Marvel's Female Heroes And The Galbrush Paradox

[Tiamatty]

One thing I would note is that intended audience will often change the nature of the struggles characters have. A MAX series about Punisher is going to have him go through different things than an all-ages series about Spider-Man. Also, the kind of book that's being written will factor in. To use America as an example: It's not a standard superhero series. So she doesn't have the standard superhero problems, or at least, she doesn't have those problems in the standard way. She has her own struggles.

A lot of the female solo titles have been geared less towards the traditional superhero comic audience. So they treat the characters different from traditional superhero comics. But then you have books like Silk or All-New Wolverine, which are more traditional, and the characters are treated more traditionally. Silk got her ass handed to her quite a bit, and Tana Ford, in particular, wasn't afraid to make her look like someone who'd had the shit beaten out of her. The Samnee/Waid Black Widow series was willing to get brutal.

In terms of characters sleeping around, that's actually been less common in recent years, just in general. Male and female. Not that it was ever actually all that common. Tony Stark notwithstanding, most characters have tended towards serial monogamy.

Are some writers overly cautious when it comes to how they write female characters? Maybe. Probably far fewer than you think, and far less cautious than you think. I would say female characters are mostly treated about the same as male characters, in most books.

[Star_Jammer]

Personality wise, they are the same, in that everyone has different traits, and women are just people. In real life, you can be a tough woman or a meek guy, etc. and there is nothing wrong with showing this in fiction, in fact it should be encouraged. But the historical context, while it doesn't change the personality, will change how people, both in and out of the story, perceive that personality. How that character is treated in story, or reacts to certain situations will also be a bit different due to their experiences that stem from that historical context. A female character approached in an alley by a strange man will typically react differently than a male character, for instance, just because they know that they are inherently in more danger due to their gender, and as a woman, they have had it drilled into their heads, over and over, that this is a dangerous situation, moreso than it would be for a man. But if it is a tough as nails woman who knows how to fight, that will still shine through as well, that aspect of her personality doesn't just go away. She will still react in character, but also in a way that is informed by historical context. I mean, yes, a person's experiences and historical/societal context will shape who a person is to an extent, but core personalities are kind of ingrained and separate from that. I think most differences are mostly just perception, and sometimes social camouflage. A tomboy pretending to be girly to fit in, or a shy awkward guy putting on a macho act, for instance. Society has told us there are a certain number of roles that are ok, based on historical trends telling us what is 'acceptable' for the behavior for a person of a particular gender, because it's been drilled into our heads so much through years of repetition that a person (man or woman) 'should' be this or that. So while characters should still be rounded and really, at the core, women are not THAT much different from men, you have to be aware of the context while writing to try and avoid certain problems, or shine a light on how you are doing things differently. It doesn't mean you change the character, just be aware of the world they live in, what it expects of them, and how it may influence them, that goes for both male and female characters. And also be aware of how readers will perceive it based on the world WE live in. But that is less to do with the character than society.

and yeah, the OP kind of touched on that, but kind of treated things like everything should be equal, so it represented a double standard or something. But it's just history, and not going to change any time soon, there is too much momentum built up. true parity will take a lot more time.

Thank you for your insight.

I agree, things are a bit more nuanced than the OP might suggest, but I still think there are some good points there as well.

[ExodusCloak]

https://youtu.be/GkfJijug3w8



It really depends on the character and writer. I don't think they've ever treated Emma with kid gloves though.

Fan reaction was basically meh and ugh. Swap Emma with Storm or Jean and you'd get a different reaction.

[Redjack]

https://youtu.be/GkfJijug3w8



It really depends on the character and writer. I don't think they've ever treated Emma with kid gloves though.

Fan reaction was basically meh and ugh. Swap Emma with Storm or Jean and you'd get a different reaction.

Why, it's almost as if they're entirely different characters, written and edited by stacks of people over decades.

But, no. That's jut crazy talk.

[ExodusCloak]

Why, it's almost as if they're entirely different characters, written and edited by stacks of people over decades.

But, no. That's jut crazy talk.

The WATXM and AvX are are within a span of a few years. And I'm not even sure what your point is. Certain characters have certain protections even male ones. A character with a healing factor is going to be subjected to a lot more violence then one without one. A character without one is very unlikely to suffer the same.

A character who has a metal form or a diamond form can have their arms chopped off. Unless they want it to be permanent they're not going to be chopping of Storm, Jean or Cyclops arm.

At the same time how a slap from Spiderman to Storm can evoke more of a response from the fan base then Frost been choked out. Its how the larger fanbase associate with the characters and not just fans of the characters.

[ed2962]

I wasn't sure where on CBR I should bring this issue up. If there's another thread that discusses this sort of thing, I apologize to the mods and feel free to merge this thread with that one. But for now, I'm just going to create a new thread so this sort of topic can be fleshed out.

The past few years have been pretty astonishing for Marvel's female heroes. Some forget that it wasn't that long ago when both Marvel and DC had an incredible lack of female solo titles. I think even Axel Alonso has brought it up before and he rightly pointed out that it was an issue. Women make up half the population, after all. Why shouldn't Marvel and DC try to cater to them? Why shouldn't they craft female heroes to appeal to a broader audience?

The success of the Wonder Woman movie showed that there is an audience for that sort of thing. Even before that, though, characters like X-23, Storm, Captain marvel, Kamala Khan, She-Hulk, Black Cat, Mockingbird, and Spider-Gwen have really helped Marvel expand its slate of female heroes. Overall, I think it's good for the industry. There should be a healthy mix, of sorts, for male and female heroes. It's in the interest of the industry as a whole to create a diverse range of heroes.

However, in recent times, mostly in the past couple years or so, I've noticed a few issues with female heroes that I think are worth discussing. It has to do with the unique challenges associated with developing female heroes. While this might not be a politically correct thing to say, developing compelling female heroes is different compared to male heroes. The standards are different. In some cases, there are double standards. There are some things you can do with a male character that wouldn't be very controversial, but if you did them with a female character, then it would probably spark an outcry.

Here are a few recent examples:

Last year when Fox was promoting X-men Apocalypse, it had to apologize for a billboard that showed Apocalypse choking Mystique. Even though this did happen in the movie, Fox still had to apologize because many found it to be in poor taste. If Apocalypse had been doing that to a male character, like Charles Xavier, then I don't think it would've been as big an issue. Again, I know that's not a politically correct statement, but I think it's a valid point.

We see it play out in the comics as well. Characters like Peter Parker and Tony Stark can go around, hooking up with all sorts of beautiful women without raising an eyebrow. If a female character does that, though, it takes on a different tone. Those characters are more likely to become villainous vixens like Emma Frost or Black Cat, which still draw the ire of a certain crowd.

That tone gets even more obscure when you look at how male characters are allowed to struggle and suffer. Wolverine and Cyclops can beat the crap out of each other in stories like Schism, but then share a beer later on in an issue of Wolverine and the X-men. However, Hank Pym can still NEVER live down how he struck Janet and can never do anything to redeem himself in the eyes of her or his friends.. Sure, women do clash at times, as Emma Frost and Jean Grey did. But it never escalated to the kind of violence and vitriol that we see with male characters.

In addition, female characters aren't allowed to really fail to the same extent as male characters. I've been seeing this a lot more lately with characters like Kamala Khan, Captain Marvel, Mockingbird, America Chavez, and even Rey from Star Wars. They still fight, but they rarely struggle or fail much. They're rarely allowed to undergo a lot of upheaval and for good reason. If they do that for male characters, then that's just character development. If they do that to female characters, though, it's sexist and generates an outcry.

There's actually a name for this phenomenon. It's called the Galbrush Paradox and it was coined during the GameGate fiasco a couple years ago. I recently wrote about it on my publishing blog because I'm trying to become a published author. And I've found that developing female characters is a lot harder than male characters. I find myself being a lot more careful with how I handle female characters because I don't want to get all these negative labels thrown at me or my work.

Now I don't deny that the writers at Marvel are much more talented and much more successful than I'll ever be. However, I've noticed that even they're struggling with this issue. Characters like Captain Marvel, America Chavez, and Kamala Khan don't really get to struggle, evolve, or overcome the same challenges as male characters. I can understand why Marvel is extra careful. Captain Marvel has a movie coming out in two years and the public is a lot more sensitive to the treatment of female characters these days. Just look at the outcry over what Joss Whedon did with Black Widow in Avengers: Age of Ultron.

I honestly worry that Marvel, and other comic companies, will let their female characters stagnate out of fear. They don't want to get labeled as sexist or being insensitive to minorities. I get that, but I think it's not good for the characters in the long run. When I look at a character like X-23, I don't think she could've been introduced today. I think there would be protests and outcries from fans and critics alike, claiming X-23 is just a male Wolverine and is somehow an affront to female characters everywhere.

That's just my opinion though. I wanted to open this thread up to a larger discussion. Do you share my concerns? Do you think Marvel is being too careful with its female characters? Do you think the Galbrush Paradox is even real? I think it's worth discussing.

Just to touch on a couple of things that stood out to me...I'm not sure I buy the idea that female characters aren't allowed to struggle. I think it depends on the character, the tone of the book you're reading, and what you mean by struggle. A character's struggle can mental, moral, etc...it doesn't have to mean bloody fist fight. Something like Ms Marvel is supposed to be a lighthearted book, but many times she'll struggle to do the right thing. Then there's a book like Jessica Jones where the hero struggles to succeed in a world that considers her a has-been. And having said that, I just finished the Odyssesy of the Amazons ( Wonder Woman spin off mini) and it's full bloody battle scenes. In neither case were the writers afraid to have the female leads face conflict, get beat up, or look like bad people.

I don't agree that X-23 couldn't be created today. Marvel's doing characters like Spider Gwen and Silk. Ironheart gets push back but it's not from folks saying the character is sexist.

And no I don't think the Galbrush Paradox is real. I think it's complete BS.

[Conn Seanery]

Keep it civil, folks.

[WaxHawk]

One of the things I love about Monstress. Females of every kind.

I was going to mention Monstress as well. It definitely plays with the tropes being discussed here (personally I'd like it if they also played a bit more with male tropes as well though). And the art of that book is amazing.

I also recommend a book series called the Worldbreaker Saga by Kameron Hurley which does an even better job of playing with gender tropes.

[WebLurker]

1) speaking as a multiply published author, there's no difference, whatsoever in developing a male character vs a female. ZERO difference. Write human beings, make half of them female, repeat. The end. Anyone who tells you anything else is lying or doesn't know what they're talking about.

I recall seeing a blog (written mostly by women and from the female perspective) that disagreed with that. In fact, they specifically cited the idea that male and female characters being the same from a writing standpoint is incorrect. Couldn't find the original example in question, but this article on the blog did offer the groundwork of their reasoning.

[Redjack]

I recall seeing a blog (written mostly by women and from the female perspective) that disagreed with that. In fact, they specifically cited the idea that male and female characters being the same from a writing standpoint is incorrect. Couldn't find the original example in question, but this article on the blog did offer the groundwork of their reasoning.

they're wrong. flatly wrong. no wiggle room. just wrong. they've let their politics overrun their common sense and, likely, any ability they may have as writers.

you don't need to be black to write black people well. you don't need to be white to write white people. you don't need to be male to write great male characters and you absolutely do not need to be female to write women. It's ludicrous. Politics over Reality. COMPLETE BS.

And I didn't say they were "the same." I said "write human beings." That's not an easy trick, if you're doing it right.

[Tiamatty]

I recall seeing a blog (written mostly by women and from the female perspective) that disagreed with that. In fact, they specifically cited the idea that male and female characters being the same from a writing standpoint is incorrect. Couldn't find the original example in question, but this article on the blog did offer the groundwork of their reasoning.

I suspect their argument was probably more that writing women as men is wrong. It does come back to the point of writing characters as people. That means understanding that Different People Are Different. The average woman is going to be different from the average man, but at the same time, two average men are also going to be different from each other.

[chamber-music]

I think characters like Jessica jones doesn't fit the model the original poster described. Jones is a multifaceted character with flaws.

[Ianbarreilles]

I think for example a character like medusalith amaquelin boltagon aka queen of the inhumans and Carol Danvers/captain marvel, kitty pryde, Natasha romanoff/black widow, Wanda maxonmoff/scarlet witch, Anna Marie/rogue and Emma frost are very flawed characters and there's many comics that have over the years shown that for each of the characters I mentioned that they are deeply flawed characters and show moments of weakness in very human I would even say sympathetic ways honestly, but I think at the same time it's important to acknowledge that not every writer is going to want to dwell on those aspects of these characters.

[_Feely_]

Wow.

That Galbrush stuff

If it wasn't such patriarchal self-victimisation nonsense, i might have laughed.

As it is, I might actually cry.

[MarvelMaster616]

Just to touch on a couple of things that stood out to me...I'm not sure I buy the idea that female characters aren't allowed to struggle. I think it depends on the character, the tone of the book you're reading, and what you mean by struggle. A character's struggle can mental, moral, etc...it doesn't have to mean bloody fist fight. Something like Ms Marvel is supposed to be a lighthearted book, but many times she'll struggle to do the right thing. Then there's a book like Jessica Jones where the hero struggles to succeed in a world that considers her a has-been. And having said that, I just finished the Odyssesy of the Amazons ( Wonder Woman spin off mini) and it's full bloody battle scenes. In neither case were the writers afraid to have the female leads face conflict, get beat up, or look like bad people.

I don't agree that X-23 couldn't be created today. Marvel's doing characters like Spider Gwen and Silk. Ironheart gets push back but it's not from folks saying the character is sexist.

And no I don't think the Galbrush Paradox is real. I think it's complete BS.

Thanks for your insight. I agree that it depends a lot on the character in terms of how the Galbrush Paradox applies, if at all. I don't think it applies very much to characters like X-23 or Wonder Woman. I started this thread because I think it's a more recent phenomenon, seeing comic book characters and female superheroes handled with excessive caution. Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "struggle." Perhaps "fail" is a better word. They key component to the Galbrush Paradox is that female characters are given more leeway to succeed over male characters. And if female characters are allowed to fail, then it generates more outrage than a male character would have. It's at a point now where Marvel seems reluctant to let female characters fail too much.

Just think back to Civil War II. As soon as it was announced that the two main sides were represented by Tony Stark and Captain Marvel, did anyone really think that Marvel would let Tony Stark win? Look at the final issue and then reverse the roles. If Carol Danvers had been the one that ended up in a coma, what kind of reaction would that have gotten? A powerful male hero beating a powerful female hero, winning both an argument and a war? I'm pretty sure that would've generated a few nasty hashtags.

That's not to say there aren't outliers. I agree that characters like Jessica Jones and Silk are able to avoid this paradox. One of the reasons I really enjoyed Silk's solo series was that the narrative was never too predictable. If Silk had been a male, it would've been every bit as compelling. To date, she's one of my favorite new female characters of the past five years.

Characters like Riri Williams, America Chavez, and even Captain Marvel to some extent are in a different boat. I read their stories and there's never this sense that they're allowed to fail or falter beyond a certain point. And I think some of that is reluctance on Marvel's part. They saw what happened with that J. Scott Campbell variant of Riri Williams. They know that it doesn't take much to spark a bad wave of PR involving a female character. We can argue just how much of that can be chalked up to the Galbrush Paradox, but even if you don't believe it's real, I think the way Marvel is handling certain female characters is still an issue.