AmberCutie's Forum
An adult community for cam models and members to discuss all the things!
Great rant about Spider-Woman and sexualization
- Thread starter AmberCutie
- Start date
-
** WARNING - ACF CONTAINS ADULT CONTENT **Only persons aged 18 or over may read or post to the forums, without regard to whether an adult actually owns the registration or parental/guardian permission. AmberCutie's Forum (ACF) is for use by adults only and contains adult content. By continuing to use this site you are confirming that you are at least 18 years of age.
- Status
Nordling
V.I.P. AmberLander
The Hawkeye Initiative
THIIIIIIIIIIIISSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!
THIIIIIIIIIIIISSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!
- Jun 29, 2012
- 3,216
- 25,070
- 213
- Twitter Username
- @KayleePond
- Tumblr Username
- KayleePond
- MFC Username
- KayleePond
- Streamate Username
- KayleePond
- ManyVids URL
- https://www.manyvids.com/Profile/38765/Kaylee-Pond/
- Clips4Sale URL
- http://clips4sale.com/store/62721/kayleepond
MsDonkey said:
Yessssss! I love this Tumblr, I only wish they would post more often, I love when they come up on my dash!
Good to see someone unfroze Maddox and released him from his 2002 cryonic time capsule to address this important issue, if only because it gives me the opportunity to kill yet another thread about comics with an over-worded geekout. I apologize for this in advance.
Maddox brings up some interesting points, but I have to say, you can't play the "context is everything" gambit with the "it's these critics who have dirty minds" card in defense of Milo Manara. Contextually, Manara was hired for the sexy, plain and simple. That's what Manara does. He gives his "Manara Girl" treatment to characters, and ensures that they're dripping with sexuality. Those forty award-winning years that comprises Manara's career has been about as heavily steeped in erotic work as one can get without being outright called a pornographer. This is the guy behind such smutty classics as Click and Butterscotch. Hell, even his tame stuff, like Indian Summer, features pretty graphic scenes of native-on-puritan sexual assault and sexy washtub incest. And when he does work for folks like Marvel, what we end up with is page after page of suggestive contortions and parted, bee-stung lips. The guy knows what he's doing. The guys who hire him know what he's doing. In fact, they're counting on him to do it.
And I say that with nothing but love in my heart for Milo Manara.
Superheroes are a weird genre, and the relationship (in the U.S. especially) between superheroes and comics has made for even weirder weirdness. As far as I can tell, this is a prime example of true fetishization, which, as I'd put it in the sexy comics thread, has a lot to do with poorly-camouflaged sexual repression, generally trading cinematic violence for sex. Manara (and by extension, Maddox) has it right when he claims that what we've got is a bunch of naked superheroes running around, punching through walls. And I do think that superheroes, as they stand, are mostly designed to appeal to young males. It's pretty well-worn territory to point out that, while females in superhero comics are often objectified, males in superhero comics are idealized. So, while the image that Maddox points out, where Spider-Man is taking on the exact same pose as Spider-Woman had, the context is different. And, of course, context is everything. While I think that it's perfectly reasonable to make the argument that both images could be considered sexually-charged in their own way, Spider-Man isn't being sexualized in the same manner as Spider-Woman. Spider-Man is what the male reader wants to be, and Spider-Woman is what male readers want to have.
To all that, I say "whatever." If superhero comics are all meant to appeal to the sexy power fantasies of young men, then so be it. People keep bringing up this information that oh-so-many women are now into comics, and yes, I do believe that. The 47% that Maddox quoted is a perfectly feasible amount. It should be pointed out, though, that the 47% that he's quoting is taken from the findings of a guy who crunched some numbers of Facebook analytics derived from some general terms, such as "manga," "graphic novel" and "comic". He also got something like 36% when he looked for names of specific characters or companies, but that doesn't necessarily mean that women are reading superhero books. Given the massive successes of big-budget blockbuster superhero movies, these characters and these companies have become a part of the general cultural lexicon, and that means that one no longer needs to be a reader of Batman or Avengers books to be fans of Batman or the Avengers. In fact, it is a subject within the superhero comics community that is often discussed that, based upon what retailers are saying, superhero movies do not actually provide significant crossover boosts in the sales of superhero comics. The reports from comic retailers is that these new movie-fed fans are far more inclined to buy up merchandising that features their favorite characters than they are willing to take up reading comics. In a nutshell: watching the movies and television shows, and wearing the t-shirts is enough for a lot of people.
What this means is that it would take a whole lot of massaging of the numbers to even get a 2:1 male:female ratio of superhero comics readers. And other numbers support that. A couple years back, when DC launched its New 52 books, they did a major survey through Nielson (the TV ratings folk.) It was a wide-ranging survey, drawing respondents from e-mail, in-store, and online sources. The finding was that 93% of the respondents were male, and 50% of them were under the age of 34. (The essay from the Mary Sue that has cited this info is also a pretty good criticism of the Big Two's insistence on sticking only to that demographic, despite the fact that it's doing them no good.) Results from other polls conducted over the years back that data up. Polling data consistently puts female readership of superhero comics at between 5% and 10%, again supporting the idea that a person who is a fan of a superhero -- especially one that has appeared in a successful movie franchise -- is not the same as a person who is a fan of superhero comic books.
So then, the natural question is if practically half of all comic readers are women, but they don't read superhero comics, what are they reading? The answer is simple: they read everything but superhero comics. In a market that now includes myriad sources of comics, like webcomics, manga, and graphic novels, women (and everyone else) are free to choose what kinds of comics they want to read. And it should be telling to everyone who doesn't really have much of an agenda that women in general just don't really seem all that interested in superheroes. An interesting bit of anecdotal evidence to that is the fact that, while superhero movies don't move superhero books, comics retailers report that non-superhero movies based on comics do often result in sales increases in their corresponding comic books. When movies like Sin City, 300, or Hellboy, and tv shows like Buffy the Vampire Slayer and The Walking Dead come out, those sorts of properties seem to have a greater propensity to create fans who seek out the comic titles, as well. On a personal note, when Scott Pilgrim vs. the World came out, I went to see it with half a dozen excited 20-year-old girls, and the theater was full of the same.
My takeaway from all of this comes in two parts:
First, all of this goes to show that we need to stop treating "superheroes" and "comics" as interchangeable terms. It's simply not the case anymore. Superheroes can be found in everything these days, and not just in comics. Conversely, comics are incredibly wide and deep in what sorts of stories they tell, and that width and depth are only increasing with time. Superheroes and comics no longer live in symbiosis the way they did twenty years ago, and we need to stop acting as though they do.
Second, and I think more importantly, and controversially, I'm sure -- especially since this is something that is rarely, if ever, stated when addressing the issue of increasing audience bases -- superhero books should be allowed to remain the fetishized adolescent male power fantasies they've always been. Letting the boys have a Spider-Woman with an ass that won't quit isn't evidence of all that's wrong with comics. Expansion and inclusion is happening; it's just happening in directions that move away from superheroes. So, with that in mind why can't boys have a place like this in their fantasy life to escape to? Can't superhero comics be the Arnold Schwarzenegger movie or the rap video of this particular creative medium?
Over the past several weeks, the same sort of numbers have been popping up in regards to the traditionally-male-dominated geek pastimes that I personally love. All evidence shows that geek girls have risen. Half of all roleplayers are women, half of all video gamers are women, and half of all comic readers are women. Go to any con, and see it for yourself. Ladies are into this shit, and that's awesome! However, as I hope I've adequately pointed out, ladies don't have to be into the same things guys are into in order to be part of the subculture. These constant controversies that essentially boil down to people wanting to dismantle the stuff that already exists in the name of inclusion are kind of awful. Why do we have to try to shoehorn a female readership into superhero comics, when it's abundantly apparent that, when given the choice, they'd rather look at non-superhero comics or no comics at all? And, in trying to force superhero fare into expanding its audience, why is it necessary to undo the stuff that does appeal to boys and young men? Now that girls are in the clubhouse, it automatically means that boys can't do what they want? That doesn't seem particularly fair to me.
When people post rants about how terrible Manara's Spider-Woman is, and even go so far as to post corrections of his (and Land's) drawing to make it more "realistic," I think it really misses the mark. People shouldn't be getting pissed that women in comics aimed at boys are sexy, even when they are incredibly sexy. And we shouldn't take critiques that are actually more along the lines of "this is what appeals to me" to mean "this is more real or more correct." I feel as though, if women were really terribly concerned over the inclusiveness or the depiction of females in superhero comics, and not out for just a bit of knee-jerk bandwagoning for pageviews now and again, they'd be taking it upon themselves to make the superhero comics that they want to see. Marvel and DC don't have a duopoly on the superhero concept, after all. Women are allowed to invent their own. And fan work is also pretty well encouraged within comics. So, there's no excuses from women, really. If half of all comics readers are women, the force of popular movement is already in their hands. In cartooning, as with most creative endeavors, if you can't find the work you want, you make the work you want. Someone with the skills to effectively apply their womanly sensibilities to Supergirl or Electra or whomever would likely get noticed and applauded. Then, I suppose, this movement people keep crying for could well be afoot. But women are already making the work they want, and it truly seems that, under scrutiny, despite protests to the contrary, what women want is not superheroes. So let teenaged boys have them; they need them.
Maddox brings up some interesting points, but I have to say, you can't play the "context is everything" gambit with the "it's these critics who have dirty minds" card in defense of Milo Manara. Contextually, Manara was hired for the sexy, plain and simple. That's what Manara does. He gives his "Manara Girl" treatment to characters, and ensures that they're dripping with sexuality. Those forty award-winning years that comprises Manara's career has been about as heavily steeped in erotic work as one can get without being outright called a pornographer. This is the guy behind such smutty classics as Click and Butterscotch. Hell, even his tame stuff, like Indian Summer, features pretty graphic scenes of native-on-puritan sexual assault and sexy washtub incest. And when he does work for folks like Marvel, what we end up with is page after page of suggestive contortions and parted, bee-stung lips. The guy knows what he's doing. The guys who hire him know what he's doing. In fact, they're counting on him to do it.
And I say that with nothing but love in my heart for Milo Manara.
Superheroes are a weird genre, and the relationship (in the U.S. especially) between superheroes and comics has made for even weirder weirdness. As far as I can tell, this is a prime example of true fetishization, which, as I'd put it in the sexy comics thread, has a lot to do with poorly-camouflaged sexual repression, generally trading cinematic violence for sex. Manara (and by extension, Maddox) has it right when he claims that what we've got is a bunch of naked superheroes running around, punching through walls. And I do think that superheroes, as they stand, are mostly designed to appeal to young males. It's pretty well-worn territory to point out that, while females in superhero comics are often objectified, males in superhero comics are idealized. So, while the image that Maddox points out, where Spider-Man is taking on the exact same pose as Spider-Woman had, the context is different. And, of course, context is everything. While I think that it's perfectly reasonable to make the argument that both images could be considered sexually-charged in their own way, Spider-Man isn't being sexualized in the same manner as Spider-Woman. Spider-Man is what the male reader wants to be, and Spider-Woman is what male readers want to have.
To all that, I say "whatever." If superhero comics are all meant to appeal to the sexy power fantasies of young men, then so be it. People keep bringing up this information that oh-so-many women are now into comics, and yes, I do believe that. The 47% that Maddox quoted is a perfectly feasible amount. It should be pointed out, though, that the 47% that he's quoting is taken from the findings of a guy who crunched some numbers of Facebook analytics derived from some general terms, such as "manga," "graphic novel" and "comic". He also got something like 36% when he looked for names of specific characters or companies, but that doesn't necessarily mean that women are reading superhero books. Given the massive successes of big-budget blockbuster superhero movies, these characters and these companies have become a part of the general cultural lexicon, and that means that one no longer needs to be a reader of Batman or Avengers books to be fans of Batman or the Avengers. In fact, it is a subject within the superhero comics community that is often discussed that, based upon what retailers are saying, superhero movies do not actually provide significant crossover boosts in the sales of superhero comics. The reports from comic retailers is that these new movie-fed fans are far more inclined to buy up merchandising that features their favorite characters than they are willing to take up reading comics. In a nutshell: watching the movies and television shows, and wearing the t-shirts is enough for a lot of people.
What this means is that it would take a whole lot of massaging of the numbers to even get a 2:1 male:female ratio of superhero comics readers. And other numbers support that. A couple years back, when DC launched its New 52 books, they did a major survey through Nielson (the TV ratings folk.) It was a wide-ranging survey, drawing respondents from e-mail, in-store, and online sources. The finding was that 93% of the respondents were male, and 50% of them were under the age of 34. (The essay from the Mary Sue that has cited this info is also a pretty good criticism of the Big Two's insistence on sticking only to that demographic, despite the fact that it's doing them no good.) Results from other polls conducted over the years back that data up. Polling data consistently puts female readership of superhero comics at between 5% and 10%, again supporting the idea that a person who is a fan of a superhero -- especially one that has appeared in a successful movie franchise -- is not the same as a person who is a fan of superhero comic books.
So then, the natural question is if practically half of all comic readers are women, but they don't read superhero comics, what are they reading? The answer is simple: they read everything but superhero comics. In a market that now includes myriad sources of comics, like webcomics, manga, and graphic novels, women (and everyone else) are free to choose what kinds of comics they want to read. And it should be telling to everyone who doesn't really have much of an agenda that women in general just don't really seem all that interested in superheroes. An interesting bit of anecdotal evidence to that is the fact that, while superhero movies don't move superhero books, comics retailers report that non-superhero movies based on comics do often result in sales increases in their corresponding comic books. When movies like Sin City, 300, or Hellboy, and tv shows like Buffy the Vampire Slayer and The Walking Dead come out, those sorts of properties seem to have a greater propensity to create fans who seek out the comic titles, as well. On a personal note, when Scott Pilgrim vs. the World came out, I went to see it with half a dozen excited 20-year-old girls, and the theater was full of the same.
My takeaway from all of this comes in two parts:
First, all of this goes to show that we need to stop treating "superheroes" and "comics" as interchangeable terms. It's simply not the case anymore. Superheroes can be found in everything these days, and not just in comics. Conversely, comics are incredibly wide and deep in what sorts of stories they tell, and that width and depth are only increasing with time. Superheroes and comics no longer live in symbiosis the way they did twenty years ago, and we need to stop acting as though they do.
Second, and I think more importantly, and controversially, I'm sure -- especially since this is something that is rarely, if ever, stated when addressing the issue of increasing audience bases -- superhero books should be allowed to remain the fetishized adolescent male power fantasies they've always been. Letting the boys have a Spider-Woman with an ass that won't quit isn't evidence of all that's wrong with comics. Expansion and inclusion is happening; it's just happening in directions that move away from superheroes. So, with that in mind why can't boys have a place like this in their fantasy life to escape to? Can't superhero comics be the Arnold Schwarzenegger movie or the rap video of this particular creative medium?
Over the past several weeks, the same sort of numbers have been popping up in regards to the traditionally-male-dominated geek pastimes that I personally love. All evidence shows that geek girls have risen. Half of all roleplayers are women, half of all video gamers are women, and half of all comic readers are women. Go to any con, and see it for yourself. Ladies are into this shit, and that's awesome! However, as I hope I've adequately pointed out, ladies don't have to be into the same things guys are into in order to be part of the subculture. These constant controversies that essentially boil down to people wanting to dismantle the stuff that already exists in the name of inclusion are kind of awful. Why do we have to try to shoehorn a female readership into superhero comics, when it's abundantly apparent that, when given the choice, they'd rather look at non-superhero comics or no comics at all? And, in trying to force superhero fare into expanding its audience, why is it necessary to undo the stuff that does appeal to boys and young men? Now that girls are in the clubhouse, it automatically means that boys can't do what they want? That doesn't seem particularly fair to me.
When people post rants about how terrible Manara's Spider-Woman is, and even go so far as to post corrections of his (and Land's) drawing to make it more "realistic," I think it really misses the mark. People shouldn't be getting pissed that women in comics aimed at boys are sexy, even when they are incredibly sexy. And we shouldn't take critiques that are actually more along the lines of "this is what appeals to me" to mean "this is more real or more correct." I feel as though, if women were really terribly concerned over the inclusiveness or the depiction of females in superhero comics, and not out for just a bit of knee-jerk bandwagoning for pageviews now and again, they'd be taking it upon themselves to make the superhero comics that they want to see. Marvel and DC don't have a duopoly on the superhero concept, after all. Women are allowed to invent their own. And fan work is also pretty well encouraged within comics. So, there's no excuses from women, really. If half of all comics readers are women, the force of popular movement is already in their hands. In cartooning, as with most creative endeavors, if you can't find the work you want, you make the work you want. Someone with the skills to effectively apply their womanly sensibilities to Supergirl or Electra or whomever would likely get noticed and applauded. Then, I suppose, this movement people keep crying for could well be afoot. But women are already making the work they want, and it truly seems that, under scrutiny, despite protests to the contrary, what women want is not superheroes. So let teenaged boys have them; they need them.
Some of the comments on the "fixed" blog at the end of your post... ugh made my brain hurt.
AmberCutie said:
My favorite is anatomy complaints leveled at superhero artists. It's cartooning. While we're at it, let's complain about Bugs Bunny not looking like a real rabbit!
MsDonkey said:
TL;DR
More and more women like superheroes, and more and more women like comics. However, they don't like to read superhero comics. Evidence shows that, given the choices of comic fare that's out there, women choose non-superhero comics nine times out of ten. And, while there are regular outcries of sexism and objectification when some artist draws an ass that's too hot, the fact is that there is an abundance of female cartoonists out there working today, yet none of them seem terribly interested in actually making superhero comics that appeal to women, which is fine, since women don't seem terribly interested in reading superhero comics.
TL;DR for the TL;DR
Women don't read or make superhero comics, so let the boys have their superheroes, including sexy Spider-Manara-Girl.
You can have the books when you pry them from my cold dead, manicured hands! Besides, we have the movies.zippypinhead said:MsDonkey said:
TL;DR
More and more women like superheroes, and more and more women like comics. However, they don't like to read superhero comics. Evidence shows that, given the choices of comic fare that's out there, women choose non-superhero comics nine times out of ten. And, while there are regular outcries of sexism and objectification when some artist draws an ass that's too hot, the fact is that there is an abundance of female cartoonists out there working today, yet none of them seem terribly interested in actually making superhero comics that appeal to women, which is fine, since women don't seem terribly interested in reading superhero comics.
TL;DR for the TL;DR
Women don't read or make superhero comics, so let the boys have their superheroes, including sexy Spider-Manara-Girl.
http://www.themarysue.com/marvel-cinema ... male-gaze/
Coming from an anatomy perspective, I totally understand why that blog redrew them. Holy damn, that cover (not even the "sexy" one) is the biggest mush body I have ever seen.
If you're gonna hire someone for a specific look, you might as well get someone who can also draw anatomy correctly. You can draw a sexy woman without mangling the non-sexy parts to make the boobs look better (? In my opinon they made them look giant, but not real shapes.. You can use a fucking reference and get the boobs to look giant and realistic). I enjoy the painted on bodysuits, but the really really horrible leg shapes are pretty much killing me.
I think my real beef is that they compromised the integrity of the art for a certain look. You can MOST CERTAINLY keep that look and have anatomy that isn't totally fucked up. If I had brought that drawing into my figure drawing classes, I would have been corrected, just as the blog did.
If you're gonna hire someone for a specific look, you might as well get someone who can also draw anatomy correctly. You can draw a sexy woman without mangling the non-sexy parts to make the boobs look better (? In my opinon they made them look giant, but not real shapes.. You can use a fucking reference and get the boobs to look giant and realistic). I enjoy the painted on bodysuits, but the really really horrible leg shapes are pretty much killing me.
I think my real beef is that they compromised the integrity of the art for a certain look. You can MOST CERTAINLY keep that look and have anatomy that isn't totally fucked up. If I had brought that drawing into my figure drawing classes, I would have been corrected, just as the blog did.
LacieLaPlante said:
Greg Land is just a shitty artist in general. Spotting when Land traces or recycles photos or other art in his work is a bit of a sport in Comicsville. If he ain't lifting his imagery directly from from other folk, his work isn't so great. As for the Manara critique, she got the pose wrong right off the bat. Here is Manara's explanation:
"I wanted to draw is a woman who, after climbing the wall of a skyscraper, crawls on the roof. She finds herself at the edge, her right leg still not on the roof. So regarding the anatomical criticism, I think they are wrong, she is not meant to have both knees on the roof. One leg is still down, and the other is pulling up. And that’s why her back is arched."
If you look at the image, you can see that her leg is indeed hanging off the ledge, which means that Karine Charlebois was working from a wrong premise from the outset. And the thing is, aside from it being less assy and lithe, her redraw really isn't much different from his. Personally, I'd call the this hand a push, since now, what we're really talking about is stylistic interpretation and preference.
Manara's a 68-year-old erotic artist from Italy, who has essentially been drawing the same woman in different wigs and outfits for the last forty years. His work doesn't really need defending, since he did with this cover exactly what he does. I do take issue with the "anatomy is wrong" argument in general, though. This is cartooning. Cartooning is supposed to look "real" in the same way that Texas Chainsaw Massacre is supposed to be "based on actual events." That is to say, it's not. Using terms like "reality" or "accuracy" in description of comic book drawing only serves the purpose of allowing the reader to suspend disbelief enough to go along with the visual insanity they're looking at.
But drawing superheroes isn't the same sort of exercise as attending a figure drawing class. As I had put it in my other ocean of words, "this is what I prefer" is not the same thing as "this is more real." Charlebois' preferences are no more real than Manara's. They're both cartoonists, and they're both living in the milieu of abstraction that comes inherent to the format. Her overdraws are not more or less real than either artist's -- they're just abstracted differently, and to their own tastes. I would say that, while her handling of Land's composition is a better execution of how the figures are posed, I still prefer Manara's work to her "corrections." Incidentally, I found a fun tumblr thing that she does called Less Tits n' Ass, More Kickin' Ass, which featured a recent post of her critiquing a critique of her critique. A fun back-and-forth, although I have to say that, given the views I've stated above, and given the evidence presented in dispute of her position, at this point, I think she's more defending her own stylistic preferences, rather than presenting a convincing argument that her take on the figures are actually more accurate or real. And even if it was more real, that still does nothing to convincingly state that reality is a desired state for cartoons in general, and superheroes specifically.
- Sep 3, 2014
- 34
- 194
- 6
- 29
zippypinhead said:MsDonkey said:
TL;DR
More and more women like superheroes, and more and more women like comics. However, they don't like to read superhero comics. Evidence shows that, given the choices of comic fare that's out there, women choose non-superhero comics nine times out of ten. And, while there are regular outcries of sexism and objectification when some artist draws an ass that's too hot, the fact is that there is an abundance of female cartoonists out there working today, yet none of them seem terribly interested in actually making superhero comics that appeal to women, which is fine, since women don't seem terribly interested in reading superhero comics.
TL;DR for the TL;DR
Women don't read or make superhero comics, so let the boys have their superheroes, including sexy Spider-Manara-Girl.
I'm not sure if this counts as reviving a dead thread, so I'm also not sure if I'm committing a faux pas, but I'm gonna throw my two cents in.
I think saying "women don't read/make comics, so keep them sexist and unrealistic" is really unfair. Why do you think a lot of women don't care about or read or make comics? It's because in most comics, women are objectified and seen as window dressing or just pawns to advance man pain/the man's storyline. Women don't like that. I don't think it would be a bad thing to stop objectifying women in comics. And women do read comics. A lot of women do, and a lot of women are unhappy about the treatment of women in comics.
The whole "women in comics" thing is a very fraught issue, especially because of the culture surrounding them. I find (as a somewhat-nerdy person with tits and a vagina) that I am fairly fetishized, and not just on cam, when I mention any of my "nerdy/comic-y" interests, or that I have to somehow "prove" that I'm not a "fake geek". Both of those things make me not want to be vocal or talk about my nerdy interests anymore, on top of the fact that most women I see in that kind of media (comics, movies, etc) are pretty one-dimensional and only exist to serve the man.
So that's my two cents I'm sorry if I revived a dead thread but I had tooooooo.
That's a really broad assumption. And I think that's part of what the rant was about. People assuming that this is the case. It may not be.Dany_is_hot said:
- Sep 3, 2014
- 34
- 194
- 6
- 29
You're right, there are some comics that are good about treating women's characterization well, but the mainstream ones are really not good about that. And I think saying "but some are good!!!!" kind of takes the accountability away from ones that are sexist. Idk, that just sounds too close to "not ALL men".AmberCutie said:
You can't please everyone, though. As soon as someone starts changing the way classic comics are drawn to please the feminists and other nay-sayers, the people who enjoyed them the way they were are now wronged. Why is that fair?Dany_is_hot said:
There's no winning. And I think it's lame/silly that entertainment is scrutinized with such a political spin sometimes.
Jillybean
Inactive Cam Model
- Feb 28, 2013
- 3,341
- 22,379
- 213
- Twitter Username
- @JillybeanCams
- MFC Username
- Jillybean
- Streamate Username
- Jilly_Bean
4 minutes 50-something seconds...
"or vaginas"
Bill O'Reilly pops up.
I'm so glad this video exists!!
"or vaginas"
Bill O'Reilly pops up.
I'm so glad this video exists!!
Dany_is_hot said:zippypinhead said:MsDonkey said:
TL;DR
More and more women like superheroes, and more and more women like comics. However, they don't like to read superhero comics. Evidence shows that, given the choices of comic fare that's out there, women choose non-superhero comics nine times out of ten. And, while there are regular outcries of sexism and objectification when some artist draws an ass that's too hot, the fact is that there is an abundance of female cartoonists out there working today, yet none of them seem terribly interested in actually making superhero comics that appeal to women, which is fine, since women don't seem terribly interested in reading superhero comics.
TL;DR for the TL;DR
Women don't read or make superhero comics, so let the boys have their superheroes, including sexy Spider-Manara-Girl.
I'm not sure if this counts as reviving a dead thread, so I'm also not sure if I'm committing a faux pas, but I'm gonna throw my two cents in.
I think saying "women don't read/make comics, so keep them sexist and unrealistic" is really unfair. Why do you think a lot of women don't care about or read or make comics? It's because in most comics, women are objectified and seen as window dressing or just pawns to advance man pain/the man's storyline. Women don't like that. I don't think it would be a bad thing to stop objectifying women in comics. And women do read comics. A lot of women do, and a lot of women are unhappy about the treatment of women in comics.
The whole "women in comics" thing is a very fraught issue, especially because of the culture surrounding them. I find (as a somewhat-nerdy person with tits and a vagina) that I am fairly fetishized, and not just on cam, when I mention any of my "nerdy/comic-y" interests, or that I have to somehow "prove" that I'm not a "fake geek". Both of those things make me not want to be vocal or talk about my nerdy interests anymore, on top of the fact that most women I see in that kind of media (comics, movies, etc) are pretty one-dimensional and only exist to serve the man.
So that's my two cents I'm sorry if I revived a dead thread but I had tooooooo.
Up to this point, I have contributed over 2,500 words and lots of linked citations, so now I fear I'll just repeat myself. It seems that you mostly read the admittedly-glib "TL;DR for the TL;DR" summary I'd written in the quoted post, but the point I'd really made in those couple thousand words that had preceded the line was actually the opposite of, "women don't read/make comics, so keep them sexist and unrealistic".
Here is the point where I would begin to repeat myself, but I'll save us all that. If you take issue with what I've already written, beyond that last line, feel free to address it, and I'll be happy to keep discussing this. I like few things more than to go deep down into this particular geeky rabbit hole, and believe me, I have more thoughts on this issue.
YelloMit said:
They didn't have to, they chose to. I liked this article in which Axel Alonso talks about how Marvel is attempting to tap into a female market because this is capitalism and they want our money. Why would they risk alienating a group they're attempting to court over one artist? They've invested a lot of time, effort & money into luring in female fans. If we're buying Zippy's assertion that men are faithful superhero comic readers and women aren't, it makes complete sense to cut his future covers and placate the market you're attempting to woo rather than the one you already have.
GenXoxo said:
The movie studios have been investing a lot of time, effort, and money into luring in female fans, to be sure. And that makes sense since these studios understand the value of mass appeal, and giving a little something to everyone. That just isn't the case with comic book publishers, though, particularly Marvel and DC. The only thing the Big 2 have paid to this issue is lip-service, and it's the exact same lip-service, at pretty much the same level of intensity, that they've been paying since the 80s. I do maintain that it would be a task to refit the superhero to appeal to women, especially if the aim is to do so without alienating the male audience. However, when you factor in the business practices of the Big 2, suddenly something that was merely tricky is going to be downright impossible. These two publishers are dinosaurs. They have been working in an old school boys'-club atmosphere for generations, and they don't want to change.
The Spider-Woman controversy is a perfect example of how they operate. With one side of their mouth, they proclaim that they're aiming to appeal to women. They decide to do a revamped, sopposedly-female-appeal-heavy Spider-Woman #1 -- written by a man, drawn by a man, edited by a man -- and they have a big unveiling. "Look!" they say (out of one side of their mouth), "We've got a lady superhero, for the ladies!" And out of the other side of their mouth, they say, "Don't worry, dudes, we got you, Manara-style!"
Cue the same outcry over superhero comics' regard for women that has happened every six months for the last fifteen years.
And despite the cancellation of two Manara covers, in another six months, there will be another stupid controversy that'll flare up. It may catch fire as well as this one happened to, or it may just be another in the long and ever-growing list of Bedchel Test failures, Hakeye Initiative lampooning, or Women in Refrigerators moments. But it will happen. And it will happen because, while women may not be really all that interested in reading superhero comics, it is abundantly clear that Marvel and DC do not care about attracting a female audience to their superhero books.
The thing is, it's just one of a laundry list of antiquated Comics Code era business methods that the Big 2 refuse to drop, and it's the reason why their market share gets smaller and smaller by the year, despite the upswing in interest in comics in nearly all demographics, and the billions of dollars that Hollywood has poured into the effort to generate a greater mass appeal for superheroes. But that's a tangent worthy of a whole other thread in itself.
So, the controversy hits keep coming. First, there's the Batgirl variant cover that the artist himself decided to pull, but his decision just got the reactionary assholes all bent outta shape. And now, Spider-Gwen drawn by Frank Cho in the same exact pose as the Manara cover, and when called out for it, the brigade of 90s EXTREME! relics have crawled out of their mausoleums to defend him.
I take back everything I had written above. The boys don't deserve their club. They keep fucking it up for everyone. Ladies, if you like comics, and you aren't doing it already, go out and start reading superhero books, and demanding superhero books that are meant to appeal to a wider audience than little boys and giant baby men. Shove these assholes into the dark holes they deserve to exist.
Change or die, boys. Right now, you're doing everything you can to see yourselves become totally irrelevant.
I take back everything I had written above. The boys don't deserve their club. They keep fucking it up for everyone. Ladies, if you like comics, and you aren't doing it already, go out and start reading superhero books, and demanding superhero books that are meant to appeal to a wider audience than little boys and giant baby men. Shove these assholes into the dark holes they deserve to exist.
Change or die, boys. Right now, you're doing everything you can to see yourselves become totally irrelevant.
Zippy that was not the post I expected but I liked it :lol:
There was also the fun comments from Erik Larsen about how the Big Two are placating a "vocal minority" by changing female hero's costumes: http://www.themarysue.com/vocal-minorit ... -costumes/
Was glad to see a lot of discussion about it brought up, ditto with the Batgirl cover. That in particular had some interesting sides on all points.
There was also the fun comments from Erik Larsen about how the Big Two are placating a "vocal minority" by changing female hero's costumes: http://www.themarysue.com/vocal-minorit ... -costumes/
Was glad to see a lot of discussion about it brought up, ditto with the Batgirl cover. That in particular had some interesting sides on all points.
MsDonkey said:
I'm not sure if that site is serious or not?
I was thinking about it, and I thought "what would be some mainstream male poses to check out" that you could replace with women
I thought ah.. David Beckham underwear shoot
http://imgur.com/n7PeORI David Beckham photo (wont let me put it in here for some reason)
I think if that was a woman, open legs, hands tied, that would perhaps be a bit too much.. is it sexist of me to think this pose is ok for David but for a woman it might be too much?
So then with that in mind, I thought maybe I'm wrong and they will have females posed like that too, so I searched Victoria Beckham underwear
All Victoria's open leg poses like that she seems to have her hands in front
It's interesting isn't it
- Jun 16, 2012
- 9,162
- 23,438
- 1,593
- 38
- Twitter Username
- @Ann_sulu19
- Streamate Username
- Ann_Sulu
- ManyVids URL
- https://www.manyvids.com/Profile/54402/Ann_Sulu/
Huh, I somehow missed this thread last year. Wow though...like I had heard about the instance and the conspiracy back then, and looking back into it...yeah that hurt my brain.
I did actually kinda like the newer wonder woman outfit, other than the Wolverine looking spikes coming out of her bracelets, it looked good. I didn't see it as being any more bulky or clumsy than most heroes, so Erik's just butthurt (see link in Gen's post). It's not too busy with detail, yet not too plain. It doesn't show skin, and she also has good musculature going on, while retaining a feminine look. I think that's awesome, since too often muscles too often are shown as too masculine.
I love how the Spiderwoman and Spiderman poses align almost perfectly in the video.
Honestly, more than anything, I think there need to be more original super heroines. There are many origial heroines (though less in number than heroes) that were and are great. Whether they are dressed skimpy or not really doesn't matter, though personally, I think it makes it better if the outfit is both attractive, without being sexy to the point of silliness. Not to mention how more skin is stupid unless she has great regeneration abilities. Many times they create female characters that are either sidekicks or the female version of a superhero already out. I kinda like the alternate reality versions of characters, but frankly it's hard to make myself watch or read something if it's that unoriginal.
I actually think I'm more offended about that than any smexy poses out there, but I am one of the supposedly few, bi-sexual, female fans. I mean really though, nothing says reliant on a man like "Hey this look worked for him! I'll just stick Woman/Girl/She in the name, and see if it works!" Don't get me wrong, there have been plenty of great heroines made this way, but I think it would be great since so often it feels like there's very little depth to lady characters anymore.
I did actually kinda like the newer wonder woman outfit, other than the Wolverine looking spikes coming out of her bracelets, it looked good. I didn't see it as being any more bulky or clumsy than most heroes, so Erik's just butthurt (see link in Gen's post). It's not too busy with detail, yet not too plain. It doesn't show skin, and she also has good musculature going on, while retaining a feminine look. I think that's awesome, since too often muscles too often are shown as too masculine.
I love how the Spiderwoman and Spiderman poses align almost perfectly in the video.
Honestly, more than anything, I think there need to be more original super heroines. There are many origial heroines (though less in number than heroes) that were and are great. Whether they are dressed skimpy or not really doesn't matter, though personally, I think it makes it better if the outfit is both attractive, without being sexy to the point of silliness. Not to mention how more skin is stupid unless she has great regeneration abilities. Many times they create female characters that are either sidekicks or the female version of a superhero already out. I kinda like the alternate reality versions of characters, but frankly it's hard to make myself watch or read something if it's that unoriginal.
I actually think I'm more offended about that than any smexy poses out there, but I am one of the supposedly few, bi-sexual, female fans. I mean really though, nothing says reliant on a man like "Hey this look worked for him! I'll just stick Woman/Girl/She in the name, and see if it works!" Don't get me wrong, there have been plenty of great heroines made this way, but I think it would be great since so often it feels like there's very little depth to lady characters anymore.
- Jun 29, 2012
- 3,216
- 25,070
- 213
- Twitter Username
- @KayleePond
- Tumblr Username
- KayleePond
- MFC Username
- KayleePond
- Streamate Username
- KayleePond
- ManyVids URL
- https://www.manyvids.com/Profile/38765/Kaylee-Pond/
- Clips4Sale URL
- http://clips4sale.com/store/62721/kayleepond
I think that more body diversity would also be awesome, and not really that hard either! It's just another issue in comics to add to the pile, though I'd say it's a problem for both male and female characters. I feel there is even less diversity for women, but this is absolutely an issue for men, too. This is a cool article about it!
- Status
Similar threads
