Treating men and women with equal status as human beings is not meaningless but women were treated as human beings before feminism. If it were not for feminist influence on our society, men and women would not want to be treated as equal in the sense which feminists want them to be. The fact that feminism is (as you say) still treated with some disdain backs this up.
If Oprah Winfrey approves of it, it's mainstream. Oprah is the most influential person in the media. That also means that the major network Oprah works for supports feminism. What do you call mainstream?
I find the highlighted portion problematic, and I don't think you can say "here's a prominent X, therefore X is prominent generally," but I'm not interested in debating feminism.
I'm not defining justice by sales, I'm saying that sales reflect what women naturally like. If women like what DC do, then DC is probably not being unjust toward them. Most women would buy a comic which is unjust toward her.
True, I don't know how many women buy Power Girl comics, but I bet DC knows and would probably not wish to do anything to discourage them. True also that there are other factors in their choice besides the boob window. But if the boob window is as demeaning as you say, and it hides the other, worthy qualities of the character, as you say, then the boob window would probably over-ride the other factors. There is better out there - over 52 other DC characters, and several other major comic imprints.
Companies don't always look out for their best interests and can ignore or under-represent groups it doesn't see as a target audience. DC isn't necessarily selling to a male and female audience equally. In fact, they had trouble in the revamp with a lack of female creators, let alone being concerned with the audience.
You brought up morality. I was only talking about sexual behavior. Sexual behavior is not necessarily moral.
So what though? What's your point?
No, I think it does benefit the character - the fan service is incidental. But whether or not it benefits the character,teh issue here is why it is objectional. Just because it doesn't benefit the character does not make it objectional. The stars on Wonder Woman's pants don't necessarily benefit the character, they are just there for aesthetics. That doesn't mean we should object to them. The difference betweenWW's stars and PG's window is that the window shows PG's cleavage. The issue here is what is wrong with showing cleavage?
Nothing. But there's a difference between showing cleavage and making cleavage your superhero symbol. We've covered this.
That's not pandering. And nobody says PG's costume needs the boob window; we just like it. Not just because we like her boobs, but because it suits her persona. We are sophisticated because we can see past the boob window and enjoy the varied facets of the character. We know that a character need not be one of either vampish sex kitten or strong, intelligent and conservatively attired.
You recognize the dichotomy yourself, so you should not imply others like the boob window for some other, unsophisticated reason.If you think it is okay for PG to be sexy, then why do you object to the boob window? Why is it okay for her to display her boobs with tight spandex butnot with a boob window? Either she is allowed to be sexy or she isn't. Why can it be one way but not the other? I made the point that full spandex or boob window, her boobs are still in your face - there is not much difference on the vamp scale.
You're trying to strawman me into being anti-sexuality when I've said I am not throughout this discussion. Stop.
So now it's a matter of when they can and can't be sexy. In action, cover up the boobs. When standing around talking, uncover the boobs. If PG buttoned and unbuttoned her boobs between scenes, that would just draw more attention to them. Okay, Catwoman isn't always zipped up when she's in action and she's often zipped when not in action. She does it because it's practical, not because being unzipped looks silly when she's in action. It doesn't look silly - she sometimes does have her boobs out when in action. Many other female characters are stripperific in and out of combat. Wonder Woman, Red Sonja - just about all of them. Maybe Alan Moore is right.
I'm not defending the disposable costume, though I have to admit that I don't mind PG falling out of her costume. She's occaisionally been drawn with ripped costume prior to this new series.
It's about context. Is the female character allowed to match her presentation to the context of the scene? Or is she always "on" as far as costume, posing, and attitude? That's a problem to many readers and it impedes character acceptance in the general audience, which impedes character growth. Certain creators have fixed the latter two with PG, but why tolerate the former? Especially when there's no cost to fixing it since, as you said, such a change would not impede the character from being sexual in any way.
Yes it was an awful reference - an example of where the writers wrote the character wrongly. So why treat it seriously in a discussion? Previously, PG said that the boob window shows her femininity, which it certainly does. That is the sensible version of what the window means. Even if you choose to take the second it seriously, the window doesn't define her identity, it indicates a lack of identity.
What's the practical difference? And now you're cherry picking her portrayals. The problem is not the scene (bad though it is), the problem is what the scene was trying to address. The scene is just a symptom.
Before, I said that the sales reflect what women actually like in a character and that DC would probably design the character to appeal to a female market, to increase sales. That is a sensible way to tailor a character to an audience. Tailoring the character to appeal to the lowest common denominator is a different thing. That just results in a dull character
And the "lowest common denominator" is the crowd that would like a rounded character whose presentation is not limited by a ridiculous and unnecessary costume feature? I think not.
No, we shouldn't care whether readers who ONLY care about the boob window are lost. But that is not a reason to drop the boob window. We should equally not care about readers who object solely because of the boob window. Neither are good reasons to have or not have the boob window.
As for film adaption possibilities, boobs weren't a problem for Lara Croft.
Except the boob window is a barrier to entry for new growth. A person who doesn't know anything about PG is under no obligation to ignore their first impressions and soldier on to find the good qualities of a character past the ridiculous costume. DC should very much care about expanding her audience, and so should the fans. Boobs weren't a problem for Laura Croft, but Laura Croft wore this, in games and film respectively:
So how is she in any way an argument for the boob window? I'd say that if you liked her presentation here, that's a pretty good argument for moving away from the boob window.
I still don't see how it is negative.
Obviously, but that you disagree with my reasons is no excuse to ignore them and strawman me as anti-sexuality.