feminism, comics, and reason.
So, there's a lot of noise surrounding the spidergirl alternate cover. Here's a youtube about it that I rather like.
http://youtu.be/CB6TiRJNI-Q
Anyway, I debated whether or not to express an opinion on this one for a good while, and only finally decided to do so because I had a thought that hadn't been addressed, despite the REAMS of BS on the topic, from both sides.
Here it is.
There are 2 options. Either (1)men and women are basically similar, in which case, women must (like men) want to see sexualized humans of both genders, or (2) women are fundamentally different to men, in which case, the media will not, should not, cannot, overlap.
I would say that we could check out the evidence for both, there's plenty on both sides! But that way madness lay. The good news is, it's irrelevant! EITHER WAY, the answer to the wank on the topic of the spider-girl cover is, simply put, STFU.
Considering (1) Men and (straight) women are basically similar. This means that women might *not* be offended by looking at scantily clad, evocatively posed females, much like straight males are not necessarily put off by visuals of large penises of other males (porn exists). It means that straight women might enjoy looking at "specimens" of their gender exercising impressive skills. Effectively, it means that women, like men, might *enjoy* looking at the shapely, distinctly female, artfully posed, and minimally clad figure of spidergirl.
Considering (2) if the genders are truly different, and straight women do NOT enjoy looking at generally attractive women in evocative poses, then the only way that a media can be MORE appealing to one gender is by being LESS attractive to the other. It means that there is a zero sum game to be played, that any effort to attract more straight women will in fact drive away straight males.
In either case, the only correct action for the producers of the media to undertake is to KEEP DOING WHAT WORKS! That means that the most common superpower remains, and the painted on outfits remain, because in NEITHER of these cases is there any percentage, from a sales perspective, in "accommodating" a fictitious female that *would* buy comics, if only they would stop portraying women in skimpy outfits. Because, simply put, that female does not represent a statistically significant percentage of the media consuming populace, and therefore is, at best, a niche consumer, whose needs are not going to be filled by a mass-market product.
http://youtu.be/CB6TiRJNI-Q
Anyway, I debated whether or not to express an opinion on this one for a good while, and only finally decided to do so because I had a thought that hadn't been addressed, despite the REAMS of BS on the topic, from both sides.
Here it is.
There are 2 options. Either (1)men and women are basically similar, in which case, women must (like men) want to see sexualized humans of both genders, or (2) women are fundamentally different to men, in which case, the media will not, should not, cannot, overlap.
I would say that we could check out the evidence for both, there's plenty on both sides! But that way madness lay. The good news is, it's irrelevant! EITHER WAY, the answer to the wank on the topic of the spider-girl cover is, simply put, STFU.
Considering (1) Men and (straight) women are basically similar. This means that women might *not* be offended by looking at scantily clad, evocatively posed females, much like straight males are not necessarily put off by visuals of large penises of other males (porn exists). It means that straight women might enjoy looking at "specimens" of their gender exercising impressive skills. Effectively, it means that women, like men, might *enjoy* looking at the shapely, distinctly female, artfully posed, and minimally clad figure of spidergirl.
Considering (2) if the genders are truly different, and straight women do NOT enjoy looking at generally attractive women in evocative poses, then the only way that a media can be MORE appealing to one gender is by being LESS attractive to the other. It means that there is a zero sum game to be played, that any effort to attract more straight women will in fact drive away straight males.
In either case, the only correct action for the producers of the media to undertake is to KEEP DOING WHAT WORKS! That means that the most common superpower remains, and the painted on outfits remain, because in NEITHER of these cases is there any percentage, from a sales perspective, in "accommodating" a fictitious female that *would* buy comics, if only they would stop portraying women in skimpy outfits. Because, simply put, that female does not represent a statistically significant percentage of the media consuming populace, and therefore is, at best, a niche consumer, whose needs are not going to be filled by a mass-market product.