Take for example, Marvel's newly released alternative cover for their new spider woman comic:
A lot of people are getting pissed because they say its way too oversexualizing of the character, and object to the fact it was drawn by a well known erotic artist.
Now on its face that seems all well and good. I mean quoting from the article in Elle about the picture
"All in all, the image seems to toe the line of pornographic; imagine Spider-Man in that position instead, and the concept would have never gotten this far."
that seems fair right? After all Marvel would never ever put a male in that pose, that pose is purely sexual.
The Vox version of the article even outright points out the differences in how Spider Man and Spider Woman are drawn, stating
"To be clear, that is not how Spider-Man poses or is drawn when he climbs buildings:"
Then to drive the point home, they add a helpful picture of the two you can slide back and forth to see the difference. (you can take my word for it, or go to this link since i cant copy there image)
io9 gets even more specific stating "First of all, even the dumbest, horniest teenage boy on the planet knows there's no fabric on this earth that could possibly cling to Jessica Drew's individual buttocks like that. "
Point is though. Clearly Spider-Woman is forced into unnaturally sexy positions you would never ever ever ever ever find a man in.........
Speaking of past covers no one seems to find objectionable:
.
And these are just the ones with Spider-Woman in them. Of course no one said anything at the time. I could find plenty of other much worse examples with other characters.
Now on its face that seems all well and good. I mean quoting from the article in Elle about the picture
"All in all, the image seems to toe the line of pornographic; imagine Spider-Man in that position instead, and the concept would have never gotten this far."
that seems fair right? After all Marvel would never ever put a male in that pose, that pose is purely sexual.
The Vox version of the article even outright points out the differences in how Spider Man and Spider Woman are drawn, stating
"To be clear, that is not how Spider-Man poses or is drawn when he climbs buildings:"
Then to drive the point home, they add a helpful picture of the two you can slide back and forth to see the difference. (you can take my word for it, or go to this link since i cant copy there image)
io9 gets even more specific stating "First of all, even the dumbest, horniest teenage boy on the planet knows there's no fabric on this earth that could possibly cling to Jessica Drew's individual buttocks like that. "
Point is though. Clearly Spider-Woman is forced into unnaturally sexy positions you would never ever ever ever ever find a man in.........
 |
That picture by the way, is the cover of Amazing Spider-Man volume 2, number 30. Which was printed in June of 2001. Oddly I cant find any angry posts about the inherent sexiness of that pose and how its degrading to the character for that cover. Also to i09's point, I'm seeing a fair amount of ass cleavage, but I guess fabric can cling like that to man ass?
Speaking of past covers no one seems to find objectionable:
.And these are just the ones with Spider-Woman in them. Of course no one said anything at the time. I could find plenty of other much worse examples with other characters.
All of which leads me to one inescapable conclusion. The people who are outraged either dont know anything about comics or dont actually care about the sexiness. They care only that an erotic artist got a job drawing something that everyone still [incorrectly] believes are children's books.
Which is a shame, since they almost have a valid point. Comic book characters are overly sexualized. But lets be honest, some of that is inherent in the idea. These are idealized humans. I'm sure there are very few if any women who naturally look like Spider-Woman. Conversely I dont know very many men who look like this:
Which is a shame, since they almost have a valid point. Comic book characters are overly sexualized. But lets be honest, some of that is inherent in the idea. These are idealized humans. I'm sure there are very few if any women who naturally look like Spider-Woman. Conversely I dont know very many men who look like this:
Just saying.
Now look I'm not going to lie, the playing up the overtly sexual/physical appearances isnt gender equal. Historically its weighted towards women. However an interesting thing has happened. Most of the images I've used so far are fairly recent (last 10-15 years), and theres a reason for that, thats the current marvel style. Now that style has a very detailed body with "depth" to it, so its a basically allows for much more realistic sexy image then this
Now look I'm not going to lie, the playing up the overtly sexual/physical appearances isnt gender equal. Historically its weighted towards women. However an interesting thing has happened. Most of the images I've used so far are fairly recent (last 10-15 years), and theres a reason for that, thats the current marvel style. Now that style has a very detailed body with "depth" to it, so its a basically allows for much more realistic sexy image then this
That's Ms Marvel crica 1980, and that costume is [rightly] the usual go to default for people criticizing the sex appeal built in comic book characters (mostly women) at the time.
But this is her now, in her much less revealing, hailed as "not sexual" current costume:
But this is her now, in her much less revealing, hailed as "not sexual" current costume:
I dont know about you, but I think I find this second lady much more attractive then the first.
Point is though, ever since Marvel adopted its current style, the sex appeal/sexy poses for Men and Women have gotten much closer. Yes it still learns towards women, but we are getting nearer to equality.....just not the equality people had in mind.
And thats a point everyone upset about Spider-Woman's new cover has missed. You can be against the sexiness of comic characters at this point, but if your only aiming it at women your missing half the point, cause men are strutting their stuff now too
Furthermore of all the characters to pick on for being overly sexualized, they seem to have latched onto a awkward choice.
You see Spider-Woman isnt a Spider-Man clone. She has her own unique power set. Including Pheromone control, which she can use to make her opponent feel fear repulsion or attraction.
Thats right, she actually has the power to make her enemies (or friends) attracted to her....and how exactly would you depict that in a visual medium? by making her sexy looking. Which would kinda give marvel an excuse to make her look hot....shes using her powers
Oh and before you point out that's sexist to give that power to a woman, meet Starfox, the brother of Thanos (for those who've seen Guardians he didnt make it into the movie)
Point is though, ever since Marvel adopted its current style, the sex appeal/sexy poses for Men and Women have gotten much closer. Yes it still learns towards women, but we are getting nearer to equality.....just not the equality people had in mind.
And thats a point everyone upset about Spider-Woman's new cover has missed. You can be against the sexiness of comic characters at this point, but if your only aiming it at women your missing half the point, cause men are strutting their stuff now too
 |
| Ladies and Gentlemen, the Incredibly unclothed Hercules.... |
 |
| Oh, hey ant man, what were you doing down there? |
You see Spider-Woman isnt a Spider-Man clone. She has her own unique power set. Including Pheromone control, which she can use to make her opponent feel fear repulsion or attraction.
Thats right, she actually has the power to make her enemies (or friends) attracted to her....and how exactly would you depict that in a visual medium? by making her sexy looking. Which would kinda give marvel an excuse to make her look hot....shes using her powers
Oh and before you point out that's sexist to give that power to a woman, meet Starfox, the brother of Thanos (for those who've seen Guardians he didnt make it into the movie)
His superpower? he can stimulate your pleasure center with his mind (not touching the possible contexts for that with a 10 foot pole) and make you fall in love with him....or anyone else. Oh and did I mention his real name is Eros? And how did he get the name Starfox? Well according to the wasp, he came from the stars and he's foxy......
So yea. turns out Marvel's pretty equal opportunity on that too....well except that both Fox and Spider have been accused of using their powers on a lover......want to guess which one wound up in court fighting a rape change and which one got off scott free? I'll give you a clue, the fact that Marvel didnt make it clear enough Fox didnt rape the women (they stated it in the text, but as an aside after the trial that he hadnt done it, not at the trial himself) is one of the reasons he will likely never be seen again, readers incorrectly think he's a rapist so he's now bad PR for Marvel.
Whereas no one really mentions what Spider Woman keeps doing.....
Anyways point is, the overall argument the people who are outraged over the new cover are trying to make is for the moment still somewhat valid. Women are sexualized more than men in comics. But they likely could have picked a better [read earlier] time to do it, before things started to equalize, they should have picked a different hero then the one with a built in excuse as to why she might look unrealisitically attractive, and the definitely should have picked a different cover to fight over, and a better reason to fight, because as I showed, Spiderman, whom they all turned to to make their point, has been shown in exactly the same pose, which actually undercuts their argument of sexism. Which in turn hurts the valid part of their point.
Now thats the end of this rant, but before I leave you, I uncovered one more comic book cover while writing this that I want to include but didnt really fit well anywhere else:
So yea. turns out Marvel's pretty equal opportunity on that too....well except that both Fox and Spider have been accused of using their powers on a lover......want to guess which one wound up in court fighting a rape change and which one got off scott free? I'll give you a clue, the fact that Marvel didnt make it clear enough Fox didnt rape the women (they stated it in the text, but as an aside after the trial that he hadnt done it, not at the trial himself) is one of the reasons he will likely never be seen again, readers incorrectly think he's a rapist so he's now bad PR for Marvel.
Whereas no one really mentions what Spider Woman keeps doing.....
Anyways point is, the overall argument the people who are outraged over the new cover are trying to make is for the moment still somewhat valid. Women are sexualized more than men in comics. But they likely could have picked a better [read earlier] time to do it, before things started to equalize, they should have picked a different hero then the one with a built in excuse as to why she might look unrealisitically attractive, and the definitely should have picked a different cover to fight over, and a better reason to fight, because as I showed, Spiderman, whom they all turned to to make their point, has been shown in exactly the same pose, which actually undercuts their argument of sexism. Which in turn hurts the valid part of their point.
Now thats the end of this rant, but before I leave you, I uncovered one more comic book cover while writing this that I want to include but didnt really fit well anywhere else:
 |
| Whatever Herc and Wolverine were doing right before this cover I DONT WANT TO KNOW!!!!!!!! |
No comments:
Post a Comment