She Has No head: Revisiting "No, It's Not Equal"

[t hedge coke]

If the bombshell covers were on some books, or if the normal covers weren't also generally pin ups of oversexualized women... they might be a different thing. It's not like some of the covers aren't nice images. But they're on every book. And, really, I think most comics readers have seen enough of Supergirl's upper thighs by this point.

My issue with Tigra being hypersexualized is that she's supposed to be more of a cat than a hairy woman with an extremely high libido.

I don't have a problem with the high libido, really, but her New Avengers arc was basically her getting videoed being hurt by villains while she went "skree! skree!" a lot in her bedroom, instead of ever just winnning a damn fight. And, when that arc finally ended and she's there, going to get her blows in, she... takes a bullet for someone and Spider-Man gets to finish her fight (getting his payback for the broken arm in the first couple issues).

Her role is purely get-naked-cry-scared-woman. And that's stupid, especially for someone shown repeatedly to be super strong, super fast, and a very good superhero. Every male superhero that got hurt by those villains got some awesome payback, most of them got real words coming out of their mouths, Tigra got hurt so the men would take more action. (Or, there were more scenes going on, and not enough pages, so BMB condensed. I can see that, not that it makes the actual comics less dumb and unsatisfactory.)

[Pól Rua]

The Tigra example is a good one, and highlights one of the problems with the approach where people evaluate whether something is sexist by whether or not it's sexy.
Tigra is depicted as a character with an active libido, and that's not a problem. The problem is that she exists solely as a sexual fantasy image. Initially, we see her as a damsel in distress to be rescued by another character, and then as a victim to be avenged.
She's not actually DOING anything. Stuff is being done TO or FOR her. She has no personal agency and exists as a sexualized plot point.

Now take Adam Warren's 'empowered'. Another series featuring a superheroine who is frequently involved in sexual situations.
The difference here is that the focus is on HER feelings, HER actions and HER responses. If she's in a bad situation, SHE has to deal with the consequences of them. It's a very similar set-up, but instead of being regarded as an object in someone else's story, she's an active participant in her OWN story. In the example with Tigra, what she feels and does is not important... it's what the men around her feel about what's been done to her, and what they do about it. Like I say, she's an object.
By shifting focus and treating female characters as... y'know... CHARACTERS, instead of props to drive male characters' stories, you can make a substantial change in story tone.

It has less to do with the weird diversionary quibbles which this issue usually descends into ('exactly how much skin is too much', 'exactly how big should boobs be', 'how far can a catsuit be unzipped'). It's not a matter of some sort of quantifiable amount. It's about approach and execution.

[Endless_Legend]

On the other hand there is nothing wrong with a good beach scene.

Attachment 4246

Right, because they're at the beach, so it actually does make sense to be wearing something skimpy, like people do. It's only annoying and inappropriate when superheroines are dressed like that when they're about to go into battle.

[Endless_Legend]

Out of context, I have no problem with an homage to Vargas-style pinups. In the context of the stuff going on in the comic industry right now, the whole "event" was probably not a very good idea.

Also ironic that retro-cheesecake like this usually has women with way more realistic figures and poses than modern comic cheesecake does.

She's basically just doing a vegas-dancer routine. Her spine isn't broken and her legs and arms and head (not to mention bust and waist) are realistically proportioned, instead of impossibly thin bizarre appendages and monstrously large bulges. She's even got some muscle on her arms and shoulders, like somebody who fights crime would.

How is it that in the 40s we had less distorted views of women than we do now?

[the4thpip]

How is it that in the 40s we had less distorted views of women than we do now?

Plastic surgery and photoshop?

[Pól Rua]

Right, because they're at the beach, so it actually does make sense to be wearing something skimpy, like people do. It's only annoying and inappropriate when superheroines are dressed like that when they're about to go into battle.

Plus, they're both in naturalistic poses, neither one has a particularly weirdly distorted physique and they're actually talking about and participating in the story. They're not posing for the 'camera'.

[Pól Rua]

Out of context, I have no problem with an homage to Vargas-style pinups. In the context of the stuff going on in the comic industry right now, the whole "event" was probably not a very good idea.

The annoying thing is that we're getting a pretty wide array of 'pin-up' style stuff, from Vargas stuff, to nose-cone art, to advertising and propaganda poster imagery.
So why aren't there any male images.
If we're getting Wonder Woman riffing on the classic 'We Can Do It' poster, why can't we have, say, Green Lantern doing something like this, for instance?
ready_join_u_s_marines_vintage_wwii_military_poster-rab8c42621e8f4cc4ac7ca9440df1a1b3_aibfd_8byv.jpg
Or Superman doing something like this: http://i.imgur.com/QoU2tKN.jpg

Or something like this?
http://www.interestingamerica.com/im...8_24_c_426.jpg

Movie posters featuring actors like Johnny Weismuller or Buster Crabbe could provide male equivalents? Or Pulp Magazine covers featuring Doc Savage? Or Sporting Heroes? Magazine advertising?
Once you go past nosecone art (which was the original inspiration for the Bombshells line), it's not really all that restricted to female characters or images.

[dragonmp93]

Something that i never understood is why Hulk never used a shirt that was as stretchy as his pants ?, or why cyclops has the muscles of the same size that spider-man, given that he doesnt have super-strength ?.

[t hedge coke]

So why aren't there any male images.
If we're getting Wonder Woman riffing on the classic 'We Can Do It' poster, why can't we have, say, Green Lantern doing something like this, for instance?
ready_join_u_s_marines_vintage_wwii_military_poster-rab8c42621e8f4cc4ac7ca9440df1a1b3_aibfd_8byv.jpg

Just imagine a Hal Jordan cover like the Supergirl one. Leg up, little skirt flying...

[CliffHanger2]

This made me think of Tigra. I haven't seen many of her appearances in Avengers Academy, but the way BMB wrote her in his Avengers was, well...a little problematic.

Well yeah I don't like how he writes anybody honestly. But I think the way she was getting beaten up on his run was a good example of sexism. Other writers have written her way better.

[Mark]

Something that i never understood is why Hulk never used a shirt that was as stretchy as his pants ?, or why cyclops has the muscles of the same size that spider-man, given that he doesnt have super-strength ?.

I think the main reason for that is to show how savage the Hulk initially was, also it was more impressive in that day and age to show lots of upper body muscles. The Thing seldom wore a shirt either.

[Mark]

This was the first time I ever saw Tigra in a comic

Marvel_2_in_1_19_1976_Page3.jpg

In that story she and Ben went up against the Cougar and while she was caught so was he, there was no damsel in distress element as they both had to be rescued. For Bendis she was just a prop to make his new villain look good. That's just the way he writes, no respect for the characters he doesn't plan on using in the future. After I read that issue of 2 in 1 I thought her a pretty good character, even later in an issue of marvel team up where Kraven has captured her and she has to be rescued by Spiderman I thought her a good character, after Bendis I can't think of her as a serious character. She's a joke now.

If the bombshell covers were on some books, or if the normal covers weren't also generally pin ups of oversexualized women... they might be a different thing. It's not like some of the covers aren't nice images. But they're on every book. And, really, I think most comics readers have seen enough of Supergirl's upper thighs by this point.



I don't have a problem with the high libido, really, but her New Avengers arc was basically her getting videoed being hurt by villains while she went "skree! skree!" a lot in her bedroom, instead of ever just winnning a damn fight. And, when that arc finally ended and she's there, going to get her blows in, she... takes a bullet for someone and Spider-Man gets to finish her fight (getting his payback for the broken arm in the first couple issues).

Her role is purely get-naked-cry-scared-woman. And that's stupid, especially for someone shown repeatedly to be super strong, super fast, and a very good superhero. Every male superhero that got hurt by those villains got some awesome payback, most of them got real words coming out of their mouths, Tigra got hurt so the men would take more action. (Or, there were more scenes going on, and not enough pages, so BMB condensed. I can see that, not that it makes the actual comics less dumb and unsatisfactory.)

[Mark]

Right, because they're at the beach, so it actually does make sense to be wearing something skimpy, like people do. It's only annoying and inappropriate when superheroines are dressed like that when they're about to go into battle.

Well capes aren't exactly practical either.
Avengers_27_1966_Page8.jpg

Part of it is that superheroes aren't soldiers, they are partly performers and they need to strike dramatic, eye-catching poses every now and then. When you skin is bullet proof you don't really have to wear armor, or if you rely on quickness heavy clothing would slow you down. Or for that matter if you are like Wanda or Zatanna you're a long range combatant, if the villain gets close enough to pull Wanda's arms behind her back or get a gag on Zatanna the fight is essentially over. The problem is in my opinion when the writer or the artist or both decide to reduce the character to a prop. In that picture of Rogue the stance she's in looks very painful.

[Mark]

Plastic surgery and photoshop?

Well also we were coming from the corset era of the 1900's and then the flapper era of the 1920's. Images of women have always been distorted in one way or another to sell product.

[ed2962]

The Tigra example is a good one, and highlights one of the problems with the approach where people evaluate whether something is sexist by whether or not it's sexy.
Tigra is depicted as a character with an active libido, and that's not a problem. The problem is that she exists solely as a sexual fantasy image. Initially, we see her as a damsel in distress to be rescued by another character, and then as a victim to be avenged.
She's not actually DOING anything. Stuff is being done TO or FOR her. She has no personal agency and exists as a sexualized plot point.

Now take Adam Warren's 'empowered'. Another series featuring a superheroine who is frequently involved in sexual situations.
The difference here is that the focus is on HER feelings, HER actions and HER responses. If she's in a bad situation, SHE has to deal with the consequences of them. It's a very similar set-up, but instead of being regarded as an object in someone else's story, she's an active participant in her OWN story. In the example with Tigra, what she feels and does is not important... it's what the men around her feel about what's been done to her, and what they do about it. Like I say, she's an object.
By shifting focus and treating female characters as... y'know... CHARACTERS, instead of props to drive male characters' stories, you can make a substantial change in story tone.

It has less to do with the weird diversionary quibbles which this issue usually descends into ('exactly how much skin is too much', 'exactly how big should boobs be', 'how far can a catsuit be unzipped'). It's not a matter of some sort of quantifiable amount. It's about approach and execution.

Very good point.