Notice how they are objectifying women?

How are you guys gonna make fun of them?
http://feministing.com/archives/005003.html#comments

Oh no, when lesbians objectify women it is supported, when straight men do it is mocked, I forgot.

Being a feminist sure gets confusing.

How would you know?

While Hujo clearly has issues, this time he does raise a valid point. Any takers?

well for one if we are going purely on the picture posted here we don't have a close up of a womans ass only, but a topless woman as part of a larger picture.

Secondly I don't think that anyone said that comics with pictures of women were bad and should be banned rather the portrayal of male and female characters was disproportionate. I thought that the reaction to the male comic covers was a positive 'isn't this nice for a change' rather than anger.

....back again

I'm personally not against 'objectifying' per se. I would however have some ground rules.

I'm tired of seeing women portrayed this way for the sake of it. I would remove sexual pictures from anywhere people didn't have a choice in avoiding. Like on the streets, in my newspaper, at work etc. People should be able to choose to see sexual images.

I would like both men and women in sexual pictures not to be exploited.

I am sick of sexual pictures being of women only. women like visual sexual stimulus too. Only portraying women says that only women are to be seen as sexual and that women are only sexual beings.

I would make it that not every positive depiction of women is in a sexual way. Women in films, TV, books etc. to be likeable or sucessful has to be sexy, or become sexy as if she was worthless before.

I would support sexual images of women if they didn't then become a pin up of expectation like a yard stick that we should measure up against. Like a tick list of what a woman must be - perfect silicon breasts "check", no visable 'fat "check"....

objectifying women would be less of a big deal if it was part of a culture that objectifies people in context but it isn't.

While Hujo clearly has issues, this time he does raise a valid point. Any takers?

Please. Nudity is not, by default, objectification.

Oh? But she is grabbing her boobie!

That’s ok though, she is a lesbian! Lesbians are allowed to objectify women and even rape young girls! Ask eve ensler "little coochie snorcher that could"

My honest opinion?

As long as it is not promoting hate or violence, it is an admiration of the female form, if feminism was actually a “non man hating� org, straight men could admire women’s beauty in all art forms including comics. w/o such tired clichéd hypocritical labels like objectification.

It shows that feminism is extremely biased and selective in its pursuit to "end sexism". It reveals they only view straight men as capable of sexism, and view themselves as incapable. In essence they are blind.

Cruel to be kind. : )

Oh? But she is grabbing her boobie!

No, she isn't. "Boobie"? Enough said...

It shows that feminism is extremely biased and selective in its pursuit to "end sexism". It reveals they only view straight men as capable of sexism, and view themselves as incapable. In essence they are blind.

Keep telling yourself that. Maybe one day you'll actually convince yourself and feel better.

I'm going to be sorry I asked this (curiousity is the salve of the damned), but what the hell is a "Kissing/Processing" booth?

"Oh? But she is grabbing her boobie!

No, she isn't. "Boobie"? Enough said..."

What word shall I be forced to use?

She is caressing her [feminist exactable word of your choice here] and blushing, and she has flirty eyes too, not to mention the topless nudity.

Defiantly hotter than any Spidey comic I remember.

Uh oh! Its turning me on and I am a straight male, case closed no contest, objectification.

Stupid spell check, stupid no editing . ; p

Firstly, sorry to just barge in here. I'm an occaisional reader and just wanted to share my $0.02 with hujo.

hujo: the main difference between the poster above and the standard of the female form in most comic books (whether graphic novel or your standard super hero milieu) would be the comparison of realistic to unrealistic body proportions. In most comic genre art, the female is not only drawn with engorged breasts, but to contrast and make the breasts seem even bigger, her waist is drawn so wasp-ishly that it's hard to imagine any female super hero having any internal organs. Granted, I'm drawing realistic parallels with fictional characters, but viewing an image as objectifying is very dependent on how objectifying that image is.

The image above shows a point of view above the female, she is nude, or at least partially nude, and she looks directly at the viewer. Her breasts are in proportion to her body. They're not ginormous and threatening to burst from a tiny bikini/halter/tube top of any kind. She looks about sexually objectified as any hippy man walking around with no shirt and a stachel thrown over one shoulder.

Granted, all art is interpreted, and the interpretations are as varied as the viewer, but I really think you're just equating naked with objectification which is erroneous. If women were truly equal, we could take off our shirts on a summer day and enjoy a cool breeze on our skin like the next guy - WITHOUT being thought of as a slut or a whore or any other slanderous names that may come into the minds of passers-by.

And, just to tie this up, her hand isn't on her "boobie" you childish dink. It's on her chest, just below her sternum. I imagine in your porn-trained little brain that you automatically assume that if the figure were to move, she'd start tweaking her nipple and calling you stud, inviting you to defile her. Please. Go get a broader perspective and try not to refer to the specialized body parts of my gender as "boobies". It's just so juvenile.

Thank you
N

hujo: the main difference between the poster above and the standard of the female form in most comic books (whether graphic novel or your standard super hero milieu) would be the comparison of realistic to unrealistic body proportions. In most comic genre art, the female is not only drawn with engorged breasts, but to contrast and make the breasts seem even bigger, her waist is drawn so wasp-ishly that it's hard to imagine any female super hero having any internal organs. Granted, I'm drawing realistic parallels with fictional characters, but viewing an image as objectifying is very dependent on how objectifying that image is.

Right but when you actually consider the men in comic books as well, you find the exact same thing, with exaggerated jaws and insanely impossible built bodies with giant bulges and super human powers. You only choose to see the unrealistic expectations for the women.

The image above shows a point of view above the female, she is nude, or at least partially nude, and she looks directly at the viewer. Her breasts are in proportion to her body. They're not ginormous and threatening to burst from a tiny bikini/halter/tube top of any kind. She looks about sexually objectified as any hippy man walking around with no shirt and a stachel thrown over one shoulder.

C’mon not all comics exaggerate sexuality the same way. In the lesbian art the subject is nude and her expression is one of flirting or being sexual. Plenty of time in comics when men are fighting they get their "skin hugging" tights ripped up and are half naked rolling around with each other, the homo-erotic undertones in comics are huge, please consider both sexes when you make a point about one.

Granted, all art is interpreted, and the interpretations are as varied as the viewer, but I really think you're just equating naked with objectification which is erroneous. If women were truly equal, we could take off our shirts on a summer day and enjoy a cool breeze on our skin like the next guy - WITHOUT being thought of as a slut or a whore or any other slanderous names that may come into the minds of passers-by.

No art is art comic books are art and they "objectify� both sexes. What we are seeing here is an example of double standards, Ever read the vagina monologues TLCSTC? It becomes ok for lesbian feminists to rape little girls. Here we see it is ok to objectify women as long as it is not from straight male culture. It’s like playboy bad but lesbian porno good. And if this lesbian art girl took of her top in a comic book, (which they never ever did, at least in the type used as an example to mock male culture here) it would majicaly become sexist objectificatin of women. Double standards much?

, just to tie this up, her hand isn't on her "boobie" you childish dink. It's on her chest, just below her sternum. I imagine in your porn-trained little brain that you automatically assume that if the figure were to move, she'd start tweaking her nipple and calling you stud, inviting you to defile her. Please. Go get a broader perspective and try not to refer to the specialized body parts of my gender as "boobies". It's just so juvenile.

You can use the word dink, this site can use the word dicks and do a post about penis costumes, but a straight male saying boobies in a light way meant to be humorous is a “Man-child� why am I not surprised?

Sorry Big sister you’re a hypocrite.

I don’t know if this is bad etiquette but this guy, long time comic reader and comic creator, commentor on pandagon said it much better than I could. (you can view it with the link to pandagon in Jessica’s post, I will recopy his post here;)

Hushicho
May 18th, 2006 at 9:13 pm
As a longtime comic fan and even comic creator (see my site for more), I have to say that I don’t particularly find female superhero characters any more or less sexual than male ones. As someone who is attracted to males, I think it’s pretty easy to see the overt grappling, skintight costumes, male camaraderie, and other blatantly homoerotic overtones, but it’s also very easy for people to push them aside. For whatever reason, we always have ‘feminists’ running around crying ‘discrimination! objectification!’ when there’s a woman who dresses in a flashy outfit. But you’re forgetting exactly what comics really more or less are.
They function, in most every way, as modern-day myths. These are idealized forms, idealized heroes and heroines, that we can read and perhaps wish we could be. They have bodies that really nobody could have, minds keener than they should, and lives more charmed than anyone would in their situation. They wield powers beyond imagination and dress in clothes usually unimaginable for anyone else. And, yes, most of these clothes show off their physiques, whether skintight or simply revealing. And many of these costumes are created to titillate, certainly, in a very mild manner, since for a very long time boys were indeed the main audiences of comics. However, that’s not to say no women ever read comics (obviously!) or that male characters never titillated. Personally I found it quite fulfilling when I was younger to flip through many of my comics, most of which involved at least one shirtless (if not even more scantily-clad) man in it, usually very muscular and handsome…shirtless men are apparently ‘acceptable’, and especially when they’re fighting a foe and end up all near-naked…but somehow, if someone draws a character wearing a sexy outfit, they’re the antichrist and the most sexist person alive.
I mean, for goodness sakes, my room is plastered with Alphonse Mucha prints, mostly beautiful women in diaphanous clothing, beautiful curvy forms, and soft colors. Does that mean I’m a lesbian or that I get some sort of sexual gratification from it? No. They’re just nice to look at. That’s really all that this means in comics. Idealized characters, forms, and so forth are a nice escape; they’re nice to look at (depending on who’s drawing them, admittedly, if you like their style!) I’m not saying sexism doesn’t exist, but Wonder Woman? She was my role model growing up, and still is in many ways. I haven’t read her book for some time, but to me she was always very powerful, and even if she did have weaknesses…what hero doesn’t? And isn’t it more inspiring to see her transcend her weaknesses and triumph anyway? Apparently there’s something to it, or else I suppose I wouldn’t have all this Wonder Woman stuff around…I’ve always found her to be inspiring. And if you have a problem with her costume, kindly look to her source material: Greek design. If you look back in the first few issues of volume 2 of Wonder Woman, you can see some of this. As a lover of Greek culture, I could also point out that if they really wanted to be exploitational, they could’ve had her go very ’summer-Greek’ and bare her breasts at all times. After all, it wouldn’t be inconsistent with Greek attire.
But honestly, I don’t see the problem with these outfits. What I have a problem with is when people neglect little things, like the little gap between a woman’s thighs (anatomically due to hips and the crotch itself), at least some bulge between a man’s (which is much less disturbing than seeing absolutely no presence; at least think about him wearing a cup, maybe?!), nipples on men (no excuse for omitting these), and so forth. And if you’re being paid to draw people, at least try to look at a picture or two. Some comic artists draw like they’ve apparently never seen a picture of a person’s body. I mean, it’s not a bad thing when you’re an artist to look at a model sometimes!
Anyway, that’s my two cents. Sorry to go on so long. But I really think there are too many people who snip right up on the bandwagon about things like this. So what if Wonder Woman wears a skirt? As noted, so did the original. And when people have muscular or well-toned buttocks, their thin-fabric skirt is going to hang in ways to suggest that *gasp* there is a pair of well-toned buttocks beneath it. It’s the same way that when Steve Rogers wears a tank top, you can see how hard he works to maintain his ‘Captain America’ physique. Not to mention Matt Murdock’s perky little behind, Wally West’s everything (he walked around almost every issue in tiny undies in the first few issues of Flash v2), furthermore Warren Worthington’s everything, Iceman’s everything (did we forget his ’speedo and boots’ outfit?) and so on…

Or is it a women? I am not fimilar with the name?

Either way great post.

How can y'all even pretend it is not double standards, brought about by feminist conditioning to be intolorant of striaght male culture.

Just because it has become fashionable to mock striagt culture and is only contested in the underground media, doesn't make it right.