And yet despite drawing that piece as if he was a younger Arnold Schwarzenegger he IS fully clothed. Yet women get drawn as if they had broken backs to maintain the crazy totally sexist poses often wearing very little clothing at all.
Do you actually read comic books? Or do you get all of your information from articles bashing Rob Liefeld?
Game of Thrones is a good example. How many ugly male characters are there? Plenty. Lots and lots and lots of fat old guys with beards. Too many to link. How many ugly women characters, though? Ugly personalities aside, there ain't exactly any of import. Fake Edit: I was wrong. There was that one knight lady from Season Two. Though I haven't seen the third season yet, so maybe she dies soon. ;DTAKE THAT BACK! She is AWESOME, and one of the sexiest reasons I watch the show.
I demand satisfaction for milady's honour!
<swats Cleaver with glove>
i don't find any of the women in game of thrones especially attractive, although the woman who plays daenarys is my definition of the word "pretty".
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Game of Thrones is a good example. How many ugly male characters are there? Plenty. Lots and lots and lots of fat old guys with beards. Too many to link. How many ugly women characters, though? Ugly personalities aside, there ain't exactly any of import. Fake Edit: I was wrong. There was that one knight lady from Season Two. Though I haven't seen the third season yet, so maybe she dies soon. ;D
Winky smile to you too cleaver. Lady brienne of tarth? is awesome. Hell, she brings out the best in Jamie 'incest' lannister in season 3.
Simply put, if you're going to expend the effort to tell someone women aren't a hive mind when they make a blanket statement, at least call out EVERYONE who does it instead of one specific person making a blanket statement to refute an opposing blanket statement.
The guy I quoted didn't quote anyone, so I have no way to know who, if anyone, he might be addressing.
If you're angry that I didn't collect and address every blanket statement every made on the Internet, I'm sorry, but those are some awfully steep entry requirements for this thread.
In the end, I like to think that "women aren't one big hive mind" is addressing anyone who may or may not have made a statement to the opposite.
I'm awfully sorry if I broke the posting rules in your head but, again, no hive-mind.
Game of Thrones is a good example. How many ugly male characters are there? Plenty. Lots and lots and lots of fat old guys with beards. Too many to link. How many ugly women characters, though? Ugly personalities aside, there ain't exactly any of import. Fake Edit: I was wrong. There was that one knight lady from Season Two. Though I haven't seen the third season yet, so maybe she dies soon. ;DTAKE THAT BACK! She is AWESOME, and one of the sexiest reasons I watch the show.
I demand satisfaction for milady's honour!
<swats Cleaver with glove>
Silly Snorter, that's not how you do things around here.
*Has the knight lady get killed off*Hell, she brings out the best in Jamie 'incest' lannister in season 3.
I like to interpret this as, "She spills his guts."
Simply put, if you're going to expend the effort to tell someone women aren't a hive mind when they make a blanket statement, at least call out EVERYONE who does it instead of one specific person making a blanket statement to refute an opposing blanket statement.The guy I quoted didn't quote anyone, so I have no way to know who, if anyone, he might be addressing.
Except, like, maybe check the posts above to see the context of what's obviously a response to somebody else? Surely even a Paizo argument is worth a few extra seconds to get facts cleared up. :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the end, I like to think that "women aren't one big hive mind" is addressing anyone who may or may not have made a statement to the opposite.
So whether or not they implied that women were a hive mind, you're going to respond as if they had...
Look, you cannot have a conversation about gender without resorting to groups at some point. Talking about a group does NOT imply that you're setting an absolute for every single member of the group. "Dogs have four legs" does not deny or demean the existence of a three legged dogs.
I more take issue with anything that goes against the grain of a passionately held belief being an exception to a rule. As time goes on, ive seen the number of "exceptions" to deeply held beliefs increase to proportions that readily eclipse the supposed majority. Many and more are more interested in being right than actually debating. Then again, I suppose thats hardly old news.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Simply put, if you're going to expend the effort to tell someone women aren't a hive mind when they make a blanket statement, at least call out EVERYONE who does it instead of one specific person making a blanket statement to refute an opposing blanket statement.The guy I quoted didn't quote anyone, so I have no way to know who, if anyone, he might be addressing.
If you're angry that I didn't collect and address every blanket statement every made on the Internet, I'm sorry, but those are some awfully steep entry requirements for this thread.
In the end, I like to think that "women aren't one big hive mind" is addressing anyone who may or may not have made a statement to the opposite.
I'm awfully sorry if I broke the posting rules in your head but, again, no hive-mind.
You quoted me, so here's another 'blanket statement':-
Women wear clothes which show more skin when they are in the most receptive part of their monthly cycle.
The experiments were conducted in various nightclubs. Female club-goers were asked to give a saliva sample (which was later analysed to ascertain where each was on her cycle), and full body photos were taken front and back (to be analysed for the proportion of skin on show).
The results showed an astounding correlation between the amount of skin on show and being most receptive (in terms of fertility) according to their cycle.
Does this mean that every woman who is feeling fertile dresses more revealingly than those who don't? No.
Does this mean that women who aren't going to a nightclub dresses as if they are on certain days of the month? No.
Does this mean that cultures that forbid women to show skin do so anyway on certain days of the month? No.
Do women consciously dress in response to their cycle? No.
Are they even aware of their cycle affecting how they dress? No, and that's the point!
Subconsciously, the body gets on with doing the stuff it has evolved to do. Women, like men, like every living creature on the planet, evolve to breed. Those that didn't died out long ago.
What's fascinating about these results is that it shows just how strong these subconscious instincts are, that it even subconsciously affects the clothes that they consciously choose to wear.
Admitting that we all have instinctual behaviour built in does not take away our agency or our responsibilities. There is no mutually exclusive animal/civilised dichotomy, we are both civilised and animals at the same time. Just because our bodies subconsciously want sex, and pregnancy, doesn't mean we can't choose a different path. Nor can we assume that just because someone dresses revealingly (because, subconsciously, her body wants sex) that men have permission to copulate with her. If she doesn't consciously choose sex then doing so anyway, no matter the excuse, would be rape.
Experimental data is all about blanket statements. This doesn't make them invalid, nor does it deny individual variability, or free will.
Of course, women who go to nightclubs are more likely to be interested in meeting people than women who don't, so that's not exactly a perfect study. :P
|
|
Of course, women who go to nightclubs are more likely to be interested in meeting people than women who don't, so that's not exactly a perfect study. :PNot a perfect study, but interesting nonetheless.
Even of women going to nightclubs and thus interested in meeting people, those less fertile are likely to wear more concealing clothes. It would be interesting to know if women were also more likely to go to such places when they were more fertile, which should be derivable from the same data.
You could run the same experiment in a different setting: work or somewhere not a pickup spot. I'd certainly expect the overall skin shown to be less, but would the same relative pattern hold?
Me too.
Malachi, do you know how revealing the more revealing dress in the study was? Given the thread title, I'm rather curious if a woman in the throes of estrus dresses more or less revealingly than your typical female superhero.
|
|
Malachi, do you know how revealing the more revealing dress in the study was? Given the thread title, I'm rather curious if a woman in the throes of estrus dresses more or less revealingly than your typical female superhero.
Well, the outfits worn were typical for those worn by women in British nightclubs, so very revealing indeed.
There are some French guys who work in my casino, and they are astonished that women dress so scantily. They say that the only French woman who would dress like that would be a prostitute!
It seems socially acceptable in Britain now to use the nightclub scene to show as much of your body as you legally can, probably subconsciously competing against other women to show potential mates how fit and healthy they are.
I know that when I walk through town to work on Friday and Saturday nights I frequently catch a glimpse (although I try not to, of course) and think, 'Jesus! She looks...er...healthy!'
So, compared to superhero costumes...few bikini-type, plenty of skin-tight, spray-on pants/catsuits, plenty of bare midriffs, and lots and lots of very, very, very short skirts/dresses.
It's a nightmare. But I might just cope...
So, compared to superhero costumes...few bikini-type, plenty of skin-tight, spray-on pants/catsuits, plenty of bare midriffs, and lots and lots of very, very, very short skirts/dresses.
I don't mean to put words in your mouth (really, if you feel like that's what I'm doing, let me pre-apologize right now) but doesn't the above sentence suggest that baseline normal costumes for female superheroes is the same as a real-world woman who's purposefully attempting to attract a mate?
|
Yes it is shocking that female heroes have outfits that derive from what females are more likely to where and male heroes have outfits that derive from what males are more likely to where.
In fact realistically I have never seen a man walking down the street in tights like many male superheroes but I see women in skin tight clothing every day. So I in fact find it more shocking that men are wearing skin tight mono-suits than women doing so.
Scantily clad women in comics is sadly nothing new. What I find odd is we have more women working in the industry now more than ever (not even close to enough imo) and more female comic book readers than probably any time in history and yet it appears the depictions of women in comics only get worse.
It's not just the men either. Walking around Emerald City Comic-Con there are young women cosplaying in outfits that leave little to the imagination. No man is making them do this. I see the appeal a young girl might have in cosplaying as it's fairly easy and you get a lot of attention. And for a few days it's like being a celebrity.
But it's easy. And it's easy for the comic book creators to do as well. It's much easier to draw a sexy character like Power Girl than to develop a develop a rich character like Kamala Khan.
Look, I don't have a big problem with the scantily clad superheroes in moderation but what I do have a problem with is there should be options. And right now comics are failing to reach out to new audiences and if they are trying it's impossible to find in the sea of juvenile male fantasies.
-MD
PS: to the OP, thanks for the link. That site is awesome. Those kids will be the comic book creators of the future!
So, compared to superhero costumes...few bikini-type, plenty of skin-tight, spray-on pants/catsuits, plenty of bare midriffs, and lots and lots of very, very, very short skirts/dresses.I don't mean to put words in your mouth (really, if you feel like that's what I'm doing, let me pre-apologize right now) but doesn't the above sentence suggest that baseline normal costumes for female superheroes is the same as a real-world woman who's purposefully attempting to attract a mate?
So do the men's costumes.
Unless you think the outfits usually prominently displaying their package was accidental.
So, compared to superhero costumes...few bikini-type, plenty of skin-tight, spray-on pants/catsuits, plenty of bare midriffs, and lots and lots of very, very, very short skirts/dresses.I don't mean to put words in your mouth (really, if you feel like that's what I'm doing, let me pre-apologize right now) but doesn't the above sentence suggest that baseline normal costumes for female superheroes is the same as a real-world woman who's purposefully attempting to attract a mate?So do the men's costumes.
Unless you think the outfits usually prominently displaying their package was accidental.
I don't think it was accidental, I think it was a completely different process, which had much more to do with anatomical studies than sexual availability. (I'm perfectly willing to give everyone a free pass on the intersection between skin tight outfits and anatomical studies.)
Its wish fulfillment, simple as that. Most of the readers want to be perfectly sculpted muscle machines that fight evil and date beautiful scantily clad women so thats what the comics are.
From there you hit this weird spiral where those kind of expectations simply get incorporated into the genre, so it looks weird if you're NOT following it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, compared to superhero costumes...few bikini-type, plenty of skin-tight, spray-on pants/catsuits, plenty of bare midriffs, and lots and lots of very, very, very short skirts/dresses.I don't mean to put words in your mouth (really, if you feel like that's what I'm doing, let me pre-apologize right now) but doesn't the above sentence suggest that baseline normal costumes for female superheroes is the same as a real-world woman who's purposefully attempting to attract a mate?
Comics aside, actual women in our society who are celebrities must consider their outfit very carefully if they intend to be seen in public. They will have to contend with criticism from other women. Celebrity magazines are usually aimed at women, and frequently show photos of celebs with comments on their outfits. Some are made out to be praiseworthy, some are ridiculed (Did you see what she was wearing? Fashion no-no!).
Partly fashion, partly peer review (other women), partly the occasion (The Oscars require different outfits than, say, jogging), lots of factors go into it.
In a comics world, these factors don't go away. But 'superhero on the job' is another occasion. Practicality while still looking good, distinctive so you are recognised, peer pressure, super costume fashion, all these things come into it. The costume also is a statement, part of your heroic identity, so the right choice is even more crucial.
Comics fashion changes over time. I think that they were more revealing in the '70s than they are today. I don't think that they are universally revealing, and I think there is more variety in that regard than there has ever been. There are lots of revealing costumes, but also lots that are not! This thread seems to think that the only female costumes are revealing, when Kamala Khan is mentioned at the same time as asserting that all female costumes are revealing.
There is the meta consideration too; comics creators and readers. It is far easier to draw the clean outline of a human figure, so male and female costumes tend toward the skin tight. You might say that fewer males than females bare their midriff, but that is true in real life too!
In fact, the most unrealistic thing about the costumes worn by female heroes is that they wear the same outfit again and again, in public. How many female supers go into their costume closet, sweep aside twenty super costumes and declare that they have nothing to wear? That's unrealistic!
Except, like, maybe check the posts above to see the context of what's obviously a response to somebody else? Surely even a Paizo argument is worth a few extra seconds to get facts cleared up. :P
So whether or not they implied that women were a hive mind, you're going to respond as if they had...
Look, you cannot have a conversation about gender without resorting to groups at some point. Talking about a group does NOT imply that you're setting an absolute for every single member of the group. "Dogs have four legs" does not deny or demean the existence of a three legged dogs.
LET'S ALL FLIP OUT.
Take a goddamn breath and stop jumping down my throat.
Sheesh.
Green Lantern has become a particularly unfunny joke. Hal Jordan is noe thr unquestioned lord and master of the Green Lanterns and is leading his army to fight against every other color lantern he doesnt like, as well as anyone he thinks is breaking the law.
I call him Heil Jordan now.
LET'S ALL FLIP OUT.Take a g##**$n breath and stop jumping down my throat.
Sheesh.
Calling us overly emotional is not a substitute for substance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As sad as it is the costumes the little girls came up with really do look better. Even taking out the whole factor of ridiculous near omnipresent sexualization in the costumes of most comic superheroines the little girls costumes just seem more creative and better looking in my opinion.
certainly more practical for fighting...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On topic, the real elephant in the room: the large red arrow on Supergirl's crotch. I've noted that they could have left the piping, and it would still look fine, if the red section continued on around her hips and rear. i.e. if it looked like the underwear of power Superman had before the reboot.
conservation of energy. All of the power stored in those undies had to go SOMEWHERE.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It should also be noted that adult superheroes can choose to wear revealing, sexy costumes or choose to wear less revealing stuff, and either choice is okay.
But the kids costumes here aren't revealing, and nor should they be! They're kids! But this should not restrict adult choices, nor is it evidence that these costumes worn by these kids are 'right' and therefore revealing costumes are 'wrong'.
|
|
No more or less than the choices we make about what our PCs are wearing.
The writer/artist makes that choice on behalf of the hero that we make for our PC.
There may NE cynical artists that are all about the skin, but we can't make that assumption about every artist/writer who draws a revealing costume. Sometimes the character already has an established choice (Kamala Khan/White Queen).
When I was young I absolutely loved the Legion of Super Heroes. This was in the '70s, and the females wore very revealing costumes indeed, even by today's standards. But then Kieth Giffin came in and gave them new, much less revealing costumes. What happened to DC's cynicism there?
I think there's more to it than cynicism, and assuming the worst is at best inaccurate, at worst insulting.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
LONG LIVE THE LEGION!!!!!!!!!!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Adult superheroes aren't choosing to wear anything.
Artists, editors and writers are choosing whether their characters wear sexy costumes or not. While they may on occasion do so to reveal character, it's more often they do so on the theory that showing skin boosts sales.
There are no "adult choices" going on here. This isn't about what adults choose to wear and what kids choose to wear.
You're right. It's about what we choose to buy. As long as revealing costumes boost sales, revealing costumes will be the norm. If you're hoping society will suddenly come to its senses and stop liking revealing costumes, you're kidding yourself.
It's almost comical how we're having this conversation about the same culture that demonizes religion and "puritanical prudes" for decrying sexualization and objectification.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually it's all tied together under "unhealthy attitudes about sex". The religious objections tend to be as much or more about keeping women from expressing their own sexuality as about decrying sexualization and objectification by others. That's a generalization, but no more of one than "the same culture that demonizes religion and puritanical prudes".
Sexualization and objectification are tied to repression of sexuality, as I see it. As is the commercialization of sex - not so much prostitution, but using sex so heavily in advertising for example. All of that is bad. Treating people as sexual objects for your own use or to manipulate others to do what you want.
There was an Upworthy video in some other thread about objectification that really made me mad. Not so much what it said about objectification per se, but about how we all wouldn't have "healthy sex-lives"(or some such) until we got rid of sexual objectification in the mass media.
I don't think I could have come up with a better example of the difference between the worlview of the liberal feminists and the worldview of the socialist women's liberationists if I tried.
Could it just be that men don't see quite as much difference between objects and people as women would like? Its not just women: other men aren't people, they're the enemy to kill /obstacles to overcome.
Could it just be that men don't see quite as much difference between objects and people as women would like? Its not just women: other men aren't people, they're the enemy to kill /obstacles to overcome.
Saw a documentary when it comes to human sexuality.
A very interesting revelation:A human male do not have a penis bone like most other mammals. Most other mammalian males can "get it up" and do the job whereas a human male has to be aroused via physical, visual and even phermonal (sp?) cues.
Hence I believe the objectification of the female form for straight men and male form for gay men.
It is interesting that if you look through gay men's magazines, the way the men in these mags are portrayed are done in a a way you would see a men's magazine like FHM would portray women.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Could it just be that men don't see quite as much difference between objects and people as women would like? Its not just women: other men aren't people, they're the enemy to kill /obstacles to overcome.
my male rivals must be crushed.
Could it just be that men don't see quite as much difference between objects and people as women would like? Its not just women: other men aren't people, they're the enemy to kill /obstacles to overcome.
This is the way ALL people think. If they're outside of your immediate sphere of friends and acquaintances, you are mentally incapable of giving a f%#$ about them in any meaningful compassionate way.
Your scenario just takes it a step further. What happens to someone who is outside of that sphere when they get in the way of something you want?
Could it just be that men don't see quite as much difference between objects and people as women would like? Its not just women: other men aren't people, they're the enemy to kill /obstacles to overcome.This is the way ALL people think. If they're outside of your immediate sphere of friends and acquaintances, you are mentally incapable of giving a f**% about them in any meaningful compassionate way.
Your scenario just takes it a step further. What happens to someone who is outside of that sphere when they get in the way of something you want?
That's just a little scary.
Some people are capable of empathy you know.Even in the abstract, but far more so when you come face to face, even with someone you don't actually know.
Empathy is a bit different. Really try to analyze your feelings next time you see something you empathize with on tv.
Are you really sad that a kid just got killed? I mean, actually sad that that specific child is now dead, or are you sad because the SCENARIO (any child, doesn't matter which, dying is something terrible) is sad?
If we could all step back and stop caring what people are or are not wearing, that would be great.