Comic books: Because women are sexual objects in these too!

Antistia wrote:
THINK OF THE CHILDREN.

Spoiler for profanity and sensitive virgin souls:

Spoiler:

there's only one comic worth attention and it's silferdrake's!

I used to like reading Archie comics (and maybe still do )

Walking Dead Comics + Cable and Deadpool.

Looking for Group comic is all I read. In comic shapes.

I don't see why gender has to be kept brought in to this. Who cares whether men or women are more over-sexualized. That doesn't change the fact that over-sexualization, if it sets a wrong standards that wrongly influences youth, is an issue, now does it?

Drop the whole "Boys versus Girls" angle, it's only distracting from the actual issue.

Thelos wrote:I don't see why gender has to be kept brought in to this. Who cares whether men or women are more over-sexualized. That doesn't change the fact that over-sexualization, if it sets a wrong standards that wrongly influences youth, is an issue, now does it?

Drop the whole "Boys versus Girls" angle, it's only distracting from the actual issue.

That.

Thelos wrote:I don't see why gender has to be kept brought in to this. Who cares whether men or women are more over-sexualized. That doesn't change the fact that over-sexualization, if it sets a wrong standards that wrongly influences youth, is an issue, now does it?

Drop the whole "Boys versus Girls" angle, it's only distracting from the actual issue.

There shouldn't be an issue in the first place.

Creative input, to change it would be to break canon, it is only logical to create an obvious target market to your highest audience. Especially in the 1950s when comic books were beginning to get big. There is no issue.

Vaell wrote:
There shouldn't be an issue in the first place.

Creative input, to change it would be to break canon, it is only logical to create an obvious target market to your highest audience. Especially in the 1950s when comic books were beginning to get big. There is no issue.

Well, no, there actually is.

If people are feeling uncomfortable by portrayal of humans in comic books for whatever reason, and it's obvious from the posts in this thread and that comic that was posted earlier here that, especially women, do, then there is an issue. You would be bullheaded to bury your head in the sand if there's people screaming out there.

Canon isn't sacred. Tradition isn't holy. Target audiences are to be changed and manipulated for the better. Fiction is a powerful tool to shape the public consciousness. Changing that consciousness by breaking the status quo is the whole point of femenism and other emancipatory movements. To break the status quo to make the world a more equal, safe, and friendly place. It's still an on-going process, and it seems obvious to me at least that comic books are still a battlefield where there's ground to be won.

Thelos wrote:I don't see why gender has to be kept brought in to this. Who cares whether men or women are more over-sexualized. That doesn't change the fact that over-sexualization, if it sets a wrong standards that wrongly influences youth, is an issue, now does it?

Drop the whole "Boys versus Girls" angle, it's only distracting from the actual issue.

Read the thread title: Because women are sexual objects in these too!

the entire thread is about gender. and supposed Gender in-equality in their portrayal.

So I don't see why you're trying to remove gender from the problem by saying we should stop equalising the field. Because everybody that brings men into the mix, is actually doing what you're saying. Moving the issue away from women being overly-sexualised, to Comics are being overly sexuality..

Well, no, by saying men are equally sexualized, they're actually pushing the topic back to a gender-issue, because it immediatly triggers a counterargument (and rightfully so!), and things'll dissolve back into a

"Nuh-uh"
"Uh-uh"

level again of discussion again.

I'd rather just reach a point in the discussion where we can agree to go like:

"All right, men are being over-sexualized too, but that doesn't change the fact that women are being over-sexualized, nor does it marginalize it, and that this is where the real problem is, the problem which we should be discussing"

A much more interesting question to me is to ask oneself what exactly the nature of the problem is, whom it concerns, and how it influences them.

Is the apex of the problem the easily corrupted youth, and how to protect them from bad influences?

Is it the degredation of having your sex objectified, and how to turn around this schewed status quo?

I'm just trying to figure out what exactly the problem is here, and I feel the whole tug-of-war on the matter whether men are also or equally over-sexualized as women to be distracting from the more interesting problems at hand.

TBH... Yes... women are over sexualized in those books but... MEH.... Look at some of those women. They aren't "women". They are grotest depictures of shapes, that reflect the gruesomeness outside of what they are inside. Wonderwoman isn't your average citizen doing a few good deeds. She's more like a world-revolving godess that's going to kick in the balls of a few miscreations of nature. And let's be honest... that picture posted of her is downright frightning. It feels like god's wrath in the flesh!

Catwoman is a psychological wrack that uses her feminity like a cat tries to charm you. Obviously she needs features to emphasize that part.

I'm not agreeing with the depictions of women, but unless these comics promote violence and abuse of people I think a more cautious reaction is adviced than an outraged shout, really. Comics are 100% about a visual style. A grotesque style in many cases, but never the less a style. Everything is out of proportion, it's part of what comics are. Heck, Batman has a chin so strong it can block a sword and deal out 5 punches at the same time.

So, perhaps what it boils down to is... "is it setting an unrealistic standard"? Are people really that influential that they'll let such comics indoctrinate wrong expectations of genders? Or bad social morales?

Maybe in your world Comics were the law. I know only 1 friend who actually owned a handful of comics. So for me, it's hard to see the big issue. They had basically no influence on the image of women in my school, university, work environment.
Considering it didn't set any standard, there is no issue.

Unless you feel people capable of thinking rationally are incapable of looking at such a comic and separate the depiction of the character from their own social and moral standards?

To Jean-Pierre:

The influence of comics reaches much farther than the comic-book reading audience, and at no point in time have they ever had such a central position in (American) pop-culture as they have now. Just look at the flood of Hollywood movies inspired by comic-books that imitate that style you located in comic-books. The screencaps of Anne Hathaway as Catwoman and Scarlett Johanson as the Black Widow as striking examples.

And yes, I am of the opinion that people are really easily influenced by just about anything. The subtler, the scarier. These things have a way to bypass your rationality all-together. It isn't just any one comic-book, but the way in which the whole comic-book enterprise influences public (un)consciousness trough all the other media they touch that troubles me.

Thelos wrote:
The influence of comics reaches much farther than the comic-book reading audience, and at no point in time have they ever had such a central position in (American) pop-culture as they have now. Just look at the flood of Hollywood movies inspired by comic-books that imitate that style you located in comic-books.

I beg to differ. They are most often remakes of numerous movies, series, animated series that have been made a dozen times over. This isn't a "new thing". Hollywood is remaking them because, just like then, it's almost a sure money maker and new CGI and special effects offer enough means to "make it worth remaking it"
Another reason is that CGI and special effects -sell-. Heck.. call the 'awesome exploding BBQ sauce', flaunt off the newest CGI graphics and you'll have people come and see it.

Hollywood is down on ideas and makes money from the sales in movie theatres. So they use special effects to boost the movie theatre business.

Thelos wrote:And yes, I am of the opinion that people are really easily influenced by just about anything. The subtler, the scarier.

Looking at the depictions, I wouldn't say comics are exactly "subtle".

Also:


There's a good case against the way comics are depicting women, but "over-the-top" is the style of comics. It's a very difficult discussion because you're trying to make a precision cut between the "over-sexed" and the "over-the-top" which, in many cases, aren't separable.

To me one of the issues here is:

These people are superheroes. These are the crime-fighting elite guardians of society. They are all depicted as larger than life, because they're supposed to be.

Now let's see. What superhuman values does male superheroes have that enables them to do their job? (aside from the obvious "they know how to fight")
- Extremely bulky physical builds, like grotesquely disproportionate athletes. This sorta makes sense. Being strong and all helps them do their job.

What does the female superheroes have?
- Sex appeal.

This just sends out a weird message in my eyes. The men make sense in their own right, but fighting crime in high heels just doesn't work.

I wasn't saying that Comic culture influencing Hollywood is anything new, I was saying that it never was stronger or more palpable than it is now. Geek culture has been steadily on the rise these last couple of years. And now that is has taken on a more central role in the public consciousness, it's time to tackle some of the nastier and uglier facets of said culture. Like overt sexism and hyper-violence.

I've gotten very tired of my fellow geeks giving overt sexism or over-sexulization and hyper-violence a pass because it's "Part of the culture". If it is really part of the culture, it's time to change the culture. I sometimes get the distinct idea that geeks are much more sexist than jocks nowadays. Which is a worrisome thing indeed.

To elaborate on my previous point:
When a female superhero chooses high heels instead of something she could actually fight crime in, it sends the message that one of the things is more important than the other. In this case that looking hot is more important than practicality.

Jeanpierre/Ragnilde wrote:

Thelos wrote:
The influence of comics reaches much farther than the comic-book reading audience, and at no point in time have they ever had such a central position in (American) pop-culture as they have now. Just look at the flood of Hollywood movies inspired by comic-books that imitate that style you located in comic-books.

I beg to differ. They are most often remakes of numerous movies, series, animated series that have been made a dozen times over. This isn't a "new thing". Hollywood is remaking them because, just like then, it's almost a sure money maker and new CGI and special effects offer enough means to "make it worth remaking it"
Another reason is that CGI and special effects -sell-. Heck.. call the 'awesome exploding BBQ sauce', flaunt off the newest CGI graphics and you'll have people come and see it.

Hollywood is down on ideas and makes money from the sales in movie theatres. So they use special effects to boost the movie theatre business.

Thelos wrote:And yes, I am of the opinion that people are really easily influenced by just about anything. The subtler, the scarier.

Looking at the depictions, I wouldn't say comics are exactly "subtle".

Reading Art management this is one of the bigger "issues" my lectors drags up again and again; commercials, movies, TV and games are what could be referred too as the four horsemen of apocalypse when it comes to younger women/men self esteem, however to compare them is like comparing Mars and the Moon in size.

It does not matter that comics might or might not be "subtle", they will affect the shit out of the weak. And as Thelos pointed out, even more so now as they are enjoying a golden age in Hollywood film industry, which is the very mother ship of projected self esteem around the world.

they're comics ... they're not meant to be realistic, and artists/hollywood/whatever don't have some sort of moral obligation to make sure they set "realistic standards" whatever they might be ... or?

Shaelyssa wrote:they're comics ... they're not meant to be realistic, and artists/hollywood/whatever don't have some sort of moral obligation to make sure they set "realistic standards" whatever they might be ... or?

Yes they do.

I suspect Shea just brought us to tipping-point here, because this is a highly controversial claim to make. My supporting it explains why I spoke out in favor of censorship earlier.

Target sighted!

boobies are hawt.

Thelos wrote:

Shaelyssa wrote:they're comics ... they're not meant to be realistic, and artists/hollywood/whatever don't have some sort of moral obligation to make sure they set "realistic standards" whatever they might be ... or?

Yes they do.

I suspect Shea just brought us to tipping-point here, because this is a highly controversial claim to make. My supporting it explains why I spoke out in favor of censorship earlier.

Target sighted!

Any perceived moral obligation need not be enforced by usage of censorship. Censorship is a crude instrument to achieve a goal. Employing this instrument is wrong on many levels. Art, being a publication, and being capable of delivering a political or non-political message can, and should be seen as a form of expressing one's opinion. Such a message can be as simple as "Don't be evil." Which, I believe, is a message you can read into many a superhero comic.

Working under the assumption that the government can, nonetheless, limit the freedom of speech one could argue that the government is allowed to employ censorship as suggested by Thelos. However, there need to be clear and present limits to the government's powers to do this. In the Netherlands our constitutional doctrine can be summed up in the following sentence: The freedom of speech can only be limited when there is a danger to society, be it the creation of violence, hatred, or social ostracism.* The last point, social ostracism, should be viewed as referring to defamation. If we are to limit the freedom of speech, these criteria are as good as they get. Only under very strict and serious (or rather "zwaarwegende" in Dutch) circumstances should we limit it.

*Having said that; the Dutch constitution prohibits the government from censoring publications under any and all circumstances (article 7 paragraph 1 of the Dutch constitution).

Dwyburn wrote:To me one of the issues here is:
These people are superheroes. These are the crime-fighting elite guardians of society. They are all depicted as larger than life, because they're supposed to be.

Now let's see. What superhuman values does male superheroes have that enables them to do their job? (aside from the obvious "they know how to fight")
- Extremely bulky physical builds, like grotesquely disproportionate athletes. This sorta makes sense. Being strong and all helps them do their job.

What does the female superheroes have?
- Sex appeal.
.

Vec wrote:
A skin-tight american flag that shows off her amazing rack and perfect ass. Wow, ain't she a warrior of the people.

Spoiler:

0 muscle. 0 power. 0 ferocity in that look. Right?
Sure there's a lot of wrongs with that image, but I think "grotesque" is the first word that would come to mind. Fierce as second. Not "sex appeal".

You're taking the cover of Catwoman and blame the whole genre. X-men tackled more social debates due to bringing up topics of discrimination and racism. And there you have men breaking stuff with their bear hands and women throwing tanks cause they ran out of rocks.
Exageration is part of the genre.

And Thelos, I still remain unconvinced that it's "never been stronger". Do you have any numbers to prove this? Surely this reasoning has to be based on something.

It may be a good time to review some parts of that subculture of comics. I'd be for that. I certainly would appreciate comics with less emphasis on sex and genders as a whole. But those exist too.

It's a far more sublte thing. Comics are a genre are about exageration and over-emphasis. You can criticize some examples specifically but not the genre as a whole. And as is clear in the OP's rant: the entire book is judged by the cover.

If you don't like sexism in your sequential pictorial stories, why not read some more european stuff?

Spoiler: