The Gender Equality Checkpoint

[it]

Also... That's not a wonder woman smile. It completely misses her tone and character. This is a wonder woman smile:

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by traceur

Also... That's not a wonder woman smile. It completely misses her tone and character. This is a wonder woman smile:

Agreed.


Also, to add to my earlier point about the different idealised forms of masculinity and femininity and going back to the question of who the audience might be - whilst both male and female characters are presented in an idealised and unobtainable form, that does not make them the same. The idealised masculine form presented in the comics is not aimed at female readers for their delcetation (objectification) it is presented for consumption by other men for whom that fantasy of an other self is enjoyable. The women are also presented in an idealised form, but like the male characters, they are also usually designed to appeal to a male fantasy of women, rather than a female fantasy of self. Hence attributes of physical strength and power tend to be undercut with poses of seduction (arse stuck out and towards the reader, glamour model style) or coquettishness (hip tipped out, one leg straight and the other crooked in with foot tilted inwards).

Things have changed and are changing - mainly because of the way female heroes are now depicted on screen. It is now possible to show a thoroughly kick-ass female character and it fit the world she's in and the idea that she is a force to be reckoned with. Characters like Shaw on Person of Interest (not a super hero - but the show is basically caped crusaders template withoutthe capes) and Starbuck on BSG are characters I'd have sold my soul to see as a young girl.

I remember when the Tank Girl film came out. She was one of the first really, properly awesome female characters I'd ever come across. To have some kind of visual reference for female strength and badassery? Frikkin amazing.

And she was way more overtly sexual than most female comic characters.

[Sundae]

I don't care if Wonder Woman has big boobies.
I have some. It happens occasionally and it's allowed.
I don't care if some of the female superheroes/ villains don't cover up completely. Not all the males do. So that's okay.
The thing I don't like is that all those dolls - and they really are dolls - look the same.

You don't make The Thing look like Superman, or Hellboy look like Peter Parker or Dream of the Endless look like Batman (I mixed DC and Marvel there, so sue me.)
So why make all the DC dolls look like Barbie dressing up for Halloween with unfeasibly thin legs?
I'd rather see a Wonder Woman with Serena William's physique in the old costume of bustier and hotpants than this covered up travesty. And no, I have nothing against slim/ skinny/ slight women. Was one myself for years.

I just don't like this cookie-cutter approach.
With a slant towards smaller = better.
Even though I know male characters have some bias towards bigger = better it does not apply across the board, see refs above.
Swamp Thing is not the most popular character, despite the fantastic work of Grant Morrison (yeah, okay, I do have some comic book chops.)

I'll shut up now.

[DanaC]

You're right. It still seems a bit like their primary attribute is that they are female.

I remember having a really heated argument with some comicbook guys on some comments thread somewhere. There had been a story about, I think, the uber sexualised Wonder Woman cover art on some commemorative issue. The artist, as I recall, was best known for erotic fantasy art and there was some kickback from some sections of the fanbase (not just women, some men too) that this was a step in the wrong direction.

Cue some fairly angry voices on either side of an argument about whether or not DC and Marvel should be presenting female superheroes in a way that might appeal more to female fans, or whether they should stop buckling to SJW pressure.

I remember a few people (myself included) had made points about the different physicality of male and female super heroes - the way male super heroes tended to be portrayed as powerful and shown in fighting poses - whereas female super heroes, even when fighting tend to stick their arses invitingly out and 'camera'wards. And when standing ready for action, male superheroes look like they can impose themselves upon the enemy, where the female characters tend to adopt a more sultry pose. It's like, even in a fight to the death they are more concerned with presenting femininity than beating the shit out of their opponent.

There were a number of guys who objected to the idea of women being presented as strong fighters who can battle it out with their enemies, because it's not believable. Men are stronger than women - showing a woman beating up the male villain snapped them out of the fantasy because they didn't believe it. It jarred too much. They preferred female super heroes who used other means to subdue their enemy because they found thatmore believable.

Man flying through the sky and putting out erupting volcanoes with his breath? Groovy, sign me up. Man bitten by radioactive spider becomes spider man, scurrying up and down walls and squirting web? Awesome, I'm right there. Chick strong enough to fight a man? Just not realistic enough.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by DanaC

There were a number of guys who objected to the idea of women being presented as strong fighters who can battle it out with their enemies, because it's not believable. Men are stronger than women - showing a woman beating up the male villain snapped them out of the fantasy because they didn't believe it. It jarred too much. They preferred female super heroes who used other means to subdue their enemy because they found thatmore believable.

Those guys show up on every IMDB board where a female character beats up a male, and bemoan their lost masculinity.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Those guys show up on every IMDB board where a female character beats up a male, and bemoan their lost masculinity.

Gotham had a girl win a martial arts contest in a police academy.

[it]

Is this going to be about how fictional characters depicted in idealized physical forms the vast majority of humanity could never live up too are harmful and objectifying when their gender happens to be female because their idealized form isn't equally objectified and judged on strength?

[DanaC]

No - it's about what do we as readers want to fantasise about, and who are the comics aimed at? It's also about, despite my earlier comments, a degree of 'realism' or believability. It doesn't have to meet the real world's standards of logic and possibility, but it needs to have internal logic. If a female character uses their sexuality to seduce, I actually don't have a problem with that if it's in the right context. There is nothing wrong with the femme fatale trope - anymore than there is something wrong with the strong, silent male character trope. What I object to is that the female characters are expected to be female first, and heroes second. If they're fighting, with fists and weapons in a flurry of violent action and bodies flying about the place, then the sultry, arse-out, or knees together with hip crooked and one foot tipped poses don't fit the context.

It isn't really about women being objectified (except in the most abstract sense) - it's about almost all female characters being drawn and conceived primarily to appeal to a male audience, in such a way as to be off-putting or alienating for girls and women who also like super hero stuff. In a stable of super heroes, I don't see why some of the female heros can't be kickass heroes first, and females second.

The comic book depictions of men often emphasise certain aspects of idealised masculinity, in both character and form. But that idealised masculinity is in sync with notions of heroism - because they are about agency and action. The comic book depictions of women also emphasise aspects of idealised femininity, but they are at odds with notions of heroism because they are about seduction and pleasure.

Seduction and pleasure - works for the Black Widow and Cat Woman - really not necessary for Spider Woman.

[sexobon]

From now on all genders are equal: some are just more equal than others.

You're welcome.

[xoxoxoBruce]

You pig.

[it]

Hmmm....

[DanaC]

Care to add flesh to that 'hmmm'?



Also, it's worth considering that some of the movement towards better depictions of female heroes fighting is down to a different approach to fighting more generally on the screen. I love the way screen fighting has changed in recent years - but that's a conversation for a different thread:P

[it]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Care to add flesh to that 'hmmm'?



Also, it's worth considering that some of the movement towards better depictions of female heroes fighting is down to a different approach to fighting more generally on the screen. I love the way screen fighting has changed in recent years - but that's a conversation for a different thread:P

Like what? I looked up Mattel, they have several lines of toys who all have the exact same body type. This is a re-branding done by a woman for girls as action figures, of toys that were already designed for girls as the main target audience.
You could try to argue that the problem is deeper in that these are depicting characters that are designed for the male audience in the first place, and I'll point out that we both just complained that they don't do a very good job depicting those characters in the first place, and that they would look more heroic and strong if they did.
You could argue that the problem is that the executives and marketing and creative teams think this is what the female target audiance wants, and I'll use the starbucks action figure to point out that girls do have a choice of buying more athletic and stronger looking female character action figures, because this is the 2010s and the long tail is rule of law, and yet these aren't very successful or popular among girls, and in fact - judging by the response above - that is actually the one that appeals more to guys.

At that point you usually leave the argument and I try to go a bit meta - perhaps in this case make a point that this is to some extent generational difference, that you would have killed for a Starbucks but I never had a childhood in a world that didn't have Starbucks equivalents, which never actually gets any response not just from you but from nearly anyone - they are structured in a way that don't include clear talking points to jump board from, and I've more . Then I will try to break the silence with a mildly relevant joke or funny link. Probably this one:


Instead, you said you would have killed for a Starbucks character when you were a child. So there - get your inner child a Starbucks action figure.

[Sundae]

Second from left, hand-shandy Sasha.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Whip me, thrill me, make me clean the bathroom.