"Hypersexualized" or "Liberated" Female Superheroes?

I'm guessing with this audience, people are at least passingly familiar with the re-launch of DC's titles, dubbed "DCnU" collectively. Recently, someone wrote an article about how a couple of the titles (Red Hood and Catwoman) have gone off the deep end in regards to the ever-present issue of oversexualized female characters in comics.

The article in question is here, though the images might be NSFW, depending on your office. There's a few frames of your typical barely covered butts-and-boobs comic fare. If you're worried about it, you may just wanna take a quick glance at this comic that sums up the article quickly.

Naturally, the article about how women are treated as sex objects has stirred up its usual companion, the argument that they're "liberated women" and that any attempt to cry foul is simply shaming them for enjoying sex. Me, I'm somewhat on the fence because the sexual empowerment issue is a little eclipsed (to me) by the godawful writing and plotting of these books. I think one of the commenters on the article said "It's like DC decided to hand their entire company over to 90s Wildstorm", which seemed right to me. But anyway, I wanted to see what everyone else thought about the somewhat difficult-to-define line between women who are portrayed as sexually liberated or those who are simply walking male wishlists.

We are substituting Cat Woman for Dallas Cowboys Cheerleader, Hooter's waitress here. I don’t read many superhero comics because I am not sunted at 12 years old.

There is an audience for objectified women.

KingGorilla wrote:

I don’t read many superhero comics because I am not sunted at 12 years old.

That seems like an unnecessarily harsh comment for those of us that do read superhero comics, and not the kind of rubbish I am used to at GWJ.

In any event, most of the objectification arguments that apply to comics apply to games too.

Heh, I just wrote a screed about this sort of thing on my blog, ruminating on Frazetta, Women in Reasonable Armor, and Shepard. I'll just excerpt a few thoughts, if'n that's ok:

As an aside, I bet someone thinks here is when I play what, for many, is the trump card in this sort of study: “Conan, in the work above, wears as little as the girl.” I won’t, though. It’s the most obvious counter to criticisms levied against portrayals of women, so it comes up often. But it’s (how ironic) a very superficial counter—one that bleaches away context, intent, subtext, and audience. Conan, ripped and chiseled, evokes the Charles Atlas ads that no doubt accompanied many of his stories back in the day. He’s a figure of aspiration and escape—he is, to the awkward, skinny adolescent boys picking up that copy of Weird Tales, an idealized proxy. None dare wedgie Conan the Destroyer! The girl (for, indeed, that is her identity here), however, is clearly an object in two senses, there for those same boys to lust after, but also there as a component of Conan’s identity—Conan, invincible slayer of foes, and possessor of women.
And I’m not particularly comfortable with a bunch of dudes cheering the notion of punishing a woman for dressing inappropriately—at best, it’s awkward, worst is speaks to a harsh Puritanical streak. How Puritanical? A few proclaimed something like this is ridiculous...Why? Boobs. The breastplate is weak, having two booby pockets rather than a single boob pouch, and is therefore unrealistic (we can leave aside the irony of demanding realism in our portraits of elf women butchering goblins, because that’s a different can of worms). While the text of the comment says “To be realistic, the breastplate should be one solid flat piece, for structural soundness” the subtext seems to be saying “To be realistic, no female traits should be apparent.” Women, the subtext says, are weak, and to be taken seriously should hide their gender as much as they can. This is, luckily, is not the attitude of Women Fighters in Reasonable Armor (which does have many works of women in “realistic breastplates”), but it does seem to be the attitude of an alarming number of guys out there who think themselves progressive.

It would be interesting to see what really qualifies as an "empowered woman", but instead of something from so long ago, maybe something more recent and modern?

I don't think that the guy from Tru Blood really qualifies here, because from the show (I WATCH IT SOMETIMES, IT'S NOT MY CHOICE STOP IT) he's not really a sexualized character in the scope of the show. Everyone in the show is walking around shirtless and/or getting nailed routinely, so it really does seem to be an issue of context. Compared to the people he's set against, Eric Northman's character is actually one of the least sexualized people on the show. I think that the article speaks more to a stark contrast between the men and women in the same story. I mean, look at the frames with just Starfire and Red Hood - they're both just about equally naked, but he's not bending around, posing panel after panel. So it really does beg for someone to say "hey what wait".

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

Heh, I just wrote a screed about this sort of thing on my blog, ruminating on Frazetta, Women in Reasonable Armor, and Shepard. I'll just excerpt a few thoughts, if'n that's ok. The link is in my sig, if anyone's truly, truly interested:

As an aside, I bet someone thinks here is when I play what, for many, is the trump card in this sort of study: “Conan, in the work above, wears as little as the girl.” I won’t, though. It’s the most obvious counter to criticisms levied against portrayals of women, so it comes up often. But it’s (how ironic) a very superficial counter—one that bleaches away context, intent, subtext, and audience. Conan, ripped and chiseled, evokes the Charles Atlas ads that no doubt accompanied many of his stories back in the day. He’s a figure of aspiration and escape—he is, to the awkward, skinny adolescent boys picking up that copy of Weird Tales, an idealized proxy. None dare wedgie Conan the Destroyer! The girl (for, indeed, that is her identity here), however, is clearly an object in two senses, there for those same boys to lust after, but also there as a component of Conan’s identity—Conan, invincible slayer of foes, and possessor of women.

I think part of the problem you've identified is we never have any frame of reference. We've just got images of objectified women vs. empowered men. Maybe it would help to have an image of an empowered woman: Liberty Leading the People. That's like, almost two fully naked boobs right there. Yet it comes across a lot different than the images in that article the OP posted.

Now instead of Conan, think of, say, Eric Northman.

Hmm...feels a little different looking at that image (assuming you're a straight guy) than it ever did looking at Conan, doesn't it?

This may nor may not be of relevance, but the images of batman/conan/etc are of what a man would look like if he were in peak physical condition. That is -- they look like body builders and athletes.

The images of the women are of women in peak physical condition with GIGANTIC PLASTIC BOOBS shoved on top. They look like porn stars.

One is a natural idealization, one is not.

Sigh. You know I was supposed to be getting some work done this morning....

Part of my problem is the unreality of it. Now, Starfire is an alien, so I'm willing to suspend disbelief and all sorts of things. Since I prefer to use my brains for something besides a hat-rack she always annoyed me with her touchy-feely crap. Men believe women are just emotional creatures anyways and she takes that stereotype and carries that to the point of risibility. But Cat Woman is a trained normal human, so we'll use her.

I like a serious set of underwear as much as the next gal. I have some that would probably mortify you if you knew I had it, but I do wear it on occasion when I want to strut a bit. Just for me. That's the "empowered" bit.

But if I was going to go out and roam town looking for a place to run out of chewing gum in a skin-tight patent leather outfit then that's not what I'm wearing under it. At least not if I ever want to get the leather back off; not enough baby powder in the world to deal with that.

And those slinky underwear don't have the staying power to deal with real movement, especially if you've got some real oogaba. Do you have any idea how much doing anything would hurt? I managed to actually tear the tissue in there a couple times when I played hockey, and that was wearing two sports bras and through full goalie gear, including an additional ballistic nylon plastron the coach got from the fencing team and insisted the girls wear. Believe me, she would not be dropping in 20' from a ledge posed like that and then kicking someone in the face.

And the oogaba wouldn't be there anyways. If you have a human being who has trained enough to be able to do the things depicted in those comics, she flat doesn't have that build. I'm sorry. She'd be lucky to be a B cup.

There are ways to depict a girl who likes to be a girl and kick a little ass that don't involve art direction by Ron Jeremy and costumes from Fredrick's of Hollywood. Anyone here seen Helen Mirrin in "The Debt"? How about those bikini pics of hers? If I look anything like that at age 63 and have the cojones to wear that on the beach, I'd be quite proud of myself.

Seth wrote:

This may nor may not be of relevance, but the images of batman/conan/etc are of what a man would look like if he were in peak physical condition. That is -- they look like body builders and athletes.

The images of the women are of women in peak physical condition with GIGANTIC PLASTIC BOOBS shoved on top. They look like porn stars.

One is a natural idealization, one is not.

Yeah, I don't think anyone sane believes that males superheroes aren't also unrealistically portrayed in several fashions, I just wanted to discuss the article about how women are being "liberated", either sarcastically or seriously, depending on the view. To me the defining point seems to be about apology - how far does the author/creator go to excuse the woman's sexuality? On Starfire 2.0 here, the author seems to go out of his way to make it okay because see the woman is just fine with emotionless sex, and the guy seemed shocked by it, so it's blameless, right? Catwoman is objectified as someone who just puts her need to be ridiculously (in both senses of the term) sexy on page after page after page, before we get to the uh... climax at the end.

In both cases, there's a lot of beforehand justification going on, almost to the tune of people who say "Look, some of my best friends are black, but..." I've seen female characters who fancy a guy, drag him back to her place, sleep with him, and move on the next day. There's no lines heaped on lines of "girl power" zingers, or excuse-driven setup such as her being lonely or emotionally void. I can't think of a time that male characters have had to go through the amount of justification that female characters do before or after having sex so that we can all say it's alright.

The posted articles and pics are really interesting, but I really have to ask how this is different then what I've been seeing in comics since the 80's (or earlier). More boob, more skin, more sex, sure, but it's still largely the same over-sexualization of the female characters that has always been present. Did they somehow make Power Girl's boobs EVEN bigger with the reboot?

If DC wants to target the teenage boy demograph, they are free to do so - I thought the webcomic posted at the top does a nice job explaining of what that will get them.

That's the point of the discussion. It's not different, even though some people would like to think that it is.

As much as folks complain that this sort of thing is insulting to the comic book purchasing audience, I suspect this sort of thing will continue to sell. There may be a portion of the audience that will take offense to it, but the demographics just straight up seem to support the idea that this was a savvy business decision.

momgamer wrote:

That's the point of the discussion. It's not different, even though some people would like to think that it is.

No, I think DC marketting wants to piss on your leg and say it's raining.

Cliffy B makes no mistake, Gears of War is adolescent male fantasy. Sierra did not try and couch Leisure Suit Larry. I think there is less controversy if we just call it what it is.

Here are more thoughts on this:
http://michelelee.net/2011/09/24/dea...

IMAGE(http://usera.ImageCave.com/randomimg/2011-09-26-math.png)

The problem is that the majority of those 2 million viewers aren't likely comic book purchasers anyway. As much as folks have expended efforts to make crossover products like tv shows expand the audience for niche products like comic books, the market has largely eluded them.

I suspect that the reason for this hypersexualization is similar to the reason GOP candidates are going monkey feces crazy in the presidential primaries: to appeal to their core demographics.

Did one of you write this at i09.com

Lead paragraph

Fantasy author Michele Lee has the most eloquent response so far to DC Comics' "sexed up" version of Starfire, the voluptuous alien member of the Teen Titans. Instead of ranting about the changes herself, Lee asked her seven-year-old daughter what she thought. The results are thought-provoking.
bnpederson wrote:

comic

right on

farley3k wrote:

Did one of you write this at i09.com

Lead paragraph

Fantasy author Michele Lee has the most eloquent response so far to DC Comics' "sexed up" version of Starfire, the voluptuous alien member of the Teen Titans. Instead of ranting about the changes herself, Lee asked her seven-year-old daughter what she thought. The results are thought-provoking.

Also awesome

Realistic physics/tolerances aside (wonderful post momgamer) "hypersexualized" and "liberated" are not worthy counterpoints to discussion. They are often two very unrelated things in real life. My friends over at EvilSlutopia have been waging blog-war for a while about that difference. As most comic book characters are archetypes or objects of fantasy already the lines become blurred, but that's only because we've blurred the line ourselves. A shallow, one-dimensional character is not "liberated" whether the focus of their character's dependence is sex, religion, feminism, or circus performing. A well flushed out character with personal motivation can be "liberated" while focusing on the same topics.

Women (and men) won't be liberated until the sexual nature of the characters they see, be it hyper- or non-, is no more consequential to the discussion of their liberation than any other trait.

Jolly Bill wrote:

Realistic physics/tolerances aside (wonderful post momgamer) "hypersexualized" and "liberated" are not worthy counterpoints to discussion. They are often two very unrelated things in real life. My friends over at EvilSlutopia have been waging blog-war for a while about that difference. As most comic book characters are archetypes or objects of fantasy already the lines become blurred, but that's only because we've blurred the line ourselves. A shallow, one-dimensional character is not "liberated" whether the focus of their character's dependence is sex, religion, feminism, or circus performing. A well flushed out character with personal motivation can be "liberated" while focusing on the same topics.

Women (and men) won't be liberated until the sexual nature of the characters they see, be it hyper- or non-, is no more consequential to the discussion of their liberation than any other trait.

Well, that's kind of been my point in the comment about "excusing" women sexuality. It shouldn't even be a thing, but every time a woman character seems sexual in any way, we have to go through hoops that amount to "OH MAN CALM DOWN IT'S OK", which is sad.

And yeah, "liberated" certainly isn't the best word to use, I was just trying to illustrate that those seem to be the two arguing viewpoints over what's going on. Sort've like how on the internet, Ron Paul is either "the savior" or "an olympic level racist".

Bloo Driver wrote:

I don't think that the guy from Tru Blood really qualifies here, because from the show (I WATCH IT SOMETIMES, IT'S NOT MY CHOICE STOP IT) he's not really a sexualized character in the scope of the show. Everyone in the show is walking around shirtless and/or getting nailed routinely, so it really does seem to be an issue of context. Compared to the people he's set against, Eric Northman's character is actually one of the least sexualized people on the show.

Having watched the latest season of True Blood, I can assure you that Eric Northman is at this point certainly the most sexualized male character on the show, and is about as close to a male sex object as we have yet seen in popular media. Dude gets amnesia, starts to act like a lost puppy, eventually ends up involved in a sort of emotional (also physical) ménage à trois with Bill and Anna Paquin. Of course, it's difficult to credit the show for female empowerment given the HBO-ey stuff they feel compelled to include (conflation of sex and violence, etc...).

Instead of going through a point by point discussion of everything that comic got wrong, I think it's more instructive to point out a "hyper-sexualized" woman done right: Kaylee, from Firefly. Kaylee's sex drive clearly revs a little higher than most folks'. She likes sex, is not afraid to initiate, and sometimes has sex with people she doesn't know that well. But you can probably, off the top of your head, think of at least five things that define her personality before you get to sex. She wears floral print dresses rather than space bikinis. (Not to derail my entire point here, but space bikinis are notoriously difficult to get off in a rush.) She will pull out the "f*ck me eyes" on occasion, but only when she's actually trying to f*ck someone, and not just as a matter of habit.(1)

And what that makes her is a girl who likes sex, but not as much as she likes spaceship engines. It makes her a warm, funny character, who is very much like a few women I know in real life.(2) And I think in the long run, it makes her character far sexier than Porn Star Jones of the 69th Space Brigade.

*So I'm going to use some footnotes here. Let me know if it's pretentious. Basically, I feel like if Terry Pratchett can use footnotes, I can use footnotes .(3)

*1 - "Pass the toast," "Where's the spanner wrench" "Does this mole look funny?" etc.
*2 - Not in the biblical sense.
*3 - Though not as well as Terry Pratchett.

Paleocon wrote:

The problem is that the majority of those 2 million viewers aren't likely comic book purchasers anyway. As much as folks have expended efforts to make crossover products like tv shows expand the audience for niche products like comic books, the market has largely eluded them.

I suspect that the reason for this hypersexualization is similar to the reason GOP candidates are going monkey feces crazy in the presidential primaries: to appeal to their core demographics.

When DC's stated goal is to increase readership, appealing to the people who were going to buy regardless isn't the way to go.

PiP wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

The problem is that the majority of those 2 million viewers aren't likely comic book purchasers anyway. As much as folks have expended efforts to make crossover products like tv shows expand the audience for niche products like comic books, the market has largely eluded them.

I suspect that the reason for this hypersexualization is similar to the reason GOP candidates are going monkey feces crazy in the presidential primaries: to appeal to their core demographics.

When DC's stated goal is to increase readership, appealing to the people who were going to buy regardless isn't the way to go.

I don't think there are going to be that many girls going into comicbook stores or downloading them to their iPads regardless of what DC does. When they say "increase readership" they mean getting comic book nerds to jump back into the books and go after the market they used to have.

Ulairi wrote:
PiP wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

The problem is that the majority of those 2 million viewers aren't likely comic book purchasers anyway. As much as folks have expended efforts to make crossover products like tv shows expand the audience for niche products like comic books, the market has largely eluded them.

I suspect that the reason for this hypersexualization is similar to the reason GOP candidates are going monkey feces crazy in the presidential primaries: to appeal to their core demographics.

When DC's stated goal is to increase readership, appealing to the people who were going to buy regardless isn't the way to go.

I don't think there are going to be that many girls going into comicbook stores or downloading them to their iPads regardless of what DC does. When they say "increase readership" they mean getting comic book nerds to jump back into the books and go after the market they used to have.

Pretty much.

They're pretty much going after the Harold Walowitz crowd.

If memory serves, Starfire's original backstory had her escaping being a sex slave on her conquered planet, and making out with Robin to 'learn his language'. Wiki could correct me if I'm wrong, but my point is that outrage that this character isn't her Cartoon Planet version is a little unfair. As much as I like Michele Lee's write-up, the target audience for the comic character was never 7-yr old girls. Try this one, instead: Teen Titans: GO

I'm not saying we can't be critical of DC (in fact, we should, because maybe then they'll publish better content) but I just don't think it's fair to act as if this is a new trend, or that they did any sort of bait-and-switch.

While it's true there are a lot more half-naked super hero's then, say Jessica Joneses, there is content out there that is friendly towards children, adults who enjoy complex female characters, and pretty much everyone else. If DC wants the teenage boy demograph, they are welcome to it. As long as teenage boys have money to spend, they will continue to buy pictures of half naked fantasy women

I'm not trying to miss the point, and I'm not saying we can't criticize - but they wouldn't make the content if people weren't wanting it. It's symptomatic, not causal.

kazooka wrote:

Instead of going through a point by point discussion of everything that comic got wrong, I think it's more instructive to point out a "hyper-sexualized" woman done right: Kaylee, from Firefly. Kaylee's sex drive clearly revs a little higher than most folks'. She likes sex, is not afraid to initiate, and sometimes has sex with people she doesn't know that well. But you can probably, off the top of your head, think of at least five things that define her personality before you get to sex. She wears floral print dresses rather than space bikinis. (Not to derail my entire point here, but space bikinis are notoriously difficult to get off in a rush.) She will pull out the "f*ck me eyes" on occasion, but only when she's actually trying to f*ck someone, and not just as a matter of habit.(1)

And what that makes her is a girl who likes sex, but not as much as she likes spaceship engines. It makes her a warm, funny character, who is very much like a few women I know in real life.(2) And I think in the long run, it makes her character far sexier than Porn Star Jones of the 69th Space Brigade.

*So I'm going to use some footnotes here. Let me know if it's pretentious. Basically, I feel like if Terry Pratchett can use footnotes, I can use footnotes .(3)

*1 - "Pass the toast," "Where's the spanner wrench" "Does this mole look funny?" etc.
*2 - Not in the biblical sense.
*3 - Though not as well as Terry Pratchett.

That is a good point.

Though she kind of gets over shadowed by Inara. I think.

DrunkenSleipnir wrote:

If memory serves, Starfire's original backstory had her escaping being a sex slave on her conquered planet, and making out with Robin to 'learn his language'. Wiki could correct me if I'm wrong, but my point is that outrage that this character isn't her Cartoon Planet version is a little unfair. As much as I like Michele Lee's write-up, the target audience for the comic character was never 7-yr old girls. Try this one, instead: Teen Titans: GO

I'm not saying we can't be critical of DC (in fact, we should, because maybe then they'll publish better content) but I just don't think it's fair to act as if this is a new trend, or that they did any sort of bait-and-switch.

While it's true there are a lot more half-naked super hero's then, say Jessica Joneses, there is content out there that is friendly towards children, adults who enjoy complex female characters, and pretty much everyone else. If DC wants the teenage boy demograph, they are welcome to it. As long as teenage boys have money to spend, they will continue to buy pictures of half naked fantasy women

I'm not trying to miss the point, and I'm not saying we can't criticize - but they wouldn't make the content if people weren't wanting it. It's symptomatic, not causal.

Like I said. Harold Walowitz.

As the father of a fairly bright six-year-old girl, who is ridiculously interested in comics and comic book characters:

She really just wouldn't get the whole sexuality angle.

She wouldn't be attracted by it, nor repelled by it. She just wouldn't notice it most likely. If there's actually a "oooh baby let's bone" plot-line, she won't be exposed to it, as I won't buy it nor allow her to spend her allowance one it. Not appropriate for that age.

As an adult male who grew up spending my own money on Spider Man and The Incredible Hulk ... meh. Not interested based on what I've seen. I would think the better business decision would be to actively appeal to a younger crowd than to turn their parents away.

If I want boobs, I have much better places to get them. If my daughter wants comics, I'll steer her towards older (and more solid) stuff. Maybe some newer Ultimate Spider Man or the like, but not "Skimpy Outfit Monthly". She's obviously not the target audience.

That said, I don't think the target audience is as big as they think ...

Hypersexualized. Designed for the male gaze, heteronormative view, catered to niche audience, etc, etc. Other people have already stated my opinions on the depictions better than I can.

"Sexually liberated" is a really flimsy, laughable defense for people who are a little ashamed of themselves for enjoying the medium. Comics cut of this particular cloth have always been gross exaggerations of fantasy behavior. Every medium is going to have its crappy, crappy loin-tingling pulp, too.

I'm not sure I see the merit in trying to find emotional value and satisfaction in what is now illustrated softcore porn. I guess people are lamenting the degradation of what was, at some point, semi-chaste childhood heroes as they're revamped into he-sluts and she-sluts. I mean, I facepalmed my way through entertainment industries teen-ifying my kickin'-ass-n-takin'-names saturday morning cartoon heroes, as well, so I can see it being a little soul crushing when people are seeing these teen-heroes being redesigned in the other direction as oversexualized two-dimensional barbie-dolls and barbarians. It's yet another stage in the redesigning the shell of an idea to fit contemporary desires.

LilCodger wrote:

As the father of a fairly bright six-year-old girl, who is ridiculously interested in comics and comic book characters:

She really just wouldn't get the whole sexuality angle.

She wouldn't be attracted by it, nor repelled by it. She just wouldn't notice it most likely. If there's actually a "oooh baby let's bone" plot-line, she won't be exposed to it, as I won't buy it nor allow her to spend her allowance one it. Not appropriate for that age.

As an adult male who grew up spending my own money on Spider Man and The Incredible Hulk ... meh. Not interested based on what I've seen. I would think the better business decision would be to actively appeal to a younger crowd than to turn their parents away.

If I want boobs, I have much better places to get them. If my daughter wants comics, I'll steer her towards older (and more solid) stuff. Maybe some newer Ultimate Spider Man or the like, but not "Skimpy Outfit Monthly". She's obviously not the target audience.

That said, I don't think the target audience is as big as they think ...

Your daughter is six. I don't think they'd be selling these books to six year old anyways. When your daughter is 16, I doubt she'll still be reading comics.