Wednesday, June 14, 2006, 08:51 AM

Word. Wordy McWord Word.

2) Comics aren't for you.

3) Well, why don't you stop reading, then?

That always fucking gets me. I don't understand the business sense behind that at ALL. If purely for economic reasons, the bigger your audience is, the more money you make, and more importantly in this day and age of "corporate synergy" don't you want to make your property as accessible as possible? Especially to 50% of the population? Of which has plenty of disposable income?

Economically, this blind, stuck-in-the-mud attitude makes no. goddamn. sense.

Lovely column, can't wait to read more!

Karen [redacted] (aliaskaren<at>girl-wonder.org)
#

Wednesday, June 14, 2006, 10:21 AM

My personal favourite argument not for why I should stop reading, but for why I shouldn't criticise is "comics are a business, so they have to write what sells."

Bullshit. TV, films and the "normal" publishing industry are all businesses, and feminist criticism of assholery in these media is alive and well - and *needs* to be, because there's just so much. Comics aren't exempt.

Kji
#

Wednesday, June 14, 2006, 11:56 AM

onoz, teh sexxorz! Where do these people get off making the women look like pornstars? I mean, it's not like they try to make the men look as pefect as they possibly can and use every opportunity to show them shirtl--oh wait...

[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v36/omgwtflolz/wolv.png[/IMG]

Slyder [redacted] (TheSlyder<at>gmail.com)
#

Wednesday, June 14, 2006, 12:48 PM

The fact of the matter is that the comic book industry feels that they will get more business out of sexing up pre-teen boys than appealing to a female audience. Personally, I agree. It pleases me when I see realistic characters in comics, and it vexes me when I see a super heroin flying around, with 80% of her breasts showing, yet they stay clothed, somehow.

Erin H
#

Wednesday, June 14, 2006, 01:39 PM

Nice work Karen.

FWIW, my first comic was Josie and the Pussycats.

Karen [redacted] (aliaskaren<at>girl-wonder.org)
#

Wednesday, June 14, 2006, 02:18 PM

Kji,

There is a substantial difference between making someone look *sexy* and making them a *sex object*. I have never once come across a man portrayed as a sex object in a mainstream comic (I'm sure there are examples) whereas women are depicted as sex objects almost by default. Check out the Counterpunch archive at G-W for a dissection of covers that demonstrates what it would look like if they *really* turned the tables.

/b/
#

Wednesday, June 14, 2006, 03:14 PM

What if you just made your own non-sexist comics instead of demanding everyone else change the way they make their comics? If consumers agree with your point of view then your comic will outsell sexist comics and they will change to match yours.

However, as girls who read comics make up a tiny percentage of the comic buying populace I think comics will continue to cloth their superheroines in revealing garments because that is what boys and men like. If you want to change comics try getting more women to read instead of trying to "kick down the door"... whatever that means. Throwing a feminist temper-tantrum just convinces men that you cannot be engaged in rational conversation so they stop listening. If you aren't going to be polite then that renders debate and discussion impossible. It's the same as a man saying, "Why should I listen to what a woman says when I can just hit her?"

Kphoebe [redacted] (aliaskaren<at>girl-wonder.org)
#

Wednesday, June 14, 2006, 03:55 PM

b,

What makes you think more women will read if comics don't change? Why should men and boys be indulged in sexist portrayals of women, regardless of whether or not women are reading? Why should I be polite about the constant degradation of my gender in comics, or anywhere else?

My outrage is entirely rational. And a rhetorical flourish of announcing my intention to force entry into a barred space is not even vaguely similar to threatening physical violence in response to voiced fury.

If you sincerely believe that sexist things should be allowed to remain sexist because that's how they've always been, or because you personally like it that way, then I politely invite you to fuck the fuck off. If you're interested in genuine discussion, stick around.

the devil in angel's cloths [redacted] (sciencegrey<at>yahoo.com)
#

Wednesday, June 14, 2006, 05:36 PM

question:

what about spandex dudes? isn't that sexist? why do I have to stare at a flipping bludge when plenty of superheros go around in normal attire?
And sificent to say: unless your a boy between 10-18, no, sadly, most comic books ARE NOT for you; that or your just a freaky person who defies all logic. There are male comics, which Appeal to MALE readers: most superhero comics are built to appeal to MALE readers. you are a small fraction of a counter community. There are also Girl comics: things like I <3 marvel's series, are designed with the feminist community in mind. personally, I've had it with this type of bullshit where people have to appease both sides of a medium where there is majority control: at some point, common sense and a the fact no one will read a comic that doesn't entice people has to kick in.
So go ahead and hate male comics: your not a male, so you don't see the appeal in tities and ass. good for you. MEANWHILE, men do. We care about kicking ass, blowing shit up, and sex. that's our comic: if its got all those things, we're good.

So do us a favor: stop complaining. We don't give half a shit. wanna see new standard: make your own damn comic, and see how well it sells.

Derry [redacted] (phantomflasher<at>gmail.com)
#

Wednesday, June 14, 2006, 06:29 PM

MEANWHILE, men do. We care about kicking ass, blowing shit up, and sex.

Incredibly, a lot of women also like kicking ass, blowing shit up, and sex. Which is why we read superhero comics. (We also like the simplified trope of good vs. evil; the complexities of working with sixty years of canon, and a whole slew of other things.)

We just don't like seeing women reduced to sex objects in the process.

Brendon [redacted] (alternateb<at>gmail.com)
#

Wednesday, June 14, 2006, 06:34 PM

Sciencegrey,

I am part of the comic demographic, but I don't read superhero comics very much because generally, they are stupid, and I prefer smart things.

The apparent obliviousness to its own sexism is one of the stupid things that make superhero comics stupid.

When you try to convince your peers that comics is a valid artform, or try to explain why great comics endure (and I bet you do) do you say, comics are great because sometimes you get to see a ladies boobies (well almost!), or do you talk about characters and stories and artwork and dialouge? These are the things that are great about comics, and they will only be improved by the reduction of stupidities.

Brendon [redacted] (alternateb<at>gmail.com)
#

Wednesday, June 14, 2006, 06:38 PM

Oops, my apologies sciencegrey,

I reread you post and realised I had completely misjudged you.

You don't think comics are a worthwhile artform as I had suggested, you think comics are just disposable trash that don't deserve better.
In that case, touche sir. You win this round.

Vassilissa
#

Wednesday, June 14, 2006, 06:58 PM

I protest: Miller is not a weasel-fucking rat man. Weasel-fucker he may be, but I wouldn't give one of his comics to my pet rats as litter. They might pick up something nasty, like his initials on their thighs.

Great rage, though.

GK [redacted] (GuilKato<at>gmail.com)
#

Wednesday, June 14, 2006, 07:14 PM

My first real exposure to comics were Ultimate Marvelverse TPBs at the library and then I hunted down the Authority TPBs on the recomendation of a friend. From there I spread out to reading anything and everything published by wildstorm and some marvel stuff. Are you seeing this problem mostly in like DC comics or something?

Because the female characters in Wildstorm, which is pretty mainstream, kick more then there fair share of arse, have backstories and dont always wonder around with their breasts hanging out; the Jennys for example. And a good chunk of the marvel, well ultimate marvel, women are more then a pair of breasts that can fly.

Derek
#

Wednesday, June 14, 2006, 07:32 PM

I love the commenter who says that women don't understand the appeal of breasts.

Lesbians don't read comics, eh? Nice try.

Karen [redacted] (aliaskaren<at>girl-wonder.org)
#

Wednesday, June 14, 2006, 07:51 PM

sciencegrey,

Perceive this, you puerile excuse for a person. I am not required to pander to your ridiculous and degrading fantasies in comic form, and neither am I required to endorse them by my silence. I am a consumer of and participant in comics culture, and I can choose to criticise whatever aspects of that culture I damn well please.

And as for your ridiculous assertion that there are male comics and female comics and thus that the audience of any genre should be restricted by gender - what the hell are you ON? No "No Girl's!" sign on the treehouse door is going to stop me from reading *or* criticising, you mindless asshole. I'm a big fan of ass kicking, blowing shit up and sex, and I refuse to accept that objectification is integral to those story elements.

What fucking century is this that I seriously have to explain to you that sexism is *bad*? Do I actually have to go into why endorsing the disgusting culture of male dominance which spawns such loathsome specimens as yourself is wrong and stupid?

It is now my dearest wish that pigs eat your genitals.

Love and kisses,
Karen.

Gracie [redacted] (alicethemisanthrope<at>hotmail.com)
#

Wednesday, June 14, 2006, 07:58 PM

what about spandex dudes? isn't that sexist? why do I have to stare at a flipping bludge when plenty of superheros go around in normal attire? 

Way to miss the point entirely, asshole.

Achsariel
#

Wednesday, June 14, 2006, 08:22 PM

Are you trying to say that men aren't equally objectivised by comics? When was the last time you saw a hero who wasn't a physical ideal, a bronzed god worthy of envy? Frankly it works both ways. Just as women are presented as a physical ideal whilst wearing skimpy outfits and being sexy, men are presented as Adonises in spandex. I think you're underestimating people. You're assuming that I and my fellows, being males, will immediately see a sexy superheroine and immediately precieve her as a sex object. This is not the case. I could just as likely accuse you of seeing male superheros as sex objects for the same reason, as male heros are equally portrayed as unrealistic ideals.

It seems to me like you're the one who choses to see these idealized women in comics as sex objects before being characters. I, my compatriots, and a number of female comic fans I know, are perfectly capable of seeing past this. Why would I want to look at a comic full of women I find unattractive? I would not more wish that than to read a comic full of men I find unattractive. But in the end, I am thoughtful enough to base my opinion not on which superheroine has the biggest boobs, or which superhero I wish I was the most. Rather, I base it on how well written the comic is, and whether or not I found it ultimately entertaining. Yes, it presents unrealistic ideals of both sexes, but I'm fine with that. I enjoy looking at unrealistic ideals.

Really, most girls I know who are into comics have no problem with this subject. Perhaps you just aren't looking beyond the sexualized image (the very thing you accuse we "sexists" of) to see the deeper aspects of the character, because believe me, they're just as prevailant in heroines as they are in heros.

cheers

Gracie [redacted] (alicethemisanthrope<at>hotmail.com)
#

Wednesday, June 14, 2006, 08:27 PM

::squints at sciencegray:: Frank Miller...is that you??

gracie
#

Wednesday, June 14, 2006, 08:30 PM

Achsariel,
Yes, both men and women are objectified in the media. But women tend to be objectified in a much more dangerous way, especially in comics. We shouldn't HAVE to look past these issues.

Achsariel
#

Wednesday, June 14, 2006, 08:42 PM

"Yes, both men and women are objectified in the media. But women tend to be objectified in a much more dangerous way, especially in comics. We shouldn't HAVE to look past these issues."

Why is the objectivization of women any more dangerous or dire than that of men? Further, why is it any worse in comics than in any other medium? I'd say comics are actually far from the worst. Women in comics are often portrayed as strong, independant, and free-thinking. She-Hulk and Rouge come to mind as examples. Now, both of these women are also extremely sexualized voluptuious vixens, but at the same time, as I said, they're an ideal. They're ideals not only in their bodies, but also in their personalities and their attitudes. What woman wouldn't want to have the confidence and strength of She-Hulk, or the body and outgoing attitude of Rouge? Likewise, what man wouldn't want the ripped abs of the Man of Steel, or the intuitive charisma of Bat Man?

Frankly, I don't see how it's an issue at all. If I wanted to see realistic portrayals of men and women, I wouldn't read comics. I'd turn on the biography channel or I'd go outside and watch people live their lives. I read comics because I want to fantasize about things that aren't realistic and could never happen. I wish I were as morally outstanding as Super Man. I wish I were as intelligent as Iron Man. Even when you're a kid, you enjoy seeing heros because you look at them and think, "I want to be like that when I grow up!"

That's why I'd say comic books give young women a far less dangerous ideal to model themselves after than T.V. or movies. Who would you rather the world's little girls model themselves after, the intelligent, powerful, strong-willed Invisible Woman of the Fantastic Four, or the slutty, anorexic, disgusting ho-bag that is Nichole Richie?

Spex [redacted] (sefkejoosten06<at>hotmail.com)
#

Wednesday, June 14, 2006, 09:35 PM

While it is definitely true that some women in comics are sexualized to the extreme *cough*Supergirl*cough*, can I ask you what comics you have been reading? Because almost none of the comics I've read (and I've read lots) are really as extreme as you make comics out to be.

I agree with you that women are sexualized, but it is in no way as extreme as you make it out to be. You act as if they're nothing but lust objects, when many if not most of them have actual personalities, and are self-sufficient.

I mean, yes, there's characters like the new Supergirl. But that's Michael Turner's fault. He couldn't draw anything remotely humanoid if he had a gun to his head (I think the reason why he leaves out several vital organs and some ribs and hips on his women because he only has half a pelvis left himself).
You might bring up Power Girl, but Power Girl is definitely a feminist character. Sure, she's extremely sexualized appearance-wise, but the books mostly tend to poke fun at this. It's not intended to be offensive or anything.
And there's girls like Psyylocke, yes. But for every Supergirl, Psylocke and Wonder Woman there's an Enchantress, Shadowcat and Stargirl. And Hawkgirl. Oh, and Dust. And Dhalua and Tesla Strong. And Big Barda. Should I go on?

At least half of the superheroines I can think of don't show any more skin than some forearms, a neck and sometimes a bellybutton. Sure, they still wear tight clothing, but it's hard to fight crime when you're getting all tangled up in everything. Same goes for the males.

And, like it or not, superhero comics are aimed largely at men, and these are still businesses that want to appeal to their main demographic. Yes, it's dumb to blatantly sexualize so many women in comics, but jesus christ give them a break, there are reasons why they do this. Yes, it should change, but it's not like they're actively trying to demean women. That's not what they want, they want moolah, so, skimpy costumes for some women.

Besides, it's mostly the fault of artists like Rob Liefeld and Michael Turner.

Still, I think you're overreacting just a tiny bit. You've got a point, but you exaggerate matters.

Karen [redacted] (aliaskaren<at>girl-wonder.org)
#

Wednesday, June 14, 2006, 09:41 PM

Achsariel,

Okay, now we're talking.

What I like in superhero comics is unrealistic situations and realistic characterisation. I also like excellent dialogue, well-crafted storylines and good art.

First up, in a culture where women are frequently coded as objects and men as subjects, the objectification of women in comics, even if it *was* equalled by that of men, is always going to be very scary. It's actually not, though. The attractiveness of men in comic books is coded to musculature and strength, whereas the attractiveness of women is coded to T n' A. For an excellent dissection and rebuttal to the "both genders are equally objectified" argument, please see A. Hunt's Talking Points

Second, I love unrealism in my comic settings. Heroes winning against all odds, giant space monsters and crazy mutant powers all press my buttons. However, I think the best comics are those where the crazy *situation* is dealt with by people who, whatever their powers, are recognisably people. In the case of female characters, that means women who have agency, who are not merely "X-Hero's Girlfriend". I hate storylines where the default is "X Girl is in danger and must be saved!" or "X Girl gets raped because that's SHOCKING" or "X Girl gets murdered and put in a fridge to kick of a hero's career".

It's sexist, and it's *lazy*.

I'm a big fan of both She-Hulk and Rogue. Also, Jessica Jones, Barbara Gordon, Gert Yorke, Kate Bishop and Stephanie Brown. I don't hate female superheroes. I hate lazy writing and horrific art that makes them less people and more receptacles for male fantasy.

Karen [redacted] (aliaskaren<at>girl-wonder.org)
#

Wednesday, June 14, 2006, 09:52 PM

::squints at sciencegray:: Frank Miller...is that you??

Oh, Gracie. Have a shiny new Internets!

Achsariel
#

Wednesday, June 14, 2006, 10:17 PM

"The attractiveness of men in comic books is coded to musculature and strength, whereas the attractiveness of women is coded to T n' A."

That's just the thing. They're not. Not from the comics I read, anyway. I can name plenty of women in comics who have petit builds and are still considered to be very attractive. There is a very, very broad spectrum of what men consider to be attractive, and not all of it is centralized around big boobs. Either way, that's not the point. The point is that behind the idealized physical portrayal of women in comics, there is often a deep character who is much much more than a set of tits in spandex. I still maintain my point that comics portray women much better than other forms of media. Girls who read comics are seeing rolemodels much better than what they will find in T.V., who what's the problem? Your cause would be better helped by encouraging this, not telling the industry that they've got it all wrong. Focus on the positive and get them to do more of the good stuff. Positive reenforcement.

"In the case of female characters, that means women who have agency, who are not merely "X-Hero's Girlfriend". I hate storylines where the default is "X Girl is in danger and must be saved!" or "X Girl gets raped because that's SHOCKING" or "X Girl gets murdered and put in a fridge to kick of a hero's career". "

Those are all realistic situations though. X Girl DOES get raped in real life. X Girl DOES get murdered and put in a fridge. What about X Guy, who gets murdered, or tortured, ect.? He's just as much of a victim as X Girl, and generally, X Guy and X Girl are not superheros or superheroines. For some plots, someone has to play the role of victim, and I'd say it's just as often a man as it is a woman. You want characters with realistic personalities, and you want women with agency. Not all women have agency, not in real life and not in comics. In fact, I would say that women in comics are portrayed as having agency and gumption just as much as women in real life do, if not more. The reasons women in comics are sometimes portrayed as sexualized objects with no personality who are easily victimized is because, in real life, there are lots of women who are sexualized objects with no personality who are easily victimized, which is sad, but comics are not perpetrating this image, only portraying it.

Now, I'll admit that comics, and media in general, DID perpetrate this image for a very long time, and that's the reason there are and used to be so many women who were sexualized objects, but that's something the media in recent years, and society as a whole, has been moving away from. You can't COMPLETELY cut such women out of comcics when they still exist because that would give all the characters unrealistic personalities. Hopefully some day all women will be as strong-willed and confident as She-Hulk and Power Girl and Wonder Woman, and then comics can portray all women as such. Until then, I'm satisfied with my comics as they are. The problem is that you're unsatisfied with the comics, and the world, but you're focusing on the comics. Don't change the world by changing the media, change the media by changing the world.

Loris str0 = ('document.write('('+str0+') (porkscratchings22<at>yahoo.com)
#

Wednesday, June 14, 2006, 10:31 PM

The problem is that you're unsatisfied with the comics, and the world, but you're focusing on the comics.

Hey Achsariel, would you like to be a bit more patronising? Because empty headed girlies might not be able to understand a big stwong argument delivered without all this padding!

there are and used to be so many women who were sexualized objects, but that's something the media in recent years, and society as a whole, has been moving away from.
I don't see the media moving away from sexualized, unrealistic images of anyone not least women. You mentioned Nicole Richie above as an undesirable role model for girls and young women, and I agree with you (although I'm curious about why you had to bring 'slutty' in as some sort of insult). Surely her recent fame and the the celebration of others like her is proof that the media *isn't* moving away from tired sexualised images, and therefore, by your own rationale, neither will comics. Hence the need for this article.

Karen [redacted] (aliaskaren<at>girl-wonder.org)
#

Wednesday, June 14, 2006, 10:38 PM

Your cause would be better helped by encouraging this, not telling the industry that they've got it all wrong. Focus on the positive and get them to do more of the good stuff. Positive reenforcement.

Well, thanks for telling me how to achieve my goals! As it happens, other sections of G-W are focusing on exactly that. My part, as resident shrill jackboot feminazi harpy, is to get mad at what *is* wrong.

The point is that behind the idealized physical portrayal of women in comics, there is often a deep character who is much much more than a set of tits in spandex.

That is often true. So why does she also have to be a sexual object?

Look, I'm honestly glad you're able to read such strength and role-modelling from women in comics. Me too! But I also see a lot of things wrong, and I'm fully prepared to talk about them. (Incidentally, raging about sexism in comics is only one of my anti-patriarchy activities.) Moreover, to change culture *is* to change the world; and as long as there's sexism in comics, I'll be yelling for change.

Incidentally, real women are not ever "sexualised objects". They are often treated as such, but they are, in fact, people.

01d55
#

Wednesday, June 14, 2006, 10:39 PM

Those are all realistic situations though. X Girl DOES get raped in real life. X Girl DOES get murdered and put in a fridge.

Um, I don't know what crazy bizzaro-land you're from, but where I come from, murder victims go in the river.

What about X Guy, who gets murdered, or tortured, ect.? He's just as much of a victim as X Girl, and generally, X Guy and X Girl are not superheros or superheroines.

X guy gets a memorial case. X girl gets to go unmentioned when her X boyfriend's mentor, who was also HER mentor, is lamenting how a bunch of X boyfriend's male relations got killed at right about the same time she did.

http://www.girl-wonder.org/robin/projectgirlwonder.html

Achsariel
#

Wednesday, June 14, 2006, 10:50 PM

"Hey Achsariel, would you like to be a bit more patronising? Because empty headed girlies might not be able to understand a big stwong argument delivered without all this padding!"

I'm afraid I don't understand. I'm just trying to be clear in my points and avoid miscommunication. You comment is uncalled for, and I'm sorry that you seem to think that I'm patronising anyone. Honestly, I think I've been perfectly civil.

"I don't see the media moving away from sexualized, unrealistic images of anyone not least women. You mentioned Nicole Richie above as an undesirable role model for girls and young women, and I agree with you (although I'm curious about why you had to bring 'slutty' in as some sort of insult). Surely her recent fame and the the celebration of others like her is proof that the media *isn't* moving away from tired sexualised images, and therefore, by your own rationale, neither will comics. Hence the need for this article."

Women are still sexualized and unrealistic, but so are men. This is simply a byproduct of people liking to look at things that are visually pleasing. The main point I was trying to make is that they're no longer objects to the extent that they used to be. We're seeing more and more strong, deep, female characters in movies, books, T.V., and most of all, comics. They're not objects in the sense that they merely serve as plot devices to further a story of which they are only a minor part. They are more frequently shown as being the main characters, with stories and conflicts all of their own, and it's happening a lot more often than it used to. I see this as progress. I see this as society moving in a positive direction, and I think this can be seen in all forms of media.

Nichole Richie represents a new extreme. Because women are becoming what they should be, because they're becoming good role-models and active, important parts of their own stories, people begin to pay less attention to women who fit into the traditional role servant to man. This is what has led to women like Nichole Richie and Paris Hilton and Christina Agulera, new extremes to get the attention of the masses. Now in order to be popular in the media, you must be one or the other. You must be a powerful modern woman, or you must be a spoiled whore. I don't know which one will win out in the end, but I'd like to hope that it's the real women, because I have faith in society.

I'll talk about the use of the word "slutty" briefly, just to clarify. It depends on your definition of what a slut is. There's a lot of them depending on who you are. To me, it has to do with self-worth. A girl can sleep with all the men she wants and still not be a slut if she knows who she is, and she does what she does for herself, not for anyone else. Atleast not by my definition. To me, a slut is a girl with no self-esteem who only fucks guys for their approval because she values herself low, and can only be happy when others value her highly, regardless of WHY they value her highly.

Achsariel
#

Wednesday, June 14, 2006, 11:00 PM

"Well, thanks for telling me how to achieve my goals! As it happens, other sections of G-W are focusing on exactly that. My part, as resident shrill jackboot feminazi harpy, is to get mad at what *is* wrong."

Well in that case, I suppose it's my mistake and you can disregard that part of the discussion. It was kinda off-topic anyway :p

"That is often true. So why does she also have to be a sexual object?"

She doesn't and she's not. The sexy image is there to make it pretty to look at. Do you want to see a fat, portly, warty, male comic book hero? No one wants to see ugly comicbook characters unless they're villians, and even those are often given sex appeal. (Well, that's not entirely true. There are some physically unattractive characters who are still good characters, but this only works if you have a good writer which, let's face it, is rare.)

"Incidentally, real women are not ever "sexualised objects". They are often treated as such, but they are, in fact, people."

I would argue this. Women are often sexualized objects. They do it themselves and other people do it to them. They're still people, yes, but they are seen as objects and for all intensive purposes, that is what they become. It's sad, but that's what it is. From my point of view, anyway.

"X guy gets a memorial case. X girl gets to go unmentioned when her X boyfriend's mentor, who was also HER mentor, is lamenting how a bunch of X boyfriend's male relations got killed at right about the same time she did."

I'll agree that that's unfair, but that's the fault of the writer, not the fault of comics as a whole. There are lots of things that happen in the plots of comics that I disagree with, but I don't see them as some conspiracy against a specific race or group or sex. It's just bad writting.

Spex [redacted] (sefkejoosten06<at>hotmail.com)
#

Wednesday, June 14, 2006, 11:01 PM

You know, not all superheroines are sex symbols. That's actually also a relatively small number, at least compared to the amount of blatantly sexualized females you're trying to make it seem there are.

Almost every superheroine is attractive, yes, true. But almost all superheroes are handsome, and I'm pretty sure that if artists started depicting women more realistically in comics, and if they kept the men just the way they are now, you'd probably get angry at them for making women seem less attractive than the men.

Again, you have a point, but you're overreacting. And the fridge thing wasn't a regular murder. Major Force did it. Major Force is batshit fucking loco. He does that kind of thing all the time.

Karen [redacted] (aliaskaren<at>girl-wonder.org)
#

Wednesday, June 14, 2006, 11:05 PM

Achsariel [redacted] (Achsariel<at>gmail.com)
#

Wednesday, June 14, 2006, 11:12 PM

"Regardless of civility (and you have been, thank you) telling people involved in a cause in which you are disinterested exactly what their problem is and what they should be doing to "fix" it, is, in fact, patronising. Feminism has a long history of men telling feminists how to get along better (usually it amounts to "be less angry and more polite and by the way aren't there more important things to worry about than Y cause?") and most vocal feminists get very, very sick of it."

Well, sorry if I offended anyone. Really, I was just stating a difference in opinion. If it comes down to it being patronsing, well, that's unfortunate, but I'm just saying what I'm thinking and callin' em as I'm seein' em. No harm meant.

Carry on, carry on

Nicole
#

Wednesday, June 14, 2006, 11:42 PM

Awesome entry. Thank you! I look forward to more.

Benza [redacted] (Wolfgangh<at>gmail.com)
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 12:17 AM

QUESTION!:

Were is the diffrence between you going ape shit crazy about the way women are treated and a White Power advocate going bat shit crazy about the way Black people are whats wrong with the world?

Achsariel
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 12:23 AM

" QUESTION!:

Were is the diffrence between you going ape shit crazy about the way women are treated and a White Power advocate going bat shit crazy about the way Black people are whats wrong with the world? "

Wait, wait....

....could you rephrase the question?

Kji
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 12:27 AM

"Feminism has a long history of men telling feminists how to get along better (usually it amounts to "be less angry and more polite and by the way aren't there more important things to worry about than Y cause?") and most vocal feminists get very, very sick of it."

You mean like you're telling men to do right now? OH SH--hypocrisy!

Women are sexualized. Men are sexualized. The only difference is that you're bitching about it, we aren't. I see women making catcalls at men and cheering when they're shirtless all the time, I see men look away when women are "indecent" lest they be arrested for sexual harassment.

I mean, CHRIST. You made a post talking about how you hate seeing female characters put in the strip just for the sake of being raped or killed. NEVER MIND that there are just as many helpless male extras, right? Can't pay attention to the facts, or you might not have a reason to whine!

M
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 12:31 AM

A wonderful article, and an - interesting (if slightly 'oh god bash head against desk'-inducing) debate. But the italics are making my brain explode.

Hopefully this kill them? (*ends tags left and right*)

Also, women? Are not ever, ever objects. They are people. No matter how other people view them or how they view themselves. They're human beings. Saying that objectifying women in comics is fine because women are objects in real life? That's - not cool.

Karen [redacted] (aliaskaren<at>girl-wonder.org)
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 12:38 AM

M,

Thank you! I am so, so sorry about the italics. I have no idea what caused them. I shall set techmonkeys on the job as soon as they are awake and hopefully we'll get it all fixed up.

Emma [redacted] (lastseptember<at>gmail.com)
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 01:05 AM

I'll talk about the use of the word "slutty" briefly, just to clarify. It depends on your definition of what a slut is. There's a lot of them depending on who you are. To me, it has to do with self-worth. A girl can sleep with all the men she wants and still not be a slut if she knows who she is, and she does what she does for herself, not for anyone else. Atleast not by my definition. To me, a slut is a girl with no self-esteem who only fucks guys for their approval because she values herself low, and can only be happy when others value her highly, regardless of WHY they value her highly

.... WHAT? Who are you to use the label "slut??" How dare you? A woman's sexual choices are her own business & certainly nothing on which you need to comment. Do not make generalizations about women whom you do not even know based on their appearence or tabloid bullshit. Please, take the words "slut" & "whore" & whatever other pejorative words you so ignorantly use OUT of your vocabulary & OUT of this forum.

maggie [redacted] (riss<at>sequentialtart.com)
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 01:41 AM

Almost every superheroine is attractive, yes, true. But almost all superheroes are handsome, and I'm pretty sure that if artists started depicting women more realistically in comics, and if they kept the men just the way they are now, you'd probably get angry at them for making women seem less attractive than the men.

Er, no. Considering how normal it is in comics to have pug fugly guys presented as mega sex-symbols who have supermodel-looking bedmates at every turn (short hairy bruiser who's 'the best there is at what he does', anyone?), you'd have to introduce a hella lot of more realistically-portrayed women to even come anywhere close to that level of out-and-out unattractiveness.

Besides, I like looking at beautiful things. I don't think women dislike seeing beautiful women in comics; that's a silly thing to say and oversimplifies the entire issue. The point is that there should be wider representation of women in comics, so perhaps it would be more likely that female characters' worth would be evaluated according to their actions and not be based so disproportionately on how good they look in bikinis and how many men want to fuck them at any given moment.

I mean, words like 'sexy' and 'hot' and 'beautiful' are mainstays in any basic character description of the majority of female characters (Catwoman, Wonder Woman, She-Hulk, whoever). But I can't remember ever reading a character writeup of Batman or Green Lantern that included how sexy or handsome they were, and that's pretty much a summation of the imbalance in how comic book characters are portrayed.

Incognito
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 01:52 AM

I think Benza was basically asking what the difference is between a feminist and a white supremacist...But should probably what's the difference between a feminist and a Black Rights promoter.

You can debate the objectification of women (and race, class, age, etc.) in any format, to any sector of society and it will usually boil down to views of “we are” and “we aren’t”. I’m glad to see that Karen has actually noted some of Achsariel’s points as being true (and visa versa), rather then attacking each other like Loris or Kji.
I find it interesting that the debate comes through the portrayal of Females within comics, as they are simply illustrated characters rather than live people (who would generally have a choice in what situations they would appear in). Which brings me to question the comment “There is a substantial difference between making someone look *sexy* and making them a *sex object*”.
For these characters, they don’t get a choice if they want to appear sexy, it’s up to the writer. A ‘sex object’ should only be defined as one if the viewer sees them as one, of course I’m the individuals who illustrate them may regards them as a sex objects. However, when I see images of female super heroes, I find that they are beautiful and yes sexy, but I never regard them as ‘sexual prey’ or ‘objects’.
For the demographic that comics were most likely intended for, adolescent/teen males, sex or sexual images would be something that would appeal to them. So I’m also wondering if it is entirely the artist’s faults that the females are portrayed in a manner that can be considered offensive. Character design/development changes with the times and artists are from their own demographics and backgrounds, so what influences them? They could be brought up with the mentality that women should not be considered objects, however, media in other forms rejects these concepts. Popular female song artists are readily seen in skimpy clothing, models of fashion (not intended for males) are shown as thin, elegant women. All those sources show women that young girls may emulate, that teen boys will find alluring. They buy their products. The artists may think that audiences want that, so they incorporate it into their products. The difference is, these characters don’t choose to be sex objects, people perceive them as that, but as Achsariel also pointed out, the personality and refinement of their characters makes them more than a possible sexual attraction for males, it gives readers something that may be idolised, for their beauty, but hopefully for their character too.

Also, I’d like to know what Emma’s definition of the word ‘slut’ is. To me it’s someone (yes a woman) who has no respect for herself, and doesn’t respect others. It doesn’t have to be through sexual behaviour, but through any actions they take to themselves and others. I see that as a pretty bad influence for a working society (the male equivalent I would use for ‘slut’ would be ‘bastard’)

Emma [redacted] (lastseptember<at>gmail.com)
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 02:20 AM

Incognito - it doesn't matter what my definition is, it's a word that shouldn't be used, ESPECIALLY by men. Furthermore, the word "bastard" in no way correlates to "slut" as it has no sort of *sexual* (yes, sexual, as the word CLEARLY implies) connotations. References to men's sexual behavior tend to be positive (i.e.: stud) or, at worst, capable of being used in either a positive or negative manner (i.e.: player). Think now of those same words used for women: slut, whore, skank, etc. etc. etc. These words have NO positive meaning. (Unless it is a woman using it in that "take back the word" kind of deal, which is clearly not the case in Achsariel's response). They are words that should simply be left out of our vocabulary & any sort of civilized discussion on sexism/patriarchal privilege, as it has no place there or anywhere.

Achsariel
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 02:24 AM

".... WHAT? Who are you to use the label "slut??" How dare you? A woman's sexual choices are her own business & certainly nothing on which you need to comment. Do not make generalizations about women whom you do not even know based on their appearence or tabloid bullshit. Please, take the words "slut" & "whore" & whatever other pejorative words you so ignorantly use OUT of your vocabulary & OUT of this forum."

Allow me to clarify further. The term also applies to men. For the same reasons. Now, would you be making this statement if my above definition of "slut" had been applied to men rather than women? Double-standards ahoy! Also, when I said "there's a lot of them, depending on who you are," I was talking about definitions, not sluts, just to clarify further. Frankly, if women don't want to be considered a certain way, or judged a certain way, then they shouldn't intentionally make themselves appear a certain way.

As I said, it depends on how you define the word. It's only pejorative if you decide to make it pejorative. I explained my definition in the post you quoted but maybe didn't read thoroughly, having been too caught up in your outrage that ANYONE would DARE assign ANYONE a label. Read it again please.

Achsariel
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 02:29 AM

"Also, women? Are not ever, ever objects. They are people. No matter how other people view them or how they view themselves. They're human beings. Saying that objectifying women in comics is fine because women are objects in real life? That's - not cool."

That's not what I said. That's not what anyone said.

Katherine Keller [redacted] (kadymae<at>sequentialtart.com)
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 02:37 AM

MEN ARE SEXUALIZED?

Next time Superman and Captain Marvel out and fight crime wearing a singlet or short shorts and a crop top, LET. ME. KNOW.

Incognito
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 02:40 AM

Post-Modern theories suck. I can't beleive i'm going to try and use it to explain stuff but....

Emma, my definition of slut is just as true as your definition. However just because you beleive my ideas on it are wrong, doesn't mean yours are right (although....the same applies to me). The english language is probably at one of its most confusing stages of development. 1 Million defined English words, but not 1 Million correctly defined words. Only because individuals connect their beleifs, influences and own interactions with the language. I beleive the word should be allowed in context of what has been said, but only once defined (which has been done so) for the individual use. Achsariel is not using the word 'slut' as a defined set of actions and labels that can be imposed, but using it as a derogatory term to amplify the fact that there are worse people for individuals to model.

If you can think of a better words that could be used, in place, to hold the individual meanings that Achsariel and myself have developed from 'slut' I'd gladly use it.

Achsariel
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 02:42 AM

"Next time Superman and Captain Marvel out and fight crime wearing a singlet or short shorts and a crop top, LET. ME. KNOW. "

Superman has been wearing a singlet his entire career, dearie.

Aside from that, those spandex suits leave little to the imagination. Aside from obscuring certain... vital details, they may as well be naked. Aside from that, they're all buff and handsome for the most part. I'd say they're pretty sexualized. I mean, hell, I'm a man, and I'm attracted to them.

Emma [redacted] (lastseptember<at>gmail.com)
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 02:47 AM

Okay. Let's take this step by step.

1. Don't you dare accuse me of a double standard. If you had used that word in application to men (which is a. hardly done & b. would still have negative FEMININE connotations) I *still* would have found it offensive. If a person wants to sleep with many people that's his or her business. It is not your place to insult or judge them based upon that fact.

2. Women do not exist to be judged by you. Don't mislead yourself. Yes, women are accountable for their actions, don't get me wrong. However, saying that if women don't want to be called sluts they shouldn't act like them IS RIDICULOUS.

3. Do not act so condescendingly. To paraphrase a quote from your own mouth - "if you don't want people to label you as patronizing, don't act in a patronizing manner." That said -- heck yes I am upset that you would label someone such an offensive term. IT IS WRONG. There is a societally accepted definition of the word "slut" which is offensive & sexist & it shouldn't be used. Period.

Emma [redacted] (lastseptember<at>gmail.com)
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 02:51 AM

Incognito: If you're *trying* to say that women should respect themselves & their bodies in the way they see fit, then go ahead & say that. Need something shorter? How about an acronym: WSRTATBITWTSF.

Yes, women need good role-models, but tearing down other women by commenting on their sexual behavior is counter-productive.

Cool? Let's move on.

doublestadardslol
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 03:03 AM

If you want sexist, try watching the cooking network. There is no reason a cooking show can't have a few car chases and explosions mixed in with the broad's stuff.

Carla [redacted] (seeksadventure<at>gmail.com)
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 03:05 AM

I'm not having much luck with posting a comment here. Apparently the program likes to eat them. Or set them on fire and toss the burning embers into the air, I'm not certain which.

Anyway, I will persevere.

B:

Why should women (not just girls, but adult women, women who have grown up with comics, women who love and hate them at the same time--it is possible to like something you also find problematic) have to stop reading comics? Why do you assume only women are upset by the portrayal of characters as sex objects first and competent superheroes second?

"Throwing a feminist temper-tantrum just convinces men that you cannot be engaged in rational conversation so they stop listening."

If they stop listening whenever a feminist expresses anger, why are they on a feminist site in the first place? Surely there is some interesting in feminist discourse, which means a little anger shouldn't make them leave.

Sciencegrey:

"So go ahead and hate male comics: your not a male, so you don't see the appeal in tities and ass. good for you. MEANWHILE, men do. We care about kicking ass, blowing shit up, and sex. that's our comic: if its got all those things, we're good."

Now hold on there just one second. I am not male, but I see the appeal in beautiful women (and beautiful men). However, I don't see an appeal in the sexualized presentation of their beauty over their strengths, nor do I enjoy the near fetish of the "damsel in distress" stereotype which so often appears even among superheroes where the male character has to rescue the female.

I also enjoy kicking ass, blowing shit up, and sex. And comics and feminism, obviously, since I'm here.

Why shouldn't I be able to enjoy the same comics too? Why should I have to either not read the stories I love just to avoid the sexism? Because I'm a woman, I'm "not a male" so I don't "see the appeal", so I just don't understand? Sexism in comics encourages sexism in comic book readers. Why should I be silenced, just because you don't agree?

Achsariel:

"Perhaps you just aren't looking beyond the sexualized image (the very thing you accuse we "sexists" of) to see the deeper aspects of the character, because believe me, they're just as prevailant in heroines as they are in heros."

But why is it that we have to look past the sexualized image in the first place? Why is that the immediate presentation of the character? Why aren't we having to look past the strengths and the attitudes and the abilities to find the sexual? Because the attitude that women in comics will be sexualized has also become the attitude that they should be, and if we don't like it, we should just ignore it or stop reading.

You say that women who read comics are exposed to better role models than they see on television; you also say the comic book industry has improved over the years and moved away from presenting women as sexualized objects.

While I think there is some truth in both those statements, I don't think it means we should give up the fight. Just because the role models are better doesn't mean they are good enough, and just because progress has been made doesn't mean we should stop trying to achieve more.

One of the reasons comics, and media, and the world, have changed is because people speak out against the things they find wrong with them. Once a step is made toward improvement, is that the time to stop encouraging and ranting and making your voice heard? No, that is the time to keep going, to keep trying to achieve your goals.

One of the best ways to change the world is by changing the media, which reaches so many people and in such ways the people don't even realized they have been reached. The sexism in the comic book industry is just one example of this; so many people either cannot or do not see it because the industry has made it seem normal. By speaking out against it, by airing her rage, Karen is making a stance, a stance which has been made in a variety of areas, a stance which is vital to continued change.

This is not the time to be complacent, to make excuses*, this is a time to keep the discussion moving forward, to keep pushing for better comics, better media, and through that, a better world.

Karen: You, woman, continue to spark discussion and argument and attention on the issues. Thank you.

* Does it make the situation better to blame it on the artists or the writers? Obviously, yes, they are partly to blame, but so is society because it has been allowed to become mainstream, because people make excuses for the sexism, in this case. "Oh, it's just that writer or that illustrator or that storyline", that doesn't cut it. We need change.

Achsariel
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 03:13 AM

" If a person wants to sleep with many people that's his or her business. It is not your place to insult or judge them based upon that fact."

I know that if a person wants to sleep with many people that's their buisness. I said that. I stated it explicitly. Ultimately what matters is why they do what they do. A woman who sleeps with a lot of men for fun and pleasure or whatever other reason is not a slut. A woman who sleeps with a lot of men for attention, money, and self-worth is what I consider to be a slut, especially if she does a lot of lying and decieving in the process. I think we can all agree that this is a bad thing. Also, I do not use the term slut as an insult. You misunderstand me. It's just a label. I use it in the place of a lengthy explaination, but in retrospact, perhaps I should have just given the explaination, as the word itself seems to have caused considerable trouble. Also, I'm free to judge whatever I want. So are you. We all are. Every single one of us makes judgments every day, and don't try to say you're any different. I'm not judging them based on their sexual behaviour. I'm judging them on their behaviour in general, their behaviour as human beings.

"Women do not exist to be judged by you. Don't mislead yourself. Yes, women are accountable for their actions, don't get me wrong. However, saying that if women don't want to be called sluts they shouldn't act like them IS RIDICULOUS."

On the contrary, everything exists to be judged by everyone. I'm not misleading myself, that's just a fact. I'm afraid I don't understand your logic. You're saying that women who act like sluts shouldn't be considered sluts? You're saying that people who purposely project a specific image shouldn't be considered a part of that image?

....what?

"That said -- heck yes I am upset that you would label someone such an offensive term. IT IS WRONG. There is a societally accepted definition of the word "slut" which is offensive & sexist & it shouldn't be used. Period."

So I shouldn't use labels on the people those labels apply to? Your logic fails me.

At any rate, we seem to have gotten off-topic, and I'm bored with debating about the various definitions and connotations of the word slut, a debate that is going nowhere fast. Hell, it's already gone nowhere, settled in, and built a house. We're supposed to be debating the state of women in comics, damnit.

And I say it's just fine.

maggie [redacted] (riss<at>sequentialtart.com)
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 03:25 AM

We're supposed to be debating the state of women in comics, damnit. And I say it's just fine.

And I say it's not. Dearie.

Seriously, though -- what would it hurt male readers if female characters in comics were less sexualized? Why is it that every time women express discontent with how superheroines are written, a bunch of guys have to jump up and declare that the status quo is doing justfinethankyou? I don't see how expressing a desire that women be written better instantly means the decline of comics in general. The two are not mutually exclusive.

If you think female characters are fine now, it obviously wouldn't affect you adversely if they were made *better*.

Achsariel
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 03:29 AM

"But why is it that we have to look past the sexualized image in the first place? Why is that the immediate presentation of the character? Why aren't we having to look past the strengths and the attitudes and the abilities to find the sexual? Because the attitude that women in comics will be sexualized has also become the attitude that they should be, and if we don't like it, we should just ignore it or stop reading."

Because you see things before you read them. You look at a comic book cover and they don't have a text-only synopsis of the story. They have a big picture of the main character(s). It has to be atleast attractive to look at or people won't be inclined to buy it, and I don't see what's wrong with that. You see the sex appeal before you see the other stuff because sex appeal is visial. It's what draws you in. If I see a comic book with a girl on the cover who just looks... there, nothing really special about her that grabs your attention, she's pretty, but she doesn't stand out, chances are I'm not going to be interested enough to buy it. That comic could have a great and amazing story to it, with deep and powerful characters that move you. But no one will get to experience that if they don't make the comic stand out enough to be interesting. Men should see a girl on a comic book cover and think, "Wow, she's gorgeous." They should see a guy on a comic book cover and think, "I wish I could be more like him." And with women it should be vice versa. At the very least, the covers and the image of the character in general needs to be interesting enough to catch the eye (hence the need for flash costumes). Granted, there are other ways to do this with both male and female characters, but the artists and writers and producers are focused on making money, and sex appeal is the quickest and easiest route. I'd like to see them try other stuff just as much as you, and I enjoy it when they do, but frankly, I'm not passionate enough about it to demand it. As I and others have said, men are just as sexualized in comics as women are, but just like men, I can name exceptions.

I don't support the attitude that women in comics MUST be sexualized, and I definately don't support the idea that they should get used to it or quit reading. All I'm saying is that I don't find too much wrong with the way they're presented now. They represent an ideal. They represent what real people wish they could aspire to be. I don't see too much wrong with that.

"* Does it make the situation better to blame it on the artists or the writers? Obviously, yes, they are partly to blame, but so is society because it has been allowed to become mainstream, because people make excuses for the sexism, in this case. "Oh, it's just that writer or that illustrator or that storyline", that doesn't cut it. We need change."

My original point in citing the writer as the problem is that I was discussing a single isolated incident. If there's a trend, I don't see it. I don't see this sexism everyone's talking about. Do I see women portrayed in unrealistic ways? Yes. I also see men portrayed in unrealistic ways. The definition of sexism is to make unfair distinctions between the two sexes, and I don't see any.

By the way, thanks for helping get the topic back on track.

dafnap [redacted] (dafnap<at>gmail.com)
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 03:29 AM

Why is it that those that disagree with the content of the article basically say: "Stop complaining." or "Stop ruining it for the rest of us."

Maybe I'm wrong about the nature of the internet, but HOW ARE YOU READING THIS IF YOU AREN'T ACTIVELY SEARCHING IT OUT? And! Even if you disagree with the contents of the article, HOW is it in anyway changing the way you read comics?

This column isn't being printed and placed between the pages of your comics, this column isn't being shoved in your face the moment you step into a comic store. You are reading it, knowing FULL well what it's going to say -if the title "Girls Read Comics (And They're Pissed)" isn't a tip-off, I don't know what is.

So, knowing that a) you are actively seeking out content that cheeses you and b) proceed to comment complaining about women complaining where they aren't wanted c) proceed to throw a temper tantrum the equivalent of "shut up shut up SHUT UP"

Are you four? I mean, really?

As for the "men are equally objectified as women" schtick, it's getting kind of old, yo. I think someone already mentioned it in the comics, but you don't see men enter battle cock-first, and you don't see injured or dead male heroes having their cod-pieces lovingly detailed and displayed for all to see amidst the blood and carnage. I wish, oh how I wish! But no go.

Achsariel
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 03:34 AM

"Seriously, though -- what would it hurt male readers if female characters in comics were less sexualized? If you think female characters are fine now, it obviously wouldn't affect you adversely if they were made *better*."

No, it wouldn't hurt them at all, me least of all. I like to see women moving up in the world from the second-class status they had for so many years. But I don't understand what's wrong with sexualized characters. Most characters of both sexes in all forms of popular media are sexualized. Not just comics, but books, t.v., movies, video games, ect., and when they AREN'T portrayed as unrealistic ideals, it's a good breath of fresh air, but I don't see it as some great injustice that must be righted. Sexualized characters can get tiring and boring, but I don't see why they're offensive. I don't understand why less-sexualized characters would be better. Explain it for me?

Achsariel
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 03:46 AM

" Why is it that those that disagree with the content of the article basically say: "Stop complaining." or "Stop ruining it for the rest of us.""

I never said or implied anything of the sort. I'm sorry if you see it that way.

"So, knowing that a) you are actively seeking out content that cheeses you and b) proceed to comment complaining about women complaining where they aren't wanted c) proceed to throw a temper tantrum the equivalent of "shut up shut up SHUT UP" "

a) I'm not cheesed. Look back through my comments and you will find no anger. I'll admit that I was a little irritated at times due to failure of communication, but I've tried my best to be civil and polite. I think that, for the most part, I have succeeded.

b) I'm not complaining, I'm just asking questions. I'm conversing and debating on a subject I'm interested in. Further, I've accused no one of complaining about anything.

c) See "a)"
"As for the "men are equally objectified as women" schtick, it's getting kind of old, yo. I think someone already mentioned it in the comics, but you don't see men enter battle cock-first, and you don't see injured or dead male heroes having their cod-pieces lovingly detailed and displayed for all to see amidst the blood and carnage. I wish, oh how I wish! But no go."

Oh, but they are! They most certainly are. Perhaps not so much in comics as in other forms of media, but elsewhere you will quite frequently see men enter battle cock-first and with their cod-pieces lovingly displayed.

Troy, anyone?

maggie
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 03:49 AM

Sexualized characters can get tiring and boring, but I don't see why they're offensive. I don't understand why less-sexualized characters would be better. Explain it for me?

Well, you pretty much said it yourself -- less-sexualized characters would be better because they're not as tired and boring. *g*

And at the risk of abstracting the issue, I'd hazard to say that you don't see the offensiveness/injustice of the objectification of female characters because you don't have to deal with the way it's reflected in real life. I'm a woman and I *do* have to deal with that, whether it's unwanted advances or pressure to look and act a certain way. I understand that men feel that pressure as well, but it's not at the same pervasive and all-affecting level that women have to go through.

So it would be nice if (in a forum that prides itself on tales about how mutants and humans can get along and how freaky-looking aliens can be compassionate and heroic), the women in those universes could also be extended some of that acceptance instead of being fetishized to the point of ridiculousness. Men don't have to look too far in popular media to find a representation of themselves that's sympathetic, no matter how old or fat or plain they are. It just ain't the same for women.

And oh Lord, don't even get me *started* on what it's like to try to find good characters who are also women of colour in pop culture--!

dafnap [redacted] (dafnap<at>gmail.com)
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 04:02 AM

re: Achsariel

I wasn't really talking about you, but more about the general tone of many other posters, for example:

"So do us a favor: stop complaining. We don't give half a shit. wanna see new standard: make your own damn comic, and see how well it sells."

or

"Throwing a feminist temper-tantrum just convinces men that you cannot be engaged in rational conversation so they stop listening. If you aren't going to be polite then that renders debate and discussion impossible."

(which, really, makes no sense, because there is not other forum for discussion of this topic. Where is this debate/discussion going on currently but here? Were the directions given at the No Girlz Allowed Secret Clubhouse and we just weren't invited?)

Katherine [redacted] (kadymae<at>sequentialtart.com)
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 04:18 AM

Superman does not wear a singlet.

The men in these pictures are wearing singlets.

http://www.collegewrestling.iptv.org/mo ... rchive.cfm

A singlet is a sleevless, shortlegged garment.

----

Why is it that almost all male characters get costumes that cover them from collar bone to toe tips but women typically end up with not enough clothing to pad a crutch?

If the skin tightness is the critera for being "sexual" and "revealing" then why aren't women typically dressed as men are, or vice versa?

Why does the woman on the team (with VERY rare) exception have the skimpiest costume.

Spex [redacted] (sefkejoosten06<at>hotmail.com)
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 04:48 AM

"Er, no. Considering how normal it is in comics to have pug fugly guys presented as mega sex-symbols who have supermodel-looking bedmates at every turn (short hairy bruiser who's 'the best there is at what he does', anyone?), you'd have to introduce a hella lot of more realistically-portrayed women to even come anywhere close to that level of out-and-out unattractiveness.

Besides, I like looking at beautiful things. I don't think women dislike seeing beautiful women in comics; that's a silly thing to say and oversimplifies the entire issue. The point is that there should be wider representation of women in comics, so perhaps it would be more likely that female characters' worth would be evaluated according to their actions and not be based so disproportionately on how good they look in bikinis and how many men want to fuck them at any given moment.

I mean, words like 'sexy' and 'hot' and 'beautiful' are mainstays in any basic character description of the majority of female characters (Catwoman, Wonder Woman, She-Hulk, whoever). But I can't remember ever reading a character writeup of Batman or Green Lantern that included how sexy or handsome they were, and that's pretty much a summation of the imbalance in how comic book characters are portrayed."

What? I can think of maybe four superheroes that most people would classify as fugly. Deadpool, Agent X, Wolverine and Guy Gardner.

Batman? Billionaire playboy. Batman is extremely, extremely handsome. He is also totally built, like Superman, who isn't too bad in the looks departement either. Then there's Wally West, a handsome guy, oh, and Hal Jordan and Kyle Rayner are very attractive men. Oh, and there's Apollo, Wildstorm's gay Superman pastiche, and Midnighter, his husband. And there's Mr. Majestic, Barry Allen (the second Flash), Alan Scott (the first Green Lantern and, though older, still quite good-looking). Oh, and there's all three male Robins, the Question, Captain Marvel is pretty damned high up on the list of good-looking superheroes, as is Captain Marvel Junior. Pretty sure that Adam Strange is good-looking, oh, and Doctor Stepehen Strange is quite handsome. Nick Fury's got that whole James Bond thing going on. Oh, and Captain America is a physically perfect human. That includes the way his face looks. Tony Stark is another billionaire playboy.

Cyclops is pretty popular with the ladies. Probably because he is very handsome. As is Colossus. Oh, and Captain Britain, Astro City's Samaritan, John Stewart is also pretty good-looking. The new Spectre, Crispus Allen is handsome. The Phantom Stranger is handsome. Frank Castle, despite his age, is also pretty good-looking. There's Speedball, believe it or not. Oh! And how could I possibly forget Thor, Ant-Man, GREEN ARROW (another billionaire PLAYBOY), Warlord, Superboy. Cyborg is pretty good-looking, despite half of his face being metal. Captain Atom is handsome, despite being covered COMPELTELY in metal. Oh! There's another metal guy: The Silver Surfer! There's Hulkling and Wiccan and Black Bolt.

JOHNNY STORM! JOHN CONSTANTINE!

I don't think you should participate in this discussion any further, because you clearly know nothing about the way comic book characters look.

And women aren't always described as "Hot! Sexy!" in comics. That's only the dumb comics, like Tarot or fucking Fathom. You have to ignore those, so they go away. DC and Marvel Comics have both been increasing the amount of well-written, normal women. They are stepping away from women as lust objects. Hell, they've been doing that for a long time. Almost every single time it happens now is for humorous purposes, and if you can't take a joke, well, cry me a river, build a bridge and get over it already.

The objectification of women has been disappearing from comics for a long time. That's why I said that Karen was overreacting slightly. Sure, there's room for improvement, but there's ALWAYS room for improvement.

And if you start again about how there are so many fugly men in comics, you have to be nuts. You're either blind, or gay. The first one would be rather strange, and the second one is fine, but it hardly makes you qualified to judge how attractive a man would be.

And in response to the slighty deranged person who took offense to someone calling Nicole Ritchie a slut because it was not their place to judge, Great Cthulhu in R'lyeh, shut up already. Sleeping with whoever you can find just because you feel like it is not something to be encouraged for both men and women. Being slutty is not a good thing. And being slutty is pretty much sleeping with a lot of people just because you feel like it. It's just so...

...so incredibly demeaning to the partner. No-one gains anything from it, not emotionally or intellectually. It's just unecessary and showing a complete lack of estraint and an incredible arrogance. "I can have sex whenever I want! So I do!" Besides, who are you to judge those that judge? This is a two-way street, ma'm.

/b/
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 04:51 AM

Why does the woman on the team (with VERY rare) exception have the skimpiest costume.

Because men write and draw comics and men read comics and men don't like seeing nearly naked men but they do like seeing nearly naked females? Bad news for whinny feminists, that's not going to ever change until women read more comics than guys. Go into your local comic book store and ask how many comics they sell to guys vs girls. That ratio is why heroines will be hot and guys will not be naked. If you don't like it tough, thank the founding fathers for freedom of speech and the press.

Spex [redacted] (sefkejoosten06<at>hotmail.com)
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 04:53 AM

And there's PLENTY of women who wear practical clothing. I mentioned several. Stargirl, Hawkgirl, Donna Troy when she was in space, Batgirl, the Linda Danvers supergirl, Spoiler both as Spoiler and Robin, Catwoman, Ravager II. And there's more on the way, constantly. Superheroines' wardrobes are expanding, not with more articles of clothing, but their costumes are gaining cloth.

Yes, they're tight fits, but that's because they need to be able to MOVE. They need to not get caught on stuff. And the men's costumes are form-fitting, too.

maggie
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 05:15 AM

I don't think you should participate in this discussion any further, because you clearly know nothing about the way comic book characters look.

Wow! You sure told me. And in such a non-asinine way!

My point -- if you can calm down from your hysteria enough to read it -- is that there are ugly guys in comics who are presented as hotties. THERE IS NO FEMALE EQUIVALENT. Even fucking Destiny had the body of a twenty-one year old and kept her old face *covered with a mask*.

Yes, Bruce Wayne and Tony Stark the millionaire playboys are canonically handsome. But nobody describes BATMAN or IRON MAN up-front as being hot, do they? It's just not as important as their detective skills & martial arts training and whatnot. Whereas if you're talking, say, Storm, the first thing that's said is "beautiful African goddess". If you think that's just for crappy comics, you're just not noticing it.

Almost every single time it happens now is for humorous purposes

Right, like when Frank Miller objectifies women. That's just *full* of yuks, isn't it? How could I have overlooked Frank Miller's deft touch with comedy?!?

You're either blind, or gay. The first one would be rather strange, and the second one is fine, but it hardly makes you qualified to judge how attractive a man would be.

This is so ludicrous I can't believe you were actually conscious when you wrote it. If I'm gay, I have no idea what an attractive man is? So basically, your long list of all the handsome men in comics is TOTALLY NEGATED because you are (presumably) a straight male?

Also, SPEEDBALL? You've got to be fucking kidding me. He's not hideous, but look at the girls in the New Warriors; Firestorm and Namorita are hardly equivalents to *Speedball*. He is not held to the same standards of attractiveness that they are.

And yeah, Constantine's hot, but also appearing in the pages of Hellblazer was John's fat drunk mate Brendan (who was dating KIT, for fucksake). Cassidy the vampire pulled a lot of hot girls despite looking exactly like the rough-drinking ages-old undead guy he is.

Look, we can trade examples all day. The point is that the representation is NOT EQUAL. Everybody in comics is drawn with exaggerated perfection, but the men are not defined by their proportions or sexual availability. Artists render the characters as attractive, but I highly doubt that for the men it's an inalienable *character trait*.

dafnap [redacted] (dafnap<at>gmail.com)
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 05:18 AM

Spex:

"What? I can think of maybe four superheroes that most people would classify as fugly. Deadpool, Agent X, Wolverine and Guy Gardner."

So, um, name girl heroes that are considered ugly?

Amanda Waller and....?

Right. Thought so.

Also, Wolverine's on that list? Ok!

"...and the second one is fine, but it hardly makes you qualified to judge how attractive a man would be."

Well, that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, especially following your extensive rant about how many attractive men are in comics. Gay women can't pass judgement on the attractiveness of men, but straight men can? You're logic is completely self-defeating.

Also, where is this insistence that because we complain about women being sexually objectified, it automatically means the men in comics *aren't* sexually attractive? No one is saying that, and yet the same rebuttal is being trotted out again and again, because that is not. the. issue. The issue is the power differential between the two instances, where male characters are attractive because that's who the writer's feel the readers want to BE; while female characters are attractive because that's who the writer's feel the readers want to touch themselves too. More often than not (and there are exceptions, there are always are, no one is making blanket statements except for you) this leaves the female character to be nothing more than a two dimensional cut-out, completely interchangeable for another pair of breasts and legs. It's cheap story telling and ultimately insulting to the reader.

/b/
"Go into your local comic book store and ask how many comics they sell to guys vs girls."

Oh, that's adorable!

I think Heykidzcandy really sort of spells out your problem http://counterpunch.girl-wonder.org/candybarmaker.htmlhere.

It's exactly that reason why comics, as a medium, will fail, if only because being dead-set against 50 percent of the spending population is a stupid, fiscally idiotic thing to do.

dafnap [redacted] (dafnap<at>gmail.com)
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 05:21 AM

Gah, Maggie, I think I love you.

**

Just to clarify for a moment, Amanda Waller isn't really a hero, she was introduced first as a villian, and is now grudgingly on the side of good.

If we're just talking unattractive female super heroes, Maggie is right -there aren't any.

So. Um. There's that.

Jess [redacted] (poisonivory<at>gmail.com)
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 05:21 AM

Just to get it out of the way:

slut (n)
1. a slovenly woman
2. an immoral woman; a prostitute

(The Oxford American Dictionary)

That's what it means, not whatever you decide it means. Just because I say a slut is a rare breed of iguana doesn't make it true. It means a dirty, immoral prostitute. And using that term on anyone is insulting. (Also, note how it says "woman" in the definition. The term is not equally applicable to men, so stop trying to use that argument, please.)

"Superman has been wearing a singlet his entire career, dearie."

If you don't want to be viewed as patronizing, I would avoid diminuitive, inappropriate pet names. Just a thought.

"Frankly, if women don't want to be considered a certain way, or judged a certain way, then they shouldn't intentionally make themselves appear a certain way."

It doesn't matter what a woman wears. If she does not perform sexual favors for money, she is not a prostitute, and therefore not a slut. She can walk down the street in a see-through string bikini if she so chooses. She is still not a slut.

I'd also like to point out that your argument is alarmingly close to "If a woman dresses a certain way, she's asking to be raped." I am certainly not saying that you said or believe such a thing, but the logic of your statement, when taken to its logical conclusion, ends with "she deserved it/was asking for it."

Jess [redacted] (poisonivory<at>gmail.com)
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 05:35 AM

Spex, it's interesting that you mention Guy Gardner. I was just thinking how sensitive and politically correct you make him look. (Also, not fugly. But whatever.)

It's getting rather tiresome to point this out for the umpteenth time, but you might find the Talking Points and Totally Appropriate Covers over at Counterpunch illuminating.

/b/
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 05:42 AM

It's exactly that reason why comics, as a medium, will fail, if only because being dead-set against 50 percent of the spending population is a stupid, fiscally idiotic thing to do.

Or maybe trying to appeal to people who will never buy the comics anyway while alienating their current fan base is fucking retarded. Comics have been around since before WW2, and they seem to still be doing fine without women buyers. Your arguement that they should change their business to suit people who are not interested in their product is idiotic. It's the equivilent of me demanding dress makers produce dresses men would like because some men are cross-dressers. Girls who read comics are a tiny fringe group and there is no reason to attempt to appease them. The type of crap women like in comics is already produced by Japan and has a female fan base, and to be perfectly honest I don't want DC and Marvel to start making their comics anything like that. So stop your bitching and just be glad we don't take away your right to vote.

dafnap [redacted] (dafnap<at>gmail.com)
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 05:51 AM

"So stop your bitching and just be glad we don't take away your right to vote."

I think, at this point, you've more than proven yourself incapable of participating in any sort of civil discourse. At this point, the only value I find in your responses are "at least he can spell". Congratulations, you are not a moronic little boy who don't want girls in his club house because of cooties. You're a grown man.

I don't know which is sadder, really.

sarah [redacted] (sbrumlik<at>mcad.edu)
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 06:12 AM

Wow, I just read this, and it's so true.

As an aspiring female comic artist, I've found it exceedingly difficult to be taken seriously. When I wear any kind of superhero paraphanalia (I love Batman and have many articles of clothing related to him), I'm often asked if I'm a fan or if I'm just wearing it for fun - a guy would never be asked that.

Also, I've found when going to conventions to show my work or trying to give a serious critique in my comic art class, my opinion is often ignored in favor of the fact that I have boobs and happen not to detest comics. I've been offered comic books at store and cons in exchange for things like *hugs* because I was the only teenaged girl for miles, but they didn't give a rat's ass when I tried to discuss comics seriously or pulled out my portfolio.

And Frank Miller sucks. I hate what he's done in terms of objectifying women, and I absolutely loathe him for what he did in Batman All Stars, and I want to smack the obnoxiously talented Jim Lee for making such beautiful artwork for that big steaming pile of shit.

Grr.

tdj
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 06:38 AM

Conversation about the depiction of women in comics quickly tend to get bogged down in physical appearance and costuming, which is a valid point, but probably not the most interesting to me. I don't think many people are strongly against attractive or even idealized women in comics, as long as the ideal isn't merely sexual. If I grant that an idealized superheroine is a woman with everything going for her (including a desirable body), why do we see so little of the rest of the everything? Either the idealization is genuine on the part of the creator but sexually juvenile, or incomplete as expressed on the page.

I'm a big fan of sexy, but merely sexy is kind boring - and if a fictional woman is shown to be sexy (but little else) and is supposed to be the apex of her gender, that's legitimately off-putting.

To riff on the discussion of male idealization above, check out pulp fiction from the 1920s to the 1940s. The male characters are heavily idealized - they're tough. Boy, are they tough. They're so tough, they ain't much of anything else, which makes them interchangeable with one another and boring as hell. If I turned comics on its head and had, say, lots of books where the men and women were equally attractive but the women were written like they are in Birds of Prey but the men were written like a lobotomized Mike Hammer, I'd be fed up with them too.

(Before someone accuses me of hyperbole - no, I'm not suggesting that modern comics are as bad as all that. But they could be a lot better.)

Emma [redacted] (lastseptember<at>gmail.com)
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 06:43 AM

"And in response to the slighty deranged person who took offense to someone calling Nicole Ritchie a slut because it was not their place to judge, Great Cthulhu in R'lyeh, shut up already. Sleeping with whoever you can find just because you feel like it is not something to be encouraged for both men and women. Being slutty is not a good thing. And being slutty is pretty much sleeping with a lot of people just because you feel like it. It's just so...

...so incredibly demeaning to the partner. No-one gains anything from it, not emotionally or intellectually. It's just unecessary and showing a complete lack of estraint and an incredible arrogance. "I can have sex whenever I want! So I do!" Besides, who are you to judge those that judge? This is a two-way street, ma'm."

AHAHA OH GOD THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR CLEARING THAT UP & PUTTING ME BACK IN MY PLACE! I am just so SILLY! I'm going to go back to the kitchen where I belong & stop whining already.

Anyway, thanks Jess for backing me up. Clearly we're deranged together & should obviously be locked up.

Todd [redacted] (todd.zehner<at>gmail.com)
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 07:04 AM

"Those are all realistic situations though."

At the risk of coming late to the party -

oh, fuck YOU and your little dog too.

Just because the situation is realistic, does not mean its inclusion in any way redeems treating anyone in the story as merely a plot device.

Achsariel
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 07:48 AM

.....crap. I just make a huge enormous gigantic response and when I went to post it, I got some lame error, and the post was lost. That's the second time. I guess that's what I get for not typing the response up in a seperate window.

Bah, I'll re-write it up later.

Aquasol [redacted] (aquahds<at>gmail.com)
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 07:57 AM

Ach:
"I don't understand why less-sexualized characters would be better. Explain it for me?"

Because if all we saw in fantasy were grey blobs with a massive case of sexual ambiguity, there'd be no sexism! Kids need realism in their fantasy. Maybe the female lead character wears a turtleneck to further obscure her unfortunately large milk delivery vessels, or maybe the pudgy male character wears nothing but pleather!

The instant we say "Men aren't sexualized" is the instant we forget that humans aren't too far apart from each other. Both genders are represented differently. Men tend to be portrayed as violent, cock-thinking stone slabs. Women? Primarily visually, although many are still just form-swapped clones of already established male heroes.

And only men will ever look at women and find them attractive-- because none of us know any women that watch porn intended for straight males and enjoy it.

And now for a more straightforward and serious point: If we keep screaming out that only one side is unfairly represented without trying to see the others' viewpoints, then the truth of natural balance design is a lost thing. Why only clamor for more realistic portrayals of women? Why not everyone?

The creators shouldn't be able to make what they want-- is that is what is desired? Peace and balance is a wonderful thing, but when political correctness makes it so individuality dies and all must step without intent of moving anywhere for fear of insulting someone, it brings more chaos than 50 wars ran right next to each other.

But then, what do I know? I'm a child who is not allowed to think and perceive away from the group my age, gender, and preferences glue me to.

Aquasol [redacted] (aquahds<at>gmail.com)
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 08:03 AM

"AHAHA OH GOD THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR CLEARING THAT UP & PUTTING ME BACK IN MY PLACE! I am just so SILLY! I'm going to go back to the kitchen where I belong & stop whining already."

I think you quoted the wrong person, as they merely said it runs both ways.

Unless you seriously believe you're entitled to be superfluous to the truth of things. You will never be satisfied so long as you do not recognize that there will always be oppression and fail to note that you who judge others open yourself to receive judgement. It all started somewhere, and there is no innocence.

Achsariel [redacted] (Achsariel<at>gmail.com)
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 08:19 AM

"I'd hazard to say that you don't see the offensiveness/injustice of the objectification of female characters because you don't have to deal with the way it's reflected in real life. I'm a woman and I *do* have to deal with that, whether it's unwanted advances or pressure to look and act a certain way. I understand that men feel that pressure as well, but it's not at the same pervasive and all-affecting level that women have to go through."

So you admit that men are also under pressure from society, but you believe that women have it worse? We'll that's a matter of opinion, and one I would contend. You think it doesn't affect my self-esteem when I see girls gawk and drool over some actor or body-builder? You think I don't feel pressure to fit society's ideal when I hear women talk about how such and such actor is sooooooooooooooooooo fine? I would say that guys have it just as bad as women when it comes to society's portrayal of the sexes. But getting back to comics, I don't mind this kind of idealism in comics. Comics are meant to present an ideal. You're supposed to see a character in a comic and think, "I want to be like that too." It probobly helps that I don't see girls gawking at comic book guys as often as I see them doing it over tv and movies, but when you consider all forms of media, I think the pressure is about the same, and I think it's a common misconception that women have it worse than men. Granted, this pressure manifests itself in different ways, and most guys won't admit that the pressure is there because they're too proud, but believe me, it's definately there.

"The men in these pictures are wearing singlets."

Bleh. Singlet, skintight body suit, close enough. :p

"If the skin tightness is the critera for being "sexual" and "revealing" then why aren't women typically dressed as men are, or vice versa?"

Well, my mind sees skin-tight and skin as pretty much the same thing, but that's just me. Anyway, I think that the reason women's costumes differ so greatly from men's is the same reason women can wear skits and men can't. It's what's become accepted. Just like when women started wearing pants. I think it's something that'll go away as time passes.

"Why does the woman on the team (with VERY rare) exception have the skimpiest costume. "

The very rare exception? What? What about Storm, Rouge, The Invisible Woman, The Scarlet Witch, Vindicator, Snowbird, and the many, many more I could name? None of them have skimpy outfits. Yes, their outfits are extremely tight, but no more so than those of the male members. I don't see what you mean by very rare exception.

" Just to get it out of the way:

slut (n)
1. a slovenly woman
2. an immoral woman; a prostitute

(The Oxford American Dictionary)"

Ha! I counter your definition with a definition of my own!

Slut n.

1. A careless, dirty, slovenly woman
2. A sexually promiscuous woman.

So you see, the term is not limited strictly to prostitutes, but I think you knew that. It's beside the point anyway. The point is that it's a word used by a lot of different people to a lot of different ends. As such, the dictionary is pretty much useless in defining it. It has different meanings to different people, just like a number of derogatory statements. I already clarified what it means to me.

"If you don't want to be viewed as patronizing, I would avoid diminuitive, inappropriate pet names. Just a thought."

I was just trying to keep things from getting all strait-faced and dead-serious by being friendly. Sorry if you saw it as diminuitive. Not what I was going for at all.

"It doesn't matter what a woman wears. If she does not perform sexual favors for money, she is not a prostitute, and therefore not a slut. She can walk down the street in a see-through string bikini if she so chooses. She is still not a slut. "

I already refuted this with the above definition, but I'll elaborate further anyway. The word slut is a label. Whether or not a girl is labeled a slut depends on whose doing the labeling. Now, for me personally, no, it doesn't really matter what she wears. A woman can walk down the street in a see-through string bikini and not be a slut. I agree with that. Because to me, it's not just image. It's your attitude and how you act. That's what tells me whether a girl is a slut or not, because I base my judgements on actions.

"I am certainly not saying that you said or believe such a thing, but the logic of your statement, when taken to its logical conclusion, ends with "she deserved it/was asking for it.""

Well, really, if a girl acts like a slut, I think it's fair for people to consider her a slut. What if I run around town acting like I'm insane and think that I'm being chased by giant sea-cucumbers that have magically grown legs and moved on to land so as to establish their dominion over humankind and enslave us forever? If I act like I'm insane, people will think I'm insane and call me insane. If I run around acting like a lecher, people are going to think I'm a lecher and call me a lecher. I don't understand the connection between this and men that say a woman "was asking to be raped." Those men have a serious problem and are trying to justify their crime with ridiculous excuses. What I'm saying is that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and smells lik a duck, well, what is it?

Anyway, I've already expressed my desire to move away from this part of the argument because it's very subjective, and is distracting us from the main issue. Besides, I don't think it's going anywhere. I now wish I'd never responded to the sentence which got this going, because this line of conversation is just kinda getting in the way for me. If you want to continue the discussion, feel free to email me.

"Just because the situation is realistic, does not mean its inclusion in any way redeems treating anyone in the story as merely a plot device."

Authors have been using people as plot devices for centuries. Not just women, everyone. Yes, it's poor writing, but I don't see what's wrong with it other than being poor writing.

vivian [redacted] (vivianw<at>rice.edu)
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 08:53 AM

"Bleh. Singlet, skintight body suit, close enough. :p"

I'm sure this seems like a minor, throwaway comment to you, but it makes very clear the way you're exercising your privilege here. You get to redefine words to mean what you want them to mean--if we say, no, the exposed skin makes a significant difference, that doesn't matter to you because it's not what *you* think is important. Anything that we see that doesn't bother you is labeled minor, unimportant, or just plain not there. Same with the word 'slut'--your opinion on what you mean when you say it becomes more 'real' than what we hear. Perfect textbook exercise of male privilege. Not that I expect you to acknowledge any such thing; I'm just posting this for other, less arrogant people to read.

Also? If you're arguing with women about feminism and whether your position is misogynist or not, it's flat-out disingenuous to pretend you don't know the effect of calling someone 'dearie.' It's the verbal equivalent of pinching a woman's ass when she's trying to lead a business meeting. Would you argue with a black man about racism and call him 'boy'? And then tell him that his perception of the word is less valid than yours? You don't get to decide. Your intent does not trump our lived experience--which of course goes back to the issue of comic books(and not just the illustrations--that's just what the terrified knee-jerk protests always focus on). You don't get to tell women what they should and should not be offended by.

Achsariel
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 09:02 AM

I already stated my position on the usage of words and their meanings. I already cleary defined what they meant to me, and what my intent was in using them. I already said that meant no harm in any of the cases, nor did I mean to offend or insult anyone. I don't understand how calling someone, "dearie" is offensive, but since people were offended by it, I have appologised and withdrawn it.

I already apologised for any misunderstandings resulting from this. I -apologised- for the miscommunication. What more do you want?

Paige Eryn str0 = ('document.write('('+str0+') (eryn.rynia<at>gmail.com)
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 09:04 AM

Completely seperate from the debate going around here, I just thought I'd throw this little tidbit in: I've been trying to spread word of this website around my campus comic geeks for the past few weeks, and people are showing a lot of interest - ESPECIALLY the men. Out of most of the guys I talk to - roughly ages 18-24 - one thing that a lot of them want to change is the costuming and the overt visual sexualization. A friend of mine told me in our discussion that he's sick of feeling guilty for reading comics around his mom - she keeps asking him if they're some kind of porn.

So, hey, average guys, down here in the middle of nowhere (Lafayette, Louisiana, USA) are taking notice. "The customers want it," eh?

Jess [redacted] (poisonivory<at>gmail.com)
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 09:11 AM

"The instant we say 'Men aren't sexualized' is the instant we forget that humans aren't too far apart from each other."

No one is saying that men aren't sexualized. Please actually take the time to read the words.

"The creators shouldn't be able to make what they want-- is that is what is desired? Peace and balance is a wonderful thing, but when political correctness makes it so individuality dies and all must step without intent of moving anywhere for fear of insulting someone, it brings more chaos than 50 wars ran right next to each other."

Yep! Good job! Elimination of rampant and offensive sexism will lead to more chaos than 50 wars! Goddammit, why did we ever leave the kitchen? At least there it was *safe*.

"Unless you seriously believe you're entitled to be superfluous to the truth of things. You will never be satisfied so long as you do not recognize that there will always be oppression and fail to note that you who judge others open yourself to receive judgement. It all started somewhere, and there is no innocence."

That's very cosmic. Since there will always be oppression, we shouldn't waste our time fighting it! Boy, have *we* been wasting our time.

Also, that's not what "superfluous" means.

"So you admit that men are also under pressure from society, but you believe that women have it worse? We'll that's a matter of opinion, and one I would contend. You think it doesn't affect my self-esteem when I see girls gawk and drool over some actor or body-builder? You think I don't feel pressure to fit society's ideal when I hear women talk about how such and such actor is sooooooooooooooooooo fine? I would say that guys have it just as bad as women when it comes to society's portrayal of the sexes."

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Hoo boy. I needed that.

Look. Women are frequently told that their only worth is in physical attractiveness and being a sexual object. Men are rarely if ever told the same thing. If you really don't think there's a huge disparity between the pressures society puts on men and women, I'm not sure how to make it clear to you.

It is not the same. This is not subjective. It is a fact. End of story.

(You really see girls drool over bodybuilders?)

"The point is that it's a word used by a lot of different people to a lot of different ends. As such, the dictionary is pretty much useless in defining it. It has different meanings to different people, just like a number of derogatory statements. I already clarified what it means to me."

Give me a dozen different dictionaries and I'll give you a dozen different definitions for any given word. But they don't vary all that much. Your complex definition of slut with its dependence on a woman's sense of self-worth doesn't *fit*, and if you need to explain what you mean by it in a lengthy paragraph it doesn't *work*.

"I was just trying to keep things from getting all strait-faced and dead-serious by being friendly. Sorry if you saw it as diminuitive. Not what I was going for at all."

I understand what you were going for and I appreciate your apology. Thank you. Just for future reference, though, calling a woman who is not related to you or in a relationship with you (or maaaaybe a very close friend) "dearie," "sweetie," "honey," or anything along those lines is probably going to be seen as overly familiar and patronizing.

"Well, really, if a girl acts like a slut, I think it's fair for people to consider her a slut. What if I run around town acting like I'm insane and think that I'm being chased by giant sea-cucumbers that have magically grown legs and moved on to land so as to establish their dominion over humankind and enslave us forever? If I act like I'm insane, people will think I'm insane and call me insane. If I run around acting like a lecher, people are going to think I'm a lecher and call me a lecher."

Aside from the ridiculousness of the comparisons here, I think the salient point is that society does not react in the same way to these things. Acting crazy will certainly make people think you're crazy, but it's something you do deliberately. I don't know any woman who wakes up and says "Hmm, I think I'll act like a slut today."

Furthermore - and thank you for this example, because it really goes to the heart of the matter - a promiscuous man is not going to be called a lecher by anyone except maybe old ladies. He's going to be called a stud. His behavior will be accepted and applauded. If a woman acts the same way she will be labeled a slut, which I think we both agree is derogatory, even if we disagree on exactly how derogatory it is. It's the same in comics. The Huntress sleeps with three men that I can think of off the top of my head, and she's called a slut. Hal Jordan has countless notches on his bedpost and he's a stud. I really hope you can see that there is a big difference here.

"Authors have been using people as plot devices for centuries."

In what way is that a valid excuse? Many bad things have been happening for centuries. That doesn't make it okay.

Katherine str0 = ('document.write('('+str0+') (kadymae at sequentiatlart.com)
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 09:18 AM

WHAT CALLS FOR CENSORSHIP?!

Who in this thread has called for censorship?

I don't like anything that my fellow card wielding member of the CBLDF, Frank Miller, has created recently.

I don't dispute his right to create it nor do I dispute DC or Dark Horse's right to publish it.

However, I equally reserve my right to say "This is shit and it stinketh."

Same with the sexism I see in a lot of media.

"I don't like it" != "I think it's publication should be prevented / forcibly stopped."

vivian [redacted] (vivianw<at>rice.edu)
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 09:18 AM

see, here's the thing you're still not getting. No matter how much you explain and qualify and go on, you're still saying that what you intend to communicate--and what comics, illustrations and text, intend to communicate--is more important and more 'real' than what women perceive. This debate isn't serious or important to you--so it shouldn't be to us. The fact that you made the metaphor literal by arguing about word definitions is just what made me want to post--it's not just or even largely about that. It's about how the fact that you would see all these women gathered and saying much the same thing about what they see in comics, and respond by doing *anything* besides listening and trying to understand, is a perfect example of what the problem is in the first place.

At any rate, I am done, as explaining the concept of Privilege gets somewhat tiring the seven thousandth time around.

odditycollector str0 = ('document.write('('+str0+') (odditycollector<at>livejournal<dot>com)
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 09:28 AM

You're supposed to see a character in a comic and think, "I want to be like that too."

Only if you're assuming male audience.

The male characters are drawn with huge muscles and heroic posturing so that the generic fanboy has an easy way into the power fantasy. He's supposed to think, yeah, "I want to be like that too."

The female characters are drawn with triple D breasts and soft-core-porn body language because the generic heterosexual fanboy is supposed to look at the pictures and think, "I *want* that".

If you're a *female* reader... well. Everyone knows women don't read comics anyway, right? < / sarcasm >

Achsariel
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 09:32 AM

"Give me a dozen different dictionaries and I'll give you a dozen different definitions for any given word. But they don't vary all that much. Your complex definition of slut with its dependence on a woman's sense of self-worth doesn't *fit*, and if you need to explain what you mean by it in a lengthy paragraph it doesn't *work*. "

And I apologised for the misunderstanding that caused.

"He's going to be called a stud. His behavior will be accepted and applauded."

Not by me he won't be.

"In what way is that a valid excuse? Many bad things have been happening for centuries. That doesn't make it okay."

Your answers lie in the sentences after the one you quoted.

Scentless
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 09:49 AM

MEN ARE SEXUALIZED?

Next time Superman and Captain Marvel out and fight crime wearing a singlet or short shorts and a crop top, LET. ME. KNOW.

---
Have you ever seen Alex Ross draw Captain Marvel and Superman?
Penis penis penis penis.

Itsy [redacted] (itsy<at>queenitsy.com)
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 09:49 AM

One thing I'm not sure I've seen mentioned recently, what with us trying to figure out if sluts = iguanas = whores and such, is the notion that women are drawn sexualized and so are men, so that everyone will look at the cover and think, "Wow, I'm attracted to the member of the opposite gender and wish I was the member of my own!"

I don't think that when I see female comic characters being sexualized on covers, and I think it even less so when I read the many of the stories inside. Because I don't want to be the member of my gender who's raped, beaten, left in a fridge, who's dressed for members of the opposite gender to be attracted to specifically because of my body, and whose boobs are considered more of a selling point than brains. That's not a character I identify with. That's not a character I'm interested in. And that's not a comic I really want to read. So yeah, that fails.

Derry
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 10:05 AM

/b/:
"thank the founding fathers for freedom of speech and the press"

We're not all American. The founder of this site is Australian. I'm British. Karen is a New Zealander living in Japan.

Founding fathers? Not so relevant.

Now kindly FOAD, you pathetic little runt of a teenaged boy.

Spex:
"And there's PLENTY of women who wear practical clothing. I mentioned several. Stargirl"

Shorts and a midriff-baring top? Not exactly well-armoured there.

"Hawkgirl"

Again with the midriff-baring.

"Spoiler both as Spoiler and Robin"

As Spoiler, yes, but as Robin she was put into a *skirt*

"Superheroines' wardrobes are expanding, not with more articles of clothing, but their costumes are gaining cloth."

And yet, invariably losing cloth from their midriff.

Jess [redacted] (poisonivory<at>gmail.com)
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 10:10 AM

"Not by me he won't be."
It's been said ad nauseum, but you =/= society. Your disapproval, commendable though it may be, does not change the way the world views such behavior.

"'In what way is that a valid excuse? Many bad things have been happening for centuries. That doesn't make it okay.'

Your answers lie in the sentences after the one you quoted."

Okay, let's see what you said.

"Authors have been using people as plot devices for centuries. Not just women, everyone. Yes, it's poor writing, but I don't see what's wrong with it other than being poor writing."

...nope, don't see my answers. Again, you are redefining the objectification of women in comics as a minor problem when it is not.

Let's put it this way. Granted your assumption that using women as plot devices doesn't objectify women, I agree it's not a big deal, just poor writing. Granted my assumption that using women as plot devices does in fact objectify women, will you agree that it is more of a problem than just poor writing? Then we can debate whether or not women are objectified, since I think we're arguing at cross purposes here.

"Have you ever seen Alex Ross draw Captain Marvel and Superman?
Penis penis penis penis."

Have you ever seen a real live man in tights? Perhaps a dancer? Penis penis penis. That's what penises in thin, stretchy material look like *in real life*.

Conversely, have you ever seen Alex Ross draw Mary Marvel? Sixteen-year-old girl characterized as being extremely innocent in a tunic cut all the way up to her waist so as to make it blatantly obvious she is not wearing underwear.

Those two things? Really, *really* the same.

Ryan [redacted] (Darkriku3<at>hotmail.com)
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 10:17 AM

this entire conversation is one-sided.

the feminists think that they can honestly say that they are more oppressed than men are, with out actuallying being men, that, my friends is moronic.

I, as a man feel very oppressed, tv make us men belive all men should be slim, tall, handsome, well groomed with the expensive cothing.
girls would rather have a man that is extreamly handsom than me, because of said generilzationgs.

I will NOT assume that I am MORE opporessed, or LESS oppressed than women, that is presumptous to a point that your fighting a "shadow" enemy, one that probably doesn't even exist, such as female oppression.

women in comics are getting better, not worse, its an uphill battle, but it WILL get better, Aggroing out and through a feminist temper tantrum doesnt' solve anything, it just proves your just as stupid, moronic, easily led and self-righteous as the very men you argue against.

vivian [redacted] (vivianw<at>rice.edu)
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 10:30 AM

"Have you ever seen Alex Ross draw Captain Marvel and Superman?
Penis penis penis penis."

aside from Jess' rebuttal above--why do people keep trying to argue against "Women are treated badly, objectified, abused, drawn unrealistically, ignored or given token or demeaning sex-centered storylines, and generally written like inconveniently ambulatory realdolls" with "but [individual creator X] does that to men!" Let's see, entire industry...one creator. Entire industry...one creator. I sense a SLIGHT DISPARITY.

dafnap [redacted] (dafnap<at>gmail.com)
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 10:33 AM

Ryan:
women in comics are getting better, not worse, its an uphill battle, but it WILL get better...

Why do we have to wait it out? Why can't it be better now? Just saying "sit down, shut up, and don't worry your pretty little head about it" is condescending, stupid and completly antithetical to what makes comics fandom, *comics fandom*.

When a new writer takes a beloved character in a direction that many fans feel is wrong, is the same sort of backlash like you've provided equally rivled? Say, the Spider-Man Clone saga? People have been bitching about that shit for YEARS. YEARS. And yet no one is telling them that it's not their right to bitch, and not one is telling them to stop throwing "temper tantrums" and shut up, and things will change.

If anything, that's how the comics fandom WORKS. The writers of Marvel and DC are almost always FANS of the property first, FANS for the characters since childhood.

Why can't girls participate in the same way?

Oh, that's right. It's not *for* us.

maggie
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 10:34 AM

this entire conversation is one-sided

Buddy, take a look. Multiple contributers? Check. Men and women both talking about their opinons? Check. Therefore, NOT 'one-sided'.

Aggroing out and through a feminist temper tantrum doesnt' solve anything, it just proves your just as stupid, moronic, easily led and self-righteous as the very men you argue against.

And speaking of proving stupidity....

"Feminist" is not an insult. It's retarded of you to use it as such. You are engaging in classic dismissive behaviour by calling the perfectly reasoned explanations and arguments in this thread 'temper tantrums'; most of these entries have also been far, *far* more coherent than yours.

Is anybody routinely threatening your reproductive rights? No? Then you're not as oppressed as women are. Are you expected to pull a second shift of housework after a full day in the labour force? No? Not as oppressed as women are. Do the beauty, cosmetic, and plastic surgery industries make billions of dollars out of undermining the self-esteem of *your* sex? No? Guess what, you're not as oppressed as women. And hey, let's not forget that it's not men who are rapidly filling out the ranks of the most impoverished people in the world's economy.

Men *are* subject to societal pressures and stigmas. Nobody is denying that. At the same time, the pressures on men are NOWHERE NEAR what women face, as evidenced by the dismissive, patronizing, and downright hateful and ignorant comments that have been posted by men on this thread.

vivian [redacted] (vivianw<at>rice.edu)
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 10:37 AM

the 'temper tantrum' bullshit just makes me snicker, because...oh man. This is me USING METAPHORS and EXPLAINING ABSTRACT THEORY. when i throw a temper tantrum, buddy, *you will know.*

Achsariel
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 10:37 AM

"Granted my assumption that using women as plot devices does in fact objectify women, will you agree that it is more of a problem than just poor writing? Then we can debate whether or not women are objectified, since I think we're arguing at cross purposes here."

I think that's something we can all agree on.

Now, as to the subject of whether or not women are objectified. I think we can all see that they are in all forms of media. I would argue that they are less so in comics, but that's beside the point. Yes, it is more of a problem than just poor writting, and it's a problem that encompasses all of media and all of modern culture. Where we seem to part is in the belief that comics are as sexist as portrayed in the original column. Granted, there are numberous examples of women being objectified in comics, but there are just as many examples of women being good, strong, deep characters. Furthermore, surely you realize that not all women in real life are good, strong, deep people who make good role-models. I see women being objectified in comics, but I also see women being objectified in real life. The comics are just emulating the real world, as they always have. I don't think changing comics will change that. T.V. and movies maybe, because they reach a broader audience. Comics are a good place to start, but I also think that comis are the furthest along in fixing this problem. A realistic portrayal of characters is important, and some women are objectified in real life, which is unfortunate. It's also unfortunate that writers can't properly convey how unfortunate that is.

Jesus, the font of these posts is killing my eyes.

Jess [redacted] (poisonivory<at>gmail.com)
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 11:00 AM

"Where we seem to part is in the belief that comics are as sexist as portrayed in the original column. Granted, there are numberous examples of women being objectified in comics, but there are just as many examples of women being good, strong, deep characters."

No. There are not "just as many." There are *far fewer*. And you can't say "Black Canary is not objectified" (or any other character you choose) because for every example of excellent writing in Bird of Prey, I can show you a ridiculous T&A shot from the same comic, sometimes even the same issue. I can show you *years* of Green Arrow walking all over her - and this is coming from a die-hard Green Arrow fan! It doesn't matter how many strong female characters you list, because I can match each other with a time when she *was* objectified, and add another name to the pile who was *never* not objectified.

"Furthermore, surely you realize that not all women in real life are good, strong, deep people who make good role-models."

Of course not. I don't want *role models*. I want *people*.

"I see women being objectified in comics, but I also see women being objectified in real life."

NO. Real women are not objects. I don't care how they are treated or how they present themselves. They are never, ever objects. They are people. NO MATTER WHAT.

"I don't think changing comics will change that. T.V. and movies maybe, because they reach a broader audience."

1. Comics inevitably get made into TV and movies.
2. Comics are the mythology of modern society and more pervasive and long-lasting in pop culture than almost any movie or show you can name. Everyone knows Superman.
3. Why should it matter how many people they reach? They exist, therefore they should not be sexist. End of story. Prejudice is not less bad just because less people are exposed to it.

"A realistic portrayal of characters is important, and some women are objectified in real life, which is unfortunate. It's also unfortunate that writers can't properly convey how unfortunate that is."

Again, NO. And "unfortunate" is a *gross* understatement. And do you really believe most writers are *trying* to convey this? Because I sure as hell don't.

Hotsuma [redacted] (thecorner<at>hotmail.com)
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 11:31 AM

no guy who argues on this place can win, I can deal with that, just stating it to make sure everyone who didn't already know, does now.

yes, I mostly agree with the women argueing on this board, your right, women usually ARE sex objects, its just something thats true.

no, I do not care, regardless of how much truth it holds, most of the girls on this board have made it to where I would just not care if every women in marvel got shot, while naked, while being raped.

thats how sad this whole thing is, the women here are so utterly self righteous they won't even listen to a single word that came out of a males mouth, I won't say feminists, because well, I don't have to, I say women, because thats exactly who's doing it.

Achsariel has done nothing but make good points and be polite, he has, by my count, been provoked into angry arguements at least 10 times, and every time he comes back just as polite, I am honest to say, I am not as forgiving.

I am not a debator, and infact, I am not smart, I won't lie, I am horribly mediocore, just a normal guy, so I can't really hold much of a candle to most of the fine debators here.

I can try to get my point across and thats this.

as bad as men are, women can be just as bad, sometimes worse, sometimes better.
as sexist as men are, women can be just as sexist, as proven by this board (someone actually claimed women have everything worse than men, with total self-righteous "women fury")
the feminists may be right, that doesn't make them moral, heck, i've heard some feminists (not here) saying that "we should wipe out the male race, they are genetic accidents and deserve to die".

shit like that scares me, but I know that men are just as capable of being stupid, and honestly, that makes us equal in my eyes.

and me, well, I really could care less, why should I help you when honestly, it looks like you hate my guts, just for being male, which, in turn makes you just as bad as the sexist men.

how can I even sympathize or even BEGIN to sympathize with you people? your just as rabid and angry, as any MAN i've ever been around.

Achsariel
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 11:38 AM

"NO. Real women are not objects. I don't care how they are treated or how they present themselves. They are never, ever objects. They are people. NO MATTER WHAT. "

I'm not calling them objects. I'm saying that they're objectified. Both by themselves and others. They come to see themselves as objects. Yes, they are still a person, but a person who shows all the characteristics of an object.

"Again, NO. And "unfortunate" is a *gross* understatement. And do you really believe most writers are *trying* to convey this? Because I sure as hell don't."

Some of them are, some of them aren't. The ones that aren't are just too lazy to come up with a better plot device. The ones who are fail miserably because they aren't good writers.

vivianw [redacted] (vivianw<at>rice.edu)
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 11:45 AM

ooh, another guy who thinks "angry" is some sort of insult. is anyone keeping count? maybe if we get enough we can trade them in for a toaster. a toaster the size of EUROPE.

maggie
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 11:51 AM

What I like best about this whole thing is that a bunch of women said that they'd like to see female characters better portrayed in comics, and have been met by guys commenting that:

- women's suffrage be 'revoked'
- cooking shows are "broads' stuff"
- lesbians can't tell if a man is attractive
- it would be okay if every Marvel woman was "shot, while naked, while being raped"

If anybody here is throwing ridiculous, hyperbolized temper tantrums, I wouldn't say it's the women, by and large. Good Lord, you guys are easily threatened. But here's a handy little thing to remember:

'Feminist' DOES NOT EQUAL 'man-hating'. Got that? Good. Maybe we can move on from that now.

Incognito
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 11:56 AM

Would this argument change direction if the characters themselves justified their reasoning for being dressed as they are? We don't see the characters their entire lives so essentially one could argue that it's part of their character.

How would the idea of sex object superhero change if supergirl was asked
"why don't you wear something more akin to superman, rather than a cut top and short skirt?"
and she were to reply something along the lines of either
"On Earth people actually think i'm attractive and I like the attention it makes me happy, so i wear this because i hope people will notice me more."
or
"I didn't like superman's full costume, so i custom fitted it to something that I thought was more appealing"

If the characters are portrayed as finding the costumes they wear appropriate, should they then be considered appropriate because it should not be a place to judge them. Albeit, it may currently destroy their character (I wouldn't know), and would be a quick escape route/scape goat for artists and writers, but still, it's defining them as individuals.

vivianw [redacted] (vivianw<at>rice.edu)
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 12:01 PM

...that would be what is known in super-top-secret radical feminist circles as "a giant vat of bullshit," actually.

In addition to which, I *dare* you to find a good reason for, say, a non-superpowered woman who fights street criminals and has previously been shot in the stomach several times to have a *bare fucking midriff.* Seriously. I want to see you try.

vivianw [redacted] (vivianw<at>rice.edu)
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 12:02 PM

--and also, how is applying the same cheap excuse across the board to every woman(who dresses ridiculously, i.e. every woman) in ANY WAY defining them as INDIVIDUALS???

maggie
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 12:04 PM

Incognito, something like that happened in X-Factor when Polaris (who had serious body image issues) got her new, all-metal and pretty revealing costume. And I think it worked in that character arc. But dude, in order to explain away all of the revealing costumes in comicdom, all the women would have to suddenly develop a whole whack of sudden exhibitionist tendencies & resolution of body issues! Heh.

(In an ironic twist of television, The Simpsons is on right now and Marge is accidentally getting her mcguppies turned into bazongas. O, Discordia!)

vivianw [redacted] (vivianw<at>rice.edu)
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 12:05 PM

marge! noes! LOVE YOUR GUPPIES!!

tsuki
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 12:07 PM

For the sake of intelligent debate, how about people not bring up the glaringly obvious attempts at provocation? They lend nothing to the arguement, and commenting about them does not either.

I understand the points both sides have been trying to make. Step back for a second and look at one of the core issues objectively:

Women in comics are often seen as sexual objects.

Men in comics are often seen as sexual objects.

Which one is true? Why? Choosing one then makes the other false? Why?

The difference between opinion and fact is often becoming blurred here.

Society is often to blame for many faults that we see every day. The nature of change in society is that it happens gradually. Radical change often does not create a stable society.

I understand people can become incensed when an issue affects them in what they feel are very personal reasons. I'm generally dissapointed that such good debate here can often be blinded by reasons of self inflicted bias.

No one is disputing that objectification is a bad thing; and a point I find confusing from the author of the journal:

The status between two human beings, regardless of race, sexuality, and gender, is always in flux. Judgements that are made by people are the results of the influence of society and their upbringing. This cannot be changed by forceful will alone. It also cannot happen overnight.

Also, I've rambled on a bit here. Feel free to chew out any parts of my text you feel you take offense to.

vivianw [redacted] (vivianw<at>rice.edu)
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 12:15 PM

"This cannot be changed by forceful will alone. It also cannot happen overnight."

surprisingly enough, this is the exact same line that women have been getting since, oh, the nineteenth century or so. Calm down, be patient, be nice, win people over with your gentle feminine charm, don't be so unpleasant and angry and loud, and somewhere down the line we'll get around to portioning out a little slice of rights to you. If you're good.

Nothing in history has ever worked that way. Ever. Never ever ever. And yet women(and ethnic minorities, and queer people, and so on and so forth) keep getting told the same lies. One could almost think it was not so much honest helpful advice as a defensive reflex against disturbing the status quo. It is not my job, or any woman's job, to persuade other people that we're human beings, or refrain from hurting their feelings by pointing out woman-hating where we see it. The onus is not on *us.*

Also, as several people have tried *valiantly* to explain: Men are NOT treated as sexual objects. They are treated as sexual SUBJECTS--the ones who the reader is supposed to identify with and want to be, the ones who have agency and determination. Women are treated as objects--the ones the reader is supposed to want to have, passive, looked-at. Men in comics are often sexualized to some degree, but not objectified, and as this has been *amply* explained I will not repeat it here. Scroll up.

Soyo-Erika [redacted] (shadedrobin<at>gmail.com)
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 12:16 PM

"no guy who argues on this place can win, I can deal with that, just stating it to make sure everyone who didn't already know, does now."

The very fact that you see this as a matter of winning and losing strikes me as problematic. If, overnight, the comics industry suddenly changed, and the female creators within it didn't face sexual harassment, female characters were always portrayed as people and not objects, and fanboys and fangirls got along in perfect harmony-- what exactly would male comics fans and creators be losing? It's NOT a competition.

"Achsariel has done nothing but make good points and be polite, he has, by my count, been provoked into angry arguements at least 10 times, and every time he comes back just as polite, I am honest to say, I am not as forgiving."

I think one of the problems with Achsariel's approach to debate is that he seems to take everything personally. He frequently wants to point out that HE sees the problems in the industry, too, that HE thinks it's a problem that women are objectified. This is good, but he's only one person, and therefore not changing the industry all by his lonesome. If every creator and fan saw these problems and attempted to fix them, we wouldn't have them. And if Achsariel, perhaps, convinced some friends to see these problems (like he himself claims to) instead of getting angry at us for pointing them out, it would probably help more.

"and me, well, I really could care less, why should I help you when honestly, it looks like you hate my guts, just for being male, which, in turn makes you just as bad as the sexist men."

I don't hate anyone's guts just for being a man. I only get irked by men who claim they have absolutely no control over their libidos when they're looking at offensive artwork or attractive women. I also find it problematic that having less libinal control is so tied to the idea of maleness, in our society.

Objectification hurts both genders, I think. We've already discussed how it turns women into objects. But it also propagates the idea that men can't appreciate women unless they're made "attractive" in the most unsubtle manner possible. Don't you wish the comics industry would give you more credit than that?

Incognito
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 12:19 PM

Oh yeah Vivian, all the same reasons will be used for every character.

Most people seem to be fine that the females in the comics are generally 'good' character wise, but come to when they wear a costume they are instantly portrayed as sexual objects, and with what they wear, that image can easily overpower any other thoughts on the character (especially if someone is only starting to get into comics).
There are probably characters who may or may not be superpowered, who only wear peices of string every time you see them. If little character work has been done on them, yes they are a sexual object and perhaps that is a defining part of their character.

I'm not trying to say that every single female in comics should suddenly go "oh i wear this for X and Y reasons". I wanted to know if a justified reason from the individuals themselves would make you consider them to be more than just a peice of 'eye candy', and apparently it does seem to make the costume more understandable (in maggie's example).

tsuki
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 12:22 PM

Vivian, I've read the entire wall of text from top to bottom.

You're once again obscuring fact and opinion.

I wish to understand this though: because you believe, and have the opinions of other people who agree with you, that women are objectionalized and not men in comics, that this is true?

Mind you, I never stated that I thought either were true or false, you needn't pretend that I am naturally against you.

Revolution has RARELY worked in such a way to create a stable society in our modern age. Who in their right minds would wish to create anarchy. We're all too complacent in our lives to be able to survive such change. (take this as humor, please)

We don't live in the 19th century or any other century. We live now. History has bearing upon us, but it does not define who we are, if we choose to make progress towards the future.

Jess [redacted] (poisonivory<at>gmail.com)
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 12:33 PM

"I wish to understand this though: because you believe, and have the opinions of other people who agree with you, that women are objectionalized and not men in comics, that this is true?"

And because you don't believe it and have the opinions of others who agree with *you*, it's untrue?

Vivian is not confusing fact with opinion. She is stating a fact, supported by the statements of both men and women on both sides of this debate multiple times on this post. Men are subjects. They are who the reader is supposed to want to *be*. Women are objects. They are what the reader is supposed to want to *have*. That is what subject and object *mean*. Pull out your old grammar notes if you don't believe me.

And no, it doesn't work the other way, because I don't want to be those women.

Also, "objectionalized" is not a word.

"We don't live in the 19th century or any other century."

Except the 21st, Brainiac.

vivianw [redacted] (vivianw<at>rice.edu)
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 12:36 PM

"I'm not trying to say that every single female in comics should suddenly go "oh i wear this for X and Y reasons". I wanted to know if a justified reason from the individuals themselves would make you consider them to be more than just a peice of 'eye candy', and apparently it does seem to make the costume more understandable (in maggie's example)."

but the question itself is disingenuous and ridiculous, because everyone would know that the 'justified reason' was made up and pasted on as a justification to cling to the T&A. and it implies that you could concoct such a reason for every woman who wears such stuff--again, which equates to every woman--which assumes that all women are basically the same enough that you can turn them all into exhibitionists willing to risk their lives to wear the tiniest possible amount of cloth. As if this isn't wildly out of character for just about every single one of them.

furthermore:

"Most people seem to be fine that the females in the comics are generally 'good' character wise, but come to when they wear a costume they are instantly portrayed as sexual objects, and with what they wear, that image can easily overpower any other thoughts on the character (especially if someone is only starting to get into comics)."

although we've been hugely sidetracked in this comments thread, the problem is not simply--or even largely--what the women wear. It's how they're written and treated as characters. So that first sentence there is in fact false.

vivianw [redacted] (vivianw<at>rice.edu)
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 12:42 PM

"Revolution has RARELY worked in such a way to create a stable society in our modern age. Who in their right minds would wish to create anarchy. We're all too complacent in our lives to be able to survive such change. (take this as humor, please)

We don't live in the 19th century or any other century. We live now. History has bearing upon us, but it does not define who we are, if we choose to make progress towards the future."

right, revolution never works, and people who march, protest, get thrown in jail, and make loud angry noise about their oppression never, ever get anything done. And the women's vote was achieved by quiet proper ladies writing polite letters to the proper authorities, and black people ended jim crow by making calm suggestions and being careful not to bother anyone, and gay people attained civil rights via a series of socratic dialogues and discussions over tea.

"calm down, be patient" is the universal whine of people nestled comfortably in the status quo. bullshit then, bullshit now.

dafnap [redacted] (dafnap<at>gmail.com)
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 12:46 PM

tsuki:

Dude, stop with the "we can't have change because change brings chaos and anarchy and therefore civilization will collapse as we know it!!1"

Change is good, it's natural result of learning from one's mistakes. Deal with it.

Karen Ellis str0 = ('document.write('('+str0+') (planetkarencomic <at> googlemaildotcom)
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 12:53 PM

What if you just made your own non-sexist comics instead of demanding everyone else change the way they make their comics?

Done that.

Incognito
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 01:11 PM

"everyone would know that the 'justified reason' was made up and pasted on as a justification to cling to the T&A."

Quoted for truth. Although, you shouldn't deny that if a proper story arc was made to justify it (just say, for 1 more character), then it should be perfectly fine for that character to continue wearing the style that they do.

It's not always the costume either that makes them the sexual object though. The costume is just designed to show off the 'appealing' aspects of the woman (excluding times where gratuitous scenes are shown). With current superheroes, it'd be odd to suddenly, or perhaps even gradually, change their physical form, they're set as a character. Most superheroes have been designed with societies 'ideal form' of the time. Men with large muscular body types, and women with thin/toned bodies.
Do people want to have female sexual subjects, because it's always possible for new characters to be formed. If it's just about getting rid of sexual objects, that's going to be hard, because even with costumes, or clothing, that covers the same amount of skin as the casual male, women can still be seen as sexual objects by men.

Look at women in the middle east, dressed (although forced by the religeon) to remove any form of sexual attraction, although even knowing that it is a woman behind their cloth can still entice men in those societies.

The only way to make something not a sexual object is to probably make it not sexually desireable.

Incognito
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 01:14 PM

Although, just to clarify....Is there a difference between a woman being a sexual object and sexually desireable?

vivianw [redacted] (vivianw<at>rice.edu)
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 01:36 PM

a person can be incredibly sexually desirable without being an object. the way you feel about your girl/boyfriend or spouse, for instance. they're not an object to you, they're a person--which, as far as i'm concerned, is a *prerequisite* for being attractive. portraying women as sexual objects means portraying them as sexy-dolls-to-look-at *first and foremost.* Everything else--their personality, the clothes they might actually wear, reasonable safety precautions--is subordinated to the consideration of making her attractive to the male reader.

"It's not always the costume either that makes them the sexual object though. The costume is just designed to show off the 'appealing' aspects of the woman (excluding times where gratuitous scenes are shown)."

so how do you define gratuitous? framing a shot in close-up on a woman's half-covered ass for no narrative (or, frankly, aesthetic) reason at all--gratuitous? dressing a character who's extremely practical and no-nonsense in ridiculously flimsy clothes, or one who's shy and hates to stand out in a tiny fraction of a leotard--gratuitous?

"With current superheroes, it'd be odd to suddenly, or perhaps even gradually, change their physical form, they're set as a character."

they're NOT, though. there is absolutely nowhere in comic book history where it's established that any woman, except power girl--insert heavy eye-rolling--is anything except "attractive." and hey, i'm fine with attractive. superhero comics have always been about fantasy and wish-fulfillment. but there's no reason they have to be about *male* fantasies.

not to mention, "it would be odd and sudden" is not an excuse for not fixing problems when you see them.

"If it's just about getting rid of sexual objects, that's going to be hard, because even with costumes, or clothing, that covers the same amount of skin as the casual male, women can still be seen as sexual objects by men."

oh, men can certainly objectify women without any help at all. that's no excuse for continuing to help them, though. women can be portrayed as adults with sexuality without portraying them as *nothing but sexual fantasies.*

the extreme and nastiest examples, of course, are the way that women's bodies are sexualized and objectified when they're being tortured, brutalized, and killed. Dinah in 'Longbow Hunters,' Stephanie in 'War Games'--their bodies are displayed so as to be maximally attractive and sexy, as they're being tortured to death. Any sense of narrative, of how it might actually look realistically, of respect for the character or aesthetic composition--all of these take a backseat to drawing the female body as it's "supposed" to be drawn: sexy and on display. At all times. THAT is objectifying.

Achsariel
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 01:36 PM

"Look at women in the middle east, dressed (although forced by the religeon) to remove any form of sexual attraction, although even knowing that it is a woman behind their cloth can still entice men in those societies. "

I personally find middle-eastern women very very attractive. There's a mystery to them. Rather than everything being on display and nothing being left to the imagination, EVERYTHING is left to the imagination.

Oh, and the eyes. Don't get me started on the eyes!

Soyo-Erika [redacted] (shadedrobin<at>gmail.com)
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 01:39 PM

"Although, just to clarify....Is there a difference between a woman being a sexual object and sexually desireable?"

Yes, yes, yes. Thank you for actually asking the right question, and I'm pretty sure a lot of the girl-wonder types here will explain this better than I can. But here goes:

A woman who is a sexual object is drawn in such a way that she exists solely for the purpose of arousing the reader. Sometimes this is misleading, because she still APPEARS to be part of the story. For example: Power Girl is punching out your standard thug. Now, if Power Girl has to twist herself around unrealistically and inefficiently to give the reader a view of her cleavage while punching said thug out, that's objectification.

Women who are sexually desireable are attractive without the creators having to hit us over the head with it in every panel. They also have appealing personalities (though different things appeal to different people, but that's why different people like different characters) and contribute to the plot. So a non-objectified Power Girl would be able to hit a thug (and maybe the thug has the keys to the prison her fellow Justice Leaguers are caught in) without having to twist herself around to show off her cleavage. She could even be twisting her face into an ugly grimace, because it's hard to look pretty while fighting, and making a quip that makes us say, "That's our Peej!" And we wouldn't need a view of her boob window just to know that she's the hottest thing since the weather on a mid-August day.

Achsariel
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 01:40 PM

" Although, just to clarify....Is there a difference between a woman being a sexual object and sexually desireable?"

I think so. A sexual object is just that, an object. Something to fuck. Who cares about her mind, her personality, or her intelligence? She's an object for sexing.

Now, a woman who is sexually desireable, that's something completely different. Not someone you want to fuck. Someone you want to make love to. Someone who is beautiful, not "hot." Someone who is erotic, not pornographic (the two terms have a very important distinction).

vivianw [redacted] (vivianw<at>rice.edu)
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 01:46 PM

"I personally find middle-eastern women very very attractive. There's a mystery to them. Rather than everything being on display and nothing being left to the imagination, EVERYTHING is left to the imagination.

Oh, and the eyes. Don't get me started on the eyes!"

Thank you for promptly illustrating the point. *rolls eyes*

Achsariel
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 01:48 PM

"Thank you for promptly illustrating the point. *rolls eyes*"

What point? I was just commenting that middle-eastern women are beautiful. They are.

Incognito
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 02:00 PM

"women can be portrayed as adults with sexuality without portraying them as *nothing but sexual fantasies.*"

I think that's the whole thing people are trying to get across. We (I) don't find the female characters as sexual objects. They are a character, an INDIVIDUAL character, we follow their stories and ideas just as we would the males. They are females who can be looked up to by younger audiences and admired by those of older years. They are smart, strong, outgoing, and attractive. They are not sexual fantasies of all the readers.

Only the individual can see something as being a sexual object. The article and most of the females here are saying that they are clearly objectifying women in comics. Where most of the males are saying "we don't look at them as objects".

Because they are individual characters and personalities we (I) feel that the article is a little exaggerated.

And of course torture to a woman by a male is going to be sexual, true torture to a male would be the same too. Yorture is intended to break the person. To remove them from themselves. To get rid of their identity. You destroy what makes them who they are. A woman who is beautiful, kind and strong. They would scar them, make them kill or harm their friends and family(or watch as the torturer harms them), you make them weak and unable to fight back, and the easiest way for this is through a sexual attack. The exact methods would be used on men too. You shouldn't be looking at this going "of course they're going to make her a sexual toy". You should be thinking "they are destroying who she is".

vivianw [redacted] (vivianw<at>rice.edu)
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 02:01 PM

Someone mentions women who wear full-body coverings as an example of how it's impossible to dress 'modestly' enough so that men won't objectify you. You see this as a good time to comment on how sexy and mysterious you find said women, and how their covering is to you, not a symbol of their oppression and constant danger of assault, and the surety that they will be blamed for that assault, and their total lack of individual personhood in the eyes of their society. No, to you, the salient feature of how they dress is the fact that it turns you on.

and the comment about the eyes is pretty much the most blatant possible demonstration that men will see women as sex objects even if *every single inch of skin* is covered.

Hotsuma [redacted] (thecorner<at>hotmail.com)
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 02:06 PM

I never said for anyone to sit pateient, I simply stated that it IS getting better, you certainly don't have to sit down and wait for it to get any better than it is, get up and fight for all I care.

all I mean is that, its gotten better, women are now getting into areas of power, such as political, and business, those women sure aren't sex objects (belive me, god they aren't) and are very powerful figure-heads for business/politics.

I am all for equal rights, but you can almost never ever stop men from objectifying women as sex objects, this isn't something you can just take away, with out either.

1- wipeing men from the face of the earth, this just means that other women will now objectify women.

2- destroy sex and sex drive.

its that simple, because objectfiying women is something men do on a sub-conscience level, whether they WANT to admit it or not.

but yes, one day, quick, or long away, women will be equals with men, I yearn for this day, MAINLY to shut up all the feminists, no offense.

and don't act like women don't do it to men, its a very mutual thing, men just don't care because they ACCEPT it.

Hotsuma [redacted] (thecorner<at>hotmail.com)
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 02:09 PM

sorry Achsariel, you can't even call something beautiful without the feminists saying your sexually objectifying something.
welcome to debate hell, enjoy your stay.

Achsariel
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 02:14 PM

" Someone mentions women who wear full-body coverings as an example of how it's impossible to dress 'modestly' enough so that men won't objectify you. You see this as a good time to comment on how sexy and mysterious you find said women, and how their covering is to you, not a symbol of their oppression and constant danger of assault, and the surety that they will be blamed for that assault, and their total lack of individual personhood in the eyes of their society. No, to you, the salient feature of how they dress is the fact that it turns you on. "

You're making a lot of assumptions here. All I said is that I find them beautiful and attractive. Yes, it's sad that they are oppressed in their culture. They should not be forced to wear the clothes they do. That doesn't mean that they aren't beautiful and that I can't be attracted to them. I'm not attracted to the fact that they're being oppressed and that they're being degraded. I'm attracted to the mystery alluded to in the style of their clothing. I'm attracted to the way that you're drawn into their eyes because while the clothing they wear suppresses every other feature, it makes the eyes stand out in an amazingly striking manner that I find beautiful.

"and the comment about the eyes is pretty much the most blatant possible demonstration that men will see women as sex objects even if *every single inch of skin* is covered."

I never said I viewed them as sex objects. You're making another huge assumption. I said they were beautiful. ISaid they were attractive and striking and mysterious. I was demonstrating that, even when oppressed and physically obscured as they are, they are still beautiful. When did I ever mention sex? You're assuming that every man who is attracted to a woman is thinking only of how good she'll be in bed. I'm sorry, but your assumption is incorrect.

vivianw [redacted] (vivianw<at>rice.edu)
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 02:16 PM

"And of course torture to a woman by a male is going to be sexual, true torture to a male would be the same too. Yorture is intended to break the person. To remove them from themselves. To get rid of their identity. You destroy what makes them who they are. A woman who is beautiful, kind and strong. They would scar them, make them kill or harm their friends and family(or watch as the torturer harms them), you make them weak and unable to fight back, and the easiest way for this is through a sexual attack. The exact methods would be used on men too. You shouldn't be looking at this going "of course they're going to make her a sexual toy". You should be thinking "they are destroying who she is". "

The ideas that (a) the core of a woman's identity and the ultimate trauma for any woman is sexual, and (b) that men in comics would ever be treated the same way, are respectively offensive and patently absurd. But I want to point out instead that I was explicitly talking about how the artist visually portrays what's going on, not about what happens at the narrative level. I don't feel like repeating myself, so please read again with that in mind and then if you like you can argue with what I'm actually saying.

Hotsuma [redacted] (thecorner<at>hotmail.com)
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 02:27 PM

like I said, Achsariel, just give up, its easy if you do.

I said that you, and I can't win, and I ment it.

and by that I ment we will not even be listened too, our opinions were moot before even coming here (hehe, moot) and if it isn't ignored, its used against you, such as the "beautful eyes" comment they twisted against you.

just come back to 4chan and leave these people to stew in they're anger.

Incognito
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 02:31 PM

"The ideas that (a) the core of anyone's identity and the ultimate trauma for any person is sexual"
fixed to represent what i was saying.

I was saying that (either man or woman), getting raped is ONE of the highest level of physical and mental trauma to break someone who is both physically and mentally strong.

Hotsuma [redacted] (thecorner<at>hotmail.com)
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 02:40 PM

yes, I would know about rape, I was molested as a child by my father, and I am a man, so yes, I can clearly say its bad, I have no idea if its worse for a women, but I am SURE that one of the girls here will till you that its 10x worse for them because they say so.

the women here border on hypocrites, they just BARELY miss the perfect definition.

Incognito
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 03:24 PM

Well i missed it in the arguments after my thoughts but thank you Soyo-Erika. That seems to answer it for me. It's not entirely the fact that these women wear these clothes, but are occasionally shown at angles that enhance or focus on the more sexual aspects of the character.

"Now, if Power Girl has to twist herself around unrealistically and inefficiently to give the reader a view of her cleavage while punching said thug out, that's objectification." -Soyo-Erika

That's what i can understand about the problem, however to go onto and say that these women are sex objects just because they wear the clothes that they do is a bit exaggerated.

ShadowForm
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 06:43 PM

If you do nothing other than vent your rage and anger at how amazingly and obviously sexist comics are, you're going to meet with a lot of resistance. People who agree with you will agree, of course - but those aren't the people you need to convince.

Either way, the comments section of a blog is not the proper place for a debate. You have a forum, people should use it...

Stephen
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 09:25 PM

I'll start by saying that I don't fully agree with feminism per se. It seems to me that feminism is about putting women in control, whereas I believe in equality so replacing male dominance with female dominance wouldn't improve the situation overall. However here you only seem to be asking that women are represented fairly, so that's all good.

Some cool things you could do to promote your ideas for comic books.

1) Someone already suggested this, but, make your own comic, prove that a comic can be successful without protraying women in a way you disagree with. Maybe others would then follow suit.

2) Create a list of comics that are less offensive to you. An "approved reading list" if you like.

3) Take the parts of comics you disapprove of and modify them to your liking, post the results here on your website.

Aquasol [redacted] (aquahds<at>gmail.com)
#

Thursday, June 15, 2006, 11:48 PM

Why make change or tolerate when you can just get angry and cry for revenge?

"and the comment about the eyes is pretty much the most blatant possible demonstration that men will see women as sex objects even if *every single inch of skin* is covered."

As much as anyone else here tries to point out that it works both ways, it'll always roll back to the silly idea that only women are ever told they are objects, and only they grow up with some sort of back-breaking social pressure to be built a certain visually appealing way. Or perhaps I'm missing something due to the fact that I've had a mere 2-3 hours of sleep.

Going back...

"That's very cosmic. Since there will always be oppression, we shouldn't waste our time fighting it! Boy, have *we* been wasting our time."

At any point did I mention "Let's just give up, and the wimmin' folk go to yon kitchen and cook me up some pancit!"? Or giving up, -period-?

There's a difference between getting up/standing up/fighting for your rights, and napalming a village.

What will make YOU happy, Jess? I get the feeling mere equality is not enough for you.

"Yep! Good job! Elimination of rampant and offensive sexism will lead to more chaos than 50 wars! Goddammit, why did we ever leave the kitchen? At least there it was *safe*."

...Because when I say PC-ness is dangerous, I mean far more than some piddly comics and statements(and for that matter, sexism). I mean that holiday you celebrate is offensive to my beliefs. I mean you lump me in with those people I vaguely resemble. I mean in my culture we frown upon people speaking harshly to those older than them, and it makes me feel uncomfortable. Why are you not budging?

Not sure if you've ever seen it-- but the first South Park Christmas special(the appearance of Mr. Hankey) had an excellent point: There's a difference between consideration, and trying to please everyone. Total balance is a game. It means everyone knows someone's not going to be liked or will be excluded, and they know they must fight back.

You're shoving words into my mouth if you assume I mean to say abolishment of sexism will cause much chaos(although to an extent it can be argued that having someone(SOMEONE, not -some woman-) stay behind to watch the young and vulnerable is important to survival. In fact, to even give the slightest suggestion that i think women need to shut up and GODDAMMIT SHERA, GET IN THERE AND MAKE SOME *@#$IN TEA! is dare I say...almost sexist? If not, stereotyping?

And I know what superflous means. "Flows above". Tiredness not fun on brain.

Now then, to inject a little humor and watch as someone quotes/reads only this to turn me into a pig:

Goddammit, get in that kitchen and make me some damn tea!