"Sexist superhero costumes" from Cracked

These articles from Cracked accuse the comics industry of sexism for focusing of male-centered fanservice. In a sense it is somewhat sexist, but that's inevitable when you have a for-profit business catering to a primarily-male readership.

More to the point, though, it seems like the author's case for calling it sexist is to some extent reliant on sexism itself. He claims that while portraying female superheroes as busty and scantily-clad is a male fantasy, so is portraying male superheroes (like Namor) as muscular. Aren't each cases of portraying what is perceived as attractive to the opposite sex, though? If so, why are they both labelled male fantasies?

Note also that such phrasing at the very least associates different fantasies with different sexes. The article later argues that it's a male fantasy because the example they use (Namor) gets laid so often. But if that's a male fantasy, would that imply portraying a female superheroine having sex to be a female fantasy? Granted, the distinction could be attributed to the assumption that females aren't as horny as males, but that's the point; his reason for why it's sexist relies on something that's considered sexist itself.

---

---

The more I think about it, the more I find such notions as "gender-neutral" self-defeating. For another example, the follow-up article has comments like "when we see a penis bulge in male characters then we can make a comparison." But who gets to say whether the former or latter is more "equivalent"? The former may be a private part so it can be compared along those lines; the latter could be compared along the lines of simply being a body part associated with sexual attractiveness if bigger, but not being a sex organ in and of itself. Ultimately we won't have an "opposite-sex equivalent" for these kinds of things because they differ in so many ways that which is "more" equivalent is too subjective.

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart

Musculared male superheroes is certainly more of a male fantasy because its being big and strong and having women love you for it corresponds to socially endorsed stereotypes of 'manhood' and pretty much is the traditional view of what a men should be. But its not necessarily a female fantasy becasue whilst there are a percentage of women who find muscled guys attractive the majority prefer pretty guys with a more slender build. Also women usually being attracted more to personality may sound cliched but its true and still applies when the guy shes attracted to is fictional.

IMHO the musculared male hero and buxom heroine/love interest is more a fantasy for boys/teens (the default target audiance for comics) than for grown men who have a finer appreciation and understanding of what makes a man or woman. Unfortunately the comic industry has a hard time understanding this.

edited 15th Aug '12 9:06:13 PM by Merlanthe

As someone who's discussed this before, I'm going to point out that it's not just the costumes that are sexist. It's generally the way the women are posed as compared to the men. The men get the badass poses, women have to look weak, tied up, frail, and generally sexier than how the men are posed.

Oh boy here we go again...

That is something of an exaggeration.

Furthermore I think I should post some of the comments from that article.

''I sort of disagree with #1. Some women find muscly men built like that attractive. To deny that is foolish. Other women don't find it attractive and to deny that would also be foolish. It's the same with men. Some find the skimpy look attrative and others don't. To try and say all men are attracted to these women and no women are attracted to these men so therefore it's unfair is stupid.

It's also rather foolish to say that all men fantasize about looking like Nemor while denying that there are women who would love to look like any of the women in this article. Also while there are a lot of men who want a muscular body not all of them want one that looks like it has been pumped full of steroids. On the female side of things there are pleanty of women out there who would be quite happy to go around wearing skimpy clothing if they felt they had the body for it.

I think the problem with female super heroes is not that they wear skimpy clothing but that they all wear that sort of clothing. With male heroes there's a good range of uniform and bodytypes that appeal to all sorts of people. In the uniform department you've got everything from Nemor level naked to Superman level skin tight to Iron Man leveled armor. With bodytype you've got all different sized muscular men and also a couple average looking guys, such as Mr Fantastic. With females though there's only near naked and ridiculous level skin tight (the ridiculous being that the uniform is perfectly molded to fit around their breasts) in the uniform department and only skinny with double D's in the bodytype department. They need to come out with some female heroes who have different body types and who are more covered up and wearing sensible clothing in addition to all the current skimpy heroes they have.

If they did that they'd end up appealing to a lot more people then they currently are. Women would have some female heroes to admire if they're not into the skimpy clothing of the current female heroes and men who aren't a fan of the stripper look would have some women in the comic universe they find attractive. ''

-direwolf029

edited 15th Aug '12 9:38:56 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016

http://eschergirls.tumblr.com/

Go through this and then tell me that posing with females is an exaggeration in any direction but the anatomically impossible and physically ridiculous.

Sexist costumes and posing are an endemic problem in comics.

My point is that people in the comic book industry, like to draw women and men as incredibly [and unrealistically] attractive.

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016

There are plenty of character variety in comic books, both in how much and what kind of skin is showing to body types and figures.

Honestly I think comics, while not perfect or without their flaws of course, are still far ahead of movies for example. Take the character Mystique from Xmen. In the comics, she had a variety of costumes, but most were quite conservative. In the movies, (aside from First Class), she's running around naked. Of course because she's blue and sort of scaley, people don't always register it. But that doesn't negate how she is plain ol'naked.

To me comics are a work of art. They are expected to be exaggerated or stylized to meet the needs of their own rules. If my son is insecure about how large Superman's package is or how Batman has obliques on top of obliques contrary to human biology, it's not a big deal because it's just art. It's not real. Human's can't fly or shoot lasers out of their eyes either.

Now if he turns on the tv and all he sees is white, late 20s to mid 30s, romantic-comedy type men going and white, size 2 because I'm 5'4" brunette women, with all the other ethnicities and bodytypes being freaking stereotypes, to me that is more damaging than how anatomically correct that last version of a decades old hero was.

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur

If the men in comics were drawn to appeal to women's ideas of what is sexy, and they could only pick one definition of sexy, as with the busty male-fantasy women, and they picked it to appeal to the 'stereotypical' girl's fantasy - I don't think it would be a man bulging with muscles. Quite possibly it would be a bishonen guy.

Be not afraid...

Comics are not magically separate from how women are portrayed in other media. Far as I'm concerned, the problem is exactly as bad as it is in the movies, if not worse because apparently you can just say fuck it with anatomy.

A lot of those women are incredibly generically beautiful, to boot, drawn with bodies and poses that are literally impossible to make, to merely uncomfortable. And then given pinup poses in egregious ways that men just aren't. The women play to the sex fantasy, the men play to the power fantasy, and very little of it is for the female reader's benefit. Hell, they don't even draw different kinds of attractive women, just carbon copies discernible only by costumes and hair!

We're not saying things are sexist just to hear our own voices. We're saying it's sexist because it is. And saying "it's not as bad as blah blah blah" is just unfairly downplaying the very real concerns a lot of women have about this issue.

Hmm...I'm torn on this one.

I agree with Gabrael's stance on the artistic value behind exaggerated features, but Ace of Spades brings up an important problem with anatomy in comics and how that anatomy conveys unfavorable characteristics about the people being drawn.

Yeah, I get a little chuckled when I see Batman ripped out beyond human capability, and while I'd like to believe that people aren't going to project themselves onto those images, I would be wrong to presume so. Of all of my favorite female comic book characters (Black Canary, Huntress, Psylocke, and Batwoman), almost all of them frequently wear revealing clothing and find themselves in sexually suggestive situations that really don't call for it. It's not the implicit or explicit sexuality itself that bothers me. What bothers me is that this is the norm and not the exception. Women are sexual beings, and if any of you remember my harping on this in the "Men With Boobs" thread, I actually prefer that their sexual appetites be explored and discussed within the narrative. However, when that sexuality is literally worn on them 24/7 and they are primarily defined by it almost non-stop, I have a problem and I can't shrug it off as "well, men are portrayed like that too, so it's okay."

I've been reading Empowered lately, and one of the things I like about that comic is how, despite all of the tremendous T and A that series offers, it humorously calls attention to it in such a way that you can at least laugh about how ridiculous women in other comics really tend to look. There is also a character in a series called The Boys in which one female character is given a very revealing outfit that serves no tactical purpose, and she loathes it specifically for that reason.

You can have sexy characters, but for me, part of the attractiveness that comes from a female character is not seeing them wearing next to nothing in contorted poses in every single panel. Gabrael has already heard this, but one of my favorite examples of this is Casca from Berserk. Before a certain infamous story arc that shall not be mentioned, she spends the majority of her time donning practical armor. When she appears in a dress, the sight is genuinely beautiful and more sincere because you don't constantly see her nearly butt-naked.

Subtlety counts for something, and I will say the same for male comic book characters. To borrow - and technically invert - Gabrael's example, the characters from the new Batman movie looked pretty damn cool, especially Bane. Tom Hardy didn't have the chiseled physique that his illustrated counterpart has, but it was more believable because...well, you're looking at an actual human playing Bane, and there is artistic and theatrical merit in that. And no, Anne Hathaway may not be a 36DD with a 20 inch waist, but I actually found her more attractive than the illustrated version just because she didn't look like she was about to tip over from being so top-heavy. And I'm personally a breast man myself.

This isn't to say we should exclude buxom women who do indeed like to spend copious amounts of time scantily clad, but my issue with this convention is that it does little to nothing for their character when it's used in excess, or rather as a substitute for characterization instead of a component of it. I can kind of sort of swallow Starfire's reason for doing what she does, but a lot of female characters I see wear strips of fabric for no apparent reason, and worse, they don't seem to be aware of it most of the time. I know some writers and artists get the character to point it out, namely in the case of Power Girl. But, as the Cracked article suggests, her reason for continuing to wear the peep-hole outfit seems awfully contrived.

EDIT: Not to derail, but it sounds like an underlying problem with this topic is the classic tug-of-war between artistic realism and liberal anatomical expression. Both schools of thought are fine with me, but how they are executed can strengthen or weaken a character, regardless of gender. And with the liberal use of anatomical expression comes a fine line between "oh, that's weird but it looks cool" and "this artist has no clue how a woman's rib cage works."

edited 15th Aug '12 10:58:02 PM by Aprilla

^^^Reminds me of Bishlie Batman in shortpacked.

edited 15th Aug '12 10:40:34 PM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid

There's a fairly new Batman animated movie out on DVD. It's a collective of short stories with contributions from different artists. I can't remember the name, but it's basically in the spirit of the Animatrix in terms of its eclectic style.

You have one story where Batman has a very haggard, middle-aged look. There's one where he's freakishly tall and muscular, and then there's one where he's pretty much drop-dead gorgeous in the same vein of a male Final Fantasy character. They all more or less work well, and I think the reason they work well is because Batman himself is a strong and popular character. In other words, you can make the exaggerated features work, but I think a certain level of respect is needed for both the character and the audience. Even when Batman has his whole bishonen thing going on, he never struck me as a pretty-boy dandy or an otherwise inferior or sexually one-dimensional character. He was still Batman. Then again, that may not be a fair example since Batman has such a monolithic mythology. I haven't quite sorted out in my head why artists and writers have a harder time doing this with female characters, but the double standard is definitely existent.

Look, I love manga. And that's exaggerated as fuck in a lot of cases. I like Gold Digger, and there are some massively endowed women in that. But there is a problem about how women are constantly portrayed as sex objects rather than as people. There is a page for the boobs and butt pose, after all, because apparently a woman always has to be showing off her assets. All of them, for no reason at all. You get a group shot, and the men are all serious business while the woman is turned around to show off her ass. There is a problem with this.

Batman Gotham Knight I believe. Also, it's not exactly "new".

Also, I'm curious on opinions of the new costumes from D Cs stuff. Personally, I like the visual appeal of armor over revealing costumes so it's an improvement to me.

edited 16th Aug '12 12:25:11 AM by Deboss

Fight smart, not fair.

I'll have to find it when I get to a PC, one of my friends posted a picture of the new Avengers movie poster where "if the boys posed the same way as the girl" because they have Black Widow/Scarlett Johanssen with her butt to the camera and everyone else is very charismatic and aggressive. In the picture below it, all the male characters are in comically suggestive poses and Black Widow is left with an embarrassed look.

One of my fave characters in Batman is Lady Shiva. Her main costume is a red overcoat, crew neck white t-shirt, and blue jeans. The only time we see her in a spagetti strap dress is when she is 8 months pregnant. She has a very similar affect as Caska because she is a very strong and determined character with more similarities to Red Claw in both how they treat her and how her character is developed. But she's still quite attractive.

I'm not saying sexism isn't there. And even if one comic does it, it's a problem. But there is a greater variety of heros out there to pick and choose from. Chew is one of my fave examples of how a guy doesn't have to be ripped to be a hero. Various incarnations of Gambit and Nightcrawler range from ripped in the Animated Xmen, but in the comics were more lean and lithe like marathon runners. Umbrella Academy is a newer one that has very securely dressed as well as a variety of body types. In fact, most of the variety I have noticed in singular works normally fall under Dark Horse's territory. Considering they're the sort of anti-norm branch I am not that surprised.

Most DC and Marvel superheros are older than dirt. Batman is 70; Superman is 80. How they looked in the beginning is very different from how they look now. Wonder Woman's evolution is very interesting. But I've noticed the sexualization has gotten more apparent/less subtle as comics started making the jump into films or animated series. Deadpool was not always as big as Ryan Reynolds. Wolverine is not handsome...at all.

The more apparent problems I would say is that comics target very specific demographics. I remember looking at an anime girl and saying "that person has never seen a girl naked outside of other animes. $20 he's never touched one either." From my art experience, I've noticed how if someone hasn't had a lot of experience with nuditity or sexuality, it's harder to keep their characters in a creative, bounds of reason flow.

Video game commentators have pointed this out as well. This is slowly starting to change, comics faster than others, as both audiences and creators began to diversify and experience more. It's hard to break status quos. And there is such a nostalgia to comics that is very unique. But it is happening.

But until sex stops selling, this will be a constant struggle.

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur

Well, it's arguable if sex even does sell. Most often, the problem is inherent within the industry itself as producers won't even back a project unless the female characters are gorgeous and exploited.

Also, the trope you're looking for is Boobs-and-Butt Pose. The Avengers poster is listed as an an example there.

---

Now, if you'll indulge me, this post is going to be a Wall of Text.

There's kind of a "goldilocks" spot where sexiness is concerned. If a character is not attractive enough, then it has to be made up for by characterization. But even then, there comes a point where no amount of characterization can help you if your character is aesthetically uncomfortable. Even Quasimodo is Ugly Cute, and even Gonks have some sort of aesthetic appeal.

So let's begin by making a general, aesthically-pleasing humanoid. We add symmetrical features, a fit body and good grooming. This makes a character "attractive", but not necessarily sexy, so we basically start with Hollywood Homely and Generic Cuteness. Not very impressive.

But from there, we get to specifics. Body type, hairstyle, makeup application. Notice that each of them force you with a choice. Now, you have to pick the sexuality you're trying to entice: the gynephilics (attracted to femininity) and the androphilics (attracted to masculinity). You have to pick one, because to make the character "sexy", you will cater to audience, and start losing the other.

So now you pile on gender-specific traits and clothing which emphasizes them; i.e., fetishes. Large breasts, small breasts, broad shoulders, small shoulders, square jaw, thin jaw, body hair, shaven bodies, big buttocks, small buttocks, wide hips, narrow hips, shoulder pads, high heels, etc. However each fetish you add both gains and loses an audience. The more fetishes you intentionally invoke, the more specific the audience you target.

Eventually, you cross a threshold where the hotness of the character becomes their defining trait, for better or worse. At this point, the sexier a character is, the more their attractiveness competes with their other traits. Anyone who is turned on by those fetishes will form an even greater appreciation of their other attributes and see them as "polish". People who dislike these fetishes will only see those other attributes as "shallow".

Here's a line of progression:

• Amanda Waller◊ from DC Comics is an Action Girl, but not particularly attractive, so she's not very acknowledged outside of people who like that fetish or appreciate the novelty.
• Ellen Ripley◊ from Alien is more Action Girl than attractive, but she was considered unremarkable in the original film of the franchise.
• Alex Roivas◊ of Eternal Darkness is impressively attractive, so that neither her badassery or looks clash.
• Spider-girl is one of the most acclaimed heroines in comics, but though attractive, it is not her dominant quality.
• Wonder Woman is lauded because she's extremely attractive AND an Action Girl, but she can sometimes be hard to take seriously in her Leotard of Power. At this point, attractiveness is starting to take over.
• Further down the scale, anyone who's not a fan of Panty Shots or or Cheerleaders will probably dislike Juliet ◊ from Lollipop Chainsaw.
• Even further down, Vampirella is just seen as glorified porn.

edited 16th Aug '12 7:45:22 AM by KingZeal

Whenever this is brought up, implied if not stated outright is "...and it doesn't bother the guys, so why should it bother you?"

First of all, I'm not so sure it doesn't bother the guys, in which case we should be asking why, if they are bothered, they don't join the protest and demand more reasonable designs for superheroes of both sexes.

Second of all, even if the guys aren't bothered, it's worth examining why that is. Is there something about the way men in comic books are portrayed that balances out any body issues arising from the absurdly muscled physiques, something that does not apply to the female characters? Is it to do with the overall culture? Are men just inherently less sensitive about that sort of thing?

Stuff what I do.

I was discussing this with my wife about a month ago and here's what we came up with. The biggest portion of it is that we as a culture are quite dismissive of female desires. The best example we came up with, well it's not a superhero but it's close enough...how many people see those long, smoldering, thoughtful, intense close-ups on House's face in House to be female-targeted fanservice? Not too many. The thing is that doesn't do it for every women, who tend to be much more particular than in terms of male-culture where it's much more cut and dry, although I do think that's changing, and fairly fast at that.

Some women like the bishies, some like the musclebound stuff, some like a power suit, etc. There's a lot of variety there. Men? It's mostly just T&A. (Speaking for myself, I'm a hair and eye guy). So we have a situation where I think women don't see all the fanservice that's aimed at them, see all the fanservice aimed at men and think that it's entirely unfair and unbalanced.

I don't find exaggerated portrayals, either physical or emotional, particularly troubling. I don't believe it's desensitizing, which I think is the best argument against it. I do think the posing is bad, and is a big problem especially in terms of covers and posters and the like. But this isn't just because it's sexist, it's because it's cliche and conventional and typical and boring.

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve

So...what do people want then?

The point of super heroes is they're more than human, they stand out, are appealing to the eye.

This goes for both genders.

edited 16th Aug '12 9:06:45 AM by Thorn14

Being muscular and physically imposing is, all in all, a net positive for men. There are few circumstances where having a body like the cast of 300 will disadvantageous. It's also relatively inexpensive to achieve and maintain—find a gym or a park and have at it. Fitness is resilient. Armor is practical.

Beauty, however, is delicate. Glamour is inconvenient. Superheroines somehow never get their hair tangled, or trip on their heels, or suffer a wardrobe malfunction, or have their mascara run, or get fake lashes in their eyes, or get back problems or anything of the sort, unless it's for the convenience of the plot.

edited 16th Aug '12 9:07:48 AM by KingZeal

Well yeah.

Its fiction.

But whatever, I'll probably get ganged up on like before so meh.

Fiction is meant to be appealing to the eye, to gather attention and also appeal to a core demographic.

edited 16th Aug '12 9:13:22 AM by Thorn14

If female superheroes aren't allowed to be banged up, I really would like to know what comics you have been reading, there is a huge variety out there. How many times have female heroes been killed? Their bodies mangled? And not just in Marvel Zombies?

Quite a few.

edited 16th Aug '12 9:17:43 AM by Gabrael

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur

I find it interesting that you declare most men all like the same thing, and then practically in the same breath, let us know you like something different. What makes you so sure you're out of the ordinary?

I don't think men's tastes are universally focused on T&A, not by a longshot. I think there's a lot of pressure on men to say they prefer T&A, simply because that has been designated as the "manly" thing to be into. And to the extent men do agree that T&A is where it's at...how much of that is innate, and how much is because the media (including, maybe especially, comic books) overwhelmingly focuses on it?

@Thorn 14

King Zeal's point, if I'm reading it correctly, is that if a man aspires to look like a male superhero, to the extent it is physically possible it will be advantageous for him in general. He will be stronger and fitter as well as being, by current standards, more attractive. However, if a woman aspires to look like a female superhero, it will be a massive inconvenience for her. Her hair will get in the way and be nigh-impossible to manage, her feet will hurt from the high heels, her back will ache from the giant breasts (if she has them already or gets implants), etc.

Basically, the appearance given to male superheroes is in harmony with their role as action heroes, while the appearance given to female superheroes is at odds with that same role. That dissonance makes it hard for women to project themselves into the story and imagine themselves wielding the kind of power their spandex-clad counterparts wield.

edited 16th Aug '12 9:40:50 AM by Karalora

Stuff what I do.

Who is this directed to?

Statistically speaking, what men agree on as attractive is more focused than what women agree on. Blame it on psychology, genetics, or social expectations or whatever, but supposedly, that's what research has found. Women are also less physically respulsed by stimulus which are incompatible with their sexuality while men are greatly repulsed.

edited 16th Aug '12 9:32:51 AM by KingZeal