• 134 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Posted by pathtales (29 posts) - - Show Bio

This has been moved to Feminist/Rights Nomenclature (cont.)

Edit: This isn't geared toward men or women. I'm simply saying which arguments make since to me personally. There are both valid points and not so valid points from both ends of the argument on how females should be represented and I'm just putting my two cents in :)

So I have to mention this whole issue of how Women are represented in comic books.

My problem isn't the females with the perfect figures or flexibility, but the over the top big boobs, little clothing, and poses.

Yes, women crime fighters need to be fit. I'm sorry but if I was fighting crime daily, I'd need to be in the best physical shape possible or I'd either die from not being able to handle it or pure exhaustion. But what most people, men and even some women, don't understand about female anatomy is that being that level of fit actually means you have smaller breasts. Look at female athletes everywhere; they just don't have the massive bouncing breasts that some artist think they do. I use to be a professional level athlete, trust me, I know. That was the joke among my training friends; guys dated the non athlete girls because they had boobs.

Then we have the little clothing to hide it. Again, I was a pro athlete actually in Martial Arts (spark notes on that: I got a career ending injury at 17, but I still teach self defense. Did Ti-kun-do, tung-su-do, ishin-ro, and churn-ro since I was 5, competed on a National level at 9, international at 14, pro for one year at 16). I agree that having open uniforms and certain styles you actually see works. But the clothes that have the boobs hanging out? That's simply impracticable. Getting hit in the boob is like getting kicked in the nuts. Just letting you know. Girls need protection and padding too.

Then the flexibility. I know Chloe Bruce, I've seen her Scorpion kick (I could never do it) and all she does. Female heroes have a level of flexibility that is greater than men, but within reason. Not everyone can be a contortionists.

So I hope that kind of shows my view point. It's alright to make female heroes a little sexy, but keep it realistic. Because Comics are so realistic XD, but you know what I mean.

edit 2: thank you for the words about my injury, but I put that up there just to show I know what I'm talking about when I talk about martial arts. Life has turned out pretty good, even if in a different direction than I thought :)

#1 Edited by Reignmaker (2235 posts) - - Show Bio

Boobs sell. Nothing you or I say is going to change that.

That being said, there have been several more realistic depictions of females in comic books of late. The best solution is to support the books and writers who fall under the category of depicting women respectfully.

#2 Posted by Mucklefluga (2609 posts) - - Show Bio

@pathtales: Totally agree with you, some of the ways female characters are drawn is ridiculous some of the costumes are crazy too!

Sorry for your injury, must have sucked :(

#3 Posted by Manwhohaseverything (2057 posts) - - Show Bio

PLus..these stories are fantasy. In fantasies heroes and heroines are attractive. That's why they get the actors they do to play James Bond. That's why Superman has a great physique, even though, he doesn't need it. His powers come from yellow sun radiation, so he could look like me. (Average build) and still have his powers. But no, he's drawn to look like someone that works out daily. I'm sure in stories before comic books, most heroes and heroines were always made out to be nice physical specimens. As for the chest sizes, I agree, not really called for, but it's part of what guys think is "attractive"

Still, I see a slight shift. Wonder Woman isn't drawn nearly as buxom/sexy as she was pre-52. (At least not Chiangs version.) And from what I've heard that was intentional.

#4 Posted by muhabba (301 posts) - - Show Bio

I agree whole heartedly. I've been ranting about Wonder Woman's costume on a couple of threads. My example for a good (or at least a better than most) costume is Xena's. Decidedly feminine outfit but also somewhat realistic as far as fantasy costumes go.

#5 Edited by Manbehindthewires (344 posts) - - Show Bio

As an underweight, under 6ft tall, acne-faced male with an average package, average car, average paycheck and the lack of superspeed; I object to the overly tall, muscular, billionaire playboy, private jet owning, superpowered superhero males who can stand around in latex, posing with their crotches thrust out and biceps curled, as they are portrayed in comics. Is that how women expect every man to be?

I'm not a feminist, but my insane ex-girlfriend was, and she told me (regularly), that what a modern feminist wants, is not the upper hand, but equal opportunities and portrayal to that of men. This means, what a true "feminist" is, is a co-existentialist, and if you're seeking to be equal to men in the world, comics are one of the few places you'll actually find it; since it's the only place that men and women can equally smash a giants face in, in spandex and underwear...equally.

I've forgot where I was going with this but frankly, nobody's a superhero, that's one of the reasons we read about them. Nobody is looking at them thinking they are real, or for the most part, even in the same universe as us. We are looking at perfection, male and female, can't have one without the other.

#6 Posted by Jorgevy (5114 posts) - - Show Bio

when someone starts a text with "Not a feminist but" I usually stop reading but I did read this time... and yeah okay you weren't saying that just to cover yourself, you actually dont seem to be a feminist and raise some good but rather obvious points (I think pretty much everyone knows all of this by now - it's literally in our faces XD ahahah).

I think artists, even though they are writing fantasy, should have the responsability of looking out into their world, the real world, and draw on what they see, not create some type of aesthetic utopia.

although, that is in human nature ever since our dawn. look at the greco roman heroes and gods, imperfect in their morals and personalities but they are the EPITOME of perfection in their bodies - just see the classic statues, every sinle detail there is based on what is considered perfection for the greek philosophers. EVERY SINGLE DETAIL

it's just that then, small penises and breasts were considered perfection, while now it's the opposite. it kinda has to do with what is harder to achieve or lacks the most in the artists respective society or time.

the costume thing I can't fully agree, I see them as perfect distractions against villains and thugs. seriously. and some iconic costumes shouldn't be too much tampered with. but yeah, they could be a bit more careful and try to hide a bit of flesh now and then

#7 Posted by akbogert (3227 posts) - - Show Bio

@Reignmaker said:

Boobs sell. Nothing you or I say is going to change that. That being said, there have been several more realistic depictions of females in comic books of late. The best solution is to support the books and writers who fall under the category of depicting women respectfully.

This is basically true, particularly the support part.

For what it's worth (and this may be getting a bit too personal), not all guys are attracted to huge knockers. Just saying.

I actually don't hear the flexibility angle very often, though I guess that's probably as unrealistic for male heroes, because frankly, the majority of fight scenes involving kicking kind of make me wince regardless of who's doing the kicking.

#8 Posted by MrShway88 (677 posts) - - Show Bio

You don't know what it's like to get kicked in the nuts so don't compare it to anything

#9 Edited by JimTheSurfer (560 posts) - - Show Bio

@Manwhohaseverything said:

PLus..these stories are fantasy. In fantasies heroes and heroines are attractive. That's why they get the actors they do to play James Bond. That's why Superman has a great physique, even though, he doesn't need it. His powers come from yellow sun radiation, so he could look like me. (Average build) and still have his powers. But no, he's drawn to look like someone that works out daily. I'm sure in stories before comic books, most heroes and heroines were always made out to be nice physical specimens. As for the chest sizes, I agree, not really called for, but it's part of what guys think is "attractive"

Still, I see a slight shift. Wonder Woman isn't drawn nearly as buxom/sexy as she was pre-52. (At least not Chiangs version.) And from what I've heard that was intentional.

This. People don't read comic books for realism, but for pure fun.

@pathtales: Sorry for your injury. You had a lot coming for you...

#10 Posted by Manhunter2070 (119 posts) - - Show Bio

Its a shame people have to say "not a feminist" as if being one was a bad thing. Although the term can be applied to several different factions within feminism, most commonly a feminist believes in equal rights and opportunities for women which I'm sure most people would identify with. 
 
But that aside, I agree women in comics being good looking with good bodies is part of the whole fantasy, just as it is with the dudes. It becomes a problem when a character is taken to the extreme and portrayed as walking boobs, without any substance.

#11 Posted by Jorgevy (5114 posts) - - Show Bio

@MrShway88 said:

You don't know what it's like to get kicked in the nuts so don't compare it to anything

this to a certain degree. I think i saw some doc about measuring pain units and kick to the nuts was definitally higher than punch to the breasts and somewhat below child labor. I dont know how accurate that was but yeah, kick to the nuts is a most painfull thing. Don't know about punch to the breasts, but my female friends admit it's extremelly painful, and that's what I usually use to compare the pain of getting kick in the nuts, even though it's probably a bit less painful

@Manhunter2070: believing in what some feminists believe, which is equal rights, it's a great thing. but being a feminist or calling yourself one is terrible. why? because the word implies a superiority for the female gender. if you truly believe in equal rights, you should call yourself co-existentialist, or equalist, or igualitist or something that shows and implies equal ground. feminist in my POV is as bad a word as machist, because both have a gender in the genesis of the word, which is ridiculous for feminism because it«s supposed to fight for equal rights.

in short im not against feminists, im against the wording and some, a few, feminists who actually are too radical and extreme and that's why I usually try to explain the regular feminists why i think they should opt for another denomination for their fight

#12 Posted by Manbehindthewires (344 posts) - - Show Bio

@Jorgevy said:

@Manhunter2070: believing in what some feminists believe, which is equal rights, it's a great thing. but being a feminist or calling yourself one is terrible. why? because the word implies a superiority for the female gender. if you truly believe in equal rights, you should call yourself co-existentialist, or equalist, or igualitist or something that shows and implies equal ground. feminist in my POV is as bad a word as machist, because both have a gender in the genesis of the word, which is ridiculous for feminism because it«s supposed to fight for equal rights.

in short im not against feminists, im against the wording and some, a few, feminists who actually are too radical and extreme and that's why I usually try to explain the regular feminists why i think they should opt for another denomination for their fight

Very well put. I've always believed feminists will be fighting a losing battle so long as they're called feminists.

#13 Posted by Jorgevy (5114 posts) - - Show Bio

@Manbehindthewires:

so true. I think the level headed open minded and regular feminists should just leave the other ones and ally themselves with men who believe the same, make a movement of both genders that believes in equal rights for both genders and call themselves something that demonstrates such believes. assuming that group would be the majority, with such a name and strenght the world could actually experience change

#14 Edited by lykopis (10746 posts) - - Show Bio

@pathtales:

I am a feminist -- I state this as someone who knows what the word means and not what others think it means. It's unfortunate people appear inclined to not look into things for themselves and refuse to educate themselves. That's on them though -- what matters is the truth to me.

As for the topic, it's getting a bit better -- in terms of how female heroes are dressed -- but what needs more work on is the positioning of said characters. Terms like "broke-back" comes to mind, and so do particular poses that are more in line with the act of sex then actual fight stances. It's stupid. Just stupid.

Great blog and I am so sorry for what happened to you. I do want to express my admiration for what you accomplished -- you have a lot to be proud of and it's good to hear from someone who knows what they are talking about when it comes to what women would need to wear when in hand to hand combat.

#15 Posted by KnightRise (4785 posts) - - Show Bio

@Manbehindthewires said:

We are looking at perfection, male and female, can't have one without the other.

This.

#16 Edited by time (5107 posts) - - Show Bio

Comics companies don't really care how ladies should look, it's more about making ladies look more attractive in comics. Sex appeal sells comics. Comics companies only care about money, like most companies.

#17 Posted by akbogert (3227 posts) - - Show Bio

is there a way to have this conversation elsewhere (without it being hijacked or run into the ground)? Because I actually think nomenclature is a worthwhile topic for prodding at, but it's not really the point of this thread.

I quite agree that it's refreshing to have someone who has actually done fighting speaking to the issue of realism in fighting, because it lends a much-needed legitimacy to the typical detractors' arguments. And as I neglected to mention it in our back-and-forth, , I'm also sorry to hear about the injury. If you're ever interested in doing the non-sparknotes version, I'm sure you'll find receptive readers.

#18 Posted by Jorgevy (5114 posts) - - Show Bio

@akbogert: just having a small convo because the word feminist was used. I agree it's not the place, but I think me and the others are done with this here since we already came to a conclusion :D

#19 Posted by DarkxSeraph (672 posts) - - Show Bio

One thing to note: you state that artists 'seem to think' that an athletic woman has large breasts. Let me point out that artists are well aware of the anatomy of athletes. Study of anatomy includes such as a matter of course. They draw characters in the way that they find appealing.

It might not be PC, but it's what sells books part of the time. From the 'perfect' men to 'perfect' women, Comics are about idealized proportion and anatomy.

#20 Posted by akbogert (3227 posts) - - Show Bio

@Jorgevy: Nevertheless, a discrepancy remains, and I hate lack of resolution. Haha. But really, I do think a worthwhile conversation could be had there, even if its goal weren't necessarily to change minds so much as help both sides more fully understand the stake the other has in their position.

@DarkxSeraph: I think the point is that it's possible to be more realistic (for both men and women) without sacrificing sexiness. I think is right on the money about posturing being as big an issue (if not bigger). That's the sort of thing Escher Girls addresses (The Hawkeye Initiative also). Granted, works of artists I enjoy end up there often enough (here's looking at J. Scott Campbell), but as a general rule I think it would benefit the industry to attempt at least a little more realism in its depiction of both sexes; the females are just a little further off-base, that's all.

#21 Edited by Dernman (15464 posts) - - Show Bio

Didn't really read most of the posts. Just adding a thought. Why would all superheros be fit? Think about it. Sure the street levelers would be but what about the power houses? Wouldn't they have to go to much greater lengths to stay in shape? The things we do that task us and make us stronger would be nothing to them. Not to mention what about the ones who's powers have nothing to do with muscle. Take Wonder Man for instance. Ya I know he isn't a woman but for arguments sake. He is ionic energy. I wouldn't imagine physical excursion would even do anything to improve his physique. I'm not sure but wouldn't that almost be the same for Ms Marvel or Photon.  What about characters who don't rely of physical powers. Say Scarlet Witch or Jean Grey for instance. Ya She would be better if she was in shape (and it would look better) but she's not as reliant on it. She could be fat like Druid was. So I really don't think breast size has anything to do with anything.

#22 Posted by Jorgevy (5114 posts) - - Show Bio

@Dernman: but powerhouses, depending on powers, probably would burn much more calories as well. I agree though, I think telekinetic based powers, or any powers that mean not exerting muscles, should have characters less fit

#23 Posted by Timandm (3374 posts) - - Show Bio

@pathtales: When I first started coming to comic vine, I mentioned a few times how odd I thought it was that female super heroes in comics wear bathing suits (or thongs) and high heeled boots to fight crime in... But most of the people in here gave me a hard time about it. What I found odd was that most of the female members in here (that commented) seemed almost angry with me for even bringing it up...

Nonetheless, I think:

  • If you're not bullet proof and you're going to fight crime, you should wear more than a thong or bathing suit.
  • If you have to do combat, then your choice of footwear should not include anything with 4 inch heels or spikes, unless those are your weapons of choice.
  • Wearing a thong while you're having to do high kicks and long jumps puts you in danger of cutting yourself in half....Like that time I tried to use a cast-net while wearing a thong. Dang that hurt.... It's a bad idea...

Anyway, you'll find that it's not just male readers that want the female super heroes depicted like they should be dancing on a pole, it's almost all of the readers...

#24 Posted by Dernman (15464 posts) - - Show Bio
@Jorgevy said:

@Dernman: but powerhouses, depending on powers, probably would burn much more calories as well.

Not necessarily. Think about it. Say they pick up a car and slam it on someone.  It's not going to burn anything if it's effortless. Every movement they make is so effortless that there is not really much excursion. Now I might understand it wrong but look at astronauts. They have to work out constantly just to maintain some measure of what they got. Even then they still come back less then they were because gravity is not working against them.    Also there are characters like Wonder Man, who don't have bodies that work like ours. He doesn't even have calories to burn. He's an energy being. How much of MS Marvel is energy and actual body? Same goes to Photon. Sharon Ventura who is like thing. Does her bodies physiology even work like ours. Same goes for the She-Hulks? Does phisical activity even do anything to change anything ore is it how much gamma energy they are pumping out?
#25 Posted by akbogert (3227 posts) - - Show Bio

@Jorgevy said:

@Dernman: but powerhouses, depending on powers, probably would burn much more calories as well. I agree though, I think telekinetic based powers, or any powers that mean not exerting muscles, should have characters less fit

Well, this is where it comes back to the question of idealized. I'm fat, but that's because I've chosen to disregard my weight for most of my life. Now if they wanted to use a chubbier hero for a story arc involving the hard work and perseverance it takes to get into shape, that I'd find inspiring (because twenty pounds lighter, I'm beginning to appreciate that it is pretty hard). But speaking as a fat person, there's nothing heroic about being overweight. I'm all for equal representation when it comes to things people are born into, and even to an extent when realistically depicting various life-choices, but I don't think obesity needs a rally point. I know you said "less fit," not fat, but in general I think fitness is a fine thing to have all heroes exhibit.

The joke answer, of course, is that part of superhero genetics is absolutely amazing metabolism, like those really thin people who eat whatever they want and are still rod thin.

#26 Posted by Jorgevy (5114 posts) - - Show Bio

@Dernman: not what I was talking about. powerhouses that have incredible powers need an energy source. if their not Supes, sun wont work. something like cyclops eye beams, he need to pwoer them, so he probably burns calories with that. flying. you dont exert any muscles but you need to make it work, so you probably burn calories.even if comparatively something like lifting a car is extremely easy, to maintain such powerful muscles, you need calories.

atleast that's how I see it, but I've abandoned sciences and biology a few years ago so..

.@akbogert said:

The joke answer, of course, is that part of superhero genetics is absolutely amazing metabolism, like those really thin people who eat whatever they want and are still rod thin.

always thought about that as something that would come with super powers, relating with my point above.

you are right though, I said less fit, I mean, a skinny guy for instance. not unhealthy, but not an olympic athlete either. and obviously obesity shouldn't be praised but you know a person who is just a bit over the average wouldn't be bad for a hero, as long as he/she has powers to compensate and eventually gets a bit healthir not only for him/herself but to better help out and save people

#27 Edited by Dernman (15464 posts) - - Show Bio
@akbogert said:

@Jorgevy said:

@Dernman: but powerhouses, depending on powers, probably would burn much more calories as well. I agree though, I think telekinetic based powers, or any powers that mean not exerting muscles, should have characters less fit

Well, this is where it comes back to the question of idealized. I'm fat, but that's because I've chosen to disregard my weight for most of my life. Now if they wanted to use a chubbier hero for a story arc involving the hard work and perseverance it takes to get into shape, that I'd find inspiring (because twenty pounds lighter, I'm beginning to appreciate that it is pretty hard). But speaking as a fat person, there's nothing heroic about being overweight. I'm all for equal representation when it comes to things people are born into, and even to an extent when realistically depicting various life-choices, but I don't think obesity needs a rally point. I know you said "less fit," not fat, but in general I think fitness is a fine thing to have all heroes exhibit.

The joke answer, of course, is that part of superhero genetics is absolutely amazing metabolism, like those really thin people who eat whatever they want and are still rod thin.

That's a bit off topic from what I was saying but. 
How about instead of thinking it's idealizing less fit. Think of it as idealizing his deeds. There is nothing heroic about being overweight or fit. It's a persons actions that make them heroic. The rest is just superficial. Personally I found it interesting to see Druid and his struggle to keep up with the rest of his team. His desire to do good was no less then his friends. It also didn't treat him as a joke like most of the heavier character get treated which there are not many character who are. IMO the idea of the issue that  that is portayed now in comics sends a worse message then having a heavier person among the heroes on the chance it might idealize a less fit lifestyle. If you deal realistically with the characters having disadvantages it would be much better then labeling them as jokes or worthless. That's when they even deem to acknowledge it at all
#28 Posted by Dernman (15464 posts) - - Show Bio
@Jorgevy

not what I was talking about. powerhouses that have incredible powers need an energy source. if their not Supes, sun wont work. something like cyclops eye beams, he need to pwoer them, so he probably burns calories with that. flying. you dont exert any muscles but you need to make it work, so you probably burn calories.even if comparatively something like lifting a car is extremely easy, to maintain such powerful muscles, you need calories.

atleast that's how I see it, but I've abandoned sciences and biology a few years ago so..

It's only assuming really. We don't know that these powers take from the body at all or what it takes from the body. Take Cyclops. How do we know it's connected and doesn't just no it take from the power he naturally emits that have it's own limits? Flying we don't know if it has anything to do with the body maybe it's the mind. I guess you have to take hero case by case but they don't really explain in great detail so it's kinda hard to say either way. 
#29 Posted by akbogert (3227 posts) - - Show Bio

@Dernman: @Jorgevy: I think we're agreed, then, that having a less-than-healthy character could be useful so long as that is done intentionally and used in the story (whether it be highlighting the disadvantages of being out of shape, or as prelude to the character being motivated to better him/herself). And I'll admit having assumed "less fit" in the overweight rather than underweight way due to my own situation, so that's fair -- thin doesn't necessarily equate with healthy. I've got to say, it's really tough tiptoeing around bullying and negative body image while still trying to say that being overweight is not okay and you should not take pride in it, and there's science behind that, not just societal arbitration.

I appreciate that a story can (and should) overtly celebrate a character's actions rather than their body, but I think implicit messaging is important to recognize. It's the writer's job to make sure that good behavior is idealized, but the idealization of form is the artist's job. There's a danger in deeming certain forms not worthy of idealization, but I don't think physical irresponsibility falls under the category of that danger.

#30 Posted by Dernman (15464 posts) - - Show Bio
@akbogert said:

@Dernman: @Jorgevy: I think we're agreed, then, that having a less-than-healthy character could be useful so long as that is done intentionally and used in the story (whether it be highlighting the disadvantages of being out of shape, or as prelude to the character being motivated to better him/herself). And I'll admit having assumed "less fit" in the overweight rather than underweight way due to my own situation, so that's fair -- thin doesn't necessarily equate with healthy. I've got to say, it's really tough tiptoeing around bullying and negative body image while still trying to say that being overweight is not okay and you should not take pride in it, and there's science behind that, not just societal arbitration.

I appreciate that a story can (and should) overtly celebrate a character's actions rather than their body, but I think implicit messaging is important to recognize. It's the writer's job to make sure that good behavior is idealized, but the idealization of form is the artist's job. There's a danger in deeming certain forms not worthy of idealization, but I don't think physical irresponsibility falls under the category of that danger.

Yes we agree also the bolded was something I was also going to say but got lost in one of my edits. :p
#31 Posted by Jorgevy (5114 posts) - - Show Bio

@Dernman: I know we dont really know but that's kinda what Im saying: even if their powers come or work in different ways, they are still exerting their bodies or their brains and that consumes calories. thinking, resolving problems, that consumes calories.

just a thought though. anything in comics is weird.. take cyclops powers: according to physics his neck should snap everytime he shoots his kinetic beams but it doesn't

@akbogert: true, although idealization is also dangerous sometimes. i think moderation is the best path

#32 Posted by lykopis (10746 posts) - - Show Bio

@Timandm said:

@pathtales: When I first started coming to comic vine, I mentioned a few times how odd I thought it was that female super heroes in comics wear bathing suits (or thongs) and high heeled boots to fight crime in... But most of the people in here gave me a hard time about it. What I found odd was that most of the female members in here (that commented) seemed almost angry with me for even bringing it up...

Nonetheless, I think:

  • If you're not bullet proof and you're going to fight crime, you should wear more than a thong or bathing suit.
  • If you have to do combat, then your choice of footwear should not include anything with 4 inch heels or spikes, unless those are your weapons of choice.
  • Wearing a thong while you're having to do high kicks and long jumps puts you in danger of cutting yourself in half....Like that time I tried to use a cast-net while wearing a thong. Dang that hurt.... It's a bad idea...

Anyway, you'll find that it's not just male readers that want the female super heroes depicted like they should be dancing on a pole, it's almost all of the readers...

It could be that:

a) some female readers have the same reason for liking female characters sexually depicted because that is very attractive to them.

b) some female readers think its cool to buck the trend and cater to what they perceive male readers like and in turn, get attention.

or

c) because they really don't have a problem with it.

For me, I have a problem with it. The more its discussed, the better.

#33 Posted by akbogert (3227 posts) - - Show Bio

@Jorgevy: I've come to terms with the fact that comics are more about extremes and ideals than the real. And I actually like that -- seeing how universally human stories can be told via the examples of superhumans. I'd never go so far as to say that a medium should completely ignore a range of storytelling, but I'm content with relying on other media for my "moderate" characters.

#34 Posted by Dernman (15464 posts) - - Show Bio
@Jorgevy

take cyclops powers: according to physics his neck should snap everytime he shoots his kinetic beams but it doesn't

I think better minds then me can find someway to explain that. What if in creation of the beams there is a stabilizing energy that counteracts the movement..There is the fact that he like his brother is immune to his beams so maybe part of his power is being to some forms of kinetic energy like counter action of his beams.
#35 Posted by Jorgevy (5114 posts) - - Show Bio

@Dernman: he could like absorb the kinetic energy that comes from the counter reaction of his beam and use to create more kinetic beam enery. it's kinda paradoxal but hey, not that bad of an idea i think

@akbogert: when i said it was dangerous, and moderation needed, I meant not moderation in comics, but moderation in our minds. sure it's good to see some ideals but we must know that things aren't always as utopian. but yeah sure, I also tend to see comics as a mean to satisfy my fantastic ideas and desires and not my usual real world mental needs

#36 Posted by Timandm (3374 posts) - - Show Bio

@lykopis: Well, it appears there are now three of us that feel this way!!! We could form a...coalition?

I saw something on television not long ago... Stan Lee was on the phone talking to someone about a female hero character. He said something like, "I know it doesn't really make sense for her to wear the high heels into combat but I like the way she looks..."

I was disappointed. Stan the man himself was saying.... "I know this makes no sense, but they're hot this way and I get off on it..."

#37 Posted by mrdecepticonleader (18621 posts) - - Show Bio

@lykopis said:

@pathtales:

I am a feminist -- I state this as someone who knows what the word means and not what others think it means. It's unfortunate people appear inclined to not look into things for themselves and refuse to educate themselves. That's on them though -- what matters is the truth to me.

As for the topic, it's getting a bit better -- in terms of how female heroes are dressed -- but what needs more work on is the positioning of said characters. Terms like "broke-back" comes to mind, and so do particular poses that are more in line with the act of sex then actual fight stances. It's stupid. Just stupid.

Great blog and I am so sorry for what happened to you. I do want to express my admiration for what you accomplished -- you have a lot to be proud of and it's good to hear from someone who knows what they are talking about when it comes to what women would need to wear when in hand to hand combat.

And what does the word mean exactly?

#38 Posted by lykopis (10746 posts) - - Show Bio

@Timandm said:

@lykopis: Well, it appears there are now three of us that feel this way!!! We could form a...coalition?

I saw something on television not long ago... Stan Lee was on the phone talking to someone about a female hero character. He said something like, "I know it doesn't really make sense for her to wear the high heels into combat but I like the way she looks..."

I was disappointed. Stan the man himself was saying.... "I know this makes no sense, but they're hot this way and I get off on it..."

Ugh. I want to say I am surprised, but I've seen enough photos with the man surrounded by sexy cos-players to know better.

@mrdecepticonleader said:

@lykopis said:

@pathtales:

I am a feminist -- I state this as someone who knows what the word means and not what others think it means. It's unfortunate people appear inclined to not look into things for themselves and refuse to educate themselves. That's on them though -- what matters is the truth to me.

As for the topic, it's getting a bit better -- in terms of how female heroes are dressed -- but what needs more work on is the positioning of said characters. Terms like "broke-back" comes to mind, and so do particular poses that are more in line with the act of sex then actual fight stances. It's stupid. Just stupid.

Great blog and I am so sorry for what happened to you. I do want to express my admiration for what you accomplished -- you have a lot to be proud of and it's good to hear from someone who knows what they are talking about when it comes to what women would need to wear when in hand to hand combat.

And what does the word mean exactly?

fem·i·nist

[fem-uh-nist]

adjective1.advocating social, political, legal, and economic rights for women equal to those of men.

noun2.an advocate of such rights.

#39 Posted by mrdecepticonleader (18621 posts) - - Show Bio

@lykopis: That's all well and good but it has become something other than that.

So it is someone who specifically advocates for women's rights then? Well that is a reason why I don't identify myself as a feminist.

#40 Posted by Naamah (320 posts) - - Show Bio

...

I am a woman whom wears a DD, and have a very extensive background in both fencing and horse riding so I would not say that all athletes are flat chested. Also I am a feminist in the true since and I agree that a name change would be a good thing. You do not have to be female to be a feminist.

#41 Posted by lykopis (10746 posts) - - Show Bio

@mrdecepticonleader said:

@lykopis: That's all well and good but it has become something other than that.

So it is someone who specifically advocates for women's rights then? Well that is a reason why I don't identify myself as a feminist.

No, it really hasn't become something other than that. Not at all. People who state otherwise are wrong, but I don't think they do so in a willfully ignorant manner. If people believe feminism has become something other than what it is based on the extreme actions of those who choose to claim the banner, then it is no longer feminism but something else entirely.

And no, it's not someone who specifically advocates for women's rights, it's someone who advocates for the equalization between the sexes as it relates to beliefs and government sanctioned and enforced laws which consider women less than men in terms of social, political, economical and legal spheres. So if you believe women are equal to men, you are a feminist. You don't have to identify yourself as one, but you are.

Also, being a feminist is not exclusive -- I am a feminist and a humanist (not in the atheistic sense which groups have laid claim to the word) and a masculinist (contrary to Merriam-Webster's definition of the term - it's being challenged by many men's groups and it should be) and if there are any ideologies which advocate for equal treatment of all people, then I am those things as well. I get the idea behind equalist as an all encompassing term but until it becomes an actual movement with purpose and ideals, with people advocating in a cumulative effort to achieve equalism in every way, then I will have to identify with all the separate and varied groups whose core ideals focus on achieving equality as it specifically pertains to them.

I apologize for derailing the thread. I am done. :)

#42 Posted by Timandm (3374 posts) - - Show Bio

@mrdecepticonleader said:

@lykopis: That's all well and good but it has become something other than that.

So it is someone who specifically advocates for women's rights then? Well that is a reason why I don't identify myself as a feminist.

You don't think women should have the same rights as men? Or you just don't think anyone should advocate for the rights of women?

#43 Posted by pathtales (29 posts) - - Show Bio

Look, I didn't set out to bash anyone or say this or that. I just wanted to say my view point on the fact both sides of the argument have both valid points.

#44 Posted by turoksonofstone (13200 posts) - - Show Bio

@DarkxSeraph said:

One thing to note: you state that artists 'seem to think' that an athletic woman has large breasts. Let me point out that artists are well aware of the anatomy of athletes. Study of anatomy includes such as a matter of course. They draw characters in the way that they find appealing. It might not be PC, but it's what sells books part of the time. From the 'perfect' men to 'perfect' women, Comics are about idealized proportion and anatomy.

more or less this which is really sad.

#45 Posted by lykopis (10746 posts) - - Show Bio

@pathtales said:

Look, I didn't set out to bash anyone or say this or that. I just wanted to say my view point on the fact both sides of the argument have both valid points.

Agreed.

#46 Posted by mrdecepticonleader (18621 posts) - - Show Bio

@Timandm said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

@lykopis: That's all well and good but it has become something other than that.

So it is someone who specifically advocates for women's rights then? Well that is a reason why I don't identify myself as a feminist.

You don't think women should have the same rights as men? Or you just don't think anyone should advocate for the rights of women?

No I think you misunderstood what I said.I am not a feminist because I think the term is too specific.I think rights should be advocated for every human being on this planet not just women but everyone,that is what I meant.

Sorry if I didn't make it clear.

@lykopis said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

@lykopis: That's all well and good but it has become something other than that.

So it is someone who specifically advocates for women's rights then? Well that is a reason why I don't identify myself as a feminist.

No, it really hasn't become something other than that. Not at all. People who state otherwise are wrong, but I don't think they do so in a willfully ignorant manner. If people believe feminism has become something other than what it is based on the extreme actions of those who choose to claim the banner, then it is no longer feminism but something else entirely.

And no, it's not someone who specifically advocates for women's rights, it's someone who advocates for the equalization between the sexes as it relates to beliefs and government sanctioned and enforced laws which consider women less than men in terms of social, political, economical and legal spheres. So if you believe women are equal to men, you are a feminist. You don't have to identify yourself as one, but you are.

Also, being a feminist is not exclusive -- I am a feminist and a humanist (not in the atheistic sense which groups have laid claim to the word) and a masculinist (contrary to Merriam-Webster's definition of the term - it's being challenged by many men's groups and it should be) and if there are any ideologies which advocate for equal treatment of all people, then I am those things as well. I get the idea behind equalist as an all encompassing term but until it becomes an actual movement with purpose and ideals, with people advocating in a cumulative effort to achieve equalism in every way, then I will have to identify with all the separate and varied groups whose core ideals focus on achieving equality as it specifically pertains to them.

I apologize for derailing the thread. I am done. :)

I see what you mean.I just don't think everyone who would identify as a feminist like you sees it that way,and would identify themselves as a masculinist equally like you would.I suppose that is my problem with the terms.

I feel that both the terms have become something that they weren't originally intended to be,which is really why I don't like the term it is littered with too much load and radical and extremism.

I too am sorry for derailing this thread.I was going to discuss the topic further in that other thread before it got locked.Thanks for taking the time to talk. :)

#47 Posted by lykopis (10746 posts) - - Show Bio

@mrdecepticonleader:

I understand perfectly. It would be great if there were some movement which would incorporate all this but there isn't and since feminism has made incredible progress under that banner, I'm sticking with it for now.

lol -- I feel the same as you about that thread which was shut down -- another poster was prevented from responding to me as well which was unfair (although I got a kick out of having the last word!)

#48 Edited by Timandm (3374 posts) - - Show Bio

@lykopis said:

@mrdecepticonleader:

I understand perfectly. It would be great if there were some movement which would incorporate all this but there isn't and since feminism has made incredible progress under that banner, I'm sticking with it for now.

lol -- I feel the same as you about that thread which was shut down -- another poster was prevented from responding to me as well which was unfair (although I got a kick out of having the last word!)

I don't really have anything to say... I just wanted to have the last word! :-)

@mrdecepticonleader: I DID misunderstand what you meant. Sorry.

However, I think you misunderstand the meaning of the word Feminist.

You seem to think it means, "One who advocates the rights of ONLY women." It does not... It simply means that one advocates for the rights of women... They likely also advocate for the rights of people of all races and nationalities.

Now, you say you thing rights should be advocated for every human being... Well, then by definition, you ARE INDEED a feminist... it's okay... I am too. We'll let that be our secret...

#49 Posted by mrdecepticonleader (18621 posts) - - Show Bio

@lykopis said:

@mrdecepticonleader:

I understand perfectly. It would be great if there were some movement which would incorporate all this but there isn't and since feminism has made incredible progress under that banner, I'm sticking with it for now.

lol -- I feel the same as you about that thread which was shut down -- another poster was prevented from responding to me as well which was unfair (although I got a kick out of having the last word!)

Fair enough. Are there not other groups out there though that have made alot of progress? I thought there was.

Ha ha I bet you did :) I hate it when someone makes a thread and then locks it later because they didn't get the responses they wanted or deletes a blog,I put alot of time and thoughts in my posts and there is nothing more annoying than them just disappearing.You can probably relate to that as well

@Timandm said:

@lykopis said:

@mrdecepticonleader:

I understand perfectly. It would be great if there were some movement which would incorporate all this but there isn't and since feminism has made incredible progress under that banner, I'm sticking with it for now.

lol -- I feel the same as you about that thread which was shut down -- another poster was prevented from responding to me as well which was unfair (although I got a kick out of having the last word!)

I don't really have anything to say... I just wanted to have the last word! :-)

@mrdecepticonleader: I DID misunderstand what you meant. Sorry.

However, I think you misunderstand the meaning of the word Feminist.

You seem to think it means, "One who advocates the rights of ONLY women." It does not... It simply means that one advocates for the rights of women... They likely also advocate for the rights of people of all races and nationalities.

Now, you say you thing rights should be advocated for every human being... Well, then by definition, you ARE INDEED a feminist... it's okay... I am too. We'll let that be our secret...

As I have stated numerous times I am not a feminist,for a variety of reasons.Which I don't feel like going through again to be honest.I am for human rights so I don't think the label feminist adequate enough for my stance.It maybe for you,and that's fine but the same doesn't apply to me.

#50 Posted by gravitypress (2069 posts) - - Show Bio

It is all in your head.