Contradictions and Nonsense

[Lafayette]

In another thread titled Iron Man Now a Black Girl I asked the rhetorical question: where are the girls’ parents? Where is the child protection agency?

After thinking about this for a while I’ve come to realize that I was asking a ridiculous question. After all this is the comic book world not the real world. In comicdom most anything is possible including a fifteen-year-old girl wearing a man’s armor.

What made me think of this were Batman and Robin. As far as I know or can recall no one ever brought up the question that Robin was a minor or that that Batman was exposing Robin to danger. And there’s also Captain America and Bucky. And now that I’m thinking about it I’m wondering about the X-Men. What are the ages of the X-Men? To be honest I never asked this question before. I just assume that they were young and let it go at that.

Also in the same thread, Brian G.Turner said: Marvel and DC both have a problem with treating their comics as soft porn for young boys - something that seems to get surprisingly little comment. Male heroes get armour and capes, female heroes get bathing costumes and lingerie.

I’m not sure that I totally agree with this statement that DC and Marvel are creating soft porn. I remember when I was twelve or thirteen and I looked at girls I thought of them as being pretty and nothing more. Of course like most boys I was curious what they really look like, but I don’t think that’s really unhealthy or even pornographic.

To be fair to the writers and the artists of the comics I would also make try to make my female characters look attractive. Personally I don’t think any guy wants to look at a female superhero in dungarees or military fatigues. It’s just not that attractive. To me it’s a turnoff to try to get a girl or a woman to dress exactly like a man. I like the difference in the genders and I want to see the differences.

I remember years ago I bought Red Sonja comics not because the stories were good (in fact I don’t remember if any of the stories were good or bad) but because of the way the artist portrayed red Sonja. Even back then I knew that the metallic bikini was ridiculous, however I sure enjoyed looking at her.

I am sure that most guys would agree with me. The other thing to take in account is if I’m not mistaken is that the biggest buyers of comic books are boys.

If all of this makes me sexist okay I’m guilty. I’m sexist, but I don’t feel the need to change.

 

[Brian G Turner]

It wouldn't be such a problem if Marvel and DC weren't making such a big point to be seen to be diverse. All they are doing is applying the same casual prejudice and expounding tokenism. Rather than working for diversity, they continue to work against it - but seem incapable of recognising their failings. More to the point, general geek culture also struggles to see any problems except the most obvious.

It's ironic - there's was a great comic series in the late 80's called Marshall Law, which deconstructed a lot of the fallacies about comic superheroes, far beyond what Alan Moore had attempted. I find it astonishing that some of its observations would still be seen as cutting edge, nearly 30 years after being published.

 

[RX-79G]

It wouldn't be such a problem if Marvel and DC weren't making such a big point to be seen to be diverse. All they are doing is applying the same casual prejudice and expounding tokenism. Rather than working for diversity, they continue to work against it - but seem incapable of recognising their failings. More to the point, general geek culture also struggles to see any problems except the most obvious.

Okay, I'll bite: What is the casual prejudice and tokenism, and what should be happening instead?

My recollection of X-Men back in the '80s was that there were people of different races and their race didn't seem to have anything to do with anything else, or predictive of their behavior.

How should it be?

 

[Brian G Turner]

What is the casual prejudice and tokenism

Well, for a start, the default costume for any female hero is a bathing suit or lingerie. And there are precious few characters whose origin stories involve them being gay or black.

So taking a white character and making them black, or conversely taking a straight character and suddenly making them gay, are indeed examples of tokenism.

 

[RX-79G]

Well, for a start, the default costume for any female hero is a bathing suit or lingerie. And there are precious few characters whose origin stories involve them being gay or black.

So taking a white character and making them black, or conversely taking a straight character and suddenly making them gay, are indeed examples of tokenism.

Pointing out the obvious: "Iron Man" isn't a character - Tony Stark is a character, and Tony Stark is not becoming a black girl. Riri Williams, is black, and always has been. The only character that ever changed race in the comics that I can think of is Psylocke, and this was just her appearance, not back story. Bobby Drake, "Iceman", recently 'became' gay, but there have been homo or bisexual people, like Irene Adler and Mystique, for 30+ years.

I would get it if the only time anyone of another race or sexuality came along was because the character was retconned, but heroic black, asian, latino, gay, etc characters have been with us since at least 1966 when Black Panther came out.


As far as females being in underwear and bathing suits, isn't that what all super heroes have worn since the beginning? Here's 1939 Prince Namor:

I'm not going to try and sell the idea that comic books intended primarily for pubescent boys don't have an element of sexual attractiveness built into the aesthetic, but haven't both sexes always been represented in revealingly tight clothes, including the original Iron Man? If revealing clothes in comics are a problem, why aren't the revealing clothes of the wrestlers, ballet dancers and acrobats also a problem? That's where the comic aesthetic comes from.


As far as homosexuality goes, it wasn't even legal for adults to have homosexual intercourse in all 50 states until 2003, yet mainstream comics have been taking on either gay characters or allusions to the rights of gays for a very long time. Just what are we expecting of comic books, comic book writers and an industry that was barely profitable for most of its history?

I feel like the comic writers and editors have been engaged in positive social topics for a very long time, but you don't want to give them credit because it hasn't been done in a sophisticated enough way. But comic books aren't sophisticated - they are children's stories of the least believable and most outrageous nature in all of literature.

 

[Brian G Turner]

"Iron Man" isn't a character

Now that's just plain splitting hairs.

Iron Man is Iron Man, Batman is Batman, Spiderman is Spiderman, Superman is Superman. Those are the characters - all their stories are centred on them.

1939 Prince Namor:

Yes, he did come to mind - but he's only wearing bathing trunks because he's a sea-based hero. However, land-based male characters generally don't wear bathing costumes or lingerie.

Whereas female characters effectively do so that they can sexually appeal to young males. Something, DC and Marvel still think they're being progressive on the issue.

For example, the latest "kick-ass" Wonder-Woman spin-off - in which only male characters remain fully clothed:

Somehow I don't think we'll see a Justice League movie poster with Flash, Batman, and Superman wearing thongs and crop tops!

Bobby Drake, "Iceman", recently 'became' gay

Indeed, which is a great example of tokenism - take a character that has decades of presence as a heterosexual character, then awkwardly change it overnight. It's a very insensitive way to deal with alternative sexuality.

Back to Iron Man as a black girl - remember when they had to change the debut cover, because they forget it was a 15-year old they were sexualising?

I feel like the comic writers and editors have been engaged in positive social topics for a very long time, but you don't want to give them credit because it hasn't been done in a sophisticated enough way.

What they are doing is a half-assed job very badly. Which is really sad considering the comics I read in the late 80's/early 90's were doing a far, far better job of trying to realise social issues in more intelligent ways - authors such as Jamie Delano, Neil Gaiman, Grant Morrison, Alan Moore, Frank Miller.

Heck, Neil Gaiman had transgenderism in Sandman, not because it was cool, not because there was a market, and not because the publisher needed to tick a check-box - but simply because he, as the writer, wanted to explore it in a sympathetic and interesting way.

Now look at the Wonder Woman image at top and I'm left thinking that after 30 years things have gone very backwards at DC.

Rant over.

 

[Phyrebrat]

Well, for a start, the default costume for any female hero is a bathing suit or lingerie. And there are precious few characters whose origin stories involve them being gay or black.

So taking a white character and making them black, or conversely taking a straight character and suddenly making them gay, are indeed examples of tokenism.

I couldn't agree more.

Tokenism is rife, but as RX says we have to look at cultural norms of the time. I find the SFF crowd are more forward-thinking, usually. Anyway, I agree totally; a knee-jerk change of gender, race or sexuality is tokenism. The point is how many characters are black and famous - or rather hold such high profiles as Superman, Spiderman, Wonderwoman etc? None. Even with the new push to make it so, society has not previously elevated these characters to fame levels. I remember back in the 90s seeing Spawn and wondering if the main protag was black in the original. Having an antihero as black seemed like a hugely racist stereoptype bearing in mind his triflings with rage, temptation and Hell.

I was also recently surprised by Stephen King's acceptance of Roland being cast as black. He said something along the line of 'as long as he looks after his Ka-tet, it's fine with me'. Stephen King has represented minorities really comprehensively so this struck me as odd; it's not as if anyone would call him prejudiced for complaining at the casting of Idris as Roland.

I do though; Roland's relationship with Detta is predicated on her hate for white men. Making Roland black erases that intense storyline, and I think, the DT movie will be weaker for it.

Finally, 'homo' is a pejorative and offensive to many. I think it's best to stick to gay or homosexual.

pH

 

[RX-79G]

Yes, he did come to mind - but he's only wearing bathing trunks because he's a sea-based hero. However, land-based male characters generally don't wear bathing costumes or lingerie.

Superman and Batman are wearing briefs over thin dance tights. Robin doesn't even have the tights. I'm not seeing the line you're drawing.

In the case of the sword wielding women you posted above, are they wearing more or less than this sword guy?

Colossus in lingerie:

Robin in slippers and panties:

I really don't understand why putting less clothes on a woman is "sexualizing" and it isn't when you do it with a man. Especially when you're disapproving of an image of a 15 year old girl wearing the tank top and yoga pants an actual 15 year old girl would. Is this young woman "sexualizing" herself?

Comic book heroes are depicted in an appealing, attractive way. Men and women have always been shown in revealing clothes. If you put Superman in "briefs", they are somehow uniform shorts, but you put a women in tight briefs and they are "lingerie". Doesn't that sound fishy?



And I don't get your tokenism objection when the same books that "made" Bobby Drake gay had Karma and Northstar as gay 35 years ago. How many decades of depicting gays in a non-token way before the writers of the X-franchise have the right to retcon a character's sexuality (as they retcon their powers or other personal history)? It strikes me that if they want more gay characters, they either have to introduce new "token gay characters", or retcon established and well loved characters as gay. Either way it is a choice to impose a gay character, and either could be labeled "token" because of that choice.

Haven't comic books essentially addressed these concerns decades ago? Or does every new comic book have to approach every sensitive issue like they have no track record at all?

Finally, 'homo' is a pejorative and offensive to many. I think it's best to stick to gay or homosexual.

I wasn't using "homo" by itself. I'm no longer able to edit to put the missing hyphen in, but I meant "homo- or bisexual", like you would say "hetero- or homosexual"

 

[Phyrebrat]

Colossus in lingerie

[...]

Robin in slippers and panties

We should have a new genre; drag-fiction

pH

 

[RX-79G]

And a previous black Iron Man, when Jim Rhodes wore the armor:

I disagree that the "character" is Iron Man. Just as the membership of X-Men or Avengers isn't fixed, the characters that have occupied certain roles have been variable. Same thing with Captain America, Human Torch, Phantom, etc.

 

[Toby Frost]

Personally I don’t think any guy wants to look at a female superhero in dungarees or military fatigues.

The problem I've got is that it makes no visual sense if you've got a team of expert fighters, five of whom are in armour because they are blokes and one of whom is in glorified underpants. Superheroes leave me pretty cold anyhow, but that just looks daft to me. Imagine how silly Aliens would look if Ripley and Vasquez were in their (somewhat utilitarian) smalls.

It's really a matter of personal preference, and perhaps a generational thing, but as far as I'm concerned, realism trumps titillation. In 10 seconds on Google you can find out that, say, Charlize Theron or Gwendoline Christie are really good looking women, but I don't want the realism of Mad Max or Game of Thrones spoiled by them in their undies. If films or comics want to show me the female lead in not much in some non-jarring way, fine, but getting a good look at her isn't something I expect from a film. It's not one of the boxes to be ticked for quality - more often than not, it feels tacky.

To which it's fine to say "Yes, but the world of superheroes is different to that of hard SFF." Sure, but that blatant attempt to titillate makes it harder to take seriously in itself, or perhaps to give it the respect that it deserves.

I really don't understand why putting too little clothes on a woman is "sexualizing" and it isn't when you do it with a man.

I think the standard response is that Conan is strong by removing his clothes, and that most women in such a story would be made weaker by doing so. The point of Conan not wearing much is that he shows how muscular he is and kills a lot of stuff: any woman in a Conan story is probably going to be made weaker by losing her kit, as she'll probably be tied up or rescued or something like that - in jargon, "lacking agency". It's worth mentioning that when Wonder Woman started out, she spent a lot of time being tied up, quite deliberately. But it's a fine dividing line. There are plenty of pictures of "warrior women" which are obviously there to be checked out.

However, I do think the point about how to include gay characters is a good one. It seems to me that there is no obvious way that will please everyone - in fact, when "diversity issues" are considered, I suspect that a lot of commentators set out to be displeased, and the writer simply can't win. It's like being an Enemy of the Revolution: as soon as the accusation is made, you can't be wholly exonerated.

 

[RX-79G]

The problem I've got is that it makes no visual sense if you've got a team of expert fighters, five of whom are in armour because they are blokes and one of whom is in glorified underpants.

When does this happen? There are definitely teams where the woman doesn't need armor while some men do, but your description sounds like medieval knights and bikini models.

I think the standard response is that Conan is strong by removing his clothes, and that most women in such a story would be made weaker by doing so.

Aside from that only applying to Conan, this dichotomy is something we are putting on the depictions.

The fact of the matter is that a male posed to show his confidence and muscularity is just as sexual as a woman posed to show her body. But we (men) act like it isn't, because it isn't 'manly' to be staring at sexualized men. But to women (who are sexually attracted to dudes), these are really no different:

Either skimpy clothed super heroes, posed ridiculously, is okay for both sexes, or it is bad for both sexes. Otherwise, we have this situation, where women must be covered up to match the "decency" of man's body:

 

[Brian G Turner]

The fact of the matter is that a male posed to show his confidence and muscularity is just as sexual as a woman posed to show her body.

Quite true - there's definitely something homo-erotic about the portrayal of male superheroes. In How to Draw Comics the Marvel Way Stan Lee makes the point that both sexes are drawn deliberately out of proportion and with exaggerated musculature to help make them appear more heroic.

 

[Foxbat]

Shouldn't she be called Iron Woman or Iron Girl?

 

[RX-79G]

Shouldn't she be called Iron Woman or Iron Girl?

Only if she wants to clue her enemies in to the change in Iron Man's secret identity.

 

[Foxbat]

Only if she wants to clue her enemies in to the change in Iron Man's secret identity.

Well, how about Iron Person then

 

[Lafayette]

I like Iron Thing or Iron Thang.