Profound or icky? You decide

[darkman]

Originally Posted by daveshans

I'
As I've said before I don't disagree that the costumes are sexualised I just see the benefit the extra range of motion might give.

Yeah, there's even a tumblr dedicated to show off all the movements the costumes provide:
http://eschergirls.tumblr.com/

All true however because there are women who dress in a more sexualised way wouldn't it be possible that a super heroine might also choose to? Probably as the exception rather than the rule though.

First of all that would maybe work if the costumes of heroines that chooses to be sexy (like Emma Frost) was significantly different from any other of the heroines' costumes. Second there's the problem that fictional characters don't have the agency that real life people do, they only do what their creators wants them to do. And all too often it just comes off as a thinly veiled excuse for drawing things that cater to the male audience.

[Happy-Hangman]

Yup. That USAF Security Chief and host to alien energies, Linda Danvers, should choose thigh boots, stripper gloves and a one-piece swimming costume as the most appropriate crime-fighting apparel seems...unlikely.

The physical representation of what are supposed to be powerful, resourceful women as little more than eye-candy is only part of the problem. Danvers is not untypical in her gender representation. She is initially, like so many female characters, a female variant of an existing male hero (Supergirl, Batgirl/Huntress, Power Girl, She-Hulk, Lady Blackhawk and so many others), similar in appearance but (usually) weaker and less experienced, and garbed in a more figure-hugging or revealing outfit. The adjunct to this is characters such as Black Canary, who until 'Birds of Prey' was pretty much rendered (since the '60s, anyway) as an addendum to the Green Arrow mythology. these were characters defined by their association with and relationship to the male character who inspired them. Seduction, debilitating assault, rape or impregnation would be commonly used as 'dramatic' actions against such characters - Ms Marvel's had 'em all, in her time - playing out destructive male fantasies (look up the Women In Refrigerators site http://www.unheardtaunts.com/wir/ , it's scary how often these tropes arise), and enforcing the definition of character through sexualization.

Can we really argue that representing female characters in physically provocative ways has absolutely no relationship with very particular forms of physical maltreatment they all too often encounter in the pages of their comics?

That's what made Wonder Woman such a radical character, in her day. She was athletic and attractive, yes, but that was only a small part of her representation as an ideal of womanhood, and she was the dominant character in her own title (Frederic Wertham claiming that she was inspiring America's girls to lesbianism in the process). Simone's run on 'Birds of Prey' cleverly united a number of these secondary characters, and they were a very attractive bunch, but they were never defined by their sexuality. A number of subjection scenarios previously inflicted on some of the characters (most notably Canary's torture and apparent rape* at the hands of terrorists in the '80s 'Green Arrow' series, prompting her beau toward a particularly bloody revenge - thus making her maltreatment the cause of his dramatic plot-advancement - and making writers and editorswary of using a 'damaged' character like her until Chuck Dixon's original 'BoP' started) were re-worked very effectively from a female perspective.

When Bendis's 'Alias' started I thought we finally had a breakthrough: an attractive female character written by a male writer who wasn't defined by a relationship with a male hero, hadn't been subject to the sort of routine degradations inflicted on her fictional peers, and whose sexuality wasn't the defining principle of her character....only to watch her final story-arc (issues #22-28) lumber her with exactly the same shite as every other 'edgy' superheroine over the past thirty years, only to end as a super-WAG...

I like looking at pretty women, and love renderings of heroines by the likes of Adam Hughes, Amanda Conner and the like - I have several on my walls - but am always wary of the hypocrisy surrounding the representations of these characters. An awareness of the inequity of representation is the first step toward combating that.


* 'Green Arrow' writer Mike Grell later denied this, but the representation of events in the issues in question were uncomfortably ambiguous.

[darkman]

Originally Posted by Happy-Hangman

I like looking at pretty women, and love renderings of heroines by the likes of Adam Hughes, Amanda Conner and the like - I have several on my walls - but am always wary of the hypocrisy surrounding the representations of these characters. An awareness of the inequity of representation is the first step toward combating that.
.

It important to remember this. It's possible to like something and yet be able to see that there are problematic things with it.

[daveshans]

Originally Posted by darkman

It important to remember this. It's possible to like something and yet be able to see that there are problematic things with it.

I'll keep this in mind and accept defeat.

I had to google the names and I've read the Pro (about ten years ago) but I had no idea when it was drawn by a woman.

[Happy-Hangman]

Originally Posted by darkman

It important to remember this. It's possible to like something and yet be able to see that there are problematic things with it.

Very true.

[wongman]

Originally Posted by Happy-Hangman

Yup. That USAF Security Chief and host to alien energies, Linda Danvers, should choose thigh boots, stripper gloves and a one-piece swimming costume as the most appropriate crime-fighting apparel seems...unlikely.

The physical representation of what are supposed to be powerful, resourceful women as little more than eye-candy is only part of the problem. Danvers is not untypical in her gender representation. She is initially, like so many female characters, a female variant of an existing male hero (Supergirl, Batgirl/Huntress, Power Girl, She-Hulk, Lady Blackhawk and so many others), similar in appearance but (usually) weaker and less experienced, and garbed in a more figure-hugging or revealing outfit. The adjunct to this is characters such as Black Canary, who until 'Birds of Prey' was pretty much rendered (since the '60s, anyway) as an addendum to the Green Arrow mythology. these were characters defined by their association with and relationship to the male character who inspired them. Seduction, debilitating assault, rape or impregnation would be commonly used as 'dramatic' actions against such characters - Ms Marvel's had 'em all, in her time - playing out destructive male fantasies (look up the Women In Refrigerators site http://www.unheardtaunts.com/wir/ , it's scary how often these tropes arise), and enforcing the definition of character through sexualization.

Can we really argue that representing female characters in physically provocative ways has absolutely no relationship with very particular forms of physical maltreatment they all too often encounter in the pages of their comics?

That's what made Wonder Woman such a radical character, in her day. She was athletic and attractive, yes, but that was only a small part of her representation as an ideal of womanhood, and she was the dominant character in her own title (Frederic Wertham claiming that she was inspiring America's girls to lesbianism in the process). Simone's run on 'Birds of Prey' cleverly united a number of these secondary characters, and they were a very attractive bunch, but they were never defined by their sexuality. A number of subjection scenarios previously inflicted on some of the characters (most notably Canary's torture and apparent rape* at the hands of terrorists in the '80s 'Green Arrow' series, prompting her beau toward a particularly bloody revenge - thus making her maltreatment the cause of his dramatic plot-advancement - and making writers and editorswary of using a 'damaged' character like her until Chuck Dixon's original 'BoP' started) were re-worked very effectively from a female perspective.

When Bendis's 'Alias' started I thought we finally had a breakthrough: an attractive female character written by a male writer who wasn't defined by a relationship with a male hero, hadn't been subject to the sort of routine degradations inflicted on her fictional peers, and whose sexuality wasn't the defining principle of her character....only to watch her final story-arc (issues #22-28) lumber her with exactly the same shite as every other 'edgy' superheroine over the past thirty years, only to end as a super-WAG...

I like looking at pretty women, and love renderings of heroines by the likes of Adam Hughes, Amanda Conner and the like - I have several on my walls - but am always wary of the hypocrisy surrounding the representations of these characters. An awareness of the inequity of representation is the first step toward combating that.


* 'Green Arrow' writer Mike Grell later denied this, but the representation of events in the issues in question were uncomfortably ambiguous.

Actual Ms Marvel's original costume was based on Captain Marvels red/blue Kree uniform but had a panel cut out over the abdomen to make it "more" appealing. It was like that for the first 6 or so issues then in the letters page they explained why they ultimately filled it in was it was easier for the artist to colour in. It was about 15 issues later she changed to her dark blue onepiece with boots & gloves which she was very happy herself to have designed/chosen. To fit in with the then current attitude to female superheores. And the Black Widow had some form of "circus" style get up with fishnets,, mini-cape and mask before she changed over to skintight all over suit.