Follow

    Power Girl

    Character » Power Girl appears in 1722 issues.

    Kara Zor-L is the older, wiser, and stronger counterpart of Supergirl from Earth 2 but resides on the Prime Earth.

    PG is more cheesecake than ever

    • 178 results
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    Avatar image for fodigg
    fodigg

    6244

    Forum Posts

    2603

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 7

    #51  Edited By fodigg

    @eippihrellik said:

    @fodigg: First off its not my fault women have a problem with sexual themed things

    That's a bogus generalization. And I love how we're talking about female sexual empowerment when PG "decides" to show off her boobs but suddenly it's "women don't like the sexy" when we point the spotlight at unequal treatment.

    evans and hemsworth are actors dummy they have established careers they arent just regular dudes if they were regular guys you might have a point but they arent

    Superheroes are not "regular dudes" anymore than actors.

    as a man i am attracted to any hot chick so its not a generalization why is that so hard to accept

    That is a generalization. That you throw yourself out as anecdotal evidence in no way mitigates that fact.

    Avatar image for sethysquare
    sethysquare

    3965

    Forum Posts

    150

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 1

    User Lists: 1

    #52  Edited By sethysquare

    @fodigg said:

    No Caption Provided

    @eippihrellik said:

    @fodigg: what are you talking about men with power and confidence is women's sexual fantasy

    and the DCU is full of those Bruce Wayne, Lex Luthor, Oliver King all depicted as extremely handsome men that are geniuses with riches, ambition, and overwhelming confidence. Those are the type of men women like it just so happens those are also the type of men other guys admire so why cant there female characters that are depicted as extremely sexually attractive

    I'm saying there's a difference between this:

    —and this:

    See the difference? The latter image is what men would be drawn as if they were sexualized to the same degree in the same way. There are examples of this in mainstream comics (e.g., Catman, Nightwing sometimes) but they are very rare.

    uh..... no,

    I don't think regular women would think the second image is sexy.

    Men are not sexualised the way women is, its because regular women dont like men who cross dress.

    There are several men that are being "sexualised" but its not in the way you think it is. Aquaman, Nightwing, Green Arrow, Hawkman are few of those that more of often that not, are being "sexualised"

    Because when they're being sexualised, they look like this

    No Caption Provided

    and not Mr Emma Frost.

    Its same way media portrays sexy man as

    No Caption Provided
    No Caption Provided

    a sorta, I'm a bad boy and I have facial hair and washboard abs look.

    FYI, both Ryan Reynolds and Bradley Cooper are people's sexiest man alive and these are the sexiest photo I can find of them

    No heterosexual women would think those 2 above up there are not sexy because they don't dress and pose like Bruno.

    Man and woman are just sexualised differently.

    Miranda Kerr
    Miranda Kerr
    Avatar image for eippihrellik
    eippihrellik

    297

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #53  Edited By eippihrellik

    @fodigg said:

    @eippihrellik said:

    @fodigg: First off its not my fault women have a problem with sexual themed things

    That's a bogus generalization. And I love how we're talking about female sexual empowerment when PG "decides" to show off her boobs but suddenly it's "women don't like the sexy" when we point the spotlight at unequal treatment.

    well then there should be no problem with it then with anyone

    evans and hemsworth are actors dummy they have established careers they arent just regular dudes if they were regular guys you might have a point but they arent

    Superheroes are not "regular dudes" anymore than actors.

    you missed my whole point the point is that women aren't as attracted by looks like men are

    as a man i am attracted to any hot chick so its not a generalization why is that so hard to accept

    That is a generalization. That you throw yourself out as anecdotal evidence in no way mitigates that fact.

    Its not a generalization if you're a guy and you say you wouldn't have sex with or be attracted to a woman solely based on her looks you're a liar

    Avatar image for fodigg
    fodigg

    6244

    Forum Posts

    2603

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 7

    #54  Edited By fodigg

    @sethysquare: I honestly don't see much difference between these two images:

    @eippihrellik said:

    well then there should be no problem with it then with anyone

    lolwut?

    you missed my whole point the point is that women aren't as attracted by looks like men are

    And that point is bullshit. The difference is that society caters overwhelmingly to one gender's preference while telling the other they must be the sexual ideal and yet want something totally different. You're passing male entitlement off as some sort of incredible insight on female sexuality.

    Its not a generalization if you're a guy and you say you wouldn't have sex with or be attracted to a woman solely based on her looks you're a liar

    Right, even if you're gay, you are lying. All men are pigs and all women are prudes. Gotcha.

    Avatar image for sethysquare
    sethysquare

    3965

    Forum Posts

    150

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 1

    User Lists: 1

    #55  Edited By sethysquare

    @eippihrellik said:

    @fodigg said:

    evans and hemsworth are actors dummy they have established careers they arent just regular dudes if they were regular guys you might have a point but they arent

    Superheroes are not "regular dudes" anymore than actors.

    you missed my whole point the point is that women aren't as attracted by looks like men are

    I believe what you're trying to say is Chris Hemsworth and Chris Evans are both sexualised, but by the standards women wants to see. They want a hot bod, but they also want masculine, powerful and assertive men.

    They are women's standard of hot men.

    While men's standard of hot are women like Mila Kunis, Giselle Bundchen, Megan Fox.

    Avatar image for eippihrellik
    eippihrellik

    297

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #56  Edited By eippihrellik

    @fodigg said:

    @sethysquare: I honestly don't see much difference between these two images:

    @eippihrellik said:

    well then there should be no problem with it then with anyone

    lolwut?

    you missed my whole point the point is that women aren't as attracted by looks like men are

    And that point is bullshit. The difference is that society caters overwhelmingly to one gender's preference while telling the other they must be the sexual ideal and yet want something totally different. You're passing male entitlement off as some sort of incredible insight on female sexuality.

    That sounds like some feminist bullshit society cater overwhelmingly to women its the reason why pop music is more mainstream than death metal dude cause more women listen to lady gaga and more guys listen to cannibal corpse. Its not male entitlement you idiot its the truth id be happy if women were as frivolous sexually as men are that would be great

    Its not a generalization if you're a guy and you say you wouldn't have sex with or be attracted to a woman solely based on her looks you're a liar

    Right, even if you're gay, you are lying. All men are pigs and all women are prudes. Gotcha.

    By the way are you a girl cause you sound like one cause thats a point no guy could dispute as men we are attracted to women physically and women are attracted to men for their confidence and intellect and achievements

    Avatar image for sethysquare
    sethysquare

    3965

    Forum Posts

    150

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 1

    User Lists: 1

    #57  Edited By sethysquare

    @fodigg said:

    @sethysquare: I honestly don't see much difference between these two images:

    For one, men don't wear clothes like that, women does.

    Secondly, the picture of ryan reynolds still has lots of masculinity, power and its a just after workout, I'm going for a swim kinda look.

    If you're talking about half naked man is considered sexualised then.....

    go read hawkman, nightwing, green arrow, smallville, detective/dark knight, Aquaman

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-kbmj15xzSRQ/TjIU_QqtWMI/AAAAAAAAH7k/c7uatVKgdxM/s1600/Batman+%2523712+3.jpg

    http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/11/113800/2591821-78447_81886_hawkman_super.jpg

    http://pmctvline2.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/smvl_s11_ch_02_pg05_600.jpg?w=640

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-B1gjS1Rp0b8/Tv0BizfuJSI/AAAAAAAAKhQ/uK-JiIik9RE/s1600/Aquaman+04+RiZZ3N-Zone+pg22.jpg

    Avatar image for fodigg
    fodigg

    6244

    Forum Posts

    2603

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 7

    #58  Edited By fodigg

    @sethysquare said:

    @eippihrellik said:

    @fodigg said:

    evans and hemsworth are actors dummy they have established careers they arent just regular dudes if they were regular guys you might have a point but they arent

    Superheroes are not "regular dudes" anymore than actors.

    you missed my whole point the point is that women aren't as attracted by looks like men are

    I believe what you're trying to say is Chris Hemsworth and Chris Evans are both sexualised, but by the standards women wants to see. They want a hot bod, but they also want masculine, powerful and assertive men.

    They are women's standard of hot men.

    While men's standard of hot are women like Mila Kunis, Giselle Bundchen, Megan Fox.

    It all comes down to presentation and the difference is that men are all too often portrayed as how men want to be while women are portrayed as how men want them to be. It's the classic male gaze observation. What you're pointing out shows how marketing handles sexuality, but does it really reflect the varied opinions of real men and women? I don't think it does.

    Now, it doesn't have to be that way, and when Amanda Conner was handling PG it was better than that. PG was assertive and well rounded (no pun intended) even while having the curvy body. This is what I was talking about previously when I said that context matters. But it would be silly to argue you can't go the other way with male presentation as well, and with Catman's presentation in Secret Six for example, doing so has developed a fanbase for that type of presentation.

    @eippihrellik said:

    That sounds like some feminist bullshit society cater overwhelmingly to women its the reason why pop music is more mainstream than death metal dude cause more women listen to lady gaga and more guys listen to cannibal corpse. Its not male entitlement you idiot its the truth id be happy if women were as frivolous sexually as men are that would be great

    Yes, you heard it here folks, society caters overwhelmingly to women! That's why you will never see sexualized females anywhere in modern society. Especially not beer commercials. Only steamy pool boys hawking budweiser.

    By the way are you a girl cause you sound like one cause thats a point no guy could dispute as men we are attracted to women physically and women are attracted to men for their confidence and intellect and achievements

    Oh noes! Now he's questioning my masculinity because I don't agree with him! Whatever shall I do?

    Please. Being attracted to women physically does not mean it is the whole of what you find attractive in women. That's a ridiculous argument.

    Avatar image for eippihrellik
    eippihrellik

    297

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #59  Edited By eippihrellik

    @fodigg: I'm questioning your masculinity cause you're spewing the classic girly bullshit so if you don't want to be mistaken for a woman you should probably work on that you seem to be needlessly protecting the woman's point of view when it wasn't even about women in the first place i mean i don't want to be a douche but you're the type of guy i hate the dummy who tries to be Mr. chivalry thinking you'll get girls that way and not being honest with yourself

    Avatar image for fodigg
    fodigg

    6244

    Forum Posts

    2603

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 7

    #60  Edited By fodigg

    @sethysquare said:

    For one, men don't wear clothes like that, women does.

    Secondly, the picture of ryan reynolds still has lots of masculinity, power and its a just after workout, I'm going for a swim kinda look.

    If you're talking about half naked man is considered sexualised then.....

    go read hawkman, nightwing, green arrow, smallville, detective/dark knight, Aquaman

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-kbmj15xzSRQ/TjIU_QqtWMI/AAAAAAAAH7k/c7uatVKgdxM/s1600/Batman+%2523712+3.jpg

    http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/11/113800/2591821-78447_81886_hawkman_super.jpg

    http://pmctvline2.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/smvl_s11_ch_02_pg05_600.jpg?w=640

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-B1gjS1Rp0b8/Tv0BizfuJSI/AAAAAAAAKhQ/uK-JiIik9RE/s1600/Aquaman+04+RiZZ3N-Zone+pg22.jpg

    Are you arguing that women actually dress like Emma Frost? Before you answer, remember that Frost is a highschool teacher in the comics.

    The Reynolds photo is not as gratuitous as the "male emma frost" no, but they're similar enough that your point that you "don't think regular women would think the second image is sexy" doesn't really stand. Reynolds sculpted his appearance and the photo is the result of a steamy photo shoot and the final image was probably photoshopped enough where it may as well have been drawn. The pose and presentation are almost identical to the "male emma frost". The only thing that's different is the ridiculous costume, and the only reason you notice that is because that type of stripperware is only expected of women in comics, not men.

    Avatar image for fodigg
    fodigg

    6244

    Forum Posts

    2603

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 7

    #61  Edited By fodigg

    @eippihrellik said:

    i don't want to be a douche but

    Avatar image for eippihrellik
    eippihrellik

    297

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #62  Edited By eippihrellik

    @fodigg: had to be said dude you might not think so but the type of mentality you have isn't healthy

    Avatar image for fodigg
    fodigg

    6244

    Forum Posts

    2603

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 7

    #63  Edited By fodigg

    @eippihrellik said:

    @fodigg: had to be said dude you might not think so but the type of mentality you have isn't healthy

    Somehow I'll muddle along.

    Avatar image for eippihrellik
    eippihrellik

    297

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #64  Edited By eippihrellik

    @fodigg: yes sarcasm that'll show me lol chill dude this turned much too serious for a dumb internet debate about a comic book character's boobs

    Avatar image for sethysquare
    sethysquare

    3965

    Forum Posts

    150

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 1

    User Lists: 1

    #65  Edited By sethysquare

    @fodigg said:

    @sethysquare said:

    @eippihrellik said:

    @fodigg said:

    evans and hemsworth are actors dummy they have established careers they arent just regular dudes if they were regular guys you might have a point but they arent

    Superheroes are not "regular dudes" anymore than actors.

    you missed my whole point the point is that women aren't as attracted by looks like men are

    I believe what you're trying to say is Chris Hemsworth and Chris Evans are both sexualised, but by the standards women wants to see. They want a hot bod, but they also want masculine, powerful and assertive men.

    They are women's standard of hot men.

    While men's standard of hot are women like Mila Kunis, Giselle Bundchen, Megan Fox.

    It all comes down to presentation and the difference is that men are all too often portrayed as how men want to be while women are portrayed as how men want them to be. It's the classic male gaze observation. What you're pointing out shows how marketing handles sexuality, but does it really reflect the varied opinions of real men and women? I don't think it does.

    Now, it doesn't have to be that way, and when Amanda Conner was handling PG it was better than that. PG was assertive and well rounded (no pun intended) even while having the curvy body. This is what I was talking about previously when I said that context matters. But it would be silly to argue you can't go the other way with male presentation as well, and with Catman's presentation in Secret Six for example, doing so has developed a fanbase for that type of presentation.

    Eh, no. In the media, men are portrayed how women wants them to be. Ignore tween's obession over rob pat, women are attracted to bad boys like Hugh Jackman, Matthew McConaghey, Ian Somerhalder and etc. What I'm pointing out is how women in general are attacted to men. Why would marketing company spend that much to market a man that only man want to gaze. Look at all the chick flicks, you'll see people like Ryan Gosling, Ryan Reynolds, Bradley Cooper, Chris Evans. These are what woman want to watch. They're what women call sexy.

    @fodigg said:

    Are you arguing that women actually dress like Emma Frost? Before you answer, remember that Frost is a highschool teacher in the comics.

    The Reynolds photo is not as gratuitous as the "male emma frost" no, but they're similar enough that your point that you "don't think regular women would think the second image is sexy" doesn't really stand. Reynolds sculpted his appearance and the photo is the result of a steamy photo shoot and the final image was probably photoshopped enough where it may as well have been drawn. The pose and presentation are almost identical to the "male emma frost". The only thing that's different is the ridiculous costume, and the only reason you notice that is because that type of stripperware is only expected of women in comics, not men.

    Yeah, but so what? Women in real life don't dress like Emma Frost, but Man in real life don't dress like Superman, so your point being? Even in pop culture and media, the whole sexy female teacher has been done way too many times.

    Also, Duh, obviously every photo shoot is photo shopped. Just like every photo shoot for a men's magazine is photoshopped.

    You're arguing that men have to dress and pose like Giselle Bunchen or Catwoman.

    Catwoman have always been a sexual female, so what?

    http://www.thesnipenews.com/thegutter/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/michelle-pfeiffer-catwoman.jpg

    Michelle Pfeiffer actually pose like that and regular women that are termed sexy poses like that in general. So what?

    Are you saying men should dress and pose like that? Because a woman would think a man is sexy when he dresses and pose like that?

    That being my whole point. This "stripperware" is also NOT expected of women in comics. But in real life, women do dress like that. cropped top/mid driffs, mini skirts, mini dress are way too common. And why is it that in real life there could be sexy woman, but in comics, when theres a sexy woman, people like you cry foul. So what we have 4 sexy females in DCU. Compared to the tens of other females who aren't sexy by nature at all?

    Men don't dress like that. Period. at the most they'll wear a tank or go topless.

    Even men like Hawkman, Aquaman, Green Arrow, Nightwing, does get sexualised or idealised, but its just done in a way women would think its sexy. Man in comics also wear ridiculous outfit, but its done in a masculine way where it mirrors what a guy might wear in real life.

    Avatar image for fodigg
    fodigg

    6244

    Forum Posts

    2603

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 7

    #66  Edited By fodigg

    @sethysquare said:

    Eh, no. In the media, men are portrayed how women wants them to be. Ignore tween's obession over rob pat, women are attracted to bad boys like Hugh Jackman, Matthew McConaghey, Ian Somerhalder and etc. What I'm pointing out is how women in general are attacted to men. Why would marketing company spend that much to market a man that only man want to gaze. Look at all the chick flicks, you'll see people like Ryan Gosling, Ryan Reynolds, Bradley Cooper, Chris Evans. These are what woman want to watch. They're what women call sexy.

    Funny how all those things are also male power fantasies. I'm not saying that invalidates them as objects of attraction for women, but it does show how presentation isn't even-handed across genders.

    Yeah, but so what? Women in real life don't dress like Emma Frost, but Man in real life don't dress like Superman, so your point being? Even in pop culture and media, the whole sexy female teacher has been done way too many times.

    Also, Duh, obviously every photo shoot is photo shopped. Just like every photo shoot for a men's magazine is photoshopped.

    You're arguing that men have to dress and pose like Giselle Bunchen or Catwoman.

    Catwoman have always been a sexual female, so what?

    http://www.thesnipenews.com/thegutter/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/michelle-pfeiffer-catwoman.jpg

    Michelle Pfeiffer actually pose like that and regular women that are termed sexy poses like that in general. So what?

    Are you saying men should dress and pose like that? Because a woman would think a man is sexy when he dresses and pose like that?

    When we have a female lead in a successful comic book movie (i.e., not Elektra or Catwoman) in an outfit like that, then you can argue that it doesn't matter what they wear. It does have an impact on their marketability. It does restrict the character. Pointing out an actress portraying a femme fatale in a male superhero fantasy doesn't really support your argument as much as you seem to think, especially when the leading ladies in films (e.g., DKR Catwoman, Avengers Black Widow) are trending toward more covered, not less.

    That being my whole point. This "stripperware" is also NOT expected of women in comics. But in real life, women do dress like that. cropped top/mid driffs, mini skirts, mini dress are way too common. And why is it that in real life there could be sexy woman, but in comics, when theres a sexy woman, people like you cry foul. So what we have 4 sexy females in DCU. Compared to the tens of other females who aren't sexy by nature at all?
    Men don't dress like that. Period. at the most they'll wear a tank or go topless.

    There's a difference between showing a midriff or wearing a mini skirt and Emma Frost's outfit or a boob window. And you're really just arguing that there can be nothing wrong with the status quo, so why rock the boat? That is not a compelling argument. If something can be improved, why not work toward that?

    Even men like Hawkman, Aquaman, Green Arrow, Nightwing, does get sexualised or idealised, but its just done in a way women would think its sexy. Man in comics also wear ridiculous outfit, but its done in a masculine way where it mirrors what a guy might wear in real life.

    Differences like the one I highlighted are kind of the point. This isn't "just how guys/gals dress," these are narrow gender roles that are constantly reinforced much to the chagrin of anyone that falls outside of them. Especially in fantasy fiction like superhero comics, I see no reason why it can't be more evenhanded. Women should be idealized in a way that is simultaneously empowering and titillating the way men are.

    And if that means scaling back the titillating a bit while you work on the empowering because your character is being treated as a joke, then that's a trade-off worth making. That was the decision Marvel made for Carol Danvers, and that's the decision DC pretended to make for Power Girl. And it's a smart one. Skimpy, revealing outfits on women in comic books are all over the damn place, even in the reboot (e.g., Wonder Woman, Starfire, Harley Quinn). For a flagship character you're trying to rebrand as a major property, you can do better.

    Avatar image for sethysquare
    sethysquare

    3965

    Forum Posts

    150

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 1

    User Lists: 1

    #67  Edited By sethysquare

    @fodigg said:

    @sethysquare said:

    Eh, no. In the media, men are portrayed how women wants them to be. Ignore tween's obession over rob pat, women are attracted to bad boys like Hugh Jackman, Matthew McConaghey, Ian Somerhalder and etc. What I'm pointing out is how women in general are attacted to men. Why would marketing company spend that much to market a man that only man want to gaze. Look at all the chick flicks, you'll see people like Ryan Gosling, Ryan Reynolds, Bradley Cooper, Chris Evans. These are what woman want to watch. They're what women call sexy.

    Funny how all those things are also male power fantasies. I'm not saying that invalidates them as objects of attraction for women, but it does show how presentation isn't even-handed across genders.

    What????

    Yeah, but so what? Women in real life don't dress like Emma Frost, but Man in real life don't dress like Superman, so your point being? Even in pop culture and media, the whole sexy female teacher has been done way too many times.

    Also, Duh, obviously every photo shoot is photo shopped. Just like every photo shoot for a men's magazine is photoshopped.

    You're arguing that men have to dress and pose like Giselle Bunchen or Catwoman.

    Catwoman have always been a sexual female, so what?

    http://www.thesnipenews.com/thegutter/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/michelle-pfeiffer-catwoman.jpg

    Michelle Pfeiffer actually pose like that and regular women that are termed sexy poses like that in general. So what?

    Are you saying men should dress and pose like that? Because a woman would think a man is sexy when he dresses and pose like that?

    When we have a female lead in a successful comic book movie (i.e., not Elektra or Catwoman) in an outfit like that, then you can argue that it doesn't matter what they wear. It does have an impact on their marketability. It does restrict the character. Pointing out an actress portraying a femme fatale in a male superhero fantasy doesn't really support your argument as much as you seem to think, especially when the leading ladies in films (e.g., DKR Catwoman, Avengers Black Widow) are trending toward more covered, not less.

    Both Black Widow and Anne Hathaway are extremely sexy. Catwoman in general uses her sex appeal to get what she wants. It is like that in DKR also.

    As for Black Widow, did she really need to show her butt in all the posters and lower her zipper to show that much cleavage?

    That being my whole point. This "stripperware" is also NOT expected of women in comics. But in real life, women do dress like that. cropped top/mid driffs, mini skirts, mini dress are way too common. And why is it that in real life there could be sexy woman, but in comics, when theres a sexy woman, people like you cry foul. So what we have 4 sexy females in DCU. Compared to the tens of other females who aren't sexy by nature at all?
    Men don't dress like that. Period. at the most they'll wear a tank or go topless.

    There's a difference between showing a midriff or wearing a mini skirt and Emma Frost's outfit or a boob window. And you're really just arguing that there can be nothing wrong with the status quo, so why rock the boat? That is not a compelling argument. If something can be improved, why not work toward that?

    Whats the difference? Boob window is not an uncommon phenomena. And women wears corsets too. But even so, whats the difference between a midriff and a corset?

    Even men like Hawkman, Aquaman, Green Arrow, Nightwing, does get sexualised or idealised, but its just done in a way women would think its sexy. Man in comics also wear ridiculous outfit, but its done in a masculine way where it mirrors what a guy might wear in real life.

    Differences like the one I highlighted are kind of the point. This isn't "just how guys/gals dress," these are narrow gender roles that are constantly reinforced much to the chagrin of anyone that falls outside of them. Especially in fantasy fiction like superhero comics, I see no reason why it can't be more evenhanded. Women should be idealized in a way that is simultaneously empowering and titillating the way men are.

    And if that means scaling back the titillating a bit while you work on the empowering because your character is being treated as a joke, then that's a trade-off worth making. That was the decision Marvel made for Carol Danvers, and that's the decision DC pretended to make for Power Girl. And it's a smart one. Skimpy, revealing outfits on women in comic books are all over the damn place, even in the reboot (e.g., Wonder Woman, Starfire, Harley Quinn). For a flagship character you're trying to rebrand as a major property, you can do better.

    Starfire has been shown to be a very sexual female even before the reboot. Now just taken to another level. But what else changed was how she seem to act like a man now, instead of being the female who cried her heart out for the man who left her, she now takes control and is probably one of the most powerful female in the universe. RHATO showed exactly how terrifyingly powerful she is.

    Also, Powergirl is also a very strong individual. She is assertive, confident and a no-nonsense girl. So what if she would like to have a night out and hook up with a guy. She is still an assertive, confident woman.

    Also, sure, why not, lets compare Carol Denvers, the only female book in marvel with Powergirl. Carol Denvers have never been like that at all. Why not compare Ms Marvel to Wonder Woman, Black Canary, Batwoman, Supergirl and good news, all of them are selling better and are even more empowering and well written.

    Avatar image for fodigg
    fodigg

    6244

    Forum Posts

    2603

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 7

    #68  Edited By fodigg

    @sethysquare said:

    What????

    I'm pointing out that "bad boy" and "male model" are empowering to men as much as they are titillating to women. Do you disagree?

    Both Black Widow and Anne Hathaway are extremely sexy. Catwoman in general uses her sex appeal to get what she wants. It is like that in DKR also.
    As for Black Widow, did she really need to show her butt in all the posters and lower her zipper to show that much cleavage?

    True, but in both cases the costumes were still skintight catsuits that covered theme completely. If anything you're supporting my point here by showing how they can both be "extremely sexy" without wearing outfits that are, well, next to nothing.

    Whats the difference? Boob window is not an uncommon phenomena. And women wears corsets too. But even so, whats the difference between a midriff and a corset?

    The difference between the outlandish outfits we see female characters put in for superhero costumes (or fantasy costumes since we're basically discussing the chainmail bikini here) is 1) that they have no or extremely uncommon analogs in day-to-day fashion (compare to how you said the male costumes "mirrors what a guy might wear in real life.") and/or 2) are impractical to the point where they break verisimilitude entirely and ruin a reader's suspension of disbelief.

    Starfire has been shown to be a very sexual female even before the reboot. Now just taken to another level. But what else changed was how she seem to act like a man now, instead of being the female who cried her heart out for the man who left her, she now takes control and is probably one of the most powerful female in the universe. RHATO showed exactly how terrifyingly powerful she is.

    My problem with Starfire's change was not that she's "suddenly a sexual character" or "suddenly she has an impractical costume" because she already had those and I liked the character pre-reboot. The problem with Starfire's portrayal after the reboot was:

    • The random, out-of-context pinup posing throughout the issue.
    • The goldfish memory thing that made it seem like Roy was taking advantage of the mentally disabled alien supermodel.
    • The complete reversal of her free love personality into a "fun sucks, let's have unemotional sex" ice queen personality.
    • Her apparent willingness to just go along with whatever Jason wanted, for no reason, and the fact that the only time she showed any personal agency was when she was fulfilling an obvious male fantasy with Roy.

    It's improved somewhat since then but she's still a mostly sullen "fun sucks"-style 'badass' which is lame because those characters are all-too-frequent. Like PG, Starfire was one of those characters where good writing has at times elevated her to the point of being far more than mere eye candy, but look, now suddenly in recent issues she's in space wearing an outfit that completely covers her and yet she's still doing just fine as the book's signature eye candy! So why not a design that handles both empowerment and sexuality equally?

    Also, Powergirl is also a very strong individual. She is assertive, confident and a no-nonsense girl. So what if she would like to have a night out and hook up with a guy. She is still an assertive, confident woman.

    I agree. So what? I have no problem with any of that. But why does she need a boob window to be that character? If the position was reversed and she had never had a boob window and you were sitting down to pitch your new design to DC for the reboot, what arguments would you use that PG should really have a boob window? Saying "well she's a sexually assertive woman who is unashamed of said sexuality" is great and all, but there's a real unfortunate implication there if you're then saying that to show that she must have a boob window.

    Also, sure, why not, lets compare Carol Denvers, the only female book in marvel with Powergirl. Carol Denvers have never been like that at all. Why not compare Ms Marvel to Wonder Woman, Black Canary, Batwoman, Supergirl and good news, all of them are selling better and are even more empowering and well written.

    I brought up Carol Danvers because she just went through similar fan wailing over the retiring of her Cockrum designed pinup suit. What was unfair about comparing that to PG's situation in the revamp?

    Avatar image for batwatch
    BatWatch

    5487

    Forum Posts

    274

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 238

    User Lists: 1

    #69  Edited By BatWatch

    @PowerGirlFan:

    1. The only distinctive element of Power Girl's costume was the boob window.

    I already stated explicitly that I do not care about the size. You are the one who mentioned it.

    2. I believe it is immoral to display your body to other people, and so do most people. That is why you are not allowed to walk around town naked.

    More importantly, the vast majority of women do not go around flaunting their boobs because they are not skanks. Artists render girls in comics that way to market it to teenage guys who think with their wieners.

    3. I bet you could stand on a street corner and not see one woman in a hundred display as much cleavage. It is an oddity.

    4. As I've already said, the only reason any girl would display that much cleavage is to get male (or lesbian) attention.

    5. No, it does not.

    Avatar image for warlock360
    warlock360

    30698

    Forum Posts

    3892

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 1

    #70  Edited By warlock360

    Cheesecake is relevant to my interests, I approve of this.

    Avatar image for powergirlfan
    PowerGirlFan

    344

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #71  Edited By PowerGirlFan

    @fodigg said:

    @PowerGirlFan said:

    Therefore, in the interests of gender equity, PG should show off her boobs.

    I don't really need to reply to you anymore because I can just highlight quotes like this and it makes my point without saying it.

    That was a joke, so sure, just quote one line out of context so you can ignore all of my arguments.

    Avatar image for powergirlfan
    PowerGirlFan

    344

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #72  Edited By PowerGirlFan

    @fodigg said:

    @eippihrellik said:

    you missed my whole point the point is that women aren't as attracted by looks like men are

    And that point is bullshit. The difference is that society caters overwhelmingly to one gender's preference while telling the other they must be the sexual ideal and yet want something totally different. You're passing male entitlement off as some sort of incredible insight on female sexuality.

    Nonsense. The entertainment media cater very much to female sexual desires, both physical and non-physical. Example: Baywatch - good looking girls and guys wearing very little. The proliferation of romantic dramas and comedies proves that this is what women like. There are elements of what excites both sexes in most entertainment. Example: Die Hard - action and romance.

    And neither appeal exclusively to one sex: The women enjoy the action, though from a female perspective instead of a male one, i.e., the powerful and capable male hero who will rescue and take care of her. Likewise the romance appeals to the male but from the male perspective: the hero gets the girl.

    It is silly to believe that the entertainment industry would ignore the sexual feelings of more than half of the population. That is out-of-control feminist raving.

    We will argue forever if both sides try to argue that it is completely one way or the other, because both men and women are physically attracted and emotionally or personally. Men are attracted by women's personalities and men like male physical attributes for their own sake.

    However, part of the physical appeal of a men to women is that their bodies convey the personal qualities they like (strength, ability, ambition, charm, sensitivity etc). Men view women's personalities mostly through it's expressionin their bodies.

    The fact remains that male attraction is primarily physical and female attraction is primarily personal.

    Avatar image for fodigg
    fodigg

    6244

    Forum Posts

    2603

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 7

    #73  Edited By fodigg

    @PowerGirlFan said:

    The fact remains that male attraction is primarily physical and female attraction is primarily personal.

    This is just wrong. It is simply wrong. And it's the basis for your entire argument.

    Avatar image for powergirlfan
    PowerGirlFan

    344

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #74  Edited By PowerGirlFan

    @fodigg said:

    It all comes down to presentation and the difference is that men are all too often portrayed as how men want to be while women are portrayed as how men want them to be. It's the classic male gaze observation. What you're pointing out shows how marketing handles sexuality, but does it really reflect the varied opinions of real men and women? I don't think it does.

    You are showing your feminist colors by mentioning "male gaze" - that's a feminist theory and a silly one. The media caters for female audiences. Box office success demands that they do. Yes, the media protrays women as men fantasize they should be. That is because fantasy sells. But the media also cater to female fantasies and desires. It's not exclusively male. Only a raving feminist could be blind to that.

    Men are very often portrayed how women want them to be. Example: The Wedding Singer, which was accused by one reviewer of cynically exploiting women's desires about how men should be. However, there is not necessarily a conflict: Men can be portrayed as how women want them to be and how men themselves want to be, because women do appreciate men the way men like to be - strong, capable, brave, bold etc. Likewise women are not always portrayed as sex object. You are just being very selective.

    Now, it doesn't have to be that way, and when Amanda Conner was handling PG it was better than that. PG was assertive and well rounded (no pun intended) even while having the curvy body. This is what I was talking about previously when I said that context matters. But it would be silly to argue you can't go the other way with male presentation as well, and with Catman's presentation in Secret Six for example, doing so has developed a fanbase for that type of presentation.

    PG was a good character before Amanda Conner drew her. And Conner was the artist, not the writer. I've seen much better artists characterizations of PG than Conner's. Conner made her look like a plastic toy doll. She gave PG the stereotypical blonde ding-dong face, hair and legs. If you don't like how PG is written and you don't mind the boobs and costume in the "right context", blame the writers, not the boobs or the costume.

    Yes, you heard it here folks, society caters overwhelmingly to women! That's why you will never see sexualized females anywhere in modern society. Especially not beer commercials. Only steamy pool boys hawking budweiser.

    Beer commercials are for men. I'm pretty sure there are commercials which are directed at the female market as well.

    You assume that how women want to be portrayed is different to how men like them to be and how men want to be portrayed is different to how women like them to be. That's not true, unless you are talking about fantasies about how men and women like the opposite sex to be.which are unrealistic and self-centred. If women and men liked each other differently to how they wanted to be, how would they every get together? There is a large common ground but also disagreements (hence the fantasies).

    Men want to be strong and capable and this type of man appeals to women. Women want to be desired and beautiful and this appeals to men.

    Therefore drawing PG with big boobs and a sexy costume is not purely catering to males, since women like being physically desirable.

    Also, being physically desirable does not exclude a female superhero from having other qualities such as strength, capability and all the other heroic qualities a female superhero should have. She can have both. There is no conflict.

    Avatar image for powergirlfan
    PowerGirlFan

    344

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #75  Edited By PowerGirlFan

    @fodigg said:

    @PowerGirlFan said:

    The fact remains that male attraction is primarily physical and female attraction is primarily personal.

    This is just wrong. It is simply wrong. And it's the basis for your entire argument.

    That is no argument at all.

    Avatar image for fodigg
    fodigg

    6244

    Forum Posts

    2603

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 7

    #76  Edited By fodigg

    @PowerGirlFan said:

    You are showing your feminist colors by mentioning "male gaze" - that's a feminist theory and a silly one. The media caters for female audiences. Box office success demands that they do. Yes, the media protrays women as men fantasize they should be. That is because fantasy sells. But the media also cater to female fantasies and desires. It's not exclusively male. Only a raving feminist could be blind to that. Men are very often portrayed how women want them to be. Example: The Wedding Singer, which was accused by one reviewer of cynically exploiting women's desires about how men should be. However, there is not necessarily a conflict: Men can be portrayed as how women want them to be and how men themselves want to be, because women do appreciate men the way men like to be - strong, capable, brave, bold etc. Likewise women are not always portrayed as sex object. You are just being very selective.

    You continue to think "feminist" is a magical spell that which you might cast and win the argument. That's not the case. I'm not the one being selective when I fail to point out the exceptions.

    PG was a good character before Amanda Conner drew her. And Conner was the artist, not the writer. I've seen much better artists characterizations of PG than Conner's. Conner made her look like a plastic toy doll. She gave PG the stereotypical blonde ding-dong face, hair and legs. If you don't like how PG is written and you don't mind the boobs and costume in the "right context", blame the writers, not the boobs or the costume.

    Before you blamed the fans. And if you think the artist doesn't inform a character's representation in comics, I'm not sure what to say to that.

    Beer commercials are for men. I'm pretty sure there are commercials which are directed at the female market as well.

    Newsflash, women also drink beer. Also, do you not see the conflict in saying "X is for Y, but I'm sure there are Xes for Z as well." All you're doing, repeatedly, is pointing out the status quo and saying "see?" as if by the very nature of being the way things currently are means it's the way things ought to be.

    Avatar image for fodigg
    fodigg

    6244

    Forum Posts

    2603

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 7

    #77  Edited By fodigg

    @PowerGirlFan said:

    @fodigg said:

    @PowerGirlFan said:

    The fact remains that male attraction is primarily physical and female attraction is primarily personal.

    This is just wrong. It is simply wrong. And it's the basis for your entire argument.

    That is no argument at all.

    What kind of discussion are you expecting to have when we disagree on such a fundamental premise?

    Avatar image for powergirlfan
    PowerGirlFan

    344

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #78  Edited By PowerGirlFan

    @fodigg said:

    Funny how all those things are also male power fantasies. I'm not saying that invalidates them as objects of attraction for women, but it does show how presentation isn't even-handed across genders.

    No, it shows that men and women are different yet compatible - the "male power fantasy" is also the female "fantasy" about men. Win-win.

    When we have a female lead in a successful comic book movie (i.e., not Elektra or Catwoman) in an outfit like that, then you can argue that it doesn't matter what they wear. It does have an impact on their marketability. It does restrict the character. Pointing out an actress portraying a femme fatale in a male superhero fantasy doesn't really support your argument as much as you seem to think, especially when the leading ladies in films (e.g., DKR Catwoman, Avengers Black Widow) are trending toward more covered, not less.

    Lara Croft. Lead heroic role, massive boobs, tight, revealing costume. Also a male fantasy. Marketed successfully.

    There's a difference between showing a midriff or wearing a mini skirt and Emma Frost's outfit or a boob window. And you're really just arguing that there can be nothing wrong with the status quo, so why rock the boat? That is not a compelling argument. If something can be improved, why not work toward that?

    There is only a difference if you have a hang-up about boobs. Decades ago, mini-skirts were "sexualizing" because people had a hang-up about legs. Now lets work toward getting over boobs. The boob window doesn't need improving, your attitude to boobs does.

    Differences like the one I highlighted are kind of the point. This isn't "just how guys/gals dress," these are narrow gender roles that are constantly reinforced much to the chagrin of anyone that falls outside of them. Especially in fantasy fiction like superhero comics, I see no reason why it can't be more evenhanded. Women should be idealized in a way that is simultaneously empowering and titillating the way men are.

    Most people do fall outside of the ideals which heroes embody. That is what makes them heroes. If PG's boobs have to go because most women don't have boobs that size, then Superman's physique has to be reduced to average size. But then what do we do for people with boobs and muscles of [i]smaller[/i] than average size?

    And if that means scaling back the titillating a bit while you work on the empowering because your character is being treated as a joke, then that's a trade-off worth making. That was the decision Marvel made for Carol Danvers, and that's the decision DC pretended to make for Power Girl. And it's a smart one. Skimpy, revealing outfits on women in comic books are all over the damn place, even in the reboot (e.g., Wonder Woman, Starfire, Harley Quinn). For a flagship character you're trying to rebrand as a major property, you can do better.

    Again, there is no contradiction between empowering women and titillating males. You have the wrong idea of what empowerment is. You talk as if anything which men like is degrading to women. That's the basic feminist sexual class conflict doctrine.

    I'm pointing out that "bad boy" and "male model" are empowering to men as much as they are titillating to women. Do you disagree?

    No, but why don't you apply the same principle to women?

    True, but in both cases the costumes were still skintight catsuits that covered theme completely. If anything you're supporting my point here by showing how they can both be "extremely sexy" without wearing outfits that are, well, next to nothing.

    Skin-tight costumes are titillating whether or not they cover the whole body. You are implying that tightly stretched spandex over PG's large boobs is okay but a hole over her boobs is not.

    The difference between the outlandish outfits we see female characters put in for superhero costumes (or fantasy costumes since we're basically discussing the chainmail bikini here) is 1) that they have no or extremely uncommon analogs in day-to-day fashion (compare to how you said the male costumes "mirrors what a guy might wear in real life.") and/or 2) are impractical to the point where they break verisimilitude entirely and ruin a reader's suspension of disbelief.

    Entertainment does not have to conform to real life. That's what makes it entertainment.

    Like PG, Starfire was one of those characters where good writing has at times elevated her to the point of being far more than mere eye candy, but look, now suddenly in recent issues she's in space wearing an outfit that completely covers her and yet she's still doing just fine as the book's signature eye candy! So why not a design that handles both empowerment and sexuality equally?

    So you don't have a problem with a female character being eye candy, it just has to be the right kind of eye candy. Eye candy is eye candy. Titillation is titillation. What is the diff between a boob window and a skin-tight costume? The boobs are just as visible either way.

    But why does she need a boob window to be that character? If the position was reversed and she had never had a boob window and you were sitting down to pitch your new design to DC for the reboot, what arguments would you use that PG should really have a boob window? Saying "well she's a sexually assertive woman who is unashamed of said sexuality" is great and all, but there's a real unfortunate implication there if you're then saying that to show that she must have a boob window.

    Nobody is saying she must have a boob window. We just don't see why must we must ot have one. There doesn't have to be a "need" for one. We have it because we like it. It's called fun, you wouldn't understand.

    @fodigg said:

    You continue to think "feminist" is a magical spell that which you might cast and win the argument. That's not the case. I'm not the one being selective when I fail to point out the exceptions.

    No, I am pointing out that your argument is based on a rigid ideology rather than logic and objective, real-world observations. The numerous instances of entertainment which caters to women are not exceptional.

    Before you blamed the fans. And if you think the artist doesn't inform a character's representation in comics, I'm not sure what to say to that.

    I was criticizing fans who are overly self-conscious of PG's boobs and costume. Yes the artists have input to the characterization but they have to characterize according to how the character is written.

    Newsflash, women also drink beer. Also, do you not see the conflict in saying "X is for Y, but I'm sure there are Xes for Z as well." All you're doing, repeatedly, is pointing out the status quo and saying "see?" as if by the very nature of being the way things currently are means it's the way things ought to be.

    Men drink a lot more frequently and heavily than women. No, I don't see the conflict in pointing out that there is entertainment which caters to both sexes, rather than only entertainment which caters to men, as you ludicrously claim. The status quo exists because the psychological natures of men and woman dictate that it be so. You are just trying to argue that it is due to the interests of one sex is somehow imposed on the other sex, i.e., you are making feminist ideological assumptions.You haven't given any support for these assumptions.

    Avatar image for powergirlfan
    PowerGirlFan

    344

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #79  Edited By PowerGirlFan

    @fodigg said:

    @PowerGirlFan said:

    @fodigg said:

    @PowerGirlFan said:

    The fact remains that male attraction is primarily physical and female attraction is primarily personal.

    This is just wrong. It is simply wrong. And it's the basis for your entire argument.

    That is no argument at all.

    What kind of discussion are you expecting to have when we disagree on such a fundamental premise?

    One wherein we both recognize, acknowledge and address those premises, as I am doing.

    Avatar image for fodigg
    fodigg

    6244

    Forum Posts

    2603

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 7

    #80  Edited By fodigg

    @PowerGirlFan said:

    @fodigg said:

    @PowerGirlFan said:

    @fodigg said:

    @PowerGirlFan said:

    The fact remains that male attraction is primarily physical and female attraction is primarily personal.

    This is just wrong. It is simply wrong. And it's the basis for your entire argument.

    That is no argument at all.

    What kind of discussion are you expecting to have when we disagree on such a fundamental premise?

    One wherein we both recognize, acknowledge and address those premises, as I am doing.

    So you want to have this discussion, but only with someone who agrees with your worldview. Gotcha. The following is the substance of your argument, and you've been paraphrasing it throughout the thread:

    • The status quo exists because people want it to exist
    • People should want the status quo because X gender stereotyes are unassailably true
    • If you think otherwise, you are a crazed feminist

    The status quo does not justify itself by being the status quo. Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's good. Sure, majority rules can do a lot for justice, but it tends to screw over minority groups and underrepresented groups. In the comic book industry and especially at DC, women are definitely underrepresented.

    Gender stereotypes are self-reinforcing but rarely based on reality. As with any stereotype, you're starting with your conclusion and then painting broad swaths of varied humanity with a single brush. And you're pointing to the output of the very media in question as your supporting evidence.

    Feminism is not the bogeyman you make it out to be. You are using it as some sort of buzzword to dismiss a perspective you don't like without actually engaging with that perspective.

    -

    Are you really surprised that I'm weary of answering the same tired arguments from you again and again? You've yet to offer even one compelling argument for why PG should have the boob window (or skimpy outfits generally). All you've said, essentially, is "people like it." Unless something in your argument changes, we've said pretty much all we can on our differing perspectives.

    Avatar image for sethysquare
    sethysquare

    3965

    Forum Posts

    150

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 1

    User Lists: 1

    #81  Edited By sethysquare

    @fodigg said:

    @sethysquare said:

    What????

    I'm pointing out that "bad boy" and "male model" are empowering to men as much as they are titillating to women. Do you disagree?

    Both Black Widow and Anne Hathaway are extremely sexy. Catwoman in general uses her sex appeal to get what she wants. It is like that in DKR also.
    As for Black Widow, did she really need to show her butt in all the posters and lower her zipper to show that much cleavage?

    True, but in both cases the costumes were still skintight catsuits that covered theme completely. If anything you're supporting my point here by showing how they can both be "extremely sexy" without wearing outfits that are, well, next to nothing.

    Whats the difference? Boob window is not an uncommon phenomena. And women wears corsets too. But even so, whats the difference between a midriff and a corset?

    The difference between the outlandish outfits we see female characters put in for superhero costumes (or fantasy costumes since we're basically discussing the chainmail bikini here) is 1) that they have no or extremely uncommon analogs in day-to-day fashion (compare to how you said the male costumes "mirrors what a guy might wear in real life.") and/or 2) are impractical to the point where they break verisimilitude entirely and ruin a reader's suspension of disbelief.

    Starfire has been shown to be a very sexual female even before the reboot. Now just taken to another level. But what else changed was how she seem to act like a man now, instead of being the female who cried her heart out for the man who left her, she now takes control and is probably one of the most powerful female in the universe. RHATO showed exactly how terrifyingly powerful she is.

    My problem with Starfire's change was not that she's "suddenly a sexual character" or "suddenly she has an impractical costume" because she already had those and I liked the character pre-reboot. The problem with Starfire's portrayal after the reboot was:

    • The random, out-of-context pinup posing throughout the issue.
    • The goldfish memory thing that made it seem like Roy was taking advantage of the mentally disabled alien supermodel.
    • The complete reversal of her free love personality into a "fun sucks, let's have unemotional sex" ice queen personality.
    • Her apparent willingness to just go along with whatever Jason wanted, for no reason, and the fact that the only time she showed any personal agency was when she was fulfilling an obvious male fantasy with Roy.

    It's improved somewhat since then but she's still a mostly sullen "fun sucks"-style 'badass' which is lame because those characters are all-too-frequent. Like PG, Starfire was one of those characters where good writing has at times elevated her to the point of being far more than mere eye candy, but look, now suddenly in recent issues she's in space wearing an outfit that completely covers her and yet she's still doing just fine as the book's signature eye candy! So why not a design that handles both empowerment and sexuality equally?

    Also, Powergirl is also a very strong individual. She is assertive, confident and a no-nonsense girl. So what if she would like to have a night out and hook up with a guy. She is still an assertive, confident woman.

    I agree. So what? I have no problem with any of that. But why does she need a boob window to be that character? If the position was reversed and she had never had a boob window and you were sitting down to pitch your new design to DC for the reboot, what arguments would you use that PG should really have a boob window? Saying "well she's a sexually assertive woman who is unashamed of said sexuality" is great and all, but there's a real unfortunate implication there if you're then saying that to show that she must have a boob window.

    Also, sure, why not, lets compare Carol Denvers, the only female book in marvel with Powergirl. Carol Denvers have never been like that at all. Why not compare Ms Marvel to Wonder Woman, Black Canary, Batwoman, Supergirl and good news, all of them are selling better and are even more empowering and well written.

    I brought up Carol Danvers because she just went through similar fan wailing over the retiring of her Cockrum designed pinup suit. What was unfair about comparing that to PG's situation in the revamp?

    you statements are so contradicting. Now you're complaining about the old costume?

    its okay. I understand, you live to argue and can't look at matters from more than 1 perspective.

    Also whatever you said about Starfire was in the first issue, which havebeen explained time and time again and it make sense. subsequent issues also showed she is a kickass character.

    Again, Starfire's old costume has always been very revealing and it is the nature of her race. Tamaranians are sexual beings. Just take a look at new guardians and the tons of tamaranian man and woman.

    Also, the outfit doesn't make the character. Just FYI, they also changed Starfire's outfit to cover up her whole body to your pleasing.

    BECAUSE SEXUAL EQUALITY MEANS YOU MUST COVER UP YOUR WHOLE BODY AND NOT ALLOW ANYONE TO LOOK AT YOUR SKIN. BECAUSE ITS A SIN TO EXPOSED YOUR BODY AND ITS SEXIST.

    FEMINISM RULES.

    Avatar image for lykopis
    lykopis

    10845

    Forum Posts

    40100

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #82  Edited By lykopis

    @sethysquare:

    BECAUSE SEXUAL EQUALITY MEANS YOU MUST COVER UP YOUR WHOLE BODY AND NOT ALLOW ANYONE TO LOOK AT YOUR SKIN. BECAUSE ITS A SIN TO EXPOSED YOUR BODY AND ITS SEXIST.

    FEMINISM RULES.

    Really now? Is this where you are going with this? That's ridiculous, feminism has nothing to do with the protests being made about the sexualisation of female characters (and a couple male). Its people who are getting more and more embarrassed to read a comic in public because some of them almost are like Playboy.

    Leave feminism out of it. If you are going to use the term, use it appropriately instead of redefining it in an attempt to detract from the conversation. Strawman, dude.

    Strawman.

    Avatar image for hawkeye446
    Hawkeye446

    3975

    Forum Posts

    8730

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 1

    User Lists: 30

    #83  Edited By Hawkeye446

    @lykopis said:

    @sethysquare:

    BECAUSE SEXUAL EQUALITY MEANS YOU MUST COVER UP YOUR WHOLE BODY AND NOT ALLOW ANYONE TO LOOK AT YOUR SKIN. BECAUSE ITS A SIN TO EXPOSED YOUR BODY AND ITS SEXIST.

    FEMINISM RULES.

    Really now? Is this where you are going with this? That's ridiculous, feminism has nothing to do with the protests being made about the sexualisation of female characters (and a couple male). Its people who are getting more and more embarrassed to read a comic in public because some of them almost are like Playboy.

    Leave feminism out of it. If you are going to use the term, use it appropriately instead of redefining it in an attempt to detract from the conversation. Strawman, dude.

    Strawman.

    TRUTH.

    Avatar image for fodigg
    fodigg

    6244

    Forum Posts

    2603

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 7

    #84  Edited By fodigg

    @sethysquare said:

    Again, Starfire's old costume has always been very revealing and it is the nature of her race. Tamaranians are sexual beings. Just take a look at new guardians and the tons of tamaranian man and woman.

    This is the argument where you pretend that this fictional character (or race in this case) actually exists and makes their own decisions and is not a fantasy created by an artist. Many different artists with different perspectives and talents over the span of years, in fact. Readers are under no obligation to accept such an explanation without examination.

    Avatar image for batwatch
    BatWatch

    5487

    Forum Posts

    274

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 238

    User Lists: 1

    #85  Edited By BatWatch

    @Hawkeye446 said:

    @lykopis said:

    @sethysquare:

    BECAUSE SEXUAL EQUALITY MEANS YOU MUST COVER UP YOUR WHOLE BODY AND NOT ALLOW ANYONE TO LOOK AT YOUR SKIN. BECAUSE ITS A SIN TO EXPOSED YOUR BODY AND ITS SEXIST.

    FEMINISM RULES.

    Really now? Is this where you are going with this? That's ridiculous, feminism has nothing to do with the protests being made about the sexualisation of female characters (and a couple male). Its people who are getting more and more embarrassed to read a comic in public because some of them almost are like Playboy.

    Leave feminism out of it. If you are going to use the term, use it appropriately instead of redefining it in an attempt to detract from the conversation. Strawman, dude.

    Strawman.

    TRUTH.

    I third that sentiment. I am definitively anti-feminist and I dislike the depiction of most women in comic books.

    Avatar image for powergirlfan
    PowerGirlFan

    344

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #86  Edited By PowerGirlFan

    @fodiggsaid:

    @PowerGirlFan said:

    @fodigg said:

    @PowerGirlFan said:

    @fodigg said:

    @PowerGirlFan said:

    The fact remains that male attraction is primarily physical and female attraction is primarily personal.

    This is just wrong. It is simply wrong. And it's the basis for your entire argument.

    That is no argument at all.

    What kind of discussion are you expecting to have when we disagree on such a fundamental premise?

    One wherein we both recognize, acknowledge and address those premises, as I am doing.

    So you want to have this discussion, but only with someone who agrees with your worldview. Gotcha.

    I said recognize the premise we disagree on, not agree with me on that premise.

    The following is the substance of your argument, and you've been paraphrasing it throughout the thread:

    • The status quo exists because people want it to exist
    • People should want the status quo because X gender stereotyes are unassailably true
    • If you think otherwise, you are a crazed feminist

    Close enough, despite the loaded terms. However, not all that is status quo is natural. Political, financial and intellectual elites do have a great influence on how we think and behave. A lot of our thought and behavior is artificial and contrary to reality, which explains the successful influence of feminism on mainstream society.

    The status quo does not justify itself by being the status quo. Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's good. Sure, majority rules can do a lot for justice, but it tends to screw over minority groups and underrepresented groups. In the comic book industry and especially at DC, women are definitely underrepresented.

    Amanda Conner is a woman, and she drew PG with large boobs and a boob window. Amanda probably knows something about women, maybe more than you.

    The sexual "status quo" is justified because it is the result of natural human behavior. What do you think causes it? If minority rule squashes minorities, then it is not just. But who said anything about minority rule? People are free to individually behave how they like.

    The fact that comic book writers and artists are not males is not relevant, since they don't write for themselves, they write for their market, because they want to sell their comics to other people. More than half the population is female. The fact that DC sells a lot of comics indicates that they are representing female readers very nicely, in some ways but perhaps not all, and that they (not only teenage boys) do identify with PG's characterization.

    Gender stereotypes are self-reinforcing but rarely based on reality. As with any stereotype, you're starting with your conclusion and then painting broad swaths of varied humanity with a single brush. And you're pointing to the output of the very media in question as your supporting evidence.

    I am not talking about stereotypes, I am talking about the way most men and women naturally think, feel and behave to varying individual extents. Of course individuals greatly vary but we also have much in common. You are the one asking PG to conform to your idea of how women normally should behave.

    Feminism is not the bogeyman you make it out to be. You are using it as some sort of buzzword to dismiss a perspective you don't like without actually engaging with that perspective.

    -You are labeling my view of the sexes as "stereotypes" for that same reason. I would gladly engage with your feminist viewpoint. I have been engaging with it.Feminism is an unrealistic ideology contrived to suit political and social goals and has unfortunately made great inroads into mainstream society using psychological tactics.

    Are you really surprised that I'm weary of answering the same tired arguments from you again and again?

    I know exactly how you feel. You keep repeating your arguments and it's the reason I keep repeating mine.

    You've yet to offer even one compelling argument for why PG should have the boob window (or skimpy outfits generally). All you've said, essentially, is "people like it." Unless something in your argument changes, we've said pretty much all we can on our differing perspectives.

    I am not even saying PG should have a boob window, I merely like it. You think she shouldn't have it, so you need to explain why. If you merely don't like it, that is all you have to say; but you are claiming that there is something actually wrong about it.

    @fodigg said:

    @sethysquare said:

    Again, Starfire's old costume has always been very revealing and it is the nature of her race. Tamaranians are sexual beings. Just take a look at new guardians and the tons of tamaranian man and woman.

    This is the argument where you pretend that this fictional character (or race in this case) actually exists and makes their own decisions and is not a fantasy created by an artist. Many different artists with different perspectives and talents over the span of years, in fact. Readers are under no obligation to accept such an explanation without examination.

    No, he is saying that there is a fictional rationale for why Starfire in particular is sexual. It is you who is pretending that fictional characters are real by obliging them to behave like real ones. Since Starfire is a fictional character, a fictional rationale is all she needs. However, readers don't have to like the idea of a race of highly sexual beings. It's not that unrealistic, though, since a race of highly sexual beings does exist: Starfire's readers.

    Avatar image for powergirlfan
    PowerGirlFan

    344

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #87  Edited By PowerGirlFan

    @PsychoKnightssaid:

    @PowerGirlFan:

    1. The only distinctive element of Power Girl's costume was the boob window.

    I already stated explicitly that I do not care about the size. You are the one who mentioned it.

    2. I believe it is immoral to display your body to other people, and so do most people. That is why you are not allowed to walk around town naked.

    More importantly, the vast majority of women do not go around flaunting their boobs because they are not skanks. Artists render girls in comics that way to market it to teenage guys who think with their wieners.

    3. I bet you could stand on a street corner and not see one woman in a hundred display as much cleavage. It is an oddity.

    4. As I've already said, the only reason any girl would display that much cleavage is to get male (or lesbian) attention.

    5. No, it does not.

    1.Her costume didn't always have the boob window but the rest of it stayed basically the same, so there must be something else distinctive about it.

    2. Showing cleavage is not the same as being naked. The average swimsuit displays a woman's body as much as or more than most female superhero costumes.

    3. Rare is not the same as odd. Most women don't have as much cleavage as PG.

    4. A reason, but not the only reason, and not a bad one either. People display their bodies because they are proud of them. It's a form of personal expression.

    5. There is no feature of PG's original costume (any version of it) which is not represented in regular clothing and other types of costumes for women.

    @PsychoKnights said:

    I third that sentiment. I am definitively anti-feminist and I dislike the depiction of most women in comic books.

    I don't understand what is immoral about it.

    Avatar image for fodigg
    fodigg

    6244

    Forum Posts

    2603

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 7

    #88  Edited By fodigg

    @PowerGirlFan said:

    I said recognize the premise we disagree on, not agree with me on that premise.

    Maybe "we both acknowledge that premise" doesn't read the same way to us both then. If I mistook your meaning I apologize.

    Close enough, despite the loaded terms. However, not all that is status quo is natural. Political, financial and intellectual elites do have a great influence on how we think and behave. A lot of our thought and behavior is artificial and contrary to reality, which explains the successful influence of feminism on mainstream society.

    If by loaded terms you mean "crazed feminist" I believe you used that previously. Or somebody did and I'm confused. I dunno, I'm kinda taking it from multiple fronts here. And I don't see how feminists count as "elites". I'm glad, however, that you agree the status quo is not self-justifying.

    Amanda Conner is a woman, and she drew PG with large boobs and a boob window. Amanda probably knows something about women, maybe more than you.
    The sexual "status quo" is justified because it is the result of natural human behavior. What do you think causes it? If minority rule squashes minorities, then it is not just. But who said anything about minority rule? People are free to individually behave how they like.
    The fact that comic book writers and artists are not males is not relevant, since they don't write for themselves, they write for their market, because they want to sell their comics to other people. More than half the population is female. The fact that DC sells a lot of comics indicates that they are representing female readers very nicely, in some ways but perhaps not all, and that they (not only teenage boys) do identify with PG's characterization.

    So first you make great pains to point out Amanda's gender, then say gender of the creators don't matter. Okay. Then you assume that because the population has a lot of women that automatically means they're buying DC comics. That's an unfounded claim.

    I am not talking about stereotypes, I am talking about the way most men and women naturally think, feel and behave to varying individual extents. Of course individuals greatly vary but we also have much in common. You are the one asking PG to conform to your idea of how women normally should behave.

    You're pretty much defining what a stereotype is there. A generalization about a group that, though individuals vary, they all follow to some degree. I'm amazed that you're so insistent about validating traditional gender roles and yet you accuse me of trying to shame or hem in PG's sexuality. That's inconsistent. And asking for the removal of offensive and somewhat degrading attire from a character that was put there by male creators is not trying to force PG to "conform to my standards." No "double reverse-offended" claims here please, the outfit is either a problem or it isn't. And again, PG is not a real person who can make her own decisions. The creators have responsibility here.

    You are labeling my view of the sexes as "stereotypes" for that same reason. I would gladly engage with your feminist viewpoint. I have been engaging with it.Feminism is an unrealistic ideology contrived to suit political and social goals and has unfortunately made great inroads into mainstream society using psychological tactics.

    You're still just attacking the label. And you're not supporting your statements either. How bout this, try phrasing your argument without using the buzzword. You should be able to do that if it has substance. I'm not looking to derail the thread with a rousing debate about feminism, I'm trying to cut past that and get down to the arguments themselves regardless of labels. Note that I have not called you by any label this entire thread. If I were really as militant a feminist as you've been implying, wouldn't I have, at the very least, attacked you as a "typical male chauvinist" or some such arbitrary accusation to distract from the arguments?

    I know exactly how you feel. You keep repeating your arguments and it's the reason I keep repeating mine.

    I'm curious, could you articulate my arguments in a bulleted list like I did yours? I'm not trying to be a dick with this, it really would clear up confusion if we confirmed we both understood the other's position. I can tell you're frustrated too because we're talking past each other, so let's get the discussion back on track.

    I am not even saying PG should have a boob window, I merely like it. You think she shouldn't have it, so you need to explain why. If you merely don't like it, that is all you have to say; but you are claiming that there is something actually wrong about it.

    If you're simply counter-claiming by saying there's nothing wrong with it, fine. That's a weaker argument but hey, I guess that means they made the right choice to remove it if there's no compelling reason to include it. And for the record it's perfectly fine that you like it. It would even be perfectly fine if I liked it. We can like things and still recognize they might not be appropriate or might have unfortunate implications.

    No, he is saying that there is a fictional rationale for why Starfire in particular is sexual. It is you who is pretending that fictional characters are real by obliging them to behave like real ones. Since Starfire is a fictional character, a fictional rationale is all she needs. However, readers don't have to like the idea of a race of highly sexual beings. It's not that unrealistic, though, since a race of highly sexual beings does exist: Starfire's readers.

    But there is nothing in that archetype that requires the skimpy outfit all the time, which Red Hood is currently in the process of proving even with the same creative team that got so much flak to begin with (although I still lament the replacement of her "free love" personality with the all new "ice queen mcsulkypants" personality). And no, bad hand-waving and author saving throws are not always valid all the time just because it's fiction. Good fiction requires good explanations. The onus is on the writer, and the 'green-skinned-space-babe' is an old and tired trope that needs to be retired. Especially when Starfire has grown into being so much more than that.

    Avatar image for batwatch
    BatWatch

    5487

    Forum Posts

    274

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 238

    User Lists: 1

    #89  Edited By BatWatch

    @PowerGirlFan:

    1. It is white and skin tight. That is not particularly distinctive. The only thing that was ever distinctive about her costume was the boob window.

    2. I didn't say it was the same. I was just demonstrating that there are senses of decency that almost everyone in society holds. The vast majority of people would find it inappropriate to dress with a boob window such as Power Girl's in almost all situations. '

    In swimwear, you have to have less clothing to move fluidly in the water...unless you are talking about two pieces which are created to attract attention. Unless you are telling me that Power Girl is trying to be hydrodynamic in her costume design, then the boob window still makes no sense. Actually, scratch that because the boob window would create more drag, so that still would not work.

    3. They are pretty d*** similar. The point was that women, with rare exceptions, do not dress like that and do not approve of dressing like that. Those that do are just showing off their bodies for attention which is petty as far as I am concerned and reflects a need for outside approval which is disturbing.

    For the second or third time in this conversation, you bring up the size of Power Girl's boobs. You are the one concerned about her size, not me.

    4. Bull crap. People display their sexual body parts to attract sexual attention. Would it be personal expression if I wore super tight pants that revealed the exact shape and length of my penis?

    5. If they were regular clothes, then you would be able to find at least one in a hundred women who dress that way. You can't. It isn't.

    Your final comment appears to have nothing to do with the quote you cited.

    Look, if you like the boob window, then fine, but do not pretend you have any desire to see it other than the basest, you like looking at her boobs. It is perfectly normal for you to enjoy the sight of them.

    However, I wish you would stop trying to claim that sort of outfit is normative though. It isn't.

    If you think it is cool for men and women to flaunt their body, that's cool. I disagree with you, but its a free country. Personally, I think there are more than enough girls in the world who have already been brainwashed to think that they need to flaunt their body to get male approval, and I would prefer it if comics would stop adding to that idea.

    I doubt I will be responding at length with you again. If you cannot even admit that Power Girl's boob window outfit is out of the norm, then (laughs) you are clearly beyond reasonable discussion on this issue.

    Avatar image for rav4
    rav4

    1689

    Forum Posts

    3306

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 7

    #90  Edited By rav4

    Interesting blog I found, that illustrates a few of the problems I have with Nu-PG and part of why I dropped Worlds' Finest:

    The “HOW SHAMELESS IS NEW 52 POWER GIRL?” Game!

    I’m gonna start this off by saying that I’m no feminist. My beliefs tend to be mostly liberal, but I try to laugh at the extremist assholes on all sides, and oh boy, Tumblr hassoooo many on the left.

    But one example where I felt more sympathy for the ladies was when this cover was released:



    Plenty of fans cried foul over Power Girl’s new look. And while granted, the costume is depressingly forgettable, the biggest change was hard to miss.

    THEY COVERED HER BOOB WINDOW!





    Now as much as we guys wanted to, and some of us did, protest this, it was pretty obvious that this was inevitable. Karen’s boob window had been a running joke among fans for decades, and between the New 52 giving 90% of their cast new costumes, and all the fallout from Lobdell’s characterization of Starfire, DC Exec would have to be complete idiots to miss this opportunity to cover their asses.

    But if there’s anything the ad campaign for Arrow has taught us, it’s that we can never rule out DC Exec’s ability to find the lowest common denominator, and still manage to completely underestimate them. So I thought it might be fun to see how well they stick to the rule of keeping her tastefully covered in the series proper.

    ISSUE #1

    Early on in this issue, we see Karen running into a burning building while still wearing her civilian clothes…



    Which inevitably leads to…



    It’s amazing how that thing managed to hold togetherjust enough to censor her naughty bits. God must be a hell of a prude.

    But hey, I guess that’s just one time. It’s fairly contrived, but now that they’ve got it out of the way we can focus on her character development instead of her body, right?

    ISSUE #2

    Okay… So next issue we get a flashback to her swimming in a bikini, looking for valuable minerals to make some money.



    It’s still a pretty thinly veiled excuse to see her in a bikini in lieu of the old suit, but at least it helps explain how she makes a living.

    ISSUE #3

    What’s this? A minor nod to the boob window in a scene that primarily serves as character development?



    Wow. I can’t even call this one contrived. Sure, throwing in tasteful fan-service now doesn’t mean much when we’ve already seen so much of her in the last two issues, but at least it’s getting better. Maybe this blog wasn’t worthwhile after all. Maybe they really are learning from their mista—

    ISSUE #4

    …Ah. I suppose not, then.

    Prior to any nudity, we get some nice shots of her wiggling around in hot, sticky oil. No, really.



    Followed by an explosion that somehow leaves most of her cape intact, yet results in…



    THAT’S RIGHT! THE RETURN OF THE BOOB WINDOW!

    Now this image alone would be hilariously stupid. An attempt at subtlety that backfired so gloriously that DC Exec might as well have waved a white flag and declared “Okay, we admit it. We have no souls.”

    But combined with the above examples, it paints an almost disturbing picture of denial. I can’t tell if the team behind this honestly thinks that a suit that covers Power Girl up to the neck cancels out the sexism, even if they take it off her at every chance they get, or if they think that their readership is so dominated by brainless hormone-controlled boys that this is the only way they can sell this book. Or if they weren’t thinking at all, because they’re just those boys grown up.

    ISSUE #0

    This time around they play it safe again. Karen’s costume as Supergirl shows some leg, but nothing more than we’re used to from suits like Wonder Woman’s. In fact, I think it’s actually slightly less revealing than the main New 52 Supergirl’s suit.

    Though granted, this was probably necessary. After all, this entire issue is in flashback, and Karen & Helena only seem to be around fourteen or fifteen. Say what you will about Paul Levitz, but does he look like the kind of guy who wants his name on a book full of revealing images of underage girls?



    …I’ll retract the question.

    ISSUE #5

    So this issue decides to make up for lost time and destroy Karen’s clothes on the first fucking page.



    She’s curious about the upper limits of her invulnerability, so she decided the only logical course of action is to have Huntress get the biggest fucking laser canon they have and shoot her right in the tits.

    Ignoring the obvious safety questions, I’ll ask this: if causing damage was the stated goal here, and she knows her skin is more durable than her expensive costume, then why didn’t she just save time and money by doing this test in the nude?

    Well the answer is simple, of course. That would make this whole scene seem like a pointless excuse to show smut. And that’s not what this book is about, dammit!



    I mean really, where would you even get that idea?

    Karen goes on to spend most of the issue in this thing, but we do get another pointless flashback where she’s actually wearing clothes…



    Only for an evil robot to appear out of nowhere and burn them off…



    …Until by the time she’s beaten it, she’s in her underwear.



    Levitz tries desperately to reach through the fourth wall and build a defense for this, but without much success.



    So yeah, what the covers would have you believe is a sexed-down Power Girl has actually been hilariously juvenile.

    Though the odd part is that Huntress gets out of it okay, with the book generally focusing on her character development more than anything else.



    It’s nothing special per-se, but it’s such an honest attempt at writing a strong female character that it makes it that much more jarring when she’s being followed around by Power Girl, who’s only purpose seems to be punching stuff, losing her clothes, making ditzy expressions and flying Helena around while carrying her around in PG implied-lesbian poses.



    But then, I’m partially guilty for humoring DC with this book. I just can’t help it. I know there are much better comics out there, and dear God, there’s tons and tons of better porn out there. But neither is usually this goddamn funny. I’m amazed DC doesn’t see why they’re losing money when they’re trying to be pro-women and risque in the same titles, and end up producing content too immature for twelve year-olds. But if this rabbit hole keeps getting deeper, then I can’t afford not to see what happens next.

    Avatar image for rav4
    rav4

    1689

    Forum Posts

    3306

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 7

    #91  Edited By rav4

    Another very astute article:

    Power Girl: Empower Me!

    Power Girl means a lot to me, as a character and an icon. Not so much as a sex symbol, though, which I think she’s often reduced to. She’s so much more than a receptacle for fanboy lust. Mainstream comics do such casual disservice to female characters on a regular basis*, it hardly seems worth pointing out, but ten percent of the time, somebody will hire an artist/writer team that actually seems to know what they’re doing, and that makes all the difference.

    Especially when you’re tackling a character like Power Girl. It’s too easy to fall into characterizing her as a walking, unironic boob gag, but she always has the potential to be a real hero and, dare I say it, empower women. (And I am a woman, and so…) I told you I had a personal investment in this, lemme back it up.

    Most of my personal experience with Power Girl is drawn from her 2009 independent series, which is unquestioningly the best, but I’ve gleaned a lot of her character from earlier runs. Peej actually seems to be a character started with (mostly) good intentions. She was a feminist, but y’know, it was the 70’s, and the predominantly male comics industry didn’t have a fantastic grip on what that actually meant**. (I’m pretty sure they’re still mostly in the dark on that one.) Feminist was synonymous with ballbuster, which is synonymous with obnoxious stereotype.

    Where do you even begin with that dialogue? 70’s feminist Peej is a prime example of people not really understanding what they’re writing. Peej’s “feminist” dialogue always pits her against men, like a crutch, rather than relying on her own strengths to prop her up as an independent woman.
    It was undoubtedly a time when women were angry with the lot given to them in life, and they were perfectly right to be, but in Peej’s case, she often seemed to take it a little too far, a little too seriously, nitpicking at the smallest details and ignoring the overarching ones. She often came off as a caricature of a feminist rather than the real deal. Not to say she never had a good point…

    Just that her reactions often came off as extreme or unreasonable. (Jeez Peej, I know you’re peeved, but you could’ve just mentioned what was wrong with the logo.) And wouldn’t you know it—that’s exactly why women are so hesitant to adopt the term feminist, even today! Nobody wants to be known as a militant feminist stereotype, eager to jump down your throat at the slightest offense. (“Oh, I support equal rights, but I’m not a feminist…” Yes you fucking ARE.) I admire the uninhibited passion they give Peej in her war against the patriarchy, but I’m fairly sensitive to the “man-hater” stereotype those that attempt to demonize feminism consistently use against us.

    It was well-intentioned characterization though, even if it hasn’t aged well, and a good foundation for what was to come. She’s changed a lot since then. A lot of her “Girl Power Rage” has cooled into a stubborn (if slightly jaded) personality with a take-no-shit attitude, not afraid to throw her weight around and express herself, and she’s written on her own merit rather than in relation to male characters. And she’s written as a character more than a soap box.

    Which is where I came into Power Girl’s story, the 2009 run with Justin Gray, Jimmy Palmiotti, and Amanda Conner. Wow, just, what an utterly fantastic comic, can I just say. In a modern era where most of the conversation around Power Girl revolves around her great tracts of land, this book easily allowed readers to almost completely overlook Peej’s sexuality if we so choose. There were so many other interesting traits in her that were just that much more interesting! We had Peej as Karen Starr, intelligent, ambitious business woman. We have Karen as Power Girl, mentoring a young hero (Atlee) and adopting a city for her own. In this book, she doesn’t need anybody to tell her what to do, she just does it. She comes into the series feeling lost and homeless, and she picks herself up and carves her own path, builds her own home. Her ownfamily. You wanna talk about role models? I wanna talk about role models. Let’s talk about role models.

    Power Girl isn’t necessarily a role model specifically for girls, her strong sense of justice and toughness is accessible to any gender. But as a girl, she has a special place for me. Ignoring Peej for a minute to focus on her Karen persona: Karen owns and runs a fledgling company, and because Peej is just SO badass, it’s actually an engineering research and development company, historically a field in which women are overlooked or have difficulty being taken seriously. And while she’s doing this, she’s all woman and doesn’t try to pretend she’s not. Hey girls, did you know that you can be in awesome male-dominated careers without being masculine? Did you know that femininity isn’t a weakness? YOU DO NOW.

    And Peej as a super hero, she doesn’t wait around to be given the things she needs. She lands in a city and decides it’s the one she’s going to protect and call home. She doesn’t fuss, she just steps in and takes action. She exudes authority with just her presence. People see her around, they know who’s in charge.

    So Peej, even as Karen, is a hero. But she’s also kinda goofy and fun, she likes cheesy slasher films and teasing Atlee. She gets a bit frazzled when she’s overworked, she’s reckless a lot. She’s passionate, which can sometimes cloud her judgement. The little details in her personality make her relatable in ways I think characters like Batman and Superman aren’t. Power Girl the hero and Power Girl the person aren’t two separate personas, but a blend to make one whole person. She’s really not all that different in one persona to the next, which says to me, “you don’t have to be just Karen—you can be Power Girl, you can be the whole package.”

    Then there’s the elephant in the room, the one everyone wants to touch for whatever reason, but nobody wants to really talk about. I think we can all agree that Peej is sexy. She’s written as a sexy character, she’s drawn as a sexy character. “Sexy” is a big part of who she is. And here’s where making a Power Girl comic gets difficult: the creatorsreally need to understand the line between “sexy” and “sexualization.” Power Girl isn’t the type of girl to pander to an audience, and writing or drawing her doing so is a disservice to the character. She isn’t a submissive kitten, she’s aggressive and self-assured! Sexy is empowering! In a world of the whore/Madonna complex, it’s just as important to tell girls that they can be sexy and strong, as much as it’s important to tell women that they don’t have to be sexy to be strong. When you sexualize a strong character though, you’re telling women that they must be sexy to be desirable, that your sexiness trumps your power in terms of value. GUESS WHAT? THAT’S NOT OKAY. In a comic about a powerful woman, sexuality should be the garnish of a character, not the main course. It’s limiting, harmful, and honestly redundant to define a woman by her sexuality. So knock it off.

    So I like that Peej is sexy. Her sexual confidence actually boosts my confidence in a lot of ways. She doesn’t apologize for being sexy, but she doesn’t define herself that way. And she doesn’t define her sexiness with just her body—her POWER is part of what makes her sexy. So I, as a woman, look at her and think, “yeah, I want to be like that too. My own sexiness doesn’t have to rely only on the way I look. Confidence is sexy.”

    Which is why Amanda Conners’ fierce Power Girl is a million times more sexy,

    than this male-gazey Power Girl. I hate this cover so much. It strips Peej of her sexual agency—she’s looking up at the viewer, and her belly-up pose gives the impression of submission. Her body language is passive, and her body itself is the focus of the picture itself, as though she’s offering herself up to the viewer.

    I own Adam Hughes’ artbook, I love his work, this is still AWFUL

    Just like the different ways people draw her contribute to either her empowerment or her sexualization, writing can produce the same effects! I talked about how much I loved Justin Grey and Jimmy Palmiotti’s characterization of Power Girl, but I think they could stand to make less “silly boys my eyes are up here” gags. Instead, I would love to see them make “busty girl problems” gags. Like, how the hell does Peej find bras that fit her!? It’s hard enough to find a nice D-cup bra, man, finding anything in her size must be HELL. Does the JLA have a special “super heroine” bra reserve!? And finding flattering clothing that fits her chest, how does she do it??? I concede that men probably have no idea that women deal with these problems, but they can always goask a woman.

    “Hey, we want to do a boob gag, and ‘my eyes are up here’ has been done to death. What’s a boob gag that would be funny to you, my busty friend?” FRESH

    It’s a small detail, but I think it would’ve raised the writing bar for those books several levels. I’m not really complaining though, it’s not great, but it’s not offensive. No… No, let’s talk about JSA if you want to get into what’s offensive.

    This is the lowest point in Power Girl history. This point is so low, the limbo stick has phased through the floor and into the depths of hell.

    In that panel, Peej explains to Superman that she’s looking for an identity to fill that hole in her costume. General advice? Don’t use holes as symbols or metaphors when women are involved unless you are actually referencing vaginas for whatever reason. Holes are historically associated with vaginas in the literary world, and that’s not changing any time soon. It’s a stickyhairy CHALLENGING (jeez) metaphor to work with without seeming misogynistic—it’s just not worth it.

    Which is only PART of why that exchange was so utterly tasteless. I really hate this JSA arc as a whole, but the above conversation is really just THE. WORST. Power Girl is driven up the wall by a man, made to seem like an incapable, hysterical (WANNA SEE THE MISOGYNISTIC ETYMOLOGY OF THAT WORD) woman. Then she goes to Superman for advice, crying all over him and admitting that she has no real identity for herself. She doesn’t talk to him as one individual to another, but rather he is propped up as a paternalistic figure. I cannot stress enough that Peej is a grown woman. Supes is her cousin and an equal, not a father or other authority figure. The writer reduces her to a child, unable to handle her own life and reduced to tears while seeking counsel from her “better.”

    There are good ideas about the hole in Peej’s costume in the above conversation, butthe train of storytelling is derailed and flung into space. I like the idea of the hole’s origins: Peej intended to find her symbol and sew it in eventually. In my fantasy alternative canon, she was so busy saving people and being a hero that she forgot about finding a symbol, ultimately discovering that she already defines herself by her actions and doesn’t need one. In this roundtable***, Delphic notes that “it was meant to be symbolic. The hole was meant to represent a Kryptonian character breaking away from the shadow of the ‘S.’” And he’s got it in one!

    So the commentary about the hole in that issue was sexist, but the hole itself wasn’t. Power Girl’s skimpy costume was a matter of presentation and writing, something difficult to handle gracefully, but worth doing. Unfortunately, DC glossed over the greater problem with Power Girl and attributed everyone’s complaints to her boob hole. And we got this:

    Kevin Maguire and George Perez (both refuse to take credit for the redesign)

    That costume is a completely unmitigated disaster of graphic design. DC made the apparent decision that the only problematic element of her character was her sexy costume, and substituted it with the more unflatteringly unattractive bodystocking they could possibly find. They ignored practically every rule of fashion design, and it shows. The costume is an eyesore.

    And it doesn’t even solve the problem. She’s less likely to be hideously sexualized in this costume (although they rip up her clothes so much in World’s Finest, I would hazard to say that’s not even true), but it emanates this idea that they’re chastising Peej for being “too sexy.” There was nothing wrong with how she was dressed before, as long as the artists weren’t being exploitive. Don’t give her an ugly costume—just get your editors up to date on what’s appropriate! It’s like they’re applying an ice pack to a stab wound.

    They’re also enforcing the idea that a woman showing skin is inappropriate and sexual. News flash, a leotard and some cleavage ventilation does not mean a woman is trying to titillate her audience. Closing Power Girl’s boob hole reinforces the breasts must be interpreted as sexual, instead of simply being another part of a woman’s body. The costume change seems almost Puritanical; perhaps the overcompensation of Peej’s costume was due to the sexualization scandals that plagued the release of the New 52.

    Either way, I hope we get the old Peej back at some point. I’m not about to hold my breath though, so for now I guess I’ll sigh over my Power Girl TPs and revel in how cool and empowering she can be as a feminist symbol.

    I wanna grow up and be Power Girl.

    Avatar image for powergirlfan
    PowerGirlFan

    344

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #92  Edited By PowerGirlFan

    I like what both of those articles say about PG being sexy and respectable. PG looks and dresses sexy but she also looks and acts strong at the same time - her personal is not based around sex appeal. The first one nicely elaborates the same point I started this thread with, though it leaves out the open promiscuity issue.

    Sorkin is wrong about 70's PG being a charicature of feminism - feminists at that time really were commonly that confrontational and ridiculous and many remained so for a couple of decades thereafter.

    Avatar image for powergirlfan
    PowerGirlFan

    344

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #93  Edited By PowerGirlFan

    @fodigg

    I meant recognize the points we basically disagree on.

    I used "crazed feminists". Only someone preoccupied with radical ideology could have originated a notion which goes against common experience. That's not a loaded term - I really think they are crazed.

    Feminism is elitist and authoritarian. Feminists think they know what is good for everyone and that this gives them the right to impose it on everyone. Feminism is supported by all of our mainstream institutions.

    Some of the status quo is not "self justified". Partly it comes from basic human nature and partly it is from other influences on society.

    Conner's gender indicates that the artists gender doesn't affect how she is drawn in the respect we are discussing.

    I'm not assuming that women buy a lot of comics, I'm assuming that DC would like them to buy a lot of comics and that the way they draw PG would reflect this, i.e. that she is not just drawn to please males. She is probably drawn in a way that pleases both.

    A generalization perhaps but not a stereotype. Stereotypes are wholesale misrepresentations. Generalizations are merely inaccurate at the level of the individual.

    I'm not insisting on tradition, I'm recognizing innateness of behavior, though traditional roles are built on nature. That is a different topic to sexual morality.

    Sauce for the goose is sauce for the ganders. If you object to PG being made to cater to male fantasy then I can equally object to you wishing her to cater to your ideas of how women should dress. I wish PG to be neither a male fantasy or a "proper miss". I recognize that the character doesn't choose how she dresses - that the writers choose how she looks. That is beside my point.

    I have already engaged with your feminist view with arguments. I was merely identifying where that view originates. "Male gaze" is a feminist theory. Look it up. "Male gaze" is a buzzword. You haven't labeled me because the ideas I am presenting don't have a label - don't originate with a set ideology.

    I don't believe you are a militant feminist. I am merely recognizing that your "male gaze" argument is based on feminist ideas and addressing them accordingly. Maybe you don't know they are feminist, but that doesn't make them less so.

    Your argument is basically the opposite of what you said mine is:

    • The sexual status quo is artificially imposed on us, not a natural result of innate tendencies of both genders.
    • That is a reason why we should not indulge the status quo in either entertainment or real life.
    • This is nothing to do with feminist ideology - feminists just happen to be right.
    • In reality, men and women are both equally attracted by physical and personal qualities.
    • Women should not need to show off their boobs for the entertainment of males.

    I don't believe they "made the right choice" in removing the boob window, because they did so for the wrong reasons. But PG's costume has not had a boob window at all times - it is not a defining feature of her costume, so there is no grounds for actually insisting on it being there either. (I liked the yellow-and-gold jumpsuit PG wore in her Atlantean phase, which covered her completely from her neck to her toes. I especially liked that it showed off her boobs! Really, how could you hide boobs that size under spandex?) I am merely disagreeing with some people's reasons for objecting to it, because sex appeal is an important aspect of PG - but only one aspect. The way you and others talk, the boob window makes her into a vamp. I don't see it that way.

    I agree that good fiction requires good explanations but it is not the explanation of Starfire you object to, ti's the thing the authors attempted to explain: she's a sex-kitten cliche which does not reflect how women really are. She would have to be alien, because human women don't behave that way. But she is a cliche nonetheless and therefore uninteresting. The explanation doesn't save her. PG is not a cliche, she just dresses sexy - but not like a tramp.

    Avatar image for sethysquare
    sethysquare

    3965

    Forum Posts

    150

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 1

    User Lists: 1

    #94  Edited By sethysquare

    I dont understand why are people so afraid of sex. It has been done very tastefully and its weird how come no one complains about Superman's oufit when it burns in flames.

    Its not like worlds' finest was done in a very offensive way or anything. There are actual people who are characterised like karen. Just like there are people who are like helena.

    I just some people here are just really afraid of sexuality. There was nothing playboyish about any of the images.

    Avatar image for powergirlfan
    PowerGirlFan

    344

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #95  Edited By PowerGirlFan

    @PsychoKnights said:

    @PowerGirlFan:

    1. It is white and skin tight. That is not particularly distinctive. The only thing that was ever distinctive about her costume was the boob window.

    2. I didn't say it was the same. I was just demonstrating that there are senses of decency that almost everyone in society holds. The vast majority of people would find it inappropriate to dress with a boob window such as Power Girl's in almost all situations. '

    In swimwear, you have to have less clothing to move fluidly in the water...unless you are talking about two pieces which are created to attract attention. Unless you are telling me that Power Girl is trying to be hydrodynamic in her costume design, then the boob window still makes no sense. Actually, scratch that because the boob window would create more drag, so that still would not work.

    3. They are pretty d*** similar. The point was that women, with rare exceptions, do not dress like that and do not approve of dressing like that. Those that do are just showing off their bodies for attention which is petty as far as I am concerned and reflects a need for outside approval which is disturbing.

    For the second or third time in this conversation, you bring up the size of Power Girl's boobs. You are the one concerned about her size, not me.

    4. Bull crap. People display their sexual body parts to attract sexual attention. Would it be personal expression if I wore super tight pants that revealed the exact shape and length of my penis?

    5. If they were regular clothes, then you would be able to find at least one in a hundred women who dress that way. You can't. It isn't.

    Your final comment appears to have nothing to do with the quote you cited.

    Look, if you like the boob window, then fine, but do not pretend you have any desire to see it other than the basest, you like looking at her boobs. It is perfectly normal for you to enjoy the sight of them.

    However, I wish you would stop trying to claim that sort of outfit is normative though. It isn't.

    If you think it is cool for men and women to flaunt their body, that's cool. I disagree with you, but its a free country. Personally, I think there are more than enough girls in the world who have already been brainwashed to think that they need to flaunt their body to get male approval, and I would prefer it if comics would stop adding to that idea.

    I doubt I will be responding at length with you again. If you cannot even admit that Power Girl's boob window outfit is out of the norm, then (laughs) you are clearly beyond reasonable discussion on this issue.

    1. PG's costume is basically a white suit, red cape and blue gloves and boots and gold metal parts. Maybe not super imaginative but still different to any other DC superhero character. They are all given different costumes because we primarily distinguish superheroes by their costumes. Because, given the average DC artists drawing skills, the reader is not easily able to distinguish all superheroes from one another by physical features alone. They need flags to fly.

    PGs boobs are one distinguishing feature but her costume didn't always have a boob window.

    2. Okay, but as fodigg keeps reminding us, they are not real people - they can afford to dress on the exotic side despite what people think of them. In comics, people can be written to react however the writer chooses. The only real person looking is the reader and the character, not being real, can't be embarrassed by what the reader thinks.

    It's - a - comic - book.

    Swimwear is not made briefer than regular clothing to make it more hydrodynamic. Diving suits are hydrodynamic. All they have to be is skin tight - coverage doesn't affect fluidity. Some swimwear is low-cut at the boobs, which (like PG's boob window) would create drag. They are made brief because people swim to get wet.

    But now you are even objecting to two-piece swimsuits as being designed to display female bodies. You are entitled to those standards of modesty but if you are classing the boob widow with bikinis, then it is not lewd by most people's standards.

    3. I concede that a boob window makes a bold statement and risks drawing the wrong kind of attention, but in the context of PG's persona, it is appropriate. One, she is not a vampish character. Two, she is fictional/fantasy, so we can pretend along with the DC universe that it doesn't matter. In fiction, the viewer is made to suspend credulity.

    I brought up boob size because nobody objects to female characters with average sized boobs (well, smaller than PG's anyway - average in comics is still big) having openings in the fronts of their costumes. Nobody objects to any other character with enormous boobs, no matter how gravity-defying their costumes are in that area. For some reason people single out PG, and usually it is fans.

    Perhaps it is because they think it detracts from the type of character PG is they suspect that it is an authorial attempt to undermine an overtly feminist female characterby objectifying her. People who think too much should not read comics.

    4. Boobs are not sexual body parts. Penises are. Women show off other parts of their body to get sexual attention so why not boobs? Women have always displayed their boobs. There is nothing wrong with looking at a woman's body. Aesthetically, they are made to look at and part of the appeal (for males) is sexual. Penises (and vaginas) are not important to the aesthetics of the male and female form and not by themselves particularly aesthetic either. They serve different functions.

    5. Maybe not in everyday clothing but in evening wear it's acceptable.

    However, I agree that the boob window is "out of the norm". That is what makes it an exciting feature of her costume (when it is there). I'm also not pretending that I like the boob window for some other reason than that I like looking at boobs. Why else would I like a boob window? The name says it all - a boob window is for displaying boobs. However, I also think that it contributes to PG's image and persona.

    All I am saying is that PG's boob window does not "objectify" the character nor is it merely lewd. I don't think a woman needs to flaunt her body to be noticed by men but nor do I believe it is wrong for them to do so - and it is not necessarily for that purpose when they do.

    However, in comics, I think a bit of lewdness is okay, because they are fantasy and entertainment. Nobody should take their cues from entertainment, including women. The behavior of fictional characters works in a different context. In the real world, our behavior has natural consequences. In fiction, things happen according to how they are written - they are under the control of the writer and the reader understands this.

    Avatar image for batwatch
    BatWatch

    5487

    Forum Posts

    274

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 238

    User Lists: 1

    #96  Edited By BatWatch

    1. The boob window is what people always talk about when they mention Power Girl's costume. Beyond that, it is essentially white spandex which is not unique at all.

    2. Bikinis are not lewd by most people's standards, but it is also inappropriate to display that much boob by most people's standards.

    3. People should always think. There is no such thing as thinking too much only thinking too little.

    I have objected to those sorts of costumes regardless of boob size, yet you keep on mentioning it as if it is somehow relevant.

    4. Boobs are very much sexual parts of the body.

    5. Whatever is perceived as okay in the mind will almost always manifest itself in actions. Girls have been taught by media that they should flaunt their body to get attention, and almost all of them do.

    I'm not sure objectify is really a good term; I prefer sexualization. Women are taught to use their sex to attain their desires while men who allow themselves to lust after women's bodies start to view women primarily for their sexual assets.

    Avatar image for edblank
    EdBlank

    1480

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 1

    User Lists: 0

    #97  Edited By EdBlank

    Boob Window FTW

    Avatar image for fodigg
    fodigg

    6244

    Forum Posts

    2603

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 7

    #98  Edited By fodigg

    Delayed response because comicvine failed to notify me. Yay comicvine.

    @PowerGirlFan said:

    @fodigg

    I meant recognize the points we basically disagree on.

    I used "crazed feminists". Only someone preoccupied with radical ideology could have originated a notion which goes against common experience. That's not a loaded term - I really think they are crazed.

    Feminism is elitist and authoritarian. Feminists think they know what is good for everyone and that this gives them the right to impose it on everyone. Feminism is supported by all of our mainstream institutions.

    The goal of feminism is simply to work toward equality between the genders. It is not irrational, nor elitist, nor authoritarian. Anybody who cares about gender equality or social justice generally can be considered a feminist. That said, not everyone who cares about these issues necessarily self-identifies as a feminist. Furthermore, feminism is not the central component of this discussion.

    Some of the status quo is not "self justified". Partly it comes from basic human nature and partly it is from other influences on society.

    Conner's gender indicates that the artists gender doesn't affect how she is drawn in the respect we are discussing.

    I'm not assuming that women buy a lot of comics, I'm assuming that DC would like them to buy a lot of comics and that the way they draw PG would reflect this, i.e. that she is not just drawn to please males. She is probably drawn in a way that pleases both.

    By this logic DC is always going to be right because they are always going to be motivated by profit. That ignores the fact that supporting social justice and gender equality is not always profitable, and when your status quo focuses on one demographic, it can even be profitable to make your product exploitative toward other demographics.

    I'm not insisting on tradition, I'm recognizing innateness of behavior, though traditional roles are built on nature. That is a different topic to sexual morality.

    True enough but the latter is a component of the former. Different gender roles are attributed different appropriate behaviors as far as sexual morality.

    Sauce for the goose is sauce for the ganders. If you object to PG being made to cater to male fantasy then I can equally object to you wishing her to cater to your ideas of how women should dress. I wish PG to be neither a male fantasy or a "proper miss". I recognize that the character doesn't choose how she dresses - that the writers choose how she looks. That is beside my point.

    I have already engaged with your feminist view with arguments. I was merely identifying where that view originates. "Male gaze" is a feminist theory. Look it up. "Male gaze" is a buzzword. You haven't labeled me because the ideas I am presenting don't have a label - don't originate with a set ideology.

    I don't believe you are a militant feminist. I am merely recognizing that your "male gaze" argument is based on feminist ideas and addressing them accordingly. Maybe you don't know they are feminist, but that doesn't make them less so.

    Well I appreciate that you're not applying me directly with the crazed or militant feminist label, but when you're dismissing an argument simply because it was first stated by a feminist writer--regardless of the merits of that argument--I still think that's problematic. And I'd hardly saying I'm calling for a change in Power Girl's character when I'm just asking she be given a different costume. Unless you're willing to walk back your statements that 1) the boob window doesn't define her character and 2) the costume doesn't matter and you just like it. The argument that by objecting to something objectionable you are being objectionable is like saying that by discriminating against bigots you are being discriminating yourself. It's a circular argument that doesn't hold water.

    Your argument is basically the opposite of what you said mine is:

    • The sexual status quo is artificially imposed on us, not a natural result of innate tendencies of both genders.
    • That is a reason why we should not indulge the status quo in either entertainment or real life.
    • This is nothing to do with feminist ideology - feminists just happen to be right.
    • In reality, men and women are both equally attracted by physical and personal qualities.
    • Women should not need to show off their boobs for the entertainment of males.

    Accurate and thanks for taking the time to lay that out. I would however, say that I don't see "feminists" as a monolithic entity. There have been many feminist viewpoints, writers, and movements and I don't agree with all of them or think they all agree with each other. Also, I'd add the bullet points:

    • The boob window is problematic because it overshadows more important aspects of the character, at least with new/general audience fans
    • PG's character can be wholly maintained without the boob window
    • Therefore, it is good to remove the boob window in order to promote PG to a wider audience

    I don't believe they "made the right choice" in removing the boob window, because they did so for the wrong reasons. But PG's costume has not had a boob window at all times - it is not a defining feature of her costume, so there is no grounds for actually insisting on it being there either. (I liked the yellow-and-gold jumpsuit PG wore in her Atlantean phase, which covered her completely from her neck to her toes. I especially liked that it showed off her boobs! Really, how could you hide boobs that size under spandex?) I am merely disagreeing with some people's reasons for objecting to it, because sex appeal is an important aspect of PG - but only one aspect. The way you and others talk, the boob window makes her into a vamp. I don't see it that way.

    I agree that good fiction requires good explanations but it is not the explanation of Starfire you object to, ti's the thing the authors attempted to explain: she's a sex-kitten cliche which does not reflect how women really are. She would have to be alien, because human women don't behave that way. But she is a cliche nonetheless and therefore uninteresting. The explanation doesn't save her. PG is not a cliche, she just dresses sexy - but not like a tramp.

    I think that this might be the disconnect. I don't object to it because I think sexuality is bad. I think she can be just as sexual without the boob window (or the disposable costume). As you say, it works with the full spandex. I object to it because I think it's needlessly holding back the character because it limits what contexts she's visually appropriate for. It carries a sexual context with her. Compared to Voodoo or Catwoman where they can zip up or zip down as appropriate, I think that's limiting. But I don't think it makes her a vamp or a tramp just for having it or I wouldn't have kept buying her book and loving the character. I just think it's holding her back from a wider audience, and considering I don't feel anything much is lost by removing it, I think it should be left behind.

    Avatar image for powergirlfan
    PowerGirlFan

    344

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #99  Edited By PowerGirlFan

    @fodigg said:

    Feminism is elitist and authoritarian. Feminists think they know what is good for everyone and that this gives them the right to impose it on everyone. Feminism is supported by all of our mainstream institutions.

    The goal of feminism is simply to work toward equality between the genders. It is not irrational, nor elitist, nor authoritarian. Anybody who cares about gender equality or social justice generally can be considered a feminist. That said, not everyone who cares about these issues necessarily self-identifies as a feminist. Furthermore, feminism is not the central component of this discussion.

    No, feminism is a specific ideology about what equality means and what is just. Most people believe that people are all equally human, but it does not follow from that that we are equal in other ways or that we should all be treated equally. Equality is a myth and is not a basis for true justice. Feminism is an ideology based on this myth. This makes it irrational. Feminism is authoritarian and elitist in the sense that it seeks to impose supposed equality on the genders with legislative reforms, as well as influence society to accept the myth. The reason not everyone who accepts feminist ideas identifies as a feminist is that feminism has insinuated itself into mainstream thought.

    Some of the status quo is not "self justified". Partly it comes from basic human nature and partly it is from other influences on society.

    Conner's gender indicates that the artists gender doesn't affect how she is drawn in the respect we are discussing.

    I'm not assuming that women buy a lot of comics, I'm assuming that DC would like them to buy a lot of comics and that the way they draw PG would reflect this, i.e. that she is not just drawn to please males. She is probably drawn in a way that pleases both.

    By this logic DC is always going to be right because they are always going to be motivated by profit. That ignores the fact that supporting social justice and gender equality is not always profitable, and when your status quo focuses on one demographic, it can even be profitable to make your product exploitative toward other demographics.

    My point was that if women buy DC's comics, then obviously PG does appeal to women and not just males - she is not just drawn for male market. If DC are profiting from sales to female readers, they probably are right. If social justice and equality are about catering to female audiences, then DC are just.

    I'm not insisting on tradition, I'm recognizing innateness of behavior, though traditional roles are built on nature. That is a different topic to sexual morality.

    True enough but the latter is a component of the former. Different gender roles are attributed different appropriate behaviors as far as sexual morality.

    Traditional roles and sexual morality are built on innate behaviour of the sexes but I am only talking about the behaviour, not what is built on them. We are talking about a comic book character, not marriage and family or even just sexual relationships.

    Well I appreciate that you're not applying me directly with the crazed or militant feminist label, but when you're dismissing an argument simply because it was first stated by a feminist writer--regardless of the merits of that argument--I still think that's problematic. And I'd hardly saying I'm calling for a change in Power Girl's character when I'm just asking she be given a different costume. Unless you're willing to walk back your statements that 1) the boob window doesn't define her character and 2) the costume doesn't matter and you just like it. The argument that by objecting to something objectionable you are being objectionable is like saying that by discriminating against bigots you are being discriminating yourself. It's a circular argument that doesn't hold water.

    Being a feminist theory, it is likely based on feminist assumptions, which do not reflect the real world, and therefore unlikely to have merit. You have not shown why they do. I didn't say that you want to change PG's character, I merely disagree that the boob window is incompatible with it. I like it because I think it does enhance her character (not just because I like her boobs - although I do). But it doesn't define her character, so it is not essential. Stretching spandex over her boobs achieves the same effect - sexy and strong. I'm not arguing that you are objecting to something objectionable, I'm questioning why it is objectionable to you in the first place. If you object for no reason, then I object to DC removing it for no reason - except to please fans who object for no reason.

    Accurate and thanks for taking the time to lay that out. I would however, say that I don't see "feminists" as a monolithic entity. There have been many feminist viewpoints, writers, and movements and I don't agree with all of them or think they all agree with each other. Also, I'd add the bullet points:

    • The boob window is problematic because it overshadows more important aspects of the character, at least with new/general audience fans
    • PG's character can be wholly maintained without the boob window
    • Therefore, it is good to remove the boob window in order to promote PG to a wider audience

    Their basic social aims are the same. Or else they would not all identify as feminists. To be part of a wider movement, the factions of that movement must have something in common. Having some differences doesn't make them totally different. PG's boob window doesn't overshadow the important aspects of her character any more than Catwoman's zip overshadows her important aspects. This is what I don't get. PG is singled out for things which apply to other characters. PG's prominent boobs represent animportant part of her character - sexiness - which foil or complement the other aspects - strength, ability, intelligence etc. If you don't maintain that dichotomy with a boob window, you still have to do it some other way. I don't think a boobwindow is enoughto overshadow other obvious aspects of the character, even if a reader gets only as far as looking at the cover. PG is (or should be) drawn in such a way that those qualities are all apparent to the reader at a glance. If the "wider audience" don't get that, then they are incapable of getting it. People that shallow or unsophisticated don't deserve to be pandered to.

    I don't believe they "made the right choice" in removing the boob window, because they did so for the wrong reasons. But PG's costume has not had a boob window at all times - it is not a defining feature of her costume, so there is no grounds for actually insisting on it being there either. (I liked the yellow-and-gold jumpsuit PG wore in her Atlantean phase, which covered her completely from her neck to her toes. I especially liked that it showed off her boobs! Really, how could you hide boobs that size under spandex?) I am merely disagreeing with some people's reasons for objecting to it, because sex appeal is an important aspect of PG - but only one aspect. The way you and others talk, the boob window makes her into a vamp. I don't see it that way.

    I agree that good fiction requires good explanations but it is not the explanation of Starfire you object to, ti's the thing the authors attempted to explain: she's a sex-kitten cliche which does not reflect how women really are. She would have to be alien, because human women don't behave that way. But she is a cliche nonetheless and therefore uninteresting. The explanation doesn't save her. PG is not a cliche, she just dresses sexy - but not like a tramp.

    I think that this might be the disconnect. I don't object to it because I think sexuality is bad. I think she can be just as sexual without the boob window (or the disposable costume). As you say, it works with the full spandex. I object to it because I think it's needlessly holding back the character because it limits what contexts she's visually appropriate for. It carries a sexual context with her. Compared to Voodoo or Catwoman where they can zip up or zip down as appropriate, I think that's limiting. But I don't think it makes her a vamp or a tramp just for having it or I wouldn't have kept buying her book and loving the character. I just think it's holding her back from a wider audience, and considering I don't feel anything much is lost by removing it, I think it should be left behind.

    My point was that having a boob window is not much different to just having spandex stretched over boobs that size - you can't hide this sexy physical feature, without making the charactere less sexy. She's either sexy or not. Her boobs are in your face or they are not. But even if the boob window is sexier than straight spandex, why is that too sexy? By what standard? In the context of the character, it is not vampish. Or if it is vampish (I'll anticipate another argument) then it is one part of PG's style, not definitive of her entire character; she is not primarily a vampish character, though she does vamp. I don't think sales come before an interesting and entertaining character. If people don't get it, that's not a reason for the character to change. Sales should not govern everything. DC can market another character to cater to that demographic. Changing PG to gain more readers will LOSE her some of her present readers.

    Avatar image for fodigg
    fodigg

    6244

    Forum Posts

    2603

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 7

    #100  Edited By fodigg

    @PowerGirlFan said:

    No, feminism is a specific ideology about what equality means and what is just. Most people believe that people are all equally human, but it does not follow from that that we are equal in other ways or that we should all be treated equally. Equality is a myth and is not a basis for true justice. Feminism is an ideology based on this myth. This makes it irrational. Feminism is authoritarian and elitist in the sense that it seeks to impose supposed equality on the genders with legislative reforms, as well as influence society to accept the myth. The reason not everyone who accepts feminist ideas identifies as a feminist is that feminism has insinuated itself into mainstream thought.

    I don't think equality is a meaningless goal or a 'myth'. It may be unachievable in practice but so are many other worthy ideals, and that doesn't mean the pursuit of them is unjust. As for the idea of feminism being a part of mainstream thought, I don't think that's accurate considering the disdain one sees the very word held in across the political spectrum. Let's drop this. We won't prove anything one way or another about feminism.

    My point was that if women buy DC's comics, then obviously PG does appeal to women and not just males - she is not just drawn for male market. If DC are profiting from sales to female readers, they probably are right. If social justice and equality are about catering to female audiences, then DC are just.

    The argument begs the question. If you define justice by sales and just assume that these sales exist, and without accounting for any other possible cause for high sales (e.g., nothing better out there, redeeming characteristics of the character other than the boob window) then you're not really proving anything. We should probably drop this too unless we can find sales figures for various demographics on Power Girl over the years.

    Traditional roles and sexual morality are built on innate behaviour of the sexes but I am only talking about the behaviour, not what is built on them. We are talking about a comic book character, not marriage and family or even just sexual relationships.

    Well, yes, but we're talking about the sexualization of said character. Or, to be more accurate, the reflection of those attitudes in media. I forget why this issue was raised.

    Being a feminist theory, it is likely based on feminist assumptions, which do not reflect the real world, and therefore unlikely to have merit. You have not shown why they do. I didn't say that you want to change PG's character, I merely disagree that the boob window is incompatible with it. I like it because I think it does enhance her character (not just because I like her boobs - although I do). But it doesn't define her character, so it is not essential. Stretching spandex over her boobs achieves the same effect - sexy and strong. I'm not arguing that you are objecting to something objectionable, I'm questioning why it is objectionable to you in the first place. If you object for no reason, then I object to DC removing it for no reason - except to please fans who object for no reason.

    I've given my reasons why it's objectionable. I gave them even in that post. You even respond to it in this paragraph. This argument is an et tu fallacy. You're saying that we shouldn't remove something "to please [certain] fans for no reason" when the element in question is literal fanservice you admit right here has no benefit to the character (although you do say it "enhances" the character somehow, you fail to elaborate). The boob window is "to please fans [certain] for no reason" to begin with, and although you may not agree with our objections we do have them. Our argument is not just "well, we don't like it."

    Their basic social aims are the same. Or else they would not all identify as feminists. To be part of a wider movement, the factions of that movement must have something in common. Having some differences doesn't make them totally different. PG's boob window doesn't overshadow the important aspects of her character any more than Catwoman's zip overshadows her important aspects. This is what I don't get. PG is singled out for things which apply to other characters. PG's prominent boobs represent animportant part of her character - sexiness - which foil or complement the other aspects - strength, ability, intelligence etc. If you don't maintain that dichotomy with a boob window, you still have to do it some other way. I don't think a boobwindow is enoughto overshadow other obvious aspects of the character, even if a reader gets only as far as looking at the cover. PG is (or should be) drawn in such a way that those qualities are all apparent to the reader at a glance. If the "wider audience" don't get that, then they are incapable of getting it. People that shallow or unsophisticated don't deserve to be pandered to.

    So the people being pandered to now--the "I need to see cleavage or it's not the same character" crowd--are the "sophisticated" ones? That doesn't pass the smell test. The dichotomy you talk about can be readily maintained without the boob window (as you've repeatedly stated re: stretched spandex), and in fact this entire thread started when you pointed out it was more maintained than ever with the disposable costume (not that I like the disposable costume mind you).

    The reason why Catwoman and Voodoo's costumes are better is because they can be sexy for the sexy scenes and then focus on other things when that's not as appropriate. The reason why the boob window is worse is because it's stripperific no matter the context of the scene. The reason why the disposable costume is a terrible solution is because then she's only sexily clad in inappropriate contexts--fight scenes. Unless you're Alan Moore and out to show how all superheroes are sexual deviants flying their freak flags all the time (e.g., Watchmen, Top 10, Top 10: The Forty Niners, Promethea) there are better ways to do superhero costumes.

    My point was that having a boob window is not much different to just having spandex stretched over boobs that size - you can't hide this sexy physical feature, without making the charactere less sexy. She's either sexy or not. Her boobs are in your face or they are not. But even if the boob window is sexier than straight spandex, why is that too sexy? By what standard? In the context of the character, it is not vampish. Or if it is vampish (I'll anticipate another argument) then it is one part of PG's style, not definitive of her entire character; she is not primarily a vampish character, though she does vamp. I don't think sales come before an interesting and entertaining character. If people don't get it, that's not a reason for the character to change. Sales should not govern everything. DC can market another character to cater to that demographic. Changing PG to gain more readers will LOSE her some of her present readers.

    Hiding her "sexiness" is not the problem. You're making my point by saying that it doesn't matter as far as how sexy the character is between window and spandex. The problem with the boob window is that it really isn't any sexier, it's just ridiculous. It makes her cleavage into her superhero symbol. That's problematic thematically. That makes a statement on what the character is about to the audience. That is even referenced by the writers (i.e., the awful "I left it open because I wanted to put something there" speech). And I am surprised to see you suddenly saying sales don't matter when "it sells" was the entire basis for your argument that DC isn't catering to men with PG's old costume. Well, if sales don't govern everything and removing the problematic (or at least, controversial) boob window makes for a stronger character with a broader audience (which helps any film adaptation possibilities), then do we necessarily care that some readers who only care about the boob window are dropped? I don't. If someone ONLY reads PG for the boob window then they really aren't much of a PG fan. That'd be like reading Secret Six only for Catman's abs.

    I am NOT trying to "de-sexy" Power Girl. I'm trying to address a problematic costume element that negatively affects the character both thematically and in how she's perceived by the general audience.

    This edit will also create new pages on Comic Vine for:

    Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

    Comment and Save

    Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Comic Vine users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.