Comic Critique leads to rape threats

[protege]

I am very tired of the argument being BOOOBs is all teenage boys will respond too.

If you've ever been in a comic book store, there exists a certain stereotype of teenage boy. You know, the guys who are covered in Cheeto residue, smell like they haven't showered in months, and tend to latch on anything remotely female. For them, those are the only boobs they'll ever see. No wonder then, that they're upset that someone (and a female at that) would *dare* criticize their sacred cow

But seriously, the cover in question does look a bit odd. Bad figure proportions aside, it looks like the artist threw whatever was on the table into a blender, hit puree, and dumped it on a canvas. The cover is just so bizarre, that I can see why someone would rip it to shreds.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

I think in reality, you own't see the abandonment of male gaze comics ever. The only thing you'll actually see is the normalization of female gaze style comics. As a man, I get very uncomfortable when both men and women attack the male gaze. I didn't always, but as time has gone on and I've seen the natural trend does not seem to be that tastes change rather we cater to more diverse tends and see idealization simply happen in multiple ways.

Arrow is women's fanservice packaged as a show. True Blood has always centered around women (or possibly gay men's gazes). The less than 3% body fat you see on those guys is the result of an amount of work most men can't replicate due to jobs, steroids, and starvation tricks (less bulemia/more controlled wrestling). Count the number of times an Avenger has been without a shirt in the movies and bump that up against Black Widow. So in comics, expecting everyone to believe there is a massive problem with it doesn't fly when women already seek out Deviant Art artists and yaoi and one can even see the traces of that preference in some the art of some women currently doing comics now. I don't think that's a bad thing. I think what's bad is to say "your gaze is shit, but mine is ok." Fridging - yea that's bad. "I don't like your version of art?" Well that's really more of a preference.

I get the systemic arguments - I do. But the fact remains people (and specifically women) right now don't seem to have any interest in changing it towards naturalism. So does the demonization need to continue? I'm not a fan of some women idealizing male ectomorphic body types because the only way I can actually achieve that standard is to starve. My endomorphic body won't replicate it. Does that make women wrong for liking it? I don't think so. But I'm going to prefer the male gaze in that case because I can WORK to achieve greatness in that gaze. In the other, I'm just not attractive.

TL;DR - gazes differ because we want different things. It's not wrong they exist. It's wrong when we can only get one.

On the main topic: that shit is never justified. I hope that some day there are enough women into comics and assorted nerdery that those guys get forced out or exposed for the abhorrent trolls that they are. That said, like it was said earlier I think those trolls need to be decoupled from male geeks. It's really not fair to them, who for a long time did deal with bullying themselves and are already in what they probably considered their safe space.

[Sleepwalker]

Yeti, think for a second about shirtlessness in men vs women, in a medium that is censored like movies are. Topless women=R rating. A closer comparison would be camera time focused on a woman's breasts/cleavage, and a tight shirt/shirtless man's chest.

The problem with 'the male gaze' is that it arrogates the entire world for itself. It makes teenage girls into hypermature porn stars because that is what it wants to look at, and then teenage boys into nuanced kids/hyper competent men because that is what it wants to see/be. It erases what the other half of the readership might want.

[Kheldarson]

I get the systemic arguments - I do. But the fact remains people (and specifically women) right now don't seem to have any interest in changing it towards naturalism. So does the demonization need to continue? I'm not a fan of some women idealizing male ectomorphic body types because the only way I can actually achieve that standard is to starve. My endomorphic body won't replicate it. Does that make women wrong for liking it? I don't think so. But I'm going to prefer the male gaze in that case because I can WORK to achieve greatness in that gaze. In the other, I'm just not attractive.

Actually, I think it's the mesomorph that's in right now. If we're going by the Avengers, anyway.

But here's the thing, what are women really attracted to? Well, it varies, and actually has a lot to do with personalities rather than physique. But the reason why physique comes into play is because a large number of women like a powerful man. And the first sign of power is visible musculature.

And that power is something both men and women find attainable and/or attractive over multiple body types. Like, sure, you may have an endomorphic body type, but you can still build up muscle and get into shape and present that powerful look within your body type.

The problem with women in comic books is that it does not represent something that both genders find attainable and/or attractive.

I'm more of a pear shape. I carry a lot of weight in my hips naturally and have a small chest. To obtain the classic hourglass, I would somehow have to not only get a boob job, but I'd have to change my bone structure to slim my hips. That's not attainable. Sure, I can get in shape and slim down, but that's not going to change my natural shape into something that the "male gaze" has shown to be attractive according to the media.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

The problem with 'the male gaze' is that it arrogates the entire world for itself. It makes teenage girls into hypermature porn stars because that is what it wants to look at, and then teenage boys into nuanced kids/hyper competent men because that is what it wants to see/be. It erases what the other half of the readership might want.

I get the systemic arguments - I do. But the fact remains people (and specifically women) right now don't seem to have any interest in changing it towards naturalism.

I am not interested in having the systemic argument. I am a feminist and as such I am with you in the pervasiveness of the male gaze. BUT, the line in the sand I'm drawing is largely one I feel entitled to because of bell hooks. I am allowed to discuss my experience and how images affect me because that is the heart of these criticisms. And as a feminist (or an ally if preferred) I become wildly uncomfortable when I am asked to defend images which make me feel uncomfortable or inadequate as a man in some cases AND I am expected to attack the male gaze simultaneously.

if we were attacking sexualized gazing in total, that would be fine. It would be consistent and I could complain about Arrow or Loki's Crotch at the same time I took aim at Charlie's Angels. But even amongst many that call themselves feminist that's not what we're seeing. We're seeing defense of women's gaze largely on the basis of not being a sex-negative feminist.

So the only way I can really reconcile that is that it's not the gaze that's the problem, rather it's whose gaze that's at issue. And if that's the case, I'm going with the South Park free speech interpretation that either all of it is ok or none of it is. There's too much cognitive dissonance involved in trying to defend one and attack the other because they both give such distorted versions of what it is to be a man or a woman.

Both young boys and girls NEED parents that have the intelligence to talk to them about the difference between what they see in pop culture and what they see in real life. A 13 year old girl has no business thinking she needs to be waif thin and boobtastic any more than a 13 year old boy should be thinking about his inguinal crease and six pack. It might be better if people in general wanted to focus on more natural looks, but since neither men or women seem inclined I think that's just a sociological dream.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Kheldarson - Mesomorph/Ectomorph tend to be the defacto standards for male beauty. You're bang on about the mesomorph type, but the ectomorph is often the "off" standard giving rise to Russell Brand/David Bowie/Tom Hiddleston type. Nerdy types are quite often going on about that sort of body with regularity. It's long and lean.

I'm not saying what all women are attracted to it. But I can tell you the various types of male bodies that appear to be sexualized.

Hollywood doesn't really reflect my taste in women any more than I imagine most women find their tastes perfectly reflected.

And to your last point: that's exactly what I'm going on about. Without surgery I *couldn't* replicate the lithe body I frequently find depicted in the art of many women. I don't mean fat loss, I mean I would have to be structurally rebuilt. So if we are going to attack the male gaze (as I said, I'm ok as long as I don't have to deal with cognitive dissonance on the issue) then we need to be prepared to attack general sexualized representation. If sex-negativity is the larger issue, then both gazes need to be left alone. I'm not saying I don't find compelling arguments either way. I'm saying pick one where I don't need to attack the images most appealing to me and defend the ones that make me the most uncomfortable. Or take me out of the equation: make the choice based on how one would feel best defending to a 13 year old pubescent kid whose sex they do not get to select who now wants to understand the world.

[s_stabeler]

And that power is something both men and women find attainable and/or attractive over multiple body types. Like, sure, you may have an endomorphic body type, but you can still build up muscle and get into shape and present that powerful look within your body type.

except for the fact that men would ALSO have to put an inordinate amount of effort to achieve the look that comic book characters tend to have ( and probably surgery- they appear to have no fat whatsoever, which evidence suggests is physically impossible- even with liposuction, there's some evidence to show that the removed fat cells grow back, no matter what)

The point is that both male and female comic book characters tend towards the unrealistic.- to call one acceptable while deriding the other looks hypocritical. If you want more realistic looking women, then you need to have more realistic looking men as well.

[Kheldarson]

And to your last point: that's exactly what I'm going on about. Without surgery I *couldn't* replicate the lithe body I frequently find depicted in the art of many women. I don't mean fat loss, I mean I would have to be structurally rebuilt. So if we are going to attack the male gaze (as I said, I'm ok as long as I don't have to deal with cognitive dissonance on the issue) then we need to be prepared to attack general sexualized representation. If sex-negativity is the large issue, then both gazes need to be left alone. I'm not saying I don't find compelling arguments either way. I'm saying pick one where I don't need to attack the images most appealing to me and defend the ones that make me the most uncomfortable.

You still missed my point. It's not the body type that's attractive in a male: it's what's done with the body type. It's the muscles, the show of power, that's attractive. The reason why you see more ectomorphs and mesomorphs in media is simply because those body types show it off better.

But it's still something you can achieve with any body type. You can achieve muscle tone and the resultant powerful look within your body type. And that's a large part of what attracts women: the power. It's why there's a stereotypical dom/sub dichotomy that's divided by gender (man on top, woman on bottom; man's more powerful).

That's why we can address the "gaze" issue separately. A woman's ideal man in media is still something that is attainable to all guys: a powerful man. Will they all look the same? No, but the look is not the full attractor.

On the other hand, a "male gaze" fantasy has women at the full hourglass shape with large boobs (attainable only if you're born with it or get surgery), small waist (attainable with exercise but highlighted by how the top and bottom are shaped) and hips that are only barely wider than the chest (again, only really attainable if you're born that way or surgery). The reason for this look? It's what guys apparently like to look at. It doesn't serve as a representation of something attainable or desirable (unless you think fertility is something attainable or desirable in its own right).

That's the difference. That's why the "male gaze" is something we have to try to balance out more than the "female gaze" because it completely ignores what is attainable/accessible to the other gender in terms of the physical and emotional overtones.

[Kheldarson]

except for the fact that men would ALSO have to put an inordinate amount of effort to achieve the look that comic book characters tend to have ( and probably surgery- they appear to have no fat whatsoever, which evidence suggests is physically impossible- even with liposuction, there's some evidence to show that the removed fat cells grow back, no matter what)

The point is that both male and female comic book characters tend towards the unrealistic.- to call one acceptable while deriding the other looks hypocritical. If you want more realistic looking women, then you need to have more realistic looking men as well.

Except that the men in comic books are drawn for the male fantasy too. Because, personally, I agree that a lot of the men are unrealistic, but the comics aren't, apparently, targeted for me.

Which is part of the overall problem either way: half of the demographic's wants and desires in terms of style and attraction are being ignored.

[BlaqueKatt]

On the main topic: that shit is never justified. I hope that some day there are enough women into comics and assorted nerdery that those guys get forced out or exposed for the abhorrent trolls that they are. That said, like it was said earlier I think those trolls need to be decoupled from male geeks.

Am I invisible? Posted an article discussing EXACTLY that.

if we were attacking sexualized gazing in total, that would be fine. It would be consistent and I could complain about Arrow or Loki's Crotch at the same time I took aim at Charlie's Angels. But even amongst many that call themselves feminist that's not what we're seeing. We're seeing defense of women's gaze largely on the basis of not being a sex-negative feminist.

I think you missed this:

The giant muscles are similarly a conscious choice. They're wish-fulfillment, a power fantasy. And yeah, sometimes we object to those, too. (image courtesy of googling "Rob Liefeld Can't Draw", not explicit but should still probably be considered NSFW)

Thing is, this "stylized" female body is still wish-fulfillment, but not for women. It's more wish-fulfillment for men; in this case, a sexual fantasy. Comic artists draw ridiculous, unrealistic masculinity so the reader says "I want to be that." They draw ridiculous, unrealistic females so the reader says "I want my dick in that."

Pretty sure most women aren't "wanting to be the hypermasculine hero"

Actually the non-hypermasculine Conan comics are getting a huge outcry from not female readers, MALE readers, they don't like that he's now portrayed as realistic.

Actually here's three articles addressing just that.(I found about 20-30 explaining this fact which seems so elusive)

article 1

It never fails. Bring up the way women are objectified and hypersexualized in mainstream superhero comics, and I guarantee that you will get more than one response saying, "Men are objectified in comics, too! Look at those big, bulging muscles and the focus on Superman's chest!"

At best, one might argue that male superheroes are drawn to be what straight men think women want to see. More realistically, male superheroes are drawn to be what straight men want to be, showing them as powerful and competent without making them sexually provocative, since a display of sexual availability might make the "target market" of those comics uncomfortable.

Article 2 (the non-hypermasculine Lobo has been referred to as "looking gay" by male fans, but is drawn by a female.)

Article 3

[s_stabeler]

You still missed my point. It's not the body type that's attractive in a male: it's what's done with the body type. It's the muscles, the show of power, that's attractive. The reason why you see more ectomorphs and mesomorphs in media is simply because those body types show it off better.

But it's still something you can achieve with any body type. You can achieve muscle tone and the resultant powerful look within your body type. And that's a large part of what attracts women: the power. It's why there's a stereotypical dom/sub dichotomy that's divided by gender (man on top, woman on bottom; man's more powerful).

That's why we can address the "gaze" issue separately. A woman's ideal man in media is still something that is attainable to all guys: a powerful man. Will they all look the same? No, but the look is not the full attractor.

On the other hand, a "male gaze" fantasy has women at the full hourglass shape with large boobs (attainable only if you're born with it or get surgery), small waist (attainable with exercise but highlighted by how the top and bottom are shaped) and hips that are only barely wider than the chest (again, only really attainable if you're born that way or surgery). The reason for this look? It's what guys apparently like to look at. It doesn't serve as a representation of something attainable or desirable (unless you think fertility is something attainable or desirable in its own right).

That's the difference. That's why the "male gaze" is something we have to try to balance out more than the "female gaze" because it completely ignores what is attainable/accessible to the other gender in terms of the physical and emotional overtones.

so wait... your argument is that male gaze is purely based on appearance, while female gaze is based on something more? Because that's actually wrong- yes, what jumps out immediately is the size of the breasts, but most superheroines are just as muscular as the blokes. Also note that of superheroines in comic books, NONE are in any way less powerful than the men.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Kheldarson - Did you just claim I didn't read your post only to not read mine?

Ectomorphs DO NOT show off power more effectively. They are a completely different type. They are the most prone to androgyny and working out does not replicate the long thin natural body type they possess. Mesomorph yes, but I find in art drawn by women they are not as prevalent as people suppose. The mesomorph is far more visible in art drawn by men. And yes, it's because all three male body types can work to replicate some form of it. The mesomorph will always get the best results, but it's not necessarily physically impossible for most men to achieve.

So no, when I bring up ectomorphs.. no I can't be that. Not now not ever. Suggesting I can (or even the fact that that would be considered appropriate) is every reason WHY it's important that feminists open this debate more broadly and define what it is we are actually fighting for. Because from where I sit, being more than happy to take up feminist causes, this is a topic where I feel perfectly justified in saying "pick one." Do you want diversity or do you not want the gazing. That's it. That's all I'm asking.

@Blaque - I'm not sure what you think we disagree on. Power fantasy we agree on. Pervasiveness we agree on. What I think I'm expressing is my dissatisfaction with the idea that one gaze is wrong when both are wrong for different reasons. Yes, I've never seen the new Lobo before right this second and *I* find him odd looking and not meant for me. I agree, men like that power fantasy and I agree it's because when they see men with muscles they can achieve that. They CAN NOT replicate Lobo because when people say (non hyper-masculine) what they're saying is not a normal male body type.

The shoulders are wrong. To carry arms like that, a man's body would naturally build the traps and the back. The legs to the hips are wrong. The waist is too thin and it resembles the hourglass of a woman, not the more straight musculature of (and I need to be clear on this) all three major male body types. Would I want a 12 year old boy thinking Lobo is what men should look like. Dear god no. I haven't seen the Conan comics so I looked it up and I don't see a huge problem but it's an imperfect sample. He's a realistic mesomorph. It may be some people don't like the realism specifically because the exaggerated muscles allowed focus on the attribute (something they can achieve) rather than the body type (something they can't achieve). A realistic mesomorph does not offer the same kind of solace to the male readers with the other two body types. That's just a guess.

This discussion goes no where while some people insist that being critical of everything is problematic. Questioning IS Feminism.

[Kheldarson]

so wait... your argument is that male gaze is purely based on appearance, while female gaze is based on something more? Because that's actually wrong- yes, what jumps out immediately is the size of the breasts, but most superheroines are just as muscular as the blokes. Also note that of superheroines in comic books, NONE are in any way less powerful than the men.

Why are all of the of age women presented as being large chested then? What is the purpose of showing that as a consistent trait?

The argument is that muscles show power so showing superheroes off as being muscular fits both the male and female fantasy (we both crave power in our fantasies for different reasons).

The large breasts only fit in one gender's fantasy, which is where the problem is coming from. There are no females that feed into the female fantasy. And even those that do tend to get stymied in their stories because of the male sexual power fantasies (Batwoman anyone?)

Kheldarson - Did you just claim I didn't read your post only to not read mine?

Ectomorphs DO NOT show off power more effectively. They are a completely different type. They are the most prone to androgyny and working out does not replicate the long thin natural body type they possess. Mesomorph yes, but I find in art drawn by women they are not as prevalent as people suppose. The mesomorph is far more visible in art drawn by men. And yes, it's because all three male body types can work to replicate some form of it. The mesomorph will always get the best results, but it's not necessarily physically impossible for most men to achieve.

They show off it off more effectively because they're thinner. It means when they work out, it tends to create some very hard lines. It's a different look, yes, but it's easier shown than in a thicker body type than an endomorph, which can grow bulky rather than defined.

So no, when I bring up ectomorphs.. no I can't be that. Not now not ever. Suggesting I can (or even the fact that that would be considered appropriate) is every reason WHY it's important that feminists open this debate more broadly and define what it is we are actually fighting for. Because from where I sit, being more than happy to take up feminist causes, this is a topic where I feel perfectly justified in saying "pick one." Do you want diversity or do you not want the gazing. That's it. That's all I'm asking.

I was discussing the fact that you can, just like any body type, achieve musculature. You'll show it differently, but all three body types can achieve a muscle level that can be identified as powerful.

So what I'm pointing out is that the underlying reason for the attraction.

Men and women are both attracted to power. Power, in visual media, is most easily portrayed through muscle. Therefore, male superheroes in comics are drawn as muscular to feed the male power fantasy, but as an added side effect of being sexually attractive to women.

What is the underlying reason for the hard hourglass shape in female superheroes?

Perhaps to show fertility? That feeds the male sexual fantasy, but places women still in a lesser role, not a powerful one.

To show off female sexuality as powerful? That doesn't seem to feed the male sexual fantasy, and posits that women identify their sexuality through their looks.

Simply because men like to look at it? Again, feeds the male sexual fantasy, but we're now completely ignoring the female audience.

So male superheroes don't have an issue because the reasons for their drawing feeds into the fantasies of both demographics. Female superheroes have an issue because they're drawn to only satisfy the needs of one demographic.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

As long as we're talking about male gaze which we both agree with and I'm not sure why it has justified a wall of text from either of us.

Again, my issue is with whether the male gaze is problematic or general sexualized gazing is the issue. I fail to see men and women starving themselves for a fat content below healthy standards constitutes how women's views of male beauty are somehow more healthy and less problematic. Yes, the hourglass is a very specific women's body type. So is the yaoi pretty boy. Why is it we can't all take aim at what tends to be body shaming art OR acknowledge that our individual preferences are what is responsible? That's all I'm asking. I'm not asking for people to admit they're wrong for finding the male gaze wrong. I'm asking that all gazes be held up to the same critical lens.

[Kheldarson]

Again, my issue is with whether the male gaze is problematic or general sexualized gazing is the issue. I fail to see men and women starving themselves for a fat content below healthy standards constitutes how women's views of male beauty are somehow more healthy and less problematic. Yes, the hourglass is a very specific women's body type. So is the yaoi pretty boy. Why is it we can't all take aim at what tends to be body shaming art OR acknowledge that our individual preferences are what is responsible? That's all I'm asking. I'm not asking for people to admit they're wrong for finding the male gaze wrong. I'm asking that all gazes be held up to the same critical lens.

Because you're conflating art forms and mediums. The issue with comic books, and why they're drawing such heat, is because it has a large, completely ignored, demographic who's clamoring for their version of a power fantasy within the genre. Instead, we're getting told that the current heroines are perfectly fine as portrayed or getting thrown even more unrealistic body types.

You know what female comic book character I loved? TAS's Catwoman. She may have had the hourglass figure, but it wasn't as accentuated (as in, it was realistically softer), and she completely owned her sexuality. She didn't even have to give it over to Batman to be portrayed sexually. She used her sexuality as a weapon when she chose, not because that was the only seemingly way to get what she wanted.

A quick glance at comic book covers at the bookstore doesn't give me a character that I can remotely look at and say "that's the type of girl I want to be".

Therein lies the problem with comic books.

To address your other argument, with yaoi comic books, one, that's coming from an entirely different culture. Comic book culture is a reflection of Western culture (or more specifically, American culture), and it's Western women who are asking for a change to reflect their interests.

Two, yaoi is Japan. We're appropriating it. We're not going to be able to affect it in any positive manner from this side of the pond. Plus, half the attraction is the fact that it's, you know, not American.

Basically, the comic book argument is an argument of change to reflect the audience and what we want to present as our culture in the mass media. To conflate it with an art form from another country that doesn't even have a similar audience mix is to try to compare apples and oranges.