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

[CBR News]

Kelly Thompson revisits a 2012 column which broke down the ways women are not given equal visual presentation in comics. Has anything changed?


Full article here.

[JediMindTrick]

I agree that Marvel has made some significant improvements with Captain Marvel and Psylocke. Gamora as well as she no longer sports a thong suit that covers virtually nothing.

[Pinsir]

Marvel really has changed the most, but both companies are better.

[ed2962]

I'm always amused that the cover to the X-rated parody of Birds Of Prey is less suggestive that some of the real cover book covers.

[ed2962]

Marvel really has changed the most, but both companies are better.

Change is more noticeable with Marvel cuz at the time of the DC nu52 they were actually kind of behind in terms of representation in lead titles. Setting quality aside, DC had a handful female led titles, a few led by black males, and one LGBT led title. I hope I'm not getting my dates wrong, but Marvel had one black male lead and one female lead and no gay leads. And while I think Marvel was as bad with the boob-tacular art, they didn't have the PR disaster that DC had with Kori/Selena.

But yes, I think both companies are trying a little harder now...

[ScottSummers]

Interestingly, I don't see many of these observations holding up between the late 1960s to mid late 1980s because much of the comics code neutered them from really showing sexuality in a meaningful way. Look at, for example Storm's Punk, Rogues tunics, Jean's full body suits. And Romita drew much womanier (or not stick thin) women, and more variation. Look at Kitty who he drew legitimately like a 20 year old, compared to Storm. Many of the women wore conservative outfits for a while. Of course it was misogynistic in a different way. But the visuals just were not there.

But then the 1990s come along and there's a huge latitude given to what comics can show because the audience aged up. It went from mostly 10 year old, to mostly 15-24 year olds. Horny puberty teenagers, basically.

I think a lot of cynicism too affects it. People want shocking. I think in a way that might not be that different. Every era probably only has a few good runs and graphic novels that depict people in a realistic and relatable fashion. I think one issue with this article is maybe the expectation is most fiction will be cliché, stereotype and shock-value only entertainment pushed for a quick buck. If you really look at comics they always go back to that one really great idea they had, a lot. Perhaps even the having hundreds of titles cause people to hire poor quality writers.

But the comic code did oddly prevent some of what's being discussed in the article.

[ed2962]

Interestingly, I don't see many of these observations holding up between the late 1960s to mid late 1980s because much of the comics code neutered them from really showing sexuality in a meaningful way. Look at, for example Storm's Punk, Rogues tunics, Jean's full body suits. And Romita drew much womanier (or not stick thin) women, and more variation. Look at Kitty who he drew legitimately like a 20 year old, compared to Storm. Many of the women wore conservative outfits for a while. Of course it was misogynistic in a different way. But the visuals just were not there.

But then the 1990s come along and there's a huge latitude given to what comics can show because the audience aged up. It went from mostly 10 year old, to mostly 15-24 year olds. Horny puberty teenagers, basically.

I think a lot of cynicism too affects it. People want shocking. I think in a way that might not be that different. Every era probably only has a few good runs and graphic novels that depict people in a realistic and relatable fashion. I think one issue with this article is maybe the expectation is most fiction will be cliché, stereotype and shock-value only entertainment pushed for a quick buck. If you really look at comics they always go back to that one really great idea they had, a lot. Perhaps even the having hundreds of titles cause people to hire poor quality writers.

But the comic code did oddly prevent some of what's being discussed in the article.

This is a valid point. Sex appeal had always been a part of comics, but with the comics code they were forced to keep it tasteful.

[Charles RB]

A demonstrated change? That would indicate all the talk online about women in comics does have a gradual impact on the industry.

[Psycho]

Sexuality being misguidedly vilified is the old towing line in the comics scene. It is all subjective and personal taste, but the blanket all "sexy = bad" way of looking at things is just not a good way to critique art/entertainment with a broad range of tone and presentation. You often see an article just pointing out that a comic or cover features an illustrated woman with sex appeal showing skin or something, we get instant outrage from some. But why?

We have a puritanical culture here in the US where the fun of sexuality is instead shamed and given guilt and a lot of misguided outrage. I'm as progressive and liberal as is possible, not that this is related, I'm completely about equality and diversity. It's the just plain wrong idea that no piece of fiction can appeal to say male sexuality (or anyone who finds women hot, lesbians and bi included), or it's supposedly being sexist. That is just craziness.

Equality doesn't mean every story written and illustrated needs to be a homoginized bland pile of slop made by committee to appeal to as wide a demographic as possible. Have some comics like that sure, but it's not fruitful to make articles vilifying every harmless element of sexuality in any comic ever, costumes and sex appeal included. People can separate fantasy from reality, if you can agree being a vigilante and maiming or killing everyone isn't the solution to the world's problems, you can also agree that perhaps a woman showing cleavage and legs is not even close to a moral quandary. Plus there are women who do like this stylized sexuality, everyone is an individual, so it's self serving nonsense to pretend these arguments are automatically supporting women, because they don't all agree anyway. And at the end of the day, we're just people talking about art/entertainment.

And US comics right now is such a relatively sexless, stifled, stuffy scene as is that the idea some want it universally even more in that direction is just censorship at it's worst. There should be a wide range of comics, some "lewd", different books appealing to all styles, that's the beauty of it.

Random note, in Japan where far more women read comics, we also have many far more blatantly sexual aspects in comics appealing to males. The existence of these comics doesn't scare off female readers or any reader who doesn't happen to be into those aspects, they read what appeals to them. Making arguments to censor the stuff that doesn't appeal to you across the board isn't the way to do it.

On a related topic, I'd love to see more female protagonists. And it's odd that we don't have a female superhero movie yet since the comic movie boom really took off. The majority of these arguments tend to be against sexuality and costumes, stylistic elements, and to me the real issues are swept under the rug while sexuality is the scapegoat.

And while I think Marvel was as bad with the boob-tacular art, they didn't have the PR disaster that DC had with Kori/Selena.

Why is one particular part of the human body so shamed? And I often see people complaining specifically about more busty characters, do you find very busty women in reality to be distasteful? No? Then it should be okay to draw them, which is obvious. For some reason breasts are the #1 body part some readers never want to see. And you realize a B-cup is considerd just as sexual as a G-cup, it's all personal taste and beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If somebody is complaining about boobs, I think they're just making a fallacious surface argument with no substance. Just sayin' folks.

As for a PR disaster pertaining to Selina, it is appalling that Catwoman #1 received such outrage. It was just a PG-13 sex scene between two adults that made sense, was nothing you wouldn't have seen on your average TV show, or a 007 film. And the way Guillem March draws her as curvy and busty is actually pretty good anatomy illustration, unless you're attaching specific shaming to a real body type there's no reason to find it offensive. There was nothing wrong with that comic, like any art/entertainment of course not everyone will like it, but it's not sexist or misogynistic in any way.

[Kieran_Frost]

Sexuality being misguidedly vilified is the old towing line in the comics scene. It is all subjective and personal taste, but the blanket all "sexy = bad" way of looking at things is just not a good way to critique art/entertainment with a broad range of tone and presentation. You often see an article just pointing out that a comic or cover features an illustrated woman with sex appeal showing skin or something, we get instant outrage from some. But why?

The article made it pretty clear that characters like Emma Frost can OWN their sexuality, and it's not "wrong" or a bad thing in those scenarios. It's not about being a prude, it's about overly sexualizing women (esp. characters that really shouldn't be sexualized that much -- either due to personality, age, or general demeanour).

[Psycho]

The article made it pretty clear that characters like Emma Frost can OWN their sexuality, and it's not "wrong" or a bad thing in those scenarios. It's not about being a prude, it's about overly sexualizing women (esp. characters that really shouldn't be sexualized that much -- either due to personality, age, or general demeanour).

The tone and style of every piece of entertainment doesn't need to adhere to one person's very specific and narrow view of when and where sex appeal is acceptable. I read a lot of comics, I've read a lot of debates about sexuality and gender in entertainment, I understand what they're saying. I just completely disagree.

People are overtly sexual, in reality. It's okay to overtly look at that in a piece of art. It's also okay to appeal specifically to people who are attracted to women in some books. Much like it's okay to have the opposite, like shoujo manga with pretty boys. Plus not every female reader is against overtly sexy female characters either. We can't pretend articles like this speak for everyone or a whole gender. But of course, we're talking generalities, we can have specific arguments about what fits or doesn't fit in the tone of each individual comic. (and we do in every topic)

And while that argument of when and where sex appeal makes sense is completely subjective, it also can't work as a general argument point because comics aren't documentaries. They have stylistic and unrealistic elements, people can dress impractically. Batman's costume is twice as impractical as Wonder Woman's. There are many subtleties and caveats to presentation and tone.

I just find it so strange that the basis of every article talking about gender boils down to being anti-sex appeal and anti-cheesecake art. Soon comics will just be 20 pages of blood and gore by masked androgynous characters without a hint of humanity. No one will be offended. This is as far as we've gotten in all these discussions, this is still what we're talking about years later? There's a lot more to discuss, but the "sexy is bad" thing is always the focus.

[ExcelsiorPrime]

If women have no heads in comics.

Is it safe to say Black Male Comic characters are walking tombstones?

[ed2962]

Why is one particular part of the human body so shamed? And I often see people complaining specifically about more busty characters, do you find very busty women in reality to be distasteful? No? Then it should be okay to draw them, which is obvious. For some reason breasts are the #1 body part some readers never want to see. And you realize a B-cup is considerd just as sexual as a G-cup, it's all personal taste and beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If somebody is complaining about boobs, I think they're just making a fallacious surface argument with no substance. Just sayin' folks.

As for a PR disaster pertaining to Selina, it is appalling that Catwoman #1 received such outrage. It was just a PG-13 sex scene between two adults that made sense, was nothing you wouldn't have seen on your average TV show, or a 007 film. And the way Guillem March draws her as curvy and busty is actually pretty good anatomy illustration, unless you're attaching specific shaming to a real body type there's no reason to find it offensive. There was nothing wrong with that comic, like any art/entertainment of course not everyone will like it, but it's not sexist or misogynistic in any way.

It's not that boobs are more shameful than other body parts, but let's face it...they're easy to use in a visually sexual way. And many times when folks are being exploitive, the go to move is not give her a prettier face or cuter toes. It's make-her-****-bigger. There's nothing wrong busty women and nothing wrong with liking to look at busty women. However many times in superhero comics, we get really ill-conceived costumes on poorly drawn "sexy" bodies that fail at either being representations of classic beauty or titillating. A lot of times it just looks friggin' dumb. i'm not a prude, I easily make a case defending Russ Meyer, but I don't need my Spiderman comic turning into "Supervixens." And if they do make a "Supervixens" comic I want it to be good, not "Here's badly drawn cleavage, give us money."


The Selena/Bruce thing was just an embarrassment. It was poorly laid out and clumsily handled. There have been times when Bruce has had sex before. And no one cared. This time DC just dropped the ball. March is actually a very talented artist, but a couple of times he's handed in stuff that was simply bad art...not explicit, not sexist, but bad in the service of being sexy. I don't think the first issue was misogynist, but it had problems. What we get alot of times in comics, aren't honest explorations of sexuality or even honest titillation. It's cheap sensationalism designed to go for the lowest common denominator. What shocks people are that in many cases, these are heroes that show up in PG-13 media, yet behaving in ways that would alienate that audience. It doesn't matter that you didn't see the naughty bits.

I mean, we can discuss actual comics that are really about sex. And we can bring up anything from Milo Manara, to Crumb, to Menage a 3. And we can talk how good or bad those comics are. But when we're talking about superhero comics and how the editors are skanking up characters that are appearing kids cartoons, then that's an issue that deserves to be looked at. It's not just people being prudes and wanting to take our sex away.

[Psycho]

It's not just people being prudes and wanting to take our sex away.

It is all personal taste and subjective, but that is what it is for the most part from my perspective. Just shaming sexuality. I don't agree that actually showing Bruce and Selina in a standard love making scene (very PG-13 by the way) is lowest common denominator, or sensationalism. That's just our culture talking, European cultures would often see it differently. As do plenty of us here, not to generalize. To me Batman punching everyone in the face to solve the world's problems is a lot more lowest common denominator than some sexuality. Not that I mind that either, Batman doesn't need to be a bastion of "good taste" to me, it's pulp crime fiction at the core. And I really don't get why certain body types shouldn't be represented in say Spider-Man.

I appreciate that breasts to you are not inherently bad, but unfortunately that really is the key thing many complain about. Some just post pictures of art featuring a busty character and point to it like it's automatically bad. This article for example.

Speaking of censorship, the mods aren't posting my comments on the article. At least the forum will allow more than one side of a discussion. Somebody who says Psylocke looked like a "ninja-hooker" gets theirs posted. What a joke. And by the way, shaming and scorn towards sex workers is a much more real problem than a comic character in a tight leotard. And Kelly said to me that I should be glad my comment wasn't posted because "it makes me look stupid". So she insults people she disagrees with. It was a slightly abbreviated version of my first forum post, I personally don't think it's stupid. Anyways, not a big fan.

And what’s wrong exactly with the picture of Rogue selected in the bottom right corner? Is just being busty and showing cleavage supposed to be inherently bad, self explanatory? Does this apply to real people too, or just illustrations? What makes one real body type more offensive than another? Why are busty women being shamed for no reason? The broken back pose ones I get. These articles often just find a picture of a busty character in art and post it like it's evident that it's wrong. But that in itself to me is wrong.

On the discussion of when it makes sense to show skin, to me it's also offputting to only accept sex appeal from characters such as Emma Frost. A "normal" woman could never choose to show cleavage? They have to be a deliberately sexual femme fatale to dress that way, and of course also implying how people dress defines them? Anyone should be able to dress any way, including showing skin if they want to, and the concept that there's something wrong with that is not exactly universal. And you'd think standards would be even more liberal in a fictional world where people can wear anything.

[PwrdOn]

The truth of the matter is that while a lot of male readers do appreciate female characters on a mature and dignified level, most of them would never have had any interest in them in the first place had their interest not been piqued at a young age by a particularly provocative cover or splash page. Female lead books always need that male audience in order to survive, since young girls tend to develop faster than boys and thus don't cling as tightly to nerd hobbies. And it's not just all about horny adolescent boys needing fap fodder either, nobody wants to buy into a product that's explicitly not meant for them, and a modestly dressed superheroine beating up men while shouting girl power slogans certainly appears that way to most guys.