Women in comics - Round Table

idova · Forum Newbie Joined: Nov 10, 2002 Posts: 2

fair comment but i would argue more towards the idea that people expect more of what they had before so the new artists did just that.

Maybe the art field has started to, using the ideas of evolution like i did in my short essay, speciate, becoming specialised in thier chosen field so that you have a species of comic book artists and a species of real world artists, each becoming adapted and best suited to only thier enviroment

BillyBob · Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2005 8:17 pm Post subject: Re: Women in comics - Round Table

Personally, I blame Rob Liefeld. Talentless ass pony removed all subtlety from comic art in favor of BIG MUSCLES!! BIG BOOBS!! LOTS OF POCKETS ON EVERY FREAKING COSTUME!!

Yojimbo

Re: Liefield, a few thoughts, and this post gets all over the place, like Courtney Love-Cobain (she wants to be called that; not me doing it) accidentally locked in a pharmacy after hours. So, allow me a little space ...

It would seem that all avenues of media commerce, including our beloved comics, follow what I like to call the Porn Model. For comics, it's simply a matter of giving people what they want, and if Liefield was initially responsible for that (I'd doubt it, by the way; Terry Austin, John Byrne and others were enlarging, bulging and equipping long before the young San Diego artist did), then fine. He's a pioneer.

Anyway, the Porn Model: expose more, be more edgy but have people pay more and show less. And pay more for less, by subscription or some other frequent model, over time. In the ultimate customer service model, consumers would get everything their hearts desire for free and companies would just mass produce it without regard to profit or bottom line. That's what I like to call the "Pam Anderson's breasts," or exaggerated version. More left of center than center.

Center would be something like comics enjoyed before being slurped up into mega-media monopolies. In that model, every once in a while, a comic would come out to make you gasp or just go "wow," like having Jennifer Garner spritzed with baby oil, wearing edible panties and turning on a video camera. In other words, there was a sort of evenness to it. Nothing too over the top (discounting underground comics. UG's goal is always over the top anyway).

The almost far right would be the Porn Model: we get little for a lot of money, but it's something we almost have to have based on behaviors and current life situation. Think pharmecuticals and Oreos. The far right model is car insurance, and other things you simply pay through the nose for but must have. You know, like, well, boobies (that is, if you can;t score your own at prom, on a date or through the Russian bride mail order service).

So, comics switched to the Porn Model. There was a reason for that. I'd guess it was around 1993 -- right around when Spawn went gangbusters, Jon Sable died and the Cosby show couldn;t make another Theo joke. Coincidentally, along came the Web. More adults were buying comics. More children that grew up reading comics became adults who wrote and drew comics. More children saturated by media's outgrowth into more senational areas like, say, movies with R-ratings, X-ratings or even "All in the Family" became adults and started writing and drawing comics. And I'll be referencing the effect of large media companies on all that in a moment. But, you get the point.

(Don't worry gang. I'm bringing it back to huge boobs and the value of gargantuan pecs. Stay with me ...)

There was also comics' need to continue as a viable medium for communication of stories, competing with movies, TV (especially with the advent of cable/satellite) and the Web (also, insert your own hypermedia here if I didn't mention it). So, here's comics. And it's friend, books. And they are both kind of slow. And you have to turn pages, so it reminds you of reading. Freaking READING. Who does that? And where did they get this brownish paper they are printing these things on -- from a men's room stall or what? And so on.

So, with the Porn Effect comes what subconsciously humans, particularly men, crave anyway. More skin. More exposure. Better quality mags. More seedy story lines; roads not traveled. Comics were catching up with what TV and movies were already doing. Remember how sacred cows started getting killed off (Spiderman's costume)?

But we got less of it and paid more for it. Comics became a peep show. The more you gave, the more you got. A Dark Horse mag cost more than a Marvel mag. Marvel was considered mainstream (still is). And even that changed. Women, as mentioned in my previous post and like Anne Heche on Ellen Degeneres' Christmas card list, were mostly discluded.

All that said (and watch me bring it home here like Andrea Bocelli knocking out the last few stanzas of "Canto Della Terra"), comics needed bigger boobs (and still do). And why not? There's the whole maternal psychological impression the image makes on a youngster; there's the sexuality of a good rack appealing to the demographic comics were chasing for money; and there's simply the fun of drawing a 36-JJJ chest on a 14 inch waist and pretending she's more agile than Brian Boitano on a mattress following a Village People concert.

In other words, comics caught up because of the Porn Model, put in place by the large media companies whose holdings are made up of up between 10-25 percent of adult video/maetrial distribution (Disney owns a large chunk in a company that distributes Jenna Jameson to your hotel rooms right along side Mario. So does Ford Motor Company).

Sadly, we're about five years away from needing to produce a snuff comic or live sex in the mainstream. And programs like Poser combined with other 3-D platforms are giving people like us that opportunity. Does it mean it belongs in the mainstream? Does that say we are simply catching up with something society has repressed for thousands of years through politics, religion and abused power? The question is, really, should we, as creatives, be taking it on or will one of us simply end up with his head in his hands, saying, "I am Become Porn."

Don't blame Liefield. He wasa good soldier. He saw the storm before the twister formed. So did Byrne, Austin, even Wolverton and Williamson. And with comics now an almost sure-thing green-light avenue to movie-dom in Hollywood (OK, Marvel and DC projects specifically), it makes perfect sense. He didn't put his pen down and ask, "Hmmm, will these women be good role models," but since when has a capitalistic venture, especially as it relates to Hollywood, entertainment or catering to salacious desires for profit EVER cared about morals?

(And a Jim Rome-esque end for you here ...)

War Elric movie
War Grendel movie
War Grimjack movie
War Cerebus anything
_________________
---|----------------
Yojimbo, A Humble Servant
http://www.jasontudor.com
Blog, photos and more at the site

japes · Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2005 5:21 am Post subject: Re: Women in comics - Round Table

BillyBob · Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2005 5:54 am Post subject: Re: Women in comics - Round Table

Once again, I bow before the majesty of Yojimbo. (Although I must admit that the Jennifer Garner - baby oil reference made my vision blur for a few sentences. And call me old school, but I gotta go with Domingo over Bocelli. Brian Boitano + Village People = JARRING MENTAL IMAGE)

So, perhaps a more accurate statement of women in comics would be that market demands dictated that comics keep up with other media, namely produce more skin. I think we've all been making roughly the same comment, however obliquely, that comics did what comics have always done -- adapt. Whether revelling in patriotic impulses during World War II or becoming vanilla-bland after "Seduction of the Innocent," comic editors have needed to sense what the public wants and met the demand. Logical, rational, business-smart. I just think it's an interesting disconnection that women are visually portrayed (generally) as an adolescent male's (okay, every male's) fantasy, yet espouse Girl Power rhetoric.

Oh, and we've already had a mainstream snuff comic. Jason Todd, anyone?

I Am Become Porn, Destroyer of Visuals.

Hasdrubal · Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2005 4:28 pm Post subject: Re: Women in comics - Round Table

After reading Jimbo's summary of the last 20 years of comics I feel like Austin Powers stumbling out his freezing tube, with no memories of anything other than simplier times.

If it weren't for Hal Jordan coming back, I would feel completely lost.

The dead chick in the refrigerator was the beginning of the "bring back Hal" movement for me.

Mason · Forum Newbie Joined: Jun 01, 2002 Posts: 5

So what if women are portrayed in a certain light? Ever read a romance novel guys or even seen the covers? How come is it people are so concerned if Wonder Woman is a D Cup but nobody cares if Superman is eyecandy. Of course they don't show Supes sporting a package but then WW doesn't have a camel toe.

I could never dream of being a physically perfect specimen like Batman. How come no one cares that all the male heroes are beyond approach?

So what do we do? Reduce female characters down to Pat from SNL?

Also, think about this. A woman's body/a woman's choice extends to ALL female choices. Don't you think its a bit oppressive that we, in our desire to help women, funnel them into these narrow stereotypes of PC perfection. Check action movies with female stars. They ALWAYS win, never are in real peril and really have zilch for sex appeal. The comic collection of female heroines runs the total range from flat chested feminist to big breasted slut. Why then, in the name of helping women's self esteem, reduce all female characters down to dull, sexless PC stereotyped little girl ego building icons.

Also think about this. Setting any "we live in a patriarchy" rabble aside, men built up the comic book industry, NOT WOMEN. Men created entertainment FOR MEN. Where were the women? If this is such an important issue then let women make their own comics with their own PC correct, strong role model characters. Why is it men have to do this for women. Women can draw. They can write. Why should men build the house then let women redecorate it? Let them build their own industry and, if the market wants to see this material, they'll make $$$.

But there is the real rub. We HAVE had PC heroines. Burns Wonder Woman for example. Do they sell well?

And what do men get in return. Its not like you see a lot of women complaining about the countless numbers of men butchered and murdered in comics and media. No woman complained when Aquaman lost his arm or Superman was beaten to death. Do women even complain about the absolutely ridiculous male stereotypes in romance novels?

Really, why help someone who won't help you? If you like chesty heroines then like them. What good is anyone doing trying to socially engineer and "fix" male likes and dislikes?

Josephus · Posted: Sat Aug 27, 2005 8:42 pm Post subject:

Good points all around about this topic. Here's my 2 cents worth on the subject...

The main reason we read comics is for escapism. Not only the stories, but the images as well. And the artists try to idealize the heroes and heroines to conform with society's "perfect" males and females: all men built like bodybuilders, all women built like supermodels after a major bout of plastic surgery. Yojimbo brings up a good point about the advent of Hollywood in comics; but Hollywood, too, is merely pandering to what the people want to see. Or at least, what editors and/or marketers believe the people want to see...

Is this a bad thing? The snobby comic-book elitist in me wants to say "Yeah, catering to the lowest common denominator is a bad thing", but when you get right down to it, one of the things that brings new readers into comics is the art. So as far as I'm concerned, if the predominance of DD-cup women on comic covers helps keep one of my favorite hobbies alive, I'm perfectly willing to overlook the phenomenon.

A thought: maybe we don't see pin-ups of Superman in nothing but a towel and a smile because it'd be a bit difficult to identify him when he isn't sporting a big red "S" on his chest? :-)

GnosticAnubis

My view: Women are not being portrayed as positive role models. However, it's unfair that the comic book industry is expected to mass-produce role models while the other entertainment industries get away with pushing 50-Cent and the Sopranos. And the only reason why the comics industry is saddled with this stupid expectation is because of that HUAC stooge Wertham. Now, it's 2005, and as stupid as our current presidential administration is, I don't think that the HUAC will be revived in our lifetime, so maybe we should stop worrying about whether or not comics are "corrupting the innocent."

tosser · Forum Newbie Joined: Nov 10, 2002 Posts: 1 Location: none

I think an important question to ask is do double D women have less to offer? Surely it makes no difference? Surely women with large breasts shouldn't be discriminated?
Often if you just skip through a comic book you can get the idea just by scanning the pictures, a muscular small breasted woman may be mis-taken for a young girl or as a man. So surely for very basic symbology men have large muscles women have large breasts for simple visual purposes. Younger people aren't going to be aware of social arguments about the rights and wrongs but are often aware that breasts are a major difference between men and women. The younger audience both male and female may well benefit from simple distinctions in sex.
The art work in mainstream comics does not appear gratuitous in any way? I think that you have to remember that the comic book is fantasy art work, so you are in the hands of the artist to depict their fantasy.
I don't think if you reduced the size of womens breasts in comic books it would be a triumph for feminism. It would add nothing and would subtract nothing. You wouldn't take them any more or less seriously because their look is "normal" Do people feel inferior because their breasts aren't that big? Do men feel inferior because they are not that muscular? Or because all the men are 6ft6 or taller are all the "sexy" women blonde? You are not supposed to be able to attain what they have. Surely if everyone looked normal the idea of them being super is gone? Breasts do not enhance their ability or super power but they do however perhaps take them out of reality which is where they need to be to fit into a world of impossibility.
Talking about what a woman with double D cups would be capable of seems pointless? Saying it would be imposssible for her to fight or run....oh but picking up cars with one hand is fine in the world of reality, turning invisible is okay with everyone? They are not meant to be real, they are not meant for our society and our rules. Politics and their correctness should stay in the real world. Suspension of disbelief allows escapism which is what comic books are, if you want real women with "real" breasts with real stories you might as well read a newspaper.

My first post and a long one, I think for quick visual purpose it works. All men are 6ft6 and 5ft across brimming with muscle. All women have sizeable breasts to depict their femine side tough steely but still a woman.

I'd like to end with saying that are pictures stronger than words perhaps the female character needs strengthening as a woman with no respect with A cups is the same as a woman with no respect and D cups. Just think about the lyrics of the wonder woman television theme tune.

"Wonder woman, fighting for her rights in her satin tights."

Not sure they are the best lyrics to empower women?

palmers · Forum Member Joined: Jun 07, 2002 Posts: 379

Just a small addition to this discussion, but anyone know who designed Vampirella's costume, possibly the most revealing in non-porn comics?

Marie Severin, I believe.

IMP.
_________________
RIVER: skin on the outside. First chapter FREE from www.ianmpalmer.com

Hasdrubal · Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 3:25 pm Post subject:

Noteworthy Event of the Day:

After 26 years of waiting, MS. MARVEL has her own series again! May she out last her original series.

palmers · Forum Member Joined: Jun 07, 2002 Posts: 379

A character I have an inexplicable affection for (all right, she's '70s cute, but there's more than that). What was that Binary nonsense all about?

IMP.
_________________
RIVER: skin on the outside. First chapter FREE from www.ianmpalmer.com

Hasdrubal · Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 5:46 pm Post subject: Re: Women in comics - Round Table

I never wanted to know the answer to that question. I stopped collecting X-Men cold turkey after the issue Binary was introduced. I was intensly displeased with that story. I was even more displeased over what I've read on various sites about the writers using Carol Danvers' character to build up Rogue (a uninspiring Jean Grey wanna-be with a perpetual bad hair day). I know Rogue is popular with younger readers who didn't start collecting until after the "Dark Phoenix Saga". I excuse them for not knowing any better.

To their credit, the X-Men writers continued to develop the character of Carol's greatest nemesis, Death Bird. They made her into an evil Shiar alien princess. Death Bird was introduced without an origin story in the original Ms. Marvel series. It's an important detail the editors mishandled in the 70's.

lectatege · Forum Member Joined: Mar 14, 2006 Posts: 203

Is it just me or are half these posts completely surreal?
With the greatest respect what is it with you guys? Breasts, breasts, breasts. I got 'em you ain't. Big deal.
If artists/authors paid a bit more attention to the artwork and the stories and less to the boob size of the characters we might all get some quality stuff to read.

Also, don't give me that 'that's the way comic books are always have been always will be' nonsense.
Stuff and poppycock - that has been the lame argument of every dominant ideology since the dawn of time - presenting oppression as the inevitable outcome of some kind of immutable biological truth.

And as for Mason's injunction to toddle off and make my own ghetto ....
_________________
A broken stereotype is a beautiful thing