Mary Jane Statue uproar

[Jackskeleton]

Originally Posted by Tracer Bullet

Again, that's fine, but then why are comics editors, etc. so strident about wanting to bring more women into comics? Are they being deliberately misleading or do they just not get it?

Now, is there a problem with DC creating a female line of comics called MINX?
http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=92128

You know, even though the word Minx means:
n : a seductive woman who uses her sex appeal to exploit men


And lets not kid ourselves. Men in comics are just the same. It's a male fantasy to be as big and built like superman. Hell, even to have Captain Marvel's package


For every image of a female character doing flying kick with a thong in your face:


I'm sure you can find one of a superhero doing much of the same thing.


Oh, he's wearing pants. You say? Well how about Robin?


Showing us that a face full of crotch is in store for anyone looking towards fantasy books.

If the issue is that female characters are wearing skimpy outfits then it's never going to be a non issue. Even if they start wearing blankets. A big complaint is why would supergirl wear a skirt when she's flying so much? Even in the project rooftop redesign of supergirl outfits the majority of them were still wearing skirts or even smaller boy shorts.
http://www.tencentticker.com/projectrooftop//?p=29

Look at Superman. He has a body build that no man can ever attain. Even in statue version he's beyond muscle built.


Much like how Mary Jane is shown in the statue. That is pretty much her character in the comic book. And really. The only big issue here is that the statue does not capture the innocence that the drawing had.


It's rather harmless and doesn't show her washing cloths from a bucket. It's finding his suit in the laundry. It's very much a throw back to the 50's pin up's.

Besides, if anything, it is how Mary Jane is shown in the comic books as a supporting character.


Most of all, the costumes reflect society. Not the other way around. Much like how at one point supergirl wore something like this


She now wears something like this:



As for the Heroes for Hire cover that JasonF posted. Would it shock you if I told you that the person who drew that cover was actually a female? I would assume that it's tapping into the market of those coming over from Manga were tentacle rape isn't something new. Is it wrong? I'm not into it and I don't know many who are, but it does sell and it does represent the growing number of those who are into anime and comics.

Besides that, Manga is touted as having a significantly higher female fanbase, much of it can be attributed to gearing comics specifically towards females. Is it all right to counteract male-oriented comics with female-oriented ones, or should there be ones that are more gender-neutral? Is it even possible to make a completely gender-neutral comic, and if so, can it be done without dividing different aspects of that individual comic to cater to specific genders?

I feel like there are many layers to this topic: artist, editor, and of course, viewer, among others. Does the problem start with the artists who create this sort of thing, or those among the readers who want this sort of thing? Is it really a huge problem to appeal to bondage fetishists among the readership in the first place?

As for the Supergirl thing, I think the bad taste that the comic leaves in everyone's mouths is that Supergirl is supposed to be a respected icon of DC Comics and an important figure in its history. It goes way beyond simple sexism and into sheer disrespect for everything the name has stood for which is a crock of shit.

Comic books SHOULD NOT BE THE MORAL COMPASS! It is as simple as that. It's much the same as having a television raise your children. There will be comic books that are more female friendly and there will be comic books like that HEROES FOR HIRE up there. If there is a total lack of respect for women it's not the fault of the comic book but of the society that it mirrors which was the reason why the comic exist.

[fujishig]

Oh goody, can't wait until TracerBullet gets back now, and this becomes a rehash of the last topic...

[Tracer Bullet]

Originally Posted by Jackskeleton

Now, is there a problem with DC creating a female line of comics called MINX?

You know, even though the word Minx means:
n : a seductive woman who uses her sex appeal to exploit men

Yes, let's argue against a legtimate concern by producing an exaggerated claim that very few people have made.

And lets not kid ourselves. Men in comics are just the same. It's a male fantasy to be as big and built like superman. Hell, even to have Captain Marvel's package


For every image of a female character doing flying kick with a thong in your face:


I'm sure you can find one of a superhero doing much of the same thing.

Again, it's not the same thing. The portrayal of men in superhero comics is rooted in teenage straight male fantasy. The portrayal of women in superhero comics is rooted in teenage straight male SEXUAL fantasy.

Oh, he's wearing pants. You say? Well how about Robin?

Showing us that a face full of crotch is in store for anyone looking towards fantasy books.

Robin has worn pants for at least 20 years.

It's rather harmless and doesn't show her washing cloths from a bucket. It's finding his suit in the laundry. It's very much a throw back to the 50's pin up's.

Oh, it's an homage to something that many people also find offensive. Thanks for clearing that up.

Most of all, the costumes reflect society. Not the other way around.

Good point. What do you think the fact that they have put Robin in pants while contining to remove more and more clothing from female characters means?

As for the Heroes for Hire cover that JasonF posted. Would it shock you if I told you that the person who drew that cover was actually a female?

Doesn't that just mean that in order for a woman to be published by Marvel, she has to conform to the dominant strain of sexism?

I feel like there are many layers to this topic: artist, editor, and of course, viewer, among others. Does the problem start with the artists who create this sort of thing, or those among the readers who want this sort of thing? Is it really a huge problem to appeal to bondage fetishists among the readership in the first place?

No, it's not. However, you continue to have Marvel editors making mealy-mouthed comments about wanting to bring more women readers into comics while publishing tentacle rape porn. Hmmmm.

[Rockmjd23]

Originally Posted by Tracer Bullet

What do you think the fact that they have put Robin in pants while contining to remove more and more clothing from female characters means?

To me it means they are catering to their target audience. Btw, I do agree with you that if the editors are claiming to be making the comics female-friendly, they should show it in some way.

[Jackskeleton]

Originally Posted by Rockmjd23

To me it means they are catering to their target audience. Btw, I do agree with you that if the editors are claiming to be making the comics female-friendly, they should show it in some way.

Ooooh.. by say, making female friendly comics like MARY JANE LOVES SPIDER-MAN?



Zing!

Again, it's not the same thing. The portrayal of men in superhero comics is rooted in teenage straight male fantasy. The portrayal of women in superhero comics is rooted in teenage straight male SEXUAL fantasy.

Guess what. BOTH ARE MALE FANTASIES! THEY ARE SELLING A PRODUCT TO THE TARGET AUDIENCE. It's a capitalistic market and if you disagree with something then show it with your wallet. Fewer folks buy it then the market will follow by producing fewer related items.

Robin has worn pants for at least 20 years.

Regardless of the fact that you have the exact same poses in both male and female characters. They are dynamic and considering two of those were drawn by jim lee. Artist specific. Which also depends on how the artist draws the character. Someone like Amanda Conner draws supergirl a lot different than Churchill, Turner or Benes.

Oh, it's an homage to something that many people also find offensive.

Those people who bitch and complain about those can shove a coal up their ass and produce a diamond. They are just as bad as PETA when it comes to this shit. Fuck them, I say.

Doesn't that just mean that in order for a woman to be published by Marvel, she has to conform to the dominant strain of sexism?

No gun to her head. She could self publish or find a job with DC. Who like I said, IS PUBLISHING A FEMALE TARGETED COMIC LINE CALLED MINX. Your point was disproved as they don't have to subject themselves to the torture and gun pointing of having to draw art such erotic art if they didn't want to.

No, it's not. However, you continue to have Marvel editors making mealy-mouthed comments about wanting to bring more women readers into comics while publishing tentacle rape porn. Hmmmm.

Much like with any other form of medium there is options. If I don't want to go see blood and guts on the screen I wont go see GRINDHOUSE (or for that matter, no one will considering the box office. ZING!) I have the option to go see something that is rated for my own preference. Say, a comedy or a family friendly movie. Same shit in comics. If I don't want to read tentacle rape then I'll not buy Heroes for Hire. Frankly, the writing on that book was shit from the get go.

Marvel does have a lot of titles that do highlight females in a positive role. Shit, the Director of fuck'n SHIELD was a Female all throughout Civil War. Captain America has a strong supportive female character in it. She Hulk is a very strong female character whos book wasn't all about sex shots and what not. It was a good read and contained a lot of independence for the character in the lawyer angel. . Someone else mentioned that the mighty avengers is run by a powerful female lead. Young Avengers has Hawkeye who is a very popular.

Looking at comics in general. Bone had amazingly strong female characters. Pick up the Luna brothers ULTRA line and it's pretty much Sex in the city with heroes. Liz Sherman from Hellboy is strong.

So don't spout off to me about not having a choice if you are a female comic reader. I hate hate HATE space stories in comics. Doesn't mean I don't have an option. I don't want those who like space stories to be screwed out. Let them have their options and let me have mine. It's a free market. See where I'm going here?


Yet, marvel isn't doing anything that is already being done in other mediums. Take a look at what your pre-teen daughter is wanting and is topping barbies in sells and the lesson they teach them:



Like I said. Don't look to comics for a moral compass. Look to society and fix that shit there and you'll have comics and all the other mediums reflect it. Marvel is doing something for everyone instead of focusing on just one group. Those young girls can pick up Mary Jane loves Spider-man and enjoy the great read (shit, it's even MY guilty pleasure!) and then those looking for some adult Mary Jane action can get their kicks in with the statue or whatever issue of spider-man this month where she's wearing pretty much the same shit she is in the statue.

[Giantrobo]

Agreed Rockmjd23. Plus Robin's Green Panties were lame since day one. Giving him long pants years ago was a great move and his latest costume kicks all kinds of ass.

BTW, they've also covered up Wonder Woman.

[Jackskeleton]

Yeah, the boy shorts for robin weren't working out well in the modern day.


But the issue is that no matter how much you cover up a female there will still be people complaining.

Check this shit out. Already pictured image of Huntress


Now lets add some pants and cover up that skin! Cause you know, we're in some eastern society all of a sudden.


See, there's still going to be screaming to the high heavens that the character is a double D, ultra thin female. and we have a front row view at her crotch. How dare she try to wear something tight when fighting crime! Even though what she is wearing there is pretty much the same as batman. Underwear on the outside and skin tight cloths showing off all her curves.

Now, lets just make batman with some skin tones


Do you think there will be some protest group screaming about this? No. We don't care. Infact, if I was flipping through it I wouldn't even notice the difference between the lack of pants on batman. I mean, it's not like he's doing this.



That one's for you G-robo!

[Peep]

Extremely well-made points, Jackskeleton.

[Giantrobo]

BTW, Huntress' current outfit covers her up.

[Rogue588]

Jesus Christ. You guys are going to start ruining reading comics for me.

And here I thought the only things to look for were good art and storylines. Who knew comics had all of THIS kind of subtext.

[dadaluholla]

Wow, this is like Seduction of the Innocent 2007 Edition.

[stingermck]

Damn, you guys are still talking?

Strange that this is one of the biggest thread ive seen in the comics forum. I thought we'd just have a laugh at how crazy some people are

[Tracer Bullet]

Originally Posted by Rogue588

Jesus Christ. You guys are going to start ruining reading comics for me.

And here I thought the only things to look for were good art and storylines. Who knew comics had all of THIS kind of subtext.

Everything has subtext.

And I just want to point out that it's not really about what their suits cover or don't cover, and focusing on that either means you don't understand the real issues or are trying to be reductive in order to diminish the very real problems some people have with superhero comics.

I don't have time right now to respond to Jackskeleton's lengthy post, but I will. I'm sure you're all very excited by that.

[Rockmjd23]

Originally Posted by Jackskeleton

Ooooh.. by say, making female friendly comics like MARY JANE LOVES SPIDER-MAN?

I never said they weren't doing it.

[JasonF]

Artistically speaking, the picture of Batman that Jackskeleton posted is composed in such a way as to draw the eye to Batman's foot while the picture of Huntress is composed to draw the eye to her vagina.

[Giantrobo]

Originally Posted by JasonF

Artistically speaking, the picture of Batman that Jackskeleton posted is composed in such a way as to draw the eye to Batman's foot while the picture of Huntress is composed to draw the eye to her vagina.

I partially agree with this. But then again I think the second pic without the skin showing has the same effect as the Batman pic. However, in the first one, the healthy Flesh colored thighs with the dark panties in the middle does tend to give one* a natural focal point towards her Vagina.



*Evil perverted Straight males out to ruin comics by driving away women and gay men with their lustful images.

[JasonF]

Originally Posted by Giantrobo

I partially agree with this. But then again I think the second pic without the skin showing has the same effect as the Batman pic. However, in the first one, the healthy Flesh colored thighs with the dark panties in the middle does tend to give one* a natural focal point towards her Vagina.



*Evil perverted Straight males out to ruin comics by driving away women and gay men with their lustful images.

I wasn't talking about the recolored pics vs. the original coloring. I'm talking about where the lines of action are in the two pictures. In the Batman picture, the lines (the rope, the cape, Batman's left arm, his left leg) all converge on Batman's foot. In the Huntress picture, the lines (her right leg, her left foot, her left arm) converge on her crotch. The pictures are each laid (whether intentionally or not, I couldn't say) to draw the eye to a particular place.

[Giantrobo]

Originally Posted by JasonF

I wasn't talking about the recolored pics vs. the original coloring. I'm talking about where the lines of action are in the two pictures. In the Batman picture, the lines (the rope, the cape, Batman's left arm, his left leg) all converge on Batman's foot. In the Huntress picture, the lines (her right leg, her left foot, her left arm) converge on her crotch. The pictures are each laid (whether intentionally or not, I couldn't say) to draw the eye to a particular place.

I know what you're talking about I just posted my own observations and still only partially agree.

[ViewAskewbian]

Jack, I've been reading your stuff here for years and this is some of the most well written points you've ever made. Codos, man. The best point here is that comics should NOT be used as a moral compass. Leave that to role models in popular music.

[Brain Stew]

Originally Posted by ViewAskewbian

Codos

[ViewAskewbian]

Originally Posted by Brain Stew

[rexinnih]

Originally Posted by dadaluholla

Just be grateful it wasn't Aunt May.

[The Bus]

I personally don't agree with the "new" look the Fantastic Four are getting once the movie comes out:

[TomOpus]

Phantastique Phour?

[Giantrobo]

A bit off topic but kinda interesting in that it's anecdotal evidence that some Gays do enjoy the way Males are drawn in comics; I was just over at DC's Message Boards and there's a 15 page thread started last year where Gay comic fans are posting their favorites Hunks.

Apparently in order from 1st to 4th based on votes Nightwing, Superboy(Conner), Speedy/Arsenal, and Aquaman are "Hunky" based on the votes in thread.

The characters Hawkman, Green Lantern (Hal Jordan) and Green Arrow got votes for being "sexy hairy men" and or "sexy older men".