I wince whenever I see the April Catwoman cover. (No, I'm not reposting it on my blog. Go look at the link.) It's not normal Adam Hughes eyerolling at the exploitation here. It actually unnerves me to the point I can't really make a judgment on whether it's sexist or not. There's something disturbing there I think would bug me if it were two men. That picture is in the middle of the point where she pulls the lip away with her teeth. Gross. And the color scheme. Blues and blacks versus yellows and browns with red in the middle. I immediately focus on the red when I see it. And it looks like she's eating part of Cheetah's face.
It's a horror cover. It has a worse effect than a Zombie cover on me. 'd examine it in depth but I'd have to stare at the damned thing and I don't like looking at it.
I find it so weird that it's the violence that bothers me with this one. I mean, I'm a Geoff Johns fan. People ripped in half? No problem. Impaled heroes? I'll keep reading. Catwoman biting Cheetah's lower lip? I have to avert my eyes and find another website. Maybe it reminds me of cannibalism or something like that.
Either way, this cover getting reposted around the community is not going to be fun for me.
My take on it, speaking as a guy and therefore perhaps having a little insight into the way guys think: this cover deliberately juxtaposes what should be an enticing scene (two women intertwined with some degree of liplock) against the absolute lack of pleasure between the two of them. Sexist? Sure, in the sense that they'd never do a cover with two men doing that. Exploitive? More than anything the underlying expectations are exploitive (i.e., two women grappling with each other is HAWT!!!), but since this cover is throwing a wrench into that, I'd say that this cover is not all that exploitive.
ReplyDeleteA person could also argue that it's thematically appropriate for two cats to be fighting literally tooth and claw; this cover would be a little more disturbing if it were, say, Wonder Woman and Giganta. When I say "thematically appropriate" I don't mean "it justifies everything", only that it factors in.
Don't forget that Cheetah's top is in tatters, meaning her nekkid boobs are prrrrrrrrreeeeesssssing against Catwoman's skintight costumed body.
ReplyDelete... yeah.
Ragnell:
ReplyDeleteI think the cover is gross too but it is very sexist. It invokes to me the sort of pornographic pseudo-lesbian mud wrestling. The lip biting, the torn clothes are all part of that.
People ripped in half? No problem. Impaled heroes? I'll keep reading. Catwoman biting Cheetah's lower lip? I have to avert my eyes and find another website.
ReplyDeleteOver the top violence usually doesn't bother me except in the sense of "well, THAT was pointless". Blowing up cities, impaling heroes, hundreds of bullets ripping people apart - none of that usually squicks me out.
It's the more subtle violence that makes me cringe. This cover is one of them - it definitely doesn't make me want to look at it - more close the window. There's a scene at the end of the movie "Hot Fuzz" that works the same way with me - there's some real "over-the-top" stuff that happens ealier in the movie that just feels like normal movie violence - almost cartoonish. Then there's one bit at the end with almost no blood and no death and I think it's the most horrible thing in the whole movie (it also involves someone's lower jaw ... hmm).
As far as whether the cover is pornographic or sexist - I don't know. It certainly doesn't feel like it to me - but then I've never had a "women beating the snot out of each other" fetish myself.
This stuff looks like the kind of thing that would be on gurochan (an image board devoted mainly to sexualised illustrations of violence and/or Freaky Shit*). Granted, it's a TAME version of a lot of the stuff, but it would hardly look out of place.
ReplyDeleteAnd that's just messed up and not something that needs to be out on display where everyone can see. The blending of sexualised and violent imagery is just disturbing, and I can't imagine a general audience reacting favourably to it.
*I go for the latter. >_>
I dunno, maybe it's just me, but I could very easily see that exact same cover with Wolverine biting Sabretooth. To me, it's not sexy at all, it's a very shockingly raw, violent image, and I think that was the intent; you expect to see Cheetah letting out her feral side, but Catwoman?
ReplyDeleteYou are right, though, Ragnell. Very disturbing in a way that a lot of "violent images" aren't.
I guess I'm weird because when I first saw it I got the impression Huges was trying something different. Cheeta can take punches from Wonder Woman, if Catwoman is to win she'll have to bite, scratch, and claw out a victory. All of which she's doing or has done in that cover.
ReplyDeleteAt least thats what I got from it.
Without the lip-bite, this would be another bog-standard Sexy Grappling (tm) image: hawt women, tight skimpy outfits, ripped clothes, hair-pulling - the usual pro-wrestling-style catfight nonsense. With the lip-bite, though, it becomes unsettling: bloodier, more vicious, more inhuman. It suggests that the two of them are in a no-holds-barred fight to the death and it's gonna get ugly. Which I'm reasonably certain is the intent.
ReplyDeleteThe lip bite scares me too :( I'm one of those ppl who'd be okay with being shot but not cut :( It's the small violence that scares me :\ I guess like bugs vs tigers. I'm FREAKED OUT BY BUGS. Not by tigers or lions or bears... or other big creatures xD
ReplyDeleteLike you, I can't really stare too long at that image (I start to feel queasy after about three seconds) but the thing I find strange about it is the way Cheetah is drawn as opposed to Catwoman. As soon as I look at Catwoman's face, the photorealism there makes Cheetah's side of the cover seem like a Roger Rabbit contrast.
ReplyDeleteAnd if I was reading this series, I don't think I'd be able to pick this issue up. Not only because that cover would be in my longbox, just waiting to jump out and traumatize me but also because I'd constantly wonder as I held the comic to read, "Are my fingers anywhere near Catwoman's ravenous mouth? Urgh."
I like it in an "It would make a nice poster, but it's way too out-there for a comic cover." way.
ReplyDeleteAs someone who owns cats, I see this cover as the human approximation of a cat fight with Catwoman and The Cheetah, two cat based characters. Fur and leather flying, biting, the whole nine yards. Not wanting to be a troll, but I'm missing just what is disturbing about this cover to anyone. It's shocking, yes, but the cover's purpose is to get one to buy the comic in question. Shock leads to curiousity about if the fight will look like this and who will win. Right?
ReplyDeleteEh. I think it was an attempt (albeit a failed one) to have all the horny little boys do a double-take, think that they're going to get a catfight with Cheetah and Catwoman (and maybe more -- Catwoman's a lesbian now, right? *rolls eyes*), only to see on closer observation the catfight's closer to actual catfights: bitter and cruel. The problem is, there's only so much to be done on a cover, and Ragnell's right that the key point in this may be too vicious. OTOH, what else could they do and get away with?
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with the first commenter. OTOH, the cover would be just as disturbing if Cheetah's clothes weren't being ripped to shreds. I think it's a disturbing image rather than a sexist or exploitative one, though a scratch on the face would have been just as effective as a bitten lip.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I find the cover gross. But that's mainly because of Catwoman being an Audrey Hepburn clone. Audrey Hepburn had class and was a good person who did work for UNICEF. I just don't like seeing a look-a-like image of her being used like that.
ReplyDelete