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.