You know, every once in a while, a member of the mainstream Feminist blogosphere discovers objectification comic books and thinks she's found something new.
I'm not sure if that's exactly what happened to Maia, but I figures she's new to the fandom since she thinks that's the single most impractical top garment ever made to wear as a top (Star Sapphire begs to differ). I tend to snicker, then feel kind of bad and kind of irked (seems like nobody hears us outside the fandom when we complain either) when non-comics readers get surprised like that.
Anyway, I was going to leave her a comment with the address to write an angry letter to (or at least explain what cost them a potential reader), but I only have the DC ones memorized. Can anyone help?
And yet, I do really enjoy these posts because sometimes the misogyny (especially the visual cues) becomes so great that it's hard to see the stuff that's mostly inoffensive. I mean, I can see what's wrong with that Buffy cover now that it's been pointed, and yet, if I'd seen it on the rack? I don't think I'd've been like "boy. that's some objectification thar!" because, seriously, there would probably be something else on the rack that was even worse and would have drawn my attention and ire. :)
ReplyDeleteI left her a comment that she should check out girl-wonder.org and when fangirls attack!
ReplyDeleteWhen I read posts like that I'm often reminded that I used to be exactly like that... but you learn to mellow and it takes extreme images (e.g. Star Sapphire) to make me extremely annoyed and not just sigh in annoyance that that I'm forced to witness the cheescakery again.
I don't think I've discovered something new, but I'm a little disappointed that seasoned comic book geeks' response is - hey it could be worse.
ReplyDeleteAs I've said in my earlier posts about this topic, the reason I'm disappointed is that Joss has specifically said that he's really happy that all the artists he work with don't do cheesecake and instead draw real women. I find it really depressing that those images are what it means in comic books.
It's why I'll never be a comic book geek.
Maia -- Bear in mind that Whedon's something of a comic book geek, also. He probably has the same filter to look through.
ReplyDeleteAng and Melody -- Y'know, now that I think of it, this has happened before. I posted a Darwyn Cooke Wonder Woman and there was a scuffle over whether she was sexually posed or not.
ReplyDeleteIts somewhere in my archives.
I think I would think "goth" or "that chick from Evanescence wants that shirt" but I don't know that over-sexualized and/or sexist would ever occur to me.
ReplyDeleteAlso, THOSE are unrealistically big boobs? Maybe on such a thin girl, but... *hugs chest*
For me, the saddest thing about the cover remains that it's meant to be based on a real woman, a lovely woman, who already has people fantasising over her, who can be depicted in a sexy and powerful way that would please potential readers across the board--if the artist made the effort (or if the artist's art director or editor allowed the effort to be made). But I feel artists (or their art directors or their editors) are doing more than catering to a specific type of male fantasy. They're letting laziness determine what sort of body and cookie-cutter pose they'll stick a recognisable head atop.
ReplyDeleteI read a heckuva lot of comics each month, in print or online, but I'm not exposed to the worst of what's out there except through When Fangirls Attack, because of where my tastes and interests have led me. Whether this Willow is the worst example out there or a laughably mild one... none of this sort of thing is good. I'm glad people can still be disturbed by even the "mild" stuff.