Arguably,
the cover of books and
the statues of them are meant to be
the purest distillation of a character.
They simplify the character and show their most important traits. When you walk into a comic book shop, they're the first thing you see. Newcomers will look at them, probably to see what the character is all about.
Yeah, which is sadly why many people will gratuitously use sex, violence, guest stars, foil covers, or whatever to sell the title, regardless of whether the content inside the comic reflects the cover or not. It's a damn shame.
Bass wrote a very long post that could be summed up in the sentence. "You're both wrong, now go sit in the corner while daddy drinks his scotch."
And the truth comes out.
Personally I rarely notice if a girl is dressed too scantily or if the position she's in is ridiculous. It's just a drawing. At the same time, Wade's original agrument seemed to be that women didn't like it because their not that hot and their jealous (he's now backed away from that to the point where I'm not sure he even has an argument anymore). Which Bass kind of backed up with the following.
That's ridiculous. The only reason that a woman could be offended by a superhero doing what is essentially a playboy spread on the cover of a comic is because it makes them feel bad about the way they look? It couldn't have anything to do with a complete lack of strong or realistic female characters or that the only reason most female charaters exist in a book is to be ogled by fanboys and to be the object of affection for the male characters? I'm not a woman and I'm bothered by the lack of believably written and drawn female characters in comics. Wade has a habit of yelling at and driving away any woman he speaks to, so this didn't come as much of a surprise from him. But Bass I expected a little more from.
No, you misunderstood. It's not that they are intimidated or made to feel about about the way they look. It's that they just make themselves feel bad about who
they are. Not strong enough, not smart enough, not attractive enough, it doesn't matter. The hypocrisy is that it's not purely about standing up for a minority without a voice, it's as much about complaining about how they're upset.
I too am bothered by overtly sexually idealised women in comics, but I'm also bothered about violence and other things over used in comics. But generally, I am more for overtly sexually idealised women than I am for their removal - because it's censorship and I abhor it. If a guy wants to draw stupidly sexy women, let him. If it's not appropriate then he's being immature and silly, but it's his right to do so. That's free speech after all.
As for your own reasons for being bothered by the way women are depicted - you don't take it as a personal insult. This is my point.
The argument is about the potential damaging effect of sexually idealised women on the minds of people in society.
But the supporters act more like someone is trying to take away their stash, and the opposers act more like someone has just called them fat.
That said, I agree with most of his post.
Like most things in life, the average person is of a mindset somewhere in the middle, but we only hear from the two extremes and everyone in the middle is forcibly polarized. My Liberatarian heart brakes in two for a world divided by polar extremes.
This is very extremely true.
But at the same time - if everyone was in the middle, it would make for a boring world. Sure, more peaceful and less frustrating - but boring too.
Wow. You make a ridiculous blanket statement and then complain that this debate is handled so immaturely?
I don't think the statement was ridiculous. I thought it was rather well thoughtout examination of the contradiction between what each side professes is their 'side of the argument' and how it is somewhat incongruous with the way in which they conduct themselves.
Blanket statement? Well sure, but then, how can I possibly be expected to know the hearts and minds of everyone in the argument? Surely, all I can do, is examine the sides as best as I can and come up with a point of view informed by what I've observed.
I don't think that's a 'blanket statement'. I think it's an 'opinion'.
And I certainly wasn't being immature. Look at all the long words I used!
'cept bull****.
Come on. You're saying if the cover of the new issue of Superman was, as McCheese put it, a big close-up of Superman's ridiculously exaggerated bulge, you'd only be offended because you'd feel inferior?
Sorry, but not everyone secretly shares this complex.
No, I'd probably be surprised/offended to some extent. I'd consider if this was apporpriate considering the children who would see it, and the appropriateness of glorifying Superman's 'bulge' considering it has little to do with the character.
But hell yes, a part of me would be feeling inferior.
And that would probably be impetus for any discussion on the matter because it's a
personal thing. Being concerned about the children or the appropriateness of sexualising Superman matters only in an intellectual sense unless I actually have a kid or am somehow writing/drawing Superman. Some people who complain do have children or are involved in the business, and that will influence how they discuss the issue. But
everyone has those... 'bits' to get jealous about and we all do. It's just about severity. Some people go insane, and others barely notice. Most would have a little of it and not pay it too much attention since the character is fictional and not stealing their significant other.
It's not that it's
just about the jealousy, it's that the jealousy is the personal involvement that turns the discussion from the ethical concerns of gender stereotyping inwards and makes people talk as though they've been personally insulted. Which only fuels the argument further.
This also assumes that all women "feel bad about themselves" because they don't have the kind of ludocris quadruple-D Power Girl is pushing against the proverbial lense on the cover of every one of her issues, which is an offensive a statement as I can think of.
Except I didn't say these things. I didn't say it's only women. And I didn't say it made them feel bad about how they look. Nor did I say women have inherently low self-esteem.
What I did say was that people who get particularly angry about this issue on the side of censorship and yell a lot about it, generally do so not because of the moral high ground of gender issues but because of how the issue makes them feel about themselves.
This is not the
only factor, but it is a personal factor that drives the anger. Empathy and sympathy would be the tones if it was about the ethical considerations. Anger and frustration though, shows a personal involvement.
And it's not that they are chronically low in self-esteem. It's that this triggers those parts of their personality. Everyone is more similar than different, and those triggers differ. Some people get more morally outraged about a football match result than a kidnapped girl. Some people get outraged at comic covers.
People get very outraged against these types of pictures, and outrage is not created by the ethical concerns for others, but by the strong identification with those perceived as being offended. And one doesn't get offended unless one is made to feel bad about themselves.
Hence, my point that this argument is as fundamentally about society as it is about how those pictures make you feel about yourself.
Yes, like you say, ridiculously sexy people have other traits too, but the problem is that the other traits are what MATTER here, not the sex appeal. You can get rid of Supergirl's hilariously impractical short skirt and the story and personality would be identical. But get rid of her powers or personality and leave the physical traits? The character is now meaningless.
No. No trait is inherently more important than the other. Sex appeal is an important trait and if a character has it, it should be treated no differently than any other trait. To suggest the other traits are what matters is to make the same mistake as those who just draw the same pin-up girl in a different costume, just from the other end. It's the same mistake - not treating sex appeal fairly. Either you idealise it or ignore it.
With the exception of those without sex drives (children, robots, the elderly in some cases, what-have-you), sexuality will be apparent in every character. The level to which is totally dependent on the character being portrayed. Catwoman, She-Hulk, Power Girl - they should ooze sexuality. It's as much part of their characters as their super powers. Caitlin Fairchild though, not so much. She doesn't see herself as particularly sexy and that element of sexual shyness is as important to her character as her super strength. Kitty Pryde is very much a character who doesn't use her sexuality to get what she wants, and is depicted as such. Jenny Sparks is ancient and full of resolve, she doesn't need to use her sexuality to get what she wants and treats it casually.
But the trait of sex appeal can't be ignored, nor can it be exaggerated. It should be treated properly.
I'm sorry, but looking at the the two points you claim are equal problems, I really have to stand firmly on one side of the scale.
That's fine. But from my point of view, the 'side' your on is making the same mistakes as the other 'side', just the mirror reflection.
It's about the gratuity of sex, not sex itself.
