Okay. So, apparently, there's more to say about this topic. And here I am saying it. Continuing a debate from another blog, found here --- http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2012/02/21/she-has-no-head-no-its-not-equal/
I originally responded with yesterday's blog below.
Well, as usual, other commenters got way off topic and I felt the need to reign it in.
The stated problem was the lack of gender equality in comics. But the real problem isn't comics, it's everything. There is no equality anywhere. For any group.
I am a man. I work primarily as a freelance artist/graphic designer. I am in my home office most of my day. I don't like to work in silence, so I generally have the television on. I have noticed that daytime TV from about 8am until after 3pm is aimed at women. All the morning news magazines and the later female gabfests are all aimed at women and women's issues. Why? Because, historically, women have been the people who were home at these times watching TV while caring for their children and tending to their homes. Now, please don't take this as a chauvinistic statement. It is not my desire to keep women barefoot and pregnant. Nor do I want to get paid more than a woman for the same job. I am just stating fact. Daytime TV; newsmags, talkshows, soap operas and even the courtroom judge shows are all aimed at women. Giving that demographic what the media perceives it wants.
Why does the media perceive this? How does the media arrive at it's conclusion? Money. Pure and simple. The media knows what sells and then gives it to us in abundance. Don't fool yourself into thinking that there's some other moral reason for any of this. It all boils down to money. Comics, movies, TV, even podcasts and online media is all designed to separate you from your cash. And if they need to talk about reproductive health on a morning show or show an abundance of cleavage in a comic book, they are going to do it. Because the demographic that the product is aimed at will pay.
Also, I'd like to comment on what is being discussed here. The complaints being leveled are against drawings of women. Not even photographs of real women. We are engaging in a discussion about ink on paper. I'm sure there are many people reading this who will pound their fists and scream that it makes no difference, that this is degrading either way, but think for a moment. A drawing is an artistic interpretation. Everyone's interpretation of art is different. Some folks complain about the photographic work of Maplethorpe. Is it pornography or art? That's up to the viewer. All that is happening here is a company or corporation is adjusting it's aesthetic towards it's preferred demographic. The same way the Twilight movie saga is aimed at lovesick teenaged girls. Yet that argument is considered comedy.
And look at what has happened in the past. Let's take the history of the very popular and lucrative property of Wonder Woman for example. Recently, DC Comics decided to revamp the character. She became younger and her trademark one-piece bathing suit costume was replace by a bodice and pants. This causes an uproar, not just in the comics community, but in the news media as well. And what happened? She got her bathing suit back. Similarly, back in the late 1960's-early 1970's, the powers that be at DC decided not only that they would give WW a new, far less revealing costume, but made her a very powerful, non-super hero. She was fighting crime without superpowers, just knowledge and skill. And who but Gloria Steinem came out in protest of this. Her feeling was that she had been demoted from a powerful woman, comfortable in her sexuality, to a regular person. Recently, Steinem had similar complaints about the pants, stating: "I don't have a big issue with jeans versus skirt -- though jeans give us the idea that only pants can be powerful -- tell that to Greek warriors and sumo wrestlers -- and though in fact, they're so tight that they've just painted her legs blue; hardly a cover-up. I have an issue with changing her clothes and destroying home and family on what seems to be the brainstorming of a very limited group of brains."
Here's another point. Take a look at any illustration of Superman. WHat are you actually looking at? You are looking at a drawing of a naked man sans genitals. The only reason we see him as "clothed" is that there are colors other than flesh on the areas where he would have skin. Color Superman in a beige-peach color and you have a naked man.
And, seriously, all the new lines added to the costumes these days amount to just that… more lines.
I agree that the depiction of women in comics is fantasized. But so is the depiction of men. I will never live up to the ideal of a muscle-bound super man. Almost no one will. And if a woman is drawn with incredibly large breasts twisting in a way that her bottom and her chest are both facing the viewer, well, then that's just bad art. Plain and simple. If you want your women drawn realistically, or not overly fantasized, I suggest the work of Terry Moore or Jeff Smith or Mike Mignola or any number of creators whose work is created for a slightly different demographic.
Once again, this is adolescent male fantasy. If it was adolescent female fantasy, we'd be discussing The Twilight Saga. There is a reason it looks and acts the way it does. It was designed that way.
Now, you can complain all you want… and you should. Every civilization that has prospered on this planet has done so because they fought for what they wanted. So, please don't stop fighting. But do it right. Create your own work. Don't whine that things aren't right the way they are. Don't hide behind a keyboard or a sign. DO SOMETHING.
Ok. Go ahead and pick this apart and let's argue some more about something that doesn't care what we think about it and will remain the same either way.
-Rickman
