Feminism Just Means We Want Equality
I consider myself a feminist. I also consider myself a comic fan. I enjoy reading them, but also understand that for the Big Two (Marvel and DC comics), I'm not the primary audience. There have been a few token attempts to woo female readers (Spider-Man Loves Mary-Jane, Spider-Girl and DC's MINX line) and there are honestly great books that appeal to women as much as men (Dr. Strange: The Oath, Runaways). But the average comic is still drawn with the male audience in mind. I mean Supergirl was launched to try and get female readers into DC. However, they've missed that mark so badly that Eddie Berganza, one of DC's editors, put out an Open Letter to women to get them to read the book.
So what inspired this post? It's the cover to Heroes for Hire #13 and this post in erikonil's LJ.
Let's start with what Heroes for Hire is. It's a comic published by Marvel that takes heavily from 1970's camp/exploitation movies. The main characters are Colleen Wing, Misty Knight, Black Cat, Tarantula, Shang Chi, Orca, and Humbug. The female characters are generally portrayed in a sexual way, but more often then not I would say that they come off as self-assured and strong. Like here, here and here. I just want it to be known that I don't have issues with those three covers. Taking the book for what it is, it fits.
Now back to the cover of issue #13. Why, if I didn't have a problem with the previous covers, do I have a problem with this one?
1) Faces.
Just look at them. The previous covers have had women who were self-assured. In this picture Misty looks like she's about ready to cry. Not like she's going to fight, not like she's angry, but she's about ready to cry. It's not surprise, worry or horror. The eyebrows are wrong for those emotions.
2) Naughty tentacles?
I think a lot of people who read this journal could honestly say that one of the first thoughts through their heads when they saw the cover was "naughty tentacles" or something to that effect. I have heard that this issue has the team fighting the alien Brood race, and I'm fine with that. However, I don't recall the Brood being quite so slimy. Maybe something changed since the last time I read a story with them in it, but from what I recall they didn't have slime. But back to the main point, the image and the implied association is really inappropriate for a comic that Marvel rates as T+ (depending on the version of the rating system you're looking at it, T+ either means for years nine and up or thirteen and up).
3) Treatment of character.
This kind of links back to the last point, but did no one at Marvel remember that they've recently rewritten Black Cat's history to include rape/sexual abuse? Doesn't that at least make this image a little bit tacky? I mean, she's shrinking away from a tentacle that has just oozed slime all over her bare breasts. The implied imagery is just a bit harsh.
Secondly, why don't we get to see reaction from Shang Chi? He's there - we can see his shoulder!
4) Perception.
What's on the cover likely has nothing to do with what's in the book aside from the common characters: The Heroes for Hire and the Brood. Inside I'm sure there will be much ass-kicking and it will be a great story that ties into a larger whole. However, we also know that in the comic industry the cover is meant to be the hook and get someone to pick up the book. Grab the new or casual reader sort of thing. First impressions are important. Here's a hypothetical: A teenage girl who has gotten into comics via manga sees Spider-Man or some other comic movie and decides to give American comics a shot. She hears about Daughters of the Dragon or Heroes for Hire because I know that a lot of female readers have been recommending it for new female readers because of the strong female characters. Is this image the one that Marvel wants to be that person's first exposure to this comic? Is this the grab? Is this the hook?
Secondly, this cover does have a lot of rape imagery - bondage, submissive/scared expressions, dripping and sticky fluids, and alien body parts that, when taken out of context, do resemble those hentai tentacles that we've all heard so much about. It may not be a conscious decision that created it, but Marvel needs to be aware that the imagery - the suggested, subconscious imagery - is there.
I'm not going to say that it will be everyone's first impression. I can't assume to know what people are going to think. I can only offer my impression and pass on the impressions that have been told to me by others. There are people who will think that this post and other posts like this are over-reactions. There are others who will join me in thinking that this cover - while it would be fine on perhaps a Max book - is not appropriate for this book, no matter the roots that this book has.
I would like to explain, though, why there is such a strong reaction from me and others about this cover. And this is different from the explanation about the cover itself. Comics, especially the mainstream American market, is a boys' club. Since the re-emergence of the super-hero genre in the 60's the main audience has been men. Comics tend to cater to them as a result. A side-effect of that is that women often feel like they are a second-class audience at best or an unwanted market at worst. Skimpy costumes, huge breasts, few variations in body type and a sexualization of the art of female characters make many female readers uncomfortable. Women have said that they were put off buying the Emma Frost series from Marvel a few years back because of the Greg Horn covers that made the books look like a Maxim cover. By the time the covers reflected the actual Emma from inside the comic, the series was almost over.
"But male characters are also drawn with perfect bodies" is a common rebuttal to the above. Yes. This is true. Male characters are drawn to the perfection of the male form as well. That's not what the main complaint is. Male characters are generally not sexualized. Putting someone in a skin-tight costume is not sexualizing them. Making someone physically perfect is not sexualizing them. Posing someone in a provocative pose for the single purpose of putting them in a provocative pose is sexualizing them.
The problem isn't just one cover, or one story, or a single person. It happens from time to time, and if it was just one thing every so often it wouldn't be an issue. But it's not. It's a number of things from the Women in Refrigerators" phenomena from comments from artists/writers in interviews to comments from editors. It's a cumulative effect. Most female fans just roll their eyes when they see/hear/read these things with thoughts that range from "boys will be boys" to "well, it's comics so I have to put up with it. It's just how it is." If a women posts a complaint or gripe on a message board, she's often told that she's overreacting, causing her to think twice about speaking up again.
In closing, I'd like to leave you with this. It's a post made by a woman with the internet name of Livia Penn and was posted originally Girl Wonder, who says it all very eloquently:
One day, a new bookstore opens up in your neighborhood. You don't know what kind of books they sell, but you're curious, so you go inside. When you walk in, the first book you see on the display rack is this one:
http://www.gayps.de/shop/images/bilder/fly/127/1270040000.jpg
And you look around and the majority of stuff in the shop-- posters, t-shirts, book covers, figurines, magnets, etc.-- is plastered with images like this:
http://shop.gay.ru/w2adm_pics/4599_1.jpg
I think you'd probably conclude pretty quickly, "OK, I guess I'm not going to be doing much shopping here. The target audience is out there, but these books are not for me."
Now imagine that this shop is, in fact, your local comics shop.
(And think about what it means, that I had to google *explicitly pornographic comics,* meant for no other purpose than to get guys off, in order to find images that exaggerated male physiques to the extent that superhero comics regularly exaggerate female physiques in their all-ages comics. It's kinda yucky, isn't it?)
You say that you wouldn't mind a Nightwing statue like this. Well, fine. But imagine that the majority of the covers featuring male characters looked like this. Not to mention every t-shirt, every poster, every figurine-- everything looks like softcore gay porn, with all the male characters depicted with hugely exaggerated *sexual* characteristics, over-sexualized poses, and skimpy costumes-- something like these images.
Imagine this as a Superman cover.
http://images.tlavideo.com/images/catalog_gaybase/234699.jpg
Or this as a Spider-Man poster.
http://aethlos.com/fillion-button.jpg
Or this as an X-Men t-shirt.
http://img254.imageshack.us/my.php?image=patrickfillion01hy9.jpg
Would you want to buy that comic? Tack up that poster on your wall? Wear that shirt?
Now imagine that you got mocked and called names and patronized and argued with if you *dared* to speak up and ask if maybe it would make a little more sense if the Flash wore running shorts instead of a thong.
"You're just jealous! I bet you're a big fat ugly loser with a small dick. Why do you want fat gross heroes? Why are you such a Puritan, are you afraid of sexuality? This is just sheer fanboy entitlement. Comics aren't for straight guys anyway. Shouldn't you be worrying about oppressed males in Amazonia instead? Besides, Nightwing looks *happy* to be washing Wonder Woman's car in nothing but army boots! Oh, and did I mention, you're just jealous! Go away now!"
Because that's the choice female fans are often faced with, if they want to buy a comic with Hawkgirl in it, or pick up a poster with Supergirl on it, or wear a t-shirt with Mystique on it.
Either deal with the fact that your favorite characters' primary purpose is to be someone else's porn-- or speak up and get attacked-- or don't buy comics at all.
So what inspired this post? It's the cover to Heroes for Hire #13 and this post in erikonil's LJ.
Let's start with what Heroes for Hire is. It's a comic published by Marvel that takes heavily from 1970's camp/exploitation movies. The main characters are Colleen Wing, Misty Knight, Black Cat, Tarantula, Shang Chi, Orca, and Humbug. The female characters are generally portrayed in a sexual way, but more often then not I would say that they come off as self-assured and strong. Like here, here and here. I just want it to be known that I don't have issues with those three covers. Taking the book for what it is, it fits.
Now back to the cover of issue #13. Why, if I didn't have a problem with the previous covers, do I have a problem with this one?
1) Faces.
Just look at them. The previous covers have had women who were self-assured. In this picture Misty looks like she's about ready to cry. Not like she's going to fight, not like she's angry, but she's about ready to cry. It's not surprise, worry or horror. The eyebrows are wrong for those emotions.
2) Naughty tentacles?
I think a lot of people who read this journal could honestly say that one of the first thoughts through their heads when they saw the cover was "naughty tentacles" or something to that effect. I have heard that this issue has the team fighting the alien Brood race, and I'm fine with that. However, I don't recall the Brood being quite so slimy. Maybe something changed since the last time I read a story with them in it, but from what I recall they didn't have slime. But back to the main point, the image and the implied association is really inappropriate for a comic that Marvel rates as T+ (depending on the version of the rating system you're looking at it, T+ either means for years nine and up or thirteen and up).
3) Treatment of character.
This kind of links back to the last point, but did no one at Marvel remember that they've recently rewritten Black Cat's history to include rape/sexual abuse? Doesn't that at least make this image a little bit tacky? I mean, she's shrinking away from a tentacle that has just oozed slime all over her bare breasts. The implied imagery is just a bit harsh.
Secondly, why don't we get to see reaction from Shang Chi? He's there - we can see his shoulder!
4) Perception.
What's on the cover likely has nothing to do with what's in the book aside from the common characters: The Heroes for Hire and the Brood. Inside I'm sure there will be much ass-kicking and it will be a great story that ties into a larger whole. However, we also know that in the comic industry the cover is meant to be the hook and get someone to pick up the book. Grab the new or casual reader sort of thing. First impressions are important. Here's a hypothetical: A teenage girl who has gotten into comics via manga sees Spider-Man or some other comic movie and decides to give American comics a shot. She hears about Daughters of the Dragon or Heroes for Hire because I know that a lot of female readers have been recommending it for new female readers because of the strong female characters. Is this image the one that Marvel wants to be that person's first exposure to this comic? Is this the grab? Is this the hook?
Secondly, this cover does have a lot of rape imagery - bondage, submissive/scared expressions, dripping and sticky fluids, and alien body parts that, when taken out of context, do resemble those hentai tentacles that we've all heard so much about. It may not be a conscious decision that created it, but Marvel needs to be aware that the imagery - the suggested, subconscious imagery - is there.
I'm not going to say that it will be everyone's first impression. I can't assume to know what people are going to think. I can only offer my impression and pass on the impressions that have been told to me by others. There are people who will think that this post and other posts like this are over-reactions. There are others who will join me in thinking that this cover - while it would be fine on perhaps a Max book - is not appropriate for this book, no matter the roots that this book has.
I would like to explain, though, why there is such a strong reaction from me and others about this cover. And this is different from the explanation about the cover itself. Comics, especially the mainstream American market, is a boys' club. Since the re-emergence of the super-hero genre in the 60's the main audience has been men. Comics tend to cater to them as a result. A side-effect of that is that women often feel like they are a second-class audience at best or an unwanted market at worst. Skimpy costumes, huge breasts, few variations in body type and a sexualization of the art of female characters make many female readers uncomfortable. Women have said that they were put off buying the Emma Frost series from Marvel a few years back because of the Greg Horn covers that made the books look like a Maxim cover. By the time the covers reflected the actual Emma from inside the comic, the series was almost over.
"But male characters are also drawn with perfect bodies" is a common rebuttal to the above. Yes. This is true. Male characters are drawn to the perfection of the male form as well. That's not what the main complaint is. Male characters are generally not sexualized. Putting someone in a skin-tight costume is not sexualizing them. Making someone physically perfect is not sexualizing them. Posing someone in a provocative pose for the single purpose of putting them in a provocative pose is sexualizing them.
The problem isn't just one cover, or one story, or a single person. It happens from time to time, and if it was just one thing every so often it wouldn't be an issue. But it's not. It's a number of things from the Women in Refrigerators" phenomena from comments from artists/writers in interviews to comments from editors. It's a cumulative effect. Most female fans just roll their eyes when they see/hear/read these things with thoughts that range from "boys will be boys" to "well, it's comics so I have to put up with it. It's just how it is." If a women posts a complaint or gripe on a message board, she's often told that she's overreacting, causing her to think twice about speaking up again.
In closing, I'd like to leave you with this. It's a post made by a woman with the internet name of Livia Penn and was posted originally Girl Wonder, who says it all very eloquently:
One day, a new bookstore opens up in your neighborhood. You don't know what kind of books they sell, but you're curious, so you go inside. When you walk in, the first book you see on the display rack is this one:
http://www.gayps.de/shop/images/bilder/fly/127/1270040000.jpg
And you look around and the majority of stuff in the shop-- posters, t-shirts, book covers, figurines, magnets, etc.-- is plastered with images like this:
http://shop.gay.ru/w2adm_pics/4599_1.jpg
I think you'd probably conclude pretty quickly, "OK, I guess I'm not going to be doing much shopping here. The target audience is out there, but these books are not for me."
Now imagine that this shop is, in fact, your local comics shop.
(And think about what it means, that I had to google *explicitly pornographic comics,* meant for no other purpose than to get guys off, in order to find images that exaggerated male physiques to the extent that superhero comics regularly exaggerate female physiques in their all-ages comics. It's kinda yucky, isn't it?)
You say that you wouldn't mind a Nightwing statue like this. Well, fine. But imagine that the majority of the covers featuring male characters looked like this. Not to mention every t-shirt, every poster, every figurine-- everything looks like softcore gay porn, with all the male characters depicted with hugely exaggerated *sexual* characteristics, over-sexualized poses, and skimpy costumes-- something like these images.
Imagine this as a Superman cover.
http://images.tlavideo.com/images/catalog_gaybase/234699.jpg
Or this as a Spider-Man poster.
http://aethlos.com/fillion-button.jpg
Or this as an X-Men t-shirt.
http://img254.imageshack.us/my.php?image=patrickfillion01hy9.jpg
Would you want to buy that comic? Tack up that poster on your wall? Wear that shirt?
Now imagine that you got mocked and called names and patronized and argued with if you *dared* to speak up and ask if maybe it would make a little more sense if the Flash wore running shorts instead of a thong.
"You're just jealous! I bet you're a big fat ugly loser with a small dick. Why do you want fat gross heroes? Why are you such a Puritan, are you afraid of sexuality? This is just sheer fanboy entitlement. Comics aren't for straight guys anyway. Shouldn't you be worrying about oppressed males in Amazonia instead? Besides, Nightwing looks *happy* to be washing Wonder Woman's car in nothing but army boots! Oh, and did I mention, you're just jealous! Go away now!"
Because that's the choice female fans are often faced with, if they want to buy a comic with Hawkgirl in it, or pick up a poster with Supergirl on it, or wear a t-shirt with Mystique on it.
Either deal with the fact that your favorite characters' primary purpose is to be someone else's porn-- or speak up and get attacked-- or don't buy comics at all.