![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I really should know better, but I clicked on a link to the DC message boards, topic of the new Frank Miller cover.
In summary... this is why I’m going to stay way the hell over here okay thanks. However, one exchange did catch my attention and would not let me shake it as it might have a sane person.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
maelithil:
Depicting [women] as an ass, a pair of tits, some gorgeous thighs is doing them a disservice. Distilling them into nothing but their sexual attributes is objectifying. And that's exactly what this cover does.
Random Fanboy:
And notice that Superman's chest is OFTEN a whole panel unto itself. Not Superman fighting the bad guy. Not Superman standing full figure. Superman's chest. Just his chest. His huge, massive, S-draped, extraterrestrially muscular chest. Is Superman being objectified? Is he being used? Should I cry for Superman?
And. Just. What? This is the counterexample?
But! Maybe it’s not that his logic is just that scary. Maybe it's hard to understand what she’s talking about because it really, honestly is that there’s no comparable example featuring a male denizen of the DCU. I mean, even the occasional Nightwing crotch shot *tries* to have context.
Obviously, something had to be done. For The Good Of Fandom.
Luckily, much like Miller, I have no shame.
Totally Appropriate Covers (with bonus, never before seen script excerpts!)
Hal’s flying away from us through a generic starfield, nothing interesting to see except him. Have him wriggle around, giving us a good shot of his package. Add some details, something fancy for the fanboys to drool over, but don’t let it draw attention away from the point of the cover – that Kyle has nothing, NOTHING, on my boy Hal.
Be careful with this one – we don’t want Supes to come off as too powerful, too imposing. Maybe have him lean a bit, off balance, the better to show off his *well filled* briefs. He's fiddling with the waist line, such a cock *heh* tease. He knows he’s got what we want, and if we turn the cover, he’ll let us have it.
Well, we’ve done just about every variation on the theme by now, so let’s go back to the basics: Black on black, a full cover shot of Batman’s ass. Add in the utility belt for colour – give it that Sin City look. Show me thick, powerful legs under that latex or whatever the hell he wears. Clenched butt muscles. Make it obvious this is no BatGIRL we’re talking about.
In summary... this is why I’m going to stay way the hell over here okay thanks. However, one exchange did catch my attention and would not let me shake it as it might have a sane person.
maelithil:Depicting [women] as an ass, a pair of tits, some gorgeous thighs is doing them a disservice. Distilling them into nothing but their sexual attributes is objectifying. And that's exactly what this cover does.
Random Fanboy:
And notice that Superman's chest is OFTEN a whole panel unto itself. Not Superman fighting the bad guy. Not Superman standing full figure. Superman's chest. Just his chest. His huge, massive, S-draped, extraterrestrially muscular chest. Is Superman being objectified? Is he being used? Should I cry for Superman?
And. Just. What? This is the counterexample?
But! Maybe it’s not that his logic is just that scary. Maybe it's hard to understand what she’s talking about because it really, honestly is that there’s no comparable example featuring a male denizen of the DCU. I mean, even the occasional Nightwing crotch shot *tries* to have context.
Obviously, something had to be done. For The Good Of Fandom.
Luckily, much like Miller, I have no shame.
Totally Appropriate Covers (with bonus, never before seen script excerpts!)
Hal’s flying away from us through a generic starfield, nothing interesting to see except him. Have him wriggle around, giving us a good shot of his package. Add some details, something fancy for the fanboys to drool over, but don’t let it draw attention away from the point of the cover – that Kyle has nothing, NOTHING, on my boy Hal.
Be careful with this one – we don’t want Supes to come off as too powerful, too imposing. Maybe have him lean a bit, off balance, the better to show off his *well filled* briefs. He's fiddling with the waist line, such a cock *heh* tease. He knows he’s got what we want, and if we turn the cover, he’ll let us have it.
Well, we’ve done just about every variation on the theme by now, so let’s go back to the basics: Black on black, a full cover shot of Batman’s ass. Add in the utility belt for colour – give it that Sin City look. Show me thick, powerful legs under that latex or whatever the hell he wears. Clenched butt muscles. Make it obvious this is no BatGIRL we’re talking about.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
Re: Yeah right....
Glad to hear it! Many fan*boys* don't even notice anymore.
and I'm not saying there isn't any exploitation going on, but these example covers have gone to the XXX extreme to inflate the point and then are being compared as "equal", which is complete utter bullshit.
Wow. You must be reading the same comics I am - those chosen to avoid the entire conversations drawn from a woman's crotch level, breast shots with protruding nipples, backs at 90 degrees to better show off both boobs *and* ass, splash page kicks centered on the camel-toe.
The idea that the only fair argument is one is the *exact position* as Miller's cover in particular is just silly. You're *reaching*, here. If it's because you feel uncomfortable around the male images, you might want to think about that.
What I find interesting also, is that your crew of fellow "enraged" female comic goers are'nt offended by exploitation, just female exploitation ... Go ahead and make some more licking noises and "I'd buy that!" comments if you like here now.
Oh, please. Those comments were made in good fun - no one is seriously taking from this that male objectification would be any better a thing in mainstream media.
So yes, everyone, *do* feel free to continue to objectify Hal & co! After all, the comments here are *far* more controlled than a couple I've seen around comic book images featuring women, and turn about is entirely fair play.
Unfortunately there's the whole thing of the direct comic book market is CREATED for and AIMED at the 15-35 year old male fanboy who is the highest consumer of this type of material.
You're right, that view *is* unfortunate, and more so that covers such as Miller's do everything possible to keep it that way. I really wish, when discussing this point, that there were handy demographics available. How many issues *do* sell to each gender and each age group. How many *TPB*s. How many TPB's from *bookstores*.
In the store I usually shop at, the split between men and woman browsing the shelves is usually more equal than it is in many of my classes. I doubt this is representative, but - judging from the hardly-comparable number of people in the couple comic shops around the city in which I felt slightly uncomfortable and don't intend to return - I wonder how representative it is of stores that do *well*.
while pacifying your despised, shotgun rant inducing, female T & A
Here I had to laugh. You're in *comics* fandom and you think *this* is a "shotgun rant"? Where were you when they very-slightly-altered Batman's costume? When they made Star Boy black? When you got offended at the images in this post?
Where it's the norm to have idealized people, with painted on outfits, viewed in non moving, varying angled panels, I must say you picked quite the media to delve into if such things truely bother you.
Things that truly bother me -- That when viewed in those varying angles, the male characters - idealized and wearing spandex, sure - are not sexualized. When viewed in those (DIFFERENT) varying angles, the *female* characters - idealized, sure, and who often could probably use a fair bit *more* spandex - ARE. Erect nipples. Ass-only shots. Body language of come-take-me-now.
Are all titles guilty of this? No. Are many, especially mainstream superhero titles? YES.
Or is it that it's fun to complain and rant about stuff you have no control over, are'nt the target audience for, and are'nt a fan of.
I love this line. It's so ambiguous. I couldn't figure out if you were suggesting complaining implied I wasn't a fan of comic books, or that I had no right to complain because I wasn't a fan of *T&A*.
"You may only be upset about ass shots if you are a fan of them!" That logic is just *beautiful*. Right up there with anything in Catch-22.
Excuse me now as I go off to rant on the gay porn message boards, about the unrealistic depiction of the average male.
I find it hilarious people keep comparing comics to the porn industry as a *defense*. It makes me feel all possible points have already been made in my favour.
From: (Anonymous)
Re: Yeah right....
My statement here is regarding the comparisons of your covers to Millers WW cover. Not other books, interiors or splash pages.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
""The idea that the only fair argument is one is the *exact position* as Miller's cover in particular is just silly. You're *reaching*, here. If it's because you feel uncomfortable around the male images, you might want to think about that.""
Reaching? Who created this topic, and is stretching (to the point of dislocating your shoulder) to illustrate a false comparison. if your going to make a fair comparison, make an accurate one.
I had a good laugh at the pics too btw, I'm not going to post them on my desktop or anything, anytime soon. What am I suppose to be thinking about may I ask? Is it supposedly the same thing your thinking of when looking at Millers WW cover?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Oh, please. Those comments were made in good fun - no one is seriously taking from this that male objectification would be any better a thing in mainstream media."
Ah, I see, because it's "all in good fun" that makes it okay then. All we gotta do is get DC and Marvel to put a "all in good fun" sticker on all their books and we should have no complaints, right.
No one's taking this seriously? Really? So you can vouch that none of the posters would go out and buy bulging Superman #1 if it came out tommorow. Or say if you had the power to switch the exploitation factor balance from women to men you would'nt do it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
""So yes, everyone, *do* feel free to continue to objectify Hal & co! After all, the comments here are *far* more controlled than a couple I've seen around comic book images featuring women, and turn about is entirely fair play.""
It's interesting to see that the one demographic, that use to have a good argument to look down on their male comic bretheren, can drag their knuckles on the ground with the best of them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here I had to laugh. You're in *comics* fandom and you think *this* is a "shotgun rant"? Where were you when they very-slightly-altered Batman's costume? When they made Star Boy black? When you got offended at the images in this post?
I was'nt talking about regular fanboy rampaging. I'm refering to that kneejerk reaction most female readers have after seeing a shot of a idealized, female they didn't like. Such a rant inspired this topic it looks like.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Or is it that it's fun to complain and rant about stuff you have no control over, are'nt the target audience for, and are'nt a fan of."
""I love this line. It's so ambiguous. I couldn't figure out if you were suggesting complaining implied I wasn't a fan of comic books, or that I had no right to complain because I wasn't a fan of *T&A*.""
Ambiguous? I'll clarify....
Are you a DC editor? No? then you have no control over the book.
Are you a 15-35 year old male? No? then your not the target audience.
Do you collect All star Batman and Robin? No? Then it sounds like you aren't a fan.
From: (Anonymous)
Re: Yeah right....
""You may only be upset about ass shots if you are a fan of them!" That logic is just *beautiful*. Right up there with anything in Catch-22.""
This made up logic you fabricated here is your own, I have no idea what your talking about.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
""I find it hilarious people keep comparing comics to the porn industry as a *defense*. It makes me feel all possible points have already been made in my favour.""
I was'nt refering to porn I was refering to gay porn, the point I was trying to make is, I don't control it, I'm not the target audience for it, and I am not a fan of it. Therefore it makes perfect sense for me to go onto a message board about it and rant till I'm blue in the face right?
If you as a female reader hate female exploitation in comics, as bad as you seem to, and it's as bad as you make it out to be, why get into a media that had it before you got there, has it currently and will still have it when your gone? Suddenly your going to find reasons to justify your interests right! "Their not ALL like that ", "The books I read don't have it as prevalant as others". So it's not the epidemic your making it out to be really is it, because you accept it, and still get entertainment value from it.
When pro body builders, male and female, compete in tournaments, standing on a stage nearly naked, and oiled up, which sex is being exploited? If I go by the mentality demonstrated on this board the answer would be a unanimous "female", when in fact they BOTH are. When you view superhero comics and see idealistic versions of males and females, BOTH are being exploited, or is it the norm for the men in your neck of the woods to all have six pack abes, 15 inch biceps, can bench press 200 pounds, and wear skin tight body suits?
Yeah, your going to see more cheesecake than beefcake, as women simpily have more erogenous zones to exploit and as I stated many times now, comics....are...a...male....dominated.....field. DC and Marvel don't mind getting your money too, but they aren't targeting you to get it necessarily (at least in their mainstream stuff).
For the record I don't object to (male or female) exploitation. Views and attitudes have varied, but it has been, is, and always will be, apart of our culture and entertainment. Provocative parts and all.
My beef here is the fact that I see a "ban exploitation" banner being waved in the air, but on the back of that banner is a chippendale calendar, making the argument bias and one sided. If your going to damn exploitation, you better be prepared to damn ALL exploitation, not just the stuff that bothers you personally. Your not going to do that though, nor will anyone else, people want what they want.
From:
fear the supercrotch!!
And you seem to be missing that that... is... the... whole... point.
It isn't nearly as much of a 'male dominated field' as it used to be... and many comic companies are starting to take that into account. However, there is the assumption - by you, by others - that so long as there are more men buying/writing/drawing them, women should just deal with the bad softporn.
No way. I don't buy that crap anymore. The art gets old after a couple issues. In fact, almost all female-lead comics I've picked up over the years start out with great art for the first couple issues, and by the end of the first year are reduced to TnA shots and repeat storylines.
I have NEVER seen a male-lead comic reduced to just crotchshots, flexing poses and skimpy outfits both in-and-out-of costume. I've never seen a SHOWER scene with a male character, for that matter!! (I'm sure they exist somewhere, but for myself, I've seen probably a half-a-dozen female shower scenes, and in one comic, male-hero voyeurism of the female-hero showering!)
(psst: oddity, THANK YOU SO MUCH - here via boingboing, and I hope you don't mind I made an icon and credited you.)