Female body shaming in Marvel Comics: Aren't superhero comics about idealized versions of ourselves?

[Indian Ink]

I wonder if the costume and body change for Spiderwoman towards a Spy-girl look is to do with a little research into girls reading habits. From the book returns at my local library there seem to be a lot of tween spy girl books. While the boys are into stories with lightsabers and fighting zombies, there seem to be a surprising amount of books for girls about living a double life of being an ace spy and still going to school.

[jen]

I didn't say any thing was wrong with using certain tactics to bring more fans/money. I'm just more or less stating the obvious.

More women are ready comics,Fact. More so Feminist are using comics to a certain degree to stay relevant, Fact. Marvel and some what DC are using that to their advantage to make more money, Fact.

It is what it is. Just wish it didn't come along with the male bashing and the innuendo's that the previous male readership where sex deprived deviants. They can push whatever they want without suggesting and placing negative labels on men.

But it is okay to put negative labels on female readers? That creators wanting to get more female readers somehow ruins comics for you? Are we "other" and not to be included in the readership?

[gantz_alien_killer]

If all you see is her side boob rather than her badass knockout punch, that is on you. ;-)

all i see is a arm, a head and a boob no punch. she could be reaching for a beer, or chocolate cake for all i know. boobs must not be shown in large quantities because that is sexist. its too tight and impractical.

[robreedwrites]

fifth, no man is going to pose the way women do because they are men. men posing in playgirl pose like men. women in playboy pose like women. id expect no less from comics.

Most men don't pose in Playgirl the same way they do in comics. The poses in Playgirl (or of men modelling) play to the sexuality more often than their muscular power. So the men are often pushing their hips forward, emphasizing their privates, and often they are drawn with arms behind their heads, which emphasizes the muscularity of the chest and arms, but in a way that suggests a relaxed and welcoming nature. If the men do pose with their arms down, their hands are almost always approaching their groin, suggesting their power is still linked to their presumed virility.

Men in comics are almost always drawn from power positions (there are many exceptions, and some characters (such as Namor) are often drawn in a more "sexy" manner). Their muscularity is rarely explicitly attached to their sexuality, though I imagine that for some their muscularity is sexually attractive in and of itself. The men are rarely sexually objectified. This is partially due to the fact that culturally, the aspects that are usually sexualized in men also correlate to how men frequently idealize themselves (large muscles, genitalia).

Women in comics, however, face another issue. Their costumes often emphasize the parts of the anatomy that are culturally sexualized (breasts, buttocks), and so their costumes carry a bit of inherent sexuality. And I'm not talking about "pointing" in costumes. Human beings are theoretically symmetrical and so any downward point in the costume of a chest area would point to the centrally located groin. But think about the way women's costumes are traditionally drawn. Clothes don't hug the breasts individually and hold tightly to the sternum at the same time. Clothing does not have to adhere to every curve of a woman's derriere. But it often does in comics. While the "sexy" muscles of men are often used to display their function, women in comics very rarely get to use their breasts for their natural function (breastfeeding). And this isn't to shame women who are built this way. I'm friends with some women who are proportioned fairly similarly to some of these "unrealistic" women. But women in comics are drawn to fit a general idealization of the female form - from a male perspective.

The change in costumes is less about pandering to a "female" crowd (put in quotes because I imagine that all women have different ideals) but about diversifying the type of outfit we see in comics for women. How many female characters do we need that "wear sexy costumes to distract men?"

[jen]

all i see is a arm, a head and a boob no punch. she could be reaching for a beer, or chocolate cake for all i know. boobs must not be shown in large quantities because that is sexist. its too tight and impractical.

Not all boobs are equal.

It is okay for all kinds of lady body types to be celebrated in the comics. . Some of the hipper costume redesigns are just updates to some looks. That is not body shaming.

[gantz_alien_killer]

Most men don't pose in Playgirl the same way they do in comics. The poses in Playgirl (or of men modelling) play to the sexuality more often than their muscular power. So the men are often pushing their hips forward, emphasizing their privates, and often they are drawn with arms behind their heads, which emphasizes the muscularity of the chest and arms, but in a way that suggests a relaxed and welcoming nature. If the men do pose with their arms down, their hands are almost always approaching their groin, suggesting their power is still linked to their presumed virility.

so you dont thrust your pelvic when you talk to a girl? I do it all the time.

[ijacksparrow]

If all you see is her side boob rather than her badass knockout punch, that is on you. ;-)

I want to say that I'm sorry that my thread brought some truly sexist posters here, but I'd also like to point out that Marvel should aiming for those that see more than Rogue's sideboob in these picture, instead of focusing on the progressive feminists and anti progressive feminists. What I'm trying to say?

Feminism is one of the healthiest movements out there, but there are factions of it too worried with slut shaming pretty much everything. I consider myself a feminist and an egalitarian, and it's known that are different schools of Feminism. I don't like extremists from any corners what I'd like to see is Marvel making Spider-Woman the original character that she can be. Drew has some very interesting powers and she I was up until Rocket Raccoon's slut shaming remarks a very sexually aware character. I don't want Marvel to sanitize her, I want them to use her sexuality proudly like a badge, there's room for a character like that in Marvel Comics. The way things are now, she is the sanitized version of a female character #2 or #3.

[robreedwrites]

so you dont thrust your pelvic when you talk to a girl? I do it all the time.

What does that have to do with what I said?

[Arfguy]

Women in comics, however, face another issue. Their costumes often emphasize the parts of the anatomy that are culturally sexualized (breasts, buttocks), and so their costumes carry a bit of inherent sexuality. And I'm not talking about "pointing" in costumes. Human beings are theoretically symmetrical and so any downward point in the costume of a chest area would point to the centrally located groin. But think about the way women's costumes are traditionally drawn. Clothes don't hug the breasts individually and hold tightly to the sternum at the same time. Clothing does not have to adhere to every curve of a woman's derriere. But it often does in comics. While the "sexy" muscles of men are often used to display their function, women in comics very rarely get to use their breasts for their natural function (breastfeeding). And this isn't to shame women who are built this way. I'm friends with some women who are proportioned fairly similarly to some of these "unrealistic" women. But women in comics are drawn to fit a general idealization of the female form - from a male perspective.

I highlight this part because I've heard a few women comment about how sexy a guy's abs are without him having to flex. Or sexualize a guy's ass without them having to stick it out? Superheroes are consistently wearing clothes that show six pack and show the full contours of the ass.

Are we going with the idea that women don't find those parts sexual, thus superheroes are not "sexualized" or is it possible that women's sexual preferences aren't as obvious as men's?

[ijacksparrow]

I highlight this part because I've heard a few women comment about how sexy a guy's abs are without him having to flex. Or sexualize a guy's ass without them having to stick it out? Superheroes are consistently wearing clothes that show six pack and show the full contours of the ass.

Are we going with the idea that women don't find those parts sexual, thus superheroes are not "sexualized" or is it possible that women's sexual preferences aren't as obvious as men's?

There are tumblrs dedicated to Hawkeye, Loki, slash fanfic and what have you on tumblr. Of course that women find the male characters attractive, what I'm not sure is why some are so adamant on not admitting that.

[t hedge coke]

It is what it is. Just wish it didn't come along with the male bashing and the innuendo's that the previous male readership where sex deprived deviants. They can push whatever they want without suggesting and placing negative labels on men.

I can't remember seeing a Marvel comic do that. Did Thor place negative labels on all men lately? Or, male superhero fans? Fantastic Four before it was canceled? A recent Avengers story? Because I haven't seen that happen in comics.

Or, really, on forums with anything like the frequency of "it's a feminist conspiracy" or "it's for the movies" (of Spider-Woman and Batgirl and Spider-Gwen, because they're clearly having a trilogy each any day now). No one's saying the male readership of superhero comics are sex-deprived deviants. There are, however, enough people saying anyone who doesn't like what they like must be uptight prudes who want to shame large-breasted women (who should know their place and keep those breasts covered).

[robreedwrites]

I highlight this part because I've heard a few women comment about how sexy a guy's abs are without him having to flex. Or sexualize a guy's ass without them having to stick it out? Superheroes are consistently wearing clothes that show six pack and show the full contours of the ass.

Are we going with the idea that women don't find those parts sexual, thus superheroes are not "sexualized" or is it possible that women's sexual preferences aren't as obvious as men's?

My contention with this is that we, as humans, can sexualize any part of the body we desire without the art necessarily "focusing" on it, if that makes sense. So yes, a man's abs can be sexy, but I would argue that they aren't really "sexualized" in comic book art (Namor is one of the few examples that I can think of that regularly draws the focus there). The reader has to bring that to it. To flip it a bit, I like wide hips on the female form. So whether or not the art draws attention to it, my eyes will usually notice/admire wide hips. But in comic book art, the images themselves draw the eye to the hips (and other areas), via poses, lighting, and other artistic techniques that I'm frankly underqualified to speak on.

[ijacksparrow]

My contention with this is that we, as humans, can sexualize any part of the body we desire without the art necessarily "focusing" on it, if that makes sense. So yes, a man's abs can be sexy, but I would argue that they aren't really "sexualized" in comic book art (Namor is one of the few examples that I can think of that regularly draws the focus there). The reader has to bring that to it. To flip it a bit, I like wide hips on the female form. So whether or not the art draws attention to it, my eyes will usually notice/admire wide hips. But in comic book art, the images themselves draw the eye to the hips (and other areas), via poses, lighting, and other artistic techniques that I'm frankly underqualified to speak on.

My opinion is that superhero comics have been traditionally about characters at their peak of their superhuman levels. They are larger than life and usually strong, beautiful and agile, literally idealized super versions of humanity. Women and men are drawn to look gorgeous and attractive, and the fallacy here I think that lies on the false premise that just female characters are drawn to look attractive, when male characters are drawn to look attractive as well, hence why a LOT of the fan girls and those attracted to men start fandoms around these characters.

[t hedge coke]

My opinion is that superhero comics have been traditionally about characters at their peak of their superhuman levels. They are larger than life and usually strong, beautiful and agile, literally idealized super versions of humanity. Women and men are drawn to look gorgeous and attractive, and the fallacy here I think that lies on the false premise that just female characters are drawn to look attractive, when male characters are drawn to look attractive as well, hence why a LOT of the fan girls and those attracted to men start fandoms around these characters.

New Costume Jessica still looks like a pretty beautiful, healthy woman, to me. She looks pretty idealized, too. Pretty slick, really.

[ijacksparrow]

New Costume Jessica still looks like a pretty beautiful, healthy woman, to me. She looks pretty idealized, too. Pretty slick, really.

Just like it was aptly pointed out earlier on the thread, it could be as well another character, since she doesn't look like Jessica has been classically drawn since her original comic.

It wouldn't be bad if that was an original new character, or if the character actually looked like Jessica. It's just kinda sad that Marvel literally slut shamed her to have a boob reduction and use a faux practical costume because of a Milo Manara cover.