Why can't female villains be taken seriously?

[Frontier]

Oddly enough it seems like children’s cartoons are better at making female villains then comics are.

Why do you think the Gotham City Sirens are as popular as they are?

BTAS and the Gotham Girls series really helped bolster Ivy, Harley, and Catwoman as characters.

[Osiris-Rex]

It really feels like DC will only use female villains only when they aren't really considered villains. The whole Anti-hero push really hurts the female villain angle I feel.

I think maybe because most the stories involve male superheroes. And there is still the mindset of a boy shouldn't hit a girl. The Supergirl TV show has had lots of formidable female villains, because I guess it's okay
for a girl to hit a girl. Astra, Livewire, Indigo, Bizarro Supergirl, Silver Banshee, Maxima, Roulette, Scorch, Lillian Luthor, Queen Rhea, Psi, Reign, Purity.

[Rac7d*]

I think maybe because most the stories involve male superheroes. And there is still the mindset of a boy shouldn't hit a girl. The Supergirl TV show has had lots of formidable female villains, because I guess it's okay
for a girl to hit a girl. Astra, Livewire, Indigo, Bizarro Supergirl, Silver Banshee, Maxima, Roulette, Scorch, Lillian Luthor, Queen Rhea, Psi, Reign, Purity.

look at the disney Malefincent

[AmazingSpiderFan]

Are female villains treated differently from male ones?

Of course they are. Women are always treated differently than men. You cannot treat women the same way you treat men, you'd be accused of being a terrible misogynist.

Look at law enforcement. Female criminals are treated vastly different than male criminals. If a man and woman commit the exact same crime, the man is 12 times as likely to be arrested, to be charged, to be tried, to be convicted and to be imprisoned. Even media coverage of female criminals tends to be more sympathetic -- for example, if a woman kills her husband, people immediately ask what he did to deserve it. Did he beat her? Abuse her? You will never find anyone in the mainstream media wondering what a women murdered by her husband did to deserve it.

We're all indoctrinated from birth to believe that women are inherently better than men. That they are kinder, more rational, more wise, more loving, more capable of love. It starts as children, when we get told that girls are sugar and spice and everything nice, while boys are snips and snails and puppy dog tails. All of it contributes to the women are wonderful effect. The subtle bias that no woman is really evil, because real evil, true evil, is an exclusive trait of the demonic, evil male.

This has become far, far more pronounced in modern society, where suggesting that women are anything less than absolutely perfect and superior to men in every possible way, and only held back by the evil of men, is now regarded as "sexism." Trust me, if you dare to suggest that women are every bit as evil, vile, nasty, dishonest, untrustworthy, and shitty as men, and that no gender has any kind of lock on evil, you will be accused of being a misogynist who hates women. Because nobody actually believes in equality of the sexes at all, and especially not feminists or progressives, who are the ones who bring up these issues the most.

Why does it seem that the majority of powerful villains at a global scale are men?

Because to be taken seriously as a global scale villain, people need to believe that you are heartless and capable of great evil. Which people believe of men, but not women.

Why are female villains often relegated to femme fatale roles of lesser importance?

Because a male hero can defeat a femme fatale without physically assaulting her. I mean seriously think about this: Would you really want to see Batman beat the ever-loving **** out of Catwoman? I mean would you want to see their every encounter ending with her a bloody, bruised mess on the floor, before she gets hauled off to Arkham? This is why female villains are almost always femme fatales or comically inept or ineffective combatants who surrender as soon as their shield of mooks is taken out. Because it avoids the problematic issue of drawing several pages of a large, muscular man pounding on a smaller woman.

It's also why most of your really villainous female villains are the antagonists of female heroes. Much less problematic showing two women beat the crap out of her.

Now, there's a second problem, which is that pretty much few characters who don't date back to the Silver Age (for Marvel) or Golden Age (for DC) have ever achieved much success. A few legacy characters have caught on, but if you make a list of twenty most popular characters from either company, and 95% of them date back to the Silver/Golden Age.

What this means is that almost ALL of your most popular female villains date back to the Golden or Silver Age, and were defined in part by the mores of the day back then. In the 1960s (and earlier) it was unthinkable to have a male hero beat up a woman, even an evil woman. It was inconcievable to the male writers and male artists of the time that a woman could be such a physical threat to a male hero that beating her up would be heroic, rather than cowardly. At the most, he might pop her one on the chin and drop her with one shot, but for the most part female villains could be defeated by grabbing their arm and giving them a stern look. Consequently, all of your female villains from that era are either femme fatales who try (and fail) to defeat the hero with their feminine wiles, or they are comically inept at combat and surrender to the hero as soon as they are cornered. Catwoman and Poison Ivy being two of the more notable examples. It's also worth noting that Harlequin was very deliberately developed to evoke these Golden Age tropes (after all, she first appeared in a kid's cartoon), and is one of the few post-Silver Age female characters to gain as much popularity as Catwoman or Ivy.

[AmazingSpiderFan]

Are female villains treated differently from male ones?

It's a combo of sexism and androcentrism to me. For whatever reason, many/some writers and artists can't/don't have the creative curiosity, empathy, or skill to put themselves "in the shoes" of female characters similarly to male characters or regard them with the same potentiality of character (good or evil) as men. It's slowly changing, but we really need new writers who get this and are able to execute it.

Why does it seem that the majority of powerful villains at a global scale are men?

Comfort in portraying men in this way over time and thinking only men are capable of this level of power. Women get/got regarded as objects many times that must "support" (stereotype) their man's scheme because they're too weak "physically, intellectually, and emotionally" (stereotypes) to possibly be the leader/Big Bad.

Why are female villains often relegated to femme fatale roles of lesser importance?

Sexism and objectification based on a misguided premise that that's what their audience wants or the only thing their audience wants from female villains.

The reasons for the above questions is a bunch hooey and needs to be actively changed by writers, artists, editors, and publishers. I mean, I wonder how many times they've convened at their creative retreats and brought this issues up? Let alone say, which villainesses in our catalog of characters need a bigger push in the next year? Or why doesn't this villainess be the main focus for this event? I'm guessing not very often. <shoulder shrug>

This is hilarious. Notice how WonderScott puts the entire blame on men? That's because WonderScott can't conceive of a world where women also have agency.

How many truly vile, world-conquering female villains has Gail Simone created? Zero. How many sympathetic female villains who eventually turn anti-hero (or at least anti-villain) has Simone created? Several. So let's not pretend this is a male problem. Women are just as likely to believe that women are morally superior to men, and incapable of real evil, etc.

Part of the reason this "problem" (which is not actually a problem at all, it's merely a state of affairs) persists is because the only group of people who really care about this issue is feminists, and feminists are actually more likely to fall prey to the women are wonderful effect than the general population. Feminists practically train themselves to see women as perpetual victims, fundamentally lacking in agency, and incapable of being evil -- to the feminist, all the evils that women do are the result of patriarchy and male oppression. Thus the "problem" is never solved -- the only people motivated to solve the "problem" are completely incapable of actually understanding what the problem is. They are incapable of understanding evil as anything other than male.

[WonderScott]

This is hilarious. Notice how WonderScott puts the entire blame on men? That's because WonderScott can't conceive of a world where women also have agency.

How many truly vile, world-conquering female villains has Gail Simone created? Zero. How many sympathetic female villains who eventually turn anti-hero (or at least anti-villain) has Simone created? Several. So let's not pretend this is a male problem. Women are just as likely to believe that women are morally superior to men, and incapable of real evil, etc.

Part of the reason this "problem" (which is not actually a problem at all, it's merely a state of affairs) persists is because the only group of people who really care about this issue is feminists, and feminists are actually more likely to fall prey to the women are wonderful effect than the general population. Feminists practically train themselves to see women as perpetual victims, fundamentally lacking in agency, and incapable of being evil -- to the feminist, all the evils that women do are the result of patriarchy and male oppression. Thus the "problem" is never solved -- the only people motivated to solve the "problem" are completely incapable of actually understanding what the problem is. They are incapable of understanding evil as anything other than male.

1. Incorrect assessment/assumption about me being unable to conceive of a world where women (fictional characters or real-life women) have agency.

2. Simone has done some great work with female villains and I've enjoyed them. Very twisted individuals that were as intriguing as the heroes she emboldened. I'd love to see Ms. Simone be in charge of a huge company-wide multiversal "crisis" where she might make the threat one of her delightfully vile villainesses, but it hasn't happened yet.

Citing a single example of a female creator, in an industry that doesn't exactly have parity between male and female creators, and saying "SEE" then resting your case isn't effective. It's more complex than that throughout the long history of comics and character creation or the creative character decisions someone like Simone might make for a story.

3. I disagree with your broader assessment of women and how they see themselves, so I'll just say I hope we get more creative feminists making comics and showing us a full spectrum of character POVs and morality in fantastical stories. More women's voices and achievements in the industry is a good thing.

---

Moving on...

I was thinking of a few more characters that I think could be major foes, given the chance and with some revamping.

- Queen of Fables: Astounding reality warping powers of which we've only scratched the surface.
- Tala: Showed up most recently in JLU, but is an old Phantom Stranger foe. A demoness of sorts, so has some potential enigmatic necromancy in her arsenal.
- Dark Angel: Another succubus type that bonded with a human in Wonder Woman.

Can you tell I was doing some witches and sorceresses research over the weekend for something I'm writing?

Whenever the JSA returns, I hope some of their villains come out limbo with them.

- Thorn: An opportunity to do something new with a chlorokinetic, that's not Poison Ivy, Floronic Man, or Swamp Thing.
- Tigress and Artemis: The Crock family (Sportsmaster, Tigress, Cheshire, and Artemis) were a fun part of the Young Justice animated series. If we get an Injustice Society, focusing on the mother-daughter relationship between the skilled Paula and Artemis would be interesting and a story we don't get a lot of in comics - especially with criminals.
- Mechanique: Give Per Degaton a break and let the time-traveling gynoid wreak some havoc.

I'm also patiently waiting for:
- A team up between Siren (Hila from Xebel) and Queen Clea. Maybe it'll happen if we ever get that Rise of the Seven Seas storyline.
- Lady Styx to make a play for Earth.
- Lyssa Drak making a larger play for control in the cosmos.
- Ursa to step out of Zod's shadow at some point. (Or the return of Faora.)
- Axis from Dark Nemesis to use her psionic powers to affect the superhero community.

Lots of fun to be had with these characters given Rebirth allows you to honor parts of their past, but update them into some additionally villainous.

[AmazingSpiderFan]

1. Incorrect assessment/assumption about me being unable to conceive of a world where women (fictional characters or real-life women) have agency.

I don't need to assume anything. It was logically implicit in your statements.

Citing a single example of a female creator, in an industry that doesn't exactly have parity between male and female creators, and saying "SEE" then resting your case isn't effective. It's more complex than that throughout the long history of comics and character creation or the creative character decisions someone like Simone might make for a story.

You presented the position that this "problem" is a result of male writers, so by showing you a female creator guilty of treating female villains the same way that male writers do, I demonstrated that you're argument is flawed. It actually is very effective, if you have a basic grasp of how logic works (do you?).

You said "All cats are black." I showed you a white cat. I don't need to show you dozens of white cats,because one white cat destroys your entire argument unless you take the position that Gail Simone is a lobotomized robot programmed by patriarchy and not actually responsible for her creative actions, which would be denying Gail Simone agency.

3. I disagree with your broader assessment of women and how they see themselves, so I'll just say I hope we get more creative feminists making comics and showing us a full spectrum of character POVs and morality in fantastical stories. More women's voices and achievements in the industry is a good thing.

Then you disagree with science and statistics, which are facts. You are entitled to your opinions, but not your own facts. The women are wonderful effect is found across genders, and is actually four times stronger in women than in men. If you want to live in a ideological fantasy world where facts are irrelevant, that's your prerogative, but it also means that engaging with you is pointless.

[Agent Z]

This is hilarious. Notice how WonderScott puts the entire blame on men? That's because WonderScott can't conceive of a world where women also have agency.

How many truly vile, world-conquering female villains has Gail Simone created? Zero. How many sympathetic female villains who eventually turn anti-hero (or at least anti-villain) has Simone created? Several. So let's not pretend this is a male problem. Women are just as likely to believe that women are morally superior to men, and incapable of real evil, etc.

Part of the reason this "problem" (which is not actually a problem at all, it's merely a state of affairs) persists is because the only group of people who really care about this issue is feminists, and feminists are actually more likely to fall prey to the women are wonderful effect than the general population. Feminists practically train themselves to see women as perpetual victims, fundamentally lacking in agency, and incapable of being evil -- to the feminist, all the evils that women do are the result of patriarchy and male oppression. Thus the "problem" is never solved -- the only people motivated to solve the "problem" are completely incapable of actually understanding what the problem is. They are incapable of understanding evil as anything other than male.

Two actually. Genocide and Queen of Fables.

[AmazingSpiderFan]

Two actually. Genocide and Queen of Fables.

Queen of Fables was created by Mark Waid.

I'll admit, having never read a comic with Genocide and having only read her entry, I got the impression she was a mindless entity incapable of acting on world-conquering plans. I've now found a few panels in which she actually does talk, but I'm not really getting the impression she's much of a thinker. More of muscle for other villains. Put her in a movie and she's basically BvS's Doomsday Redux.

[Doctor Know]

It really feels like DC will only use female villains only when they aren't really considered villains. The whole Anti-hero push really hurts the female villain angle I feel.

I forgot to add in my original list Enchantress. She's been tilting back in forth between villain (New 52 and Suicide Squad film), but has mostly been an anti-hero in the comics prior to New 52 and now with Rebirth.

What you say is true, though. I was okay with the Gotham City Sirens being anti-heroes, but when they made Killer Frost a "not-so-baddie" during Forever Evil (and on Flash CW and Bombshells), it was a big red flag.

[PyroTwilight]

Queen of Fables was created by Mark Waid.

She was made by Gail Simone actually though I believe Waid used her first. Though most sites credit both.

[WonderScott]

I forgot to add in my original list Enchantress. She's been tilting back in forth between villain (New 52 and Suicide Squad film), but has mostly been an anti-hero in the comics prior to New 52 and now with Rebirth.

What you say is true, though. I was okay with the Gotham City Sirens being anti-heroes, but when they made Killer Frost a "not-so-baddie" during Forever Evil (and on Flash CW and Bombshells), it was a big red flag.

It’s definitely a slippery slope in terms of making villainesses into sympathetic anti-heroes and any “edge” that may take off their villainy. I’ve been critical of Poison Ivy, Catwoman, and Harley Quinn for this reason in the past. The same has been true of Star Sapphire and Killer Frost, as you mentioned.

I was satisfied with Talia’s turn in Batman Inc. as she doubled down on a darker path.

I’m not reading Suicide Squad, but I’d love to see them add/encounter a few more villainesses so it’s not just Harley and Enchantress. My gut says anyone truly despicable would end up dying though.

[wafle]

Galbrush Threepwood Effect. Men and woman are different, woman are usually consider less threatening, sense they are less violent on average than men. On social competition men mostly compete with other men, and woman with other woman, it's evolutionary.

Though im not ok with watering down of any cool villans male or female, it happens to all of them, can't really say iv noticed it happening more to the female villans than the male ones, though i wouldn't be surprised.

That said if you are looking for sexism, you will find it everywhere, gender is influence by biology, double standards exist all around, sometimes the double standards can be very unfair and sexist, for either gender. And often times society ignores it, or just don't care, so it's cool that you point and call attention to it, but sometimes... there is nothing there.

Imagine that one cover of batgirl and joker, that would have been tamed if it were Jason Todd instead of Barbara Gordon.

The Galbrush Paradox: https://jackfisherbooks.com/2017/06/...le-characters/
Some examples of double standards that exemplify this phenomena: https://jackfisherbooks.com/2017/05/...ht-experiment/

[Confuzzled]

Imagine that one cover of batgirl and joker, that would have been tamed if it were Jason Todd instead of Barbara Gordon.

It would have if that book like the Burnside run was aimed at a younger audience and if there had been a sexual element to Joker's assault on Jason.

[The Darknight Detective]

Every time I see this thread, I think of Henry Higgins shouting out "Why can't a supervillainess be more like a man!"