Flying Brick Heroic Sociopath who is the friggin King Of Atlantis. You couldn't take Wonder Woman, Power Girl, or Tigra and switch their gender and have them draw the same kind of ire as the female counterpart does. In fact, I've said many times that if I thought women were actually interested in it, I'd advocate for a lot more Female Gaze.

I'm not saying you're wrong about objectification mind you, but I don't think it translates equally across gender lines merely from a Fanservice standpoint. I recall an issue of Birds Of Prey where the girls were looking at Nightwing's ass half the story. That doesn't turn guys off . . . . it makes them project themselves onto him.

edited 30th Oct '11 2:35:38 PM by KingZeal

Depends on the guys. There are the "looking at a naked guy makes you gay" guys.

The thing is, as a women, I am theoretically for Female Gaze moments - I've seen live action ShirtlessScenes that I found gratuitous-but-hot, the same for one or two anime/manga charaters, and plenty of fanart.

...I've just never seen anything along that lines I like in comics. For some reason, I find the style of art sort of... inherently non-sexy.

I think I'd appreciate it more because Female Gaze images would imply that the writer/artist cares about what women want/is trying to appeal to them, rather than the image itself.

Because all the men look like they're on steroids?

The solution to objectification of women is not "objectify men more".

What writers and artists need to do is to see, write, and draw female characters as characters first, not as sex objects. That means that not all of them need to be attractive. (Comic books seem to have a series problem with this idea...contrast Hulk and She-Hulk, for example.) Not all - or even most - of them need to be scantily clad. But most importantly, their characterization and personality has to come first. "Attractive" or "sleeps around" should not be the first thing you hear about a female character. What do they fight for, why do they fight, what are their strengths, weaknesses, joys, fears? Don't write "strong female characters" - write good characters, the same way you think up and write and draw interesting male characters. Then decide on a look and costuming that fits their personality, beliefs, objectives, and fighting style.

The core of the problem here isn't the end product - female characters who exist for guys to look at rather than for both male and female readers to take interest in as characters. The core of the problems is how we get there - the ways in which comic book writers think about female characters and what purposes they should serve.

All that's fine and all, but it's kind of self-fulfilling logic. Obviously, the secret to writing good characters is to . . . write good characters. But, the question being raised is when it is okay to have a character be sexually appealing on top of being a good character.

Like, few people would argue that Barbara Gordon isn't a compelling character (most of the time), but she's stunning, busty, and still provided ample amounts of fanservice even when she was a Handicapped Badass. No one is saying that the secret to gender equality is to make the male characters equally as vapid as the most blatantly objectified women.

I agree with you in that not every character needs to be attractive, but if you're trying to make a franchise character, this is almost suicide. There are very few comic book characters (whether male or female) which do not have some levels of attractiveness. And this is for very good reason: even "fugly" characters tend to become Anti Sues in time. What I propose instead is that creators expand what is considered "attractive"—which is why I advocate more Female Gaze and Mr. Fanservice on top of Male Gaze and Ms. Fanservice, not to mention more Big Beautiful Women, Moes, Amazonian Beauties, etc.

edited 31st Oct '11 2:42:38 PM by KingZeal

Regarding Men being Objectified in comics, in my opinion it happens when they're reduced to killing machines. Just as it isn't wrong to have female characters be sexy, only when they're only (or mostly) about sex, I resent it when the male characters are only about violence. This was particularly notable with the '90s Anti-Hero; most of them where often drawn as being ridiculously ripped like they'd been choking on steroids, and even occasionally their faces looked distorted with anger. This IS sexist, because it implies that A Real Man Is a Killer. Men are rarely shown as nurturing in the comics. That's a female thing.

edited 31st Oct '11 5:43:07 PM by Sijo

That's actually a really good point. Objectification is when the character ( or person) is reduced to a means (looking at someone hot; watching "badass" guys kills stuff) rather than actually existing for the story.

And I still think that the solution to the way female characters are shown in comics is to reduce the amount of Male Gaze and objectification, and draw the characters in positions and with body shapes that you would expect to see in the real world, not to increase the amount of Female Gaze. But I also think there are genuine issues with the way some female characters are written, not just the ways they are drawn.

This is an interesting discussion I feel, but completely separate from what the issue is. While they both tie into the juvenille image of masculinity a lot of comics (and video games) still have, it's something I think we need to take a whole new set of tools to. The thing about that sort of objectification is how popular it still is among manchildren who've never learned to value anything other than swinging hamhock fists into faces but never had the ability to do so themselves.

I was frustrated the other day at my comic shop because when talking with someone I had the gal to suggest that things like the Harley and Amanda Waller confirmed negative stereotypes about how DC viewed women. This caused one of the actual workers to go on about how tv totally did the same thing, which is interesting because I don't remember the episode of How I Met Your Mother where Robin sat around being bored and demanding only to have sex with the others and posed for the camera but whatever. The idea that other people are doing it too so it's okay is incredibly horrible logic. I think a lot of comic fans can be over-defensive and it's understandable, considering the stigma they have but if we want comics as a medium to improve we have to at least admit the problem to ourselves.

As for Amanada Waller, I think it's a bad decision in and of itself. Let's forget the controversy surrounding sexualization and look at the character of Amanda Waller herself. Amanda Waller was a woman who specifically was denied every advantage in life: gender, racial, even the advantage of physical looks. This meant she had to be ten times better to get a tenth of the job and made it through sheer grit and bitterness that she got to the point of power where she is today. Taking that away from her, diminishes one of the most fascinating aspect surrounding her. There's also the simple fact that DC Comics has so many goddamn sexy ladies, but they can't have one fatty? I have an incredibly hard time seeing that as not being shallow if not outright sexist.

This is a less big issue and not necessarily sexist but Zatanna's redesign is actually somewhat related. Hopefully it's temporary since she wore her classic costume in the first issue of Justice League Dark but the issue is still there in the advertising. Zatanna's costume wasn't exactly what you'd call modest (though more modest than many) but it was recognizable and flavorful and with a single glance you got what she was: a magician. These are all the marks of excellent visual character design. With her new costume I can't help but feel that DC wants her to be seen as 'The Hot Goth Chick' which might also tie into what they think people reading horror-superhero comic want as well.

As for objectifying men as well... I'm not sure that would solve the problem so much as create new ones. I think people misunderstand that the issue is attractive women. It's not. We all like attractive and sexy women. I think the problem is that the attractive women in comics are a singular type of attractive and specifically attractive in a purely physical way that flaunts to teenagers rather than being sexy because they're awesome. I remember a girl who had a massive crush of Spider-man because of his dorky-cute attitude, his intellect, and his sense of humor. Now, Spidey's handsome but he's also got some of the most personality of any comic character and that makes an attraction to him way more than simply because they have ginormous pecs.

Another good example is either Harley Quinn or Shadowcat. (the latter which could be seen as the precursor to the moeblob. =P)They were both attractive, sure, but what really made them strike out to people declaring them their waifu was that they had personalities they found appealing.

edited 11th Nov '11 10:32:54 AM by Malkavian

Also it says that fat people can't be pretty. Which...um.

Yeah, that's a fair point, and also highlights the issue of how identical so many women are in body structure in comics whereas compare Wolverine to Spider-man to Thor.

Then compare Wonder Woman to Zatanna to Black Canary.

Variety is a definitely needed for women in comics.

Someone being attracted to another person for non-physical reasons? Lies! Lies designed to delude and manipulate us with false hope! LIES!!

Oh I've seen it before. It was on the same day I found a leprechaun riding a unicorn .

Yeah, this is pretty much what I've been saying.

The thing I'm opposed to, in talks about sexism in media, is the idea that either of those two things needs to be removed to fix sexism. I don't think it needs to be removed, just made less shallow. After all, for all the juvenile T&A you've seen in commercial media, you can just as easily find equally sexist characterization without it. (Movies directed by Tyler Perry or starring Katherine Heigl are clear winners in that fail.) So, whenever someone makes sexism about T&A, I tend to get defensive.

As I said, the issue is mostly in shallowness. While I like my fanservice, I don't like the fact that Amanda Waller had to be made thin for her to qualify. As Malkavian said, she doesn't need to be thin to be a Big Beautiful Woman. Every woman also doesn't need to be in Thigh High Boots or a Chainmail Bikini in order to show off that they're attractive; I currently work in a university, so I'm surrounded by college coeds all day...and with winter coming, I can safely say that if a woman wants to be sexy without showing an ounce of skin, it can be done.

edited 11th Nov '11 4:20:35 PM by KingZeal

I think there's definitely stuff out there that handles fanservice without disrespecting women: Buffy and Xena come to mind.

I think a lot of people get defensive because they think those mean ol' feminists want to take away their fun titties, which isn't the case at all. Just because something is sexy doesn't make it sexist. However, when you're pushing one form of sexy and a sexy that's pretty clearly meant to be for the pleasure of a male reader rather than something that can be admired by all readers you have a problem.

I really hate the idea that more skin is automatically considered sexy. I know a lot has been said about Harley's redesign but I want to harp on it a bit. Harley's original costume showed almost no flesh and aside from being skintight wasn't too obsessed with showing assets but one of the things that made it great was how well it expressed her character. It showed off her theatrical and blithe nature, and underscored that she was pretty nuts. When I look at Harley's new costume I get the feeling that juggalette is cosplaying Yoko from Gurren Lagann.

I can't help but find this appropriate for the subject. This is artist Ross Campbell's design journal on his upcoming work on Extreme's Glory title. He brings up some rather interesting points that ties in with the whole skin issue. Here, have a look.

On a semi-related note, something just occurred to me.

I was reading a blog on Newsarama about the things the editing staff did and didn't like about the rebooted DC universe, and one of the things they mentioned was the greater presence of sex. Of course, I'm pretty sure DC's overall plan was, "We need as much T&A and violence as possible to put asses in seats, so go crazy!", but there's just a ton of it everywhere.

Anyway, I'm getting off-track. Specifically what I wanted to mention was Superman #1, the first issue of Superman, which has Clark walking in on Lois and a friend post-coitus. Now, I'm basically neutral on the dissolving of Lois/Clark's relationship just so we can get them back to square one and play the dance all over again, and I don't mind them giving Lois an active sex life as opposed to her "I'm celibate until Superman decides that he's ready to break me like a twig" personality from the Silver Age. But, here's what I don't get: why is it one-sided?

What I mean is, so Lois has an active sex life and we're supposed to be coming to see her as a strong, independent character who doesn't need Superman so much as has her life enhanced by Superman. Okay, great. So, why did we need such an intimate look into her sex life to the point that it overshadows Clark? Yeah, I know: Clark is supposed to be the guy who Cannot Spit It Out and is hopelessly in love with Lois. Siegel created the Supes/Clark/Lois love triangle to vent his teenage frustrations about being Friend Zoned. That worked in the 40s - 60s, when wholesomeness was considered normal and Lois was basically saving herself for Superman. So, why do we have to reinforce juvenile gender stereotypes (the strong career woman who is totally blind to the fact that she's blue-balling that guy who hangs around her) at the same time?

@ Malkavian: You brought up so many good points about Amanda Waller that it makes me even sadder that they made her thinner.

With that in mind, I foundthis blog post literally just yesterday through UnfortunateImplications.Video Games, and it fascinated me. (Why are all of the best articles I find online about comic books or comic book related things?) What is going on over there at DC Comics? Did Dan DiDio finally lose his everloving mind?

That article has way too much bile and Accentuate the Negative. Okay, first, I'll be the first to admit that I found Catwoman way too sexualized. But, that's her character. You have to remember, the entire reason she became Catwoman is because she found it a perverse turn-on. I admit, there were lots of times, her constant sexy walk and one-track libido made me roll my eyes, but that's simply the character. I was actually more upset about the Girl on Girl Is Hot flirting between her and Poison Ivy. It served zero purpose.

But the person in the article has no reason to be upset about the use of the word "bitch" to describe women. You have to remember, EVERY CHARACTER WHO DOES SO IS AN UNEDUCATED THUG (or otherwise a criminal). Guess what, criminals use strong, dumb language and slurs. All. The. Time. Hell, I can't even watch a Marvel Vs Capcom 3 live stream without half the players there (who are mostly young men between the ages of 17 and 25) calling Phoenix "The Bitch" just because she's a Tier Induced Scrappy.

So yeah, congratuations on exposing that under educated and insular cultures tend to be sexist.

edited 11th Nov '11 9:38:35 PM by KingZeal

I think there's an argument to be made that we don't need sexist realism in the game where a guy dresses like Dracula punches out a shark.

I was kind of annoyed at the kiss knock-out. That's a good way to get the herp, Cats. The one where she strangles a dude while checking her nails, though? AWESOME.

In any case, I think there's some sexism in the game but concerning the fact that this a medium where one of the most successful recent game had a man shooting his wife in the head because she had PTSD it's a drop in the bucket.

The only real problem I have with the costume is that she doesn't zip the damn thing up.

edited 11th Nov '11 10:01:40 PM by Malkavian

What game was that?

Edit, misunderstood the question. Gears Of War.

edited 11th Nov '11 10:20:21 PM by Malkavian

You mean Dom? I thought his wife had become a vegetable or something.

Unless this is about GOW 3?

Nah, Go W 3 has Dom murdering an entire race because his friend died.

Admittedly I'm fuzzy on the detail of Go W since it's been awhile, but... yeah. that scene was not okay.

Hang on, you're confusing me. Was the PTSD thing specifically about Dom? If not, when did that happen?

edited 11th Nov '11 10:38:51 PM by KingZeal