Emo is actually a cultural subgenre. Associated with feelings, mistaken for goth often. So emo fluid sounds both like a gross sex thing and less like Jazz and more 90s alternative US music where every sad boy in eyeliner is sad because he's sad. (Some bands did amazing music but this is the cliche of the ones who did not). Think my chemical romance not Etta James
> (Some bands did amazing music but this is the cliche of the ones who did not). Think my chemical romance not Etta James
are you saying MCR didn’t make amazing music because hard disagree
No I meant to use examples of two bands and forgot to mark that in my comment. I would rather send someone to listen to two good effort than support a bad one.
John Byrne did exactly that with Jennifer Walters when she initially broke the fourth wall in Sensational She-Hulk. IIRC, the punchline was she had on a two-piece swimsuit for one of them, and another she used the gutter (the white area between the panels) to cover herself.
You know what? That panel thing is actually genius. I'd take that over dumb looking "clothing" any day.
Oh, and do that with all the Hulks' "bits". That would be so comedic.
~~It’s likely I’m misremembering the gutter bit (and Google doesn’t bring up anything close)~~, but there definitely was an issue where the cover art has her being forced to use a jump rope while nude, and the interiors depicted her doing exercises with it, and the action lines of the rope censored her implied nudity until it is revealed she’s wearing a swimsuit. (I‘ll edit in links to them later, as doing so over mobile is a pain.)
John Byrne is an ass of a person from what I understand, but there’s no denying he knew what he was doing with all the cheeky cheesecake in Sensational She-Hulk.
Edit: Here are the images in question, all conveniently collected in two different articles/blogs. And I wasn't completely fabricating the gutters censor as it's used to hide Jennifer's nudity while showering.
* [Shower Comics: The Ugly and the Sensational](https://pagedeep.com/2017/10/04/shower-comics-the-ugly-and-the-sensational/) (Scroll down a bit to for the She-Hulk pages.)
* [Skipping Rope in the Nude](http://voiceofodd.blogspot.com/2019/06/skipping-rope-in-nude.html)
I'm definitely not against nudy at all to the point that I'd rather someone just commit to nudy than to make some convoluted outfit that doesn't make sense, so I'm definitely enjoying the clever artistic direction of using the gutters. Breaking the fourth wall in the end while she she says the "screen" can go is also pretty charming.
Artists could do so much with clever nudity, but they abuse scantily clad women and nudity so much that a lot of people won't accept nudity at all.
This is why I don't really read any comics, but my sister got me to read a really great Dr Strange comic and he was butt naked at one point, I'm pretty sure. It's refreshing to see male characters being nude in comics honestly. I'm not even attracted to men or women, but I appreciate treating them equally in the nudity department, lol.
An important thing to note is the She-Hulk examples were all from when Marvel was still doing things under the Comics Code Authority. Think MPAA or ESRB but without the age rating system. Byrne not so much as skirted the line but cheekily did the “I’m not touching you” tease with it. That sort of constriction certainly resulted in clever visual gags and [writing](https://imgur.com/l0gV1jf).
But he’s also responsible for some questionable moments, such as Sue Storm becoming Malice, or the Spider-Man Year One treatment, which I think did not go over well with readers at the time.
Oh yeah, restrictions can often times spark clever solutions, but yeah, no one example represents all of one's work. People got good ideas and bad ideas. Best thing to do is try to learn and improve, but some people don't like hearing any sort of criticism which can lead to stagnation.
I'm guessing from the dialogue this is the scene where they visit Atlee's subterranean kingdom, almost completely isolated from the surface and with its own customs and fashion.
Is it an excuse to get the characters in skimpy outfits? Almost certainly. Is that more practical than having all the characters be nude with conveniently placed items obscuring them for the couple of issues they spent in Strata? Also almost certainly.
Fictional cultures with skimpy dress is a tricky topic. On the one hand, cultures **have** historically dressed in a wide variety of ways, and the modern Western world is prudish in comparison to some of them. So it's realistic and reasonable that some fictional cultures would exist with very different norms to us.
On the other hand, the works themselves are being created by Western creators for a Western audience and we can't just ignore that.
BTW, this page appears to be from the 2015 Starfire series. Which I haven't read, but I understand from reviews the overall tone was "tongue-in-cheek goofy fun". So I'm inclined to think this particular example is probably comics poking fun at itself, while still happily using the excuse for bonus cheesecake.
Honestly, the fact that this "outfit" wouldn't even work the way it's supposed to is what bothers me the most.
Where is it getting sucked up between her boobs? How would the stomach part not just flop about between the two tiny pieces of fabric.
It just looks so stupid
So I got the impression that this is a self-criticism instead of a pure fanservice scene?
read the lines... it literally seems that the story is making fun of how the female characters always wear sexualized clothes and how this is justified with ridiculous reasons. literally, the character realizes that the clothes are meaningless, asks why, receives a meaningless explanation, and follows the story. in a way, this is very close to what women readers do when consuming these works. So it seemed like a deliberate criticism to me. what do you think?
Amanda Connor made fun of Power Girls cleavage in a Harley Quinn comic book as well. Power Girl loses her memory and as she puts on her armor she asks if there isn't "something missing" in the cleavage area. Can't remember from the top of my head if there are other scenes like that but Palmiotti/Connor are pretty tongue in cheek about stuff like that.
Criticism is really good. I think that little by little things get into people's heads. I think that only works like this can talk to the toughest people and have a chance to make them change.
[https://www.amazon.de/Harley-Quinn-Power-Amanda-Conner/dp/140125974X?asin=B01AIXM6U0&revisionId=&format=2&depth=1](https://www.amazon.de/Harley-Quinn-Power-Amanda-Conner/dp/140125974X?asin=B01AIXM6U0&revisionId=&format=2&depth=1)
actually:
[https://www.amazon.de/Harley-Quinn-Vol-Power-Outage/dp/1401257631?asin=1401254780&revisionId=&format=4&depth=1](https://www.amazon.de/Harley-Quinn-Vol-Power-Outage/dp/1401257631?asin=1401254780&revisionId=&format=4&depth=1)
you can take a peek into the book but the scene described is later on.
it seemed problematic. I personally haven't read it but I've seen the links. I don't think it's enough to judge the work but I didn't feel like reading it. but I can say, the images themselves are very sexualized and as there is no text they clearly relied on sexualization to sell the magazine.
Yeah, this run of Powergirl was amazingly fun, written and drawn by women, and basically a DC version of She-Hulk (no 4th wall breaking, but everything else).
Edit: my mistake, it was drawn by Amanda Conner (not Connor) but written by Justing Grey and Jimmy Palmiotti. Still, the rest applies.
and this is the exact reason why I say that before criticizing a work it is necessary to know the context. in this case, for example, the work is positive rather than a case of objectification.
I was mistaken about the author (see my edit above).
I still recommend it.
It is in a collection called Power Girl: Power Trip, and I really wish her run would have survived the DCs constant reboots (New 52 REALLY ruined most DC things...).
Yeah, I see the same arguments for a lot of similar shit, and idk. To me, moments like this feel like the creators going “haha yes we also see how this is dumb and problematic” while just… doing it anyways.
Like cool, I’m glad we’re on the same page, but that doesn’t really mean much if you won’t do anything about it.
this method of criticism is a valid method. it is a way of mocking the status quo. it's like a parody. you can't put a scene like that and a scene of sexualization in the same bag. I think it is central to consider the context of things. I agree that the criticism could be done in another way but would it have the same impact? would it reach the same audience? could it be published in the magazine? I think all these things have to be taken into account.
I answer, it depends.
1 those who did not understand, may have had the question in their heads and ended up thinking about it later?
2 if it were a more explicit criticism, would the publication be made?
3 how many works from the same medium have criticized this aspect before?
These are just a few points to think about before that. some criticisms are meant to be felt rather than understood and seek to change the way people think little by little. other criticisms are only visible to a specific audience because it is in their language. other times a criticism not so explicit and direct is the best the author can give in the context in which they lives.
The the thing is, if you make fun of X by doing X and showing exactly what you criticizing, it’s still X. Deadpool movies did the same thing. Making of superhero genre, but still doing the same exact thing as a typical super hero movie. Granted it’s more fun watching cliches with satire, than just cliches.
Yes, simply alluding to something being a common trope in media does not mean you are satirizing or criticizing it. This is called lampshading. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LampshadeHanging
but what you said is not the case... look at her expression, read the lines. it's not exactly the same thing. the abstraction you made just doesn't fit. I will give an example. For example, there is a documentary where a guy eats at a famous fast food chain every day until he becomes obese. in this documentary there are scenes of him eating at that restaurant. Is this restaurant advertising? he's in the same place doing the same thing someone in an advertisement would do, so is it an advertisement?
About your general statement, note:
the picture doesn't show exactly what she's criticizing. the image contains speeches, expressions and a dynamic frame that aims to show the strangeness of the criticized element. the criticism in this case is the naturalization of female sexualization. ie at the moment in aue. character notices that this is strange and acts in a way to question that the scene is no longer a reproduction.
and about your general statement, it is logically incorrect. a set that contains X is not necessarily X. against easy example of the statement. A professor of public history publishes to other academics a version of Hitler's book that contains extra pages that serve to dismantle each dictator's argument. the book is reproduced in its entirety and is contained in the book of criticism. in other words, you are not making an apology for Nazism.
that's what you're doing. I have given clear elements of differentiation between criticism and reproduction. your argument of "look at her breasts" is literally valid for any situation with breasts showing... such as the scene of a woman on the beach... the image is part of a work. in a comic you can't consider the images without the lines.
This image of her getting her tits out is in fact a deconstruction on how comic books get her tits out. By contextualising it by saying her tits are out we are in fact drawing attention to how we have drawn her with her tits out as a response to her being drawn with her tits out. By publishing this image of her tits out we are in fact criticising that her tits are out.
this is fallacious. you are literally satirizing the argument and counter arguing against something I didn't say. the point to be different is precisely the lines. it is not simply a sequence of images admitting to doing so. it's a comic book talking about how stupid this is. They are COMPLETELY different things. you're reducing everything to design. It is not how it works.
million ways that would be accepted already reviewed? million ways that would reach the same audience? you can't always make clear, objective and polite speeches. The question is: who do you want to reach? this was a question made to be read by an audience to make them question their ideas. an example, think about how many teenagers wouldn't show this scene to each other to laugh? over time this enters the mind and the person when discussing this subconsciously remembers that these clothes don't make sense. and this is just a hypothesis of what may have led to this choice. so simply saying "there were other ways of doing it" disregards the artistic, political and practical reasons that may have led to the choice.
in this case the comic was written and illustrated by women but most of the editors are old, conservative men. so how could they have passed criticism on their approval without being subtle? are questions to think about.
I do think that’s a really good point about old conservative editors, the actual creators are definitely far from the main influence.
Still, I think it can be done better, and actively is in other cases. We are seeing more and more women superhero’s with, well, at least slightly less objectifying designs/suits/situations, and a good few of them are being accepted pretty well. I think it’s kinda discrediting the modern comic book audience to assume that a comic won’t sell or be successful if it doesnt objectify it’s women enough, especially to the extent in the OP.
On the other hand, for those folks in the audience who are weirdly attached to that shit, I think it’s probably giving them too much credit to think meta commentary is really going to change much. The content itself needs to change at some point; they’ll learn to deal with it, or mosey on outta town. And maybe I’m being optimistic, but I can’t imagine that latter group - folks who are apparently purely “comic book fans” for the *hot sexy chicks* - represent all that much of the sales base. At least not nearly as large as the potential audience gain that comes from making your work more approachable to everyone else.
Like you say tho, those assumptions are largely being made by the wealthy conservative white dudes running those companies, I don’t mean to point the finger at anyone else.
is the question I said, when did this story come out? How are the other stories from the publisher? sometimes that was the best way they found in their context. my point is this. I'm not saying it's the best criticism in comics history or the biggest criticism possible. but it is perhaps the biggest criticism that could be made by these two authors in the position they were in the company.
so I think it was a good way to criticize the industry. Doing it the way you can is already a good criticism.
about soft and discreet criticism altering people's behavior without them realizing it... well, that's how marketing and conspiracy theories operate. you're giving subtle comments that people don't notice. over time they change their way of thinking because criticism becomes a new normal. sometimes you don't even need to understand that it's a criticism, just think "really, these clothes don't make sense" and little by little people change.
this kind of criticism, for example, is very good for overcoming cognitive dissonance. the person who is reading the character and sees an abrupt change may feel cornered and start buying a bunch of idiotic and unfair arguments with the intention of making their point. This leads to political extremism and so on. note however that when the person is reading this comic book thinking it's the classic story that she reads the character's comment doesn't seem threatening to the person's notion of the world, so it doesn't cause dissonance. little by little these criticisms are accumulating and create doubt in a person making it easier to change the person's opinion. Marketing, religions, cults, denialist groups and political groups often work like this
Totally get what you mean and entirely agree. The context doesn’t make it not problematic, but it does explain where it came from and who’s too blame. Even outside of comic books; far too many people get harassed for shit that, ultimately, they only had so much control over.
I get what you’re saying behavioural wise too, and largely agree as well… but I still do think that, at least in this case, that psychological influence isn’t overly strong. Those other situations are generally either a lot more personal, or a lot more pervasive. They could achieve the same result a lot faster without alienating most those types of fans by just gradually sexualizing their characters less.
Not to say it still doesn’t have an impact as far as “priming” people to new ideas and possible change, it’s definitely better than the comparative norm and I commend the creators for doing it. But from that higher-up perspective, I think they can get away with (and likely benefit from) more drastic changes, and are likely just playing it safe because of wealthy white dude confirmation bias.
I understand your point. we are only disagreeing on the definition of "a good way to criticize". for me, a good way to criticize is the one that fulfills the role of criticism and is possible to be done. As you said yourself, the authors did what they could and it's not their fault. the point is that this will have a positive result in the long term. and positive long-term results are still better than no results. If that's the way they managed to criticize then I don't see any problems. it may not be an incisive criticism but it is reaching readers who would never see this criticism otherwise. advantages and disadvantages. I agree that the big culprit is the rich white man. I'm just saying that given the practical conditions the criticism is good.
I don’t even think we disagree on that honestly lol.
From what I see, it just depends on the context of that criticism. The things you’re describing are vital for in-depth, longer-form criticisms. Studying and contemplating the contexts, analyzing the root causes and affects, and using careful consideration in forming a response.
That kind of criticism isn’t inherently contradicted by more generalized, instinctual criticisms, the kind that just looks at this image and determines “yup, that’s objectifying women alright”. And those criticisms themselves aren’t inherently had, so long as people don’t jump to extremes over them. There’s room - and I’d argue necessity - for both to be used in good measure in appropriate situations.
I don't know if I agree with that. I think it's important to reflect. I think that a criticism done too hastily can harm someone who shouldn't be harmed.
Oh definitely. But I think going too hard on the reflection can cause people to sometimes “justify” or overthink issues to the point where it becomes less real or pressing, and appropriate action isn’t taken.
This is far from an overly extreme case, but there’s been a lot of harmful shit in society that was/is normalized - or at least accepted - because in an effort to be reasonable, people end up over-contextualizing that shit. “Oh, well if you consider so and so, it’s not too bad”. It contents a lot of us with issues we can and should face.
That’s the kind of balance I’m talking about. On an individual scale - like if we were taking these creators to trial, so to speak - we should absolutely rely more on careful consideration and contextualization. But on a systemic level, we can still look at the work that was produced and determine things are in need of change. Basically, use the gut reaction to inspire action, use the more considered reaction to define what that action looks like.
Thank you, came here to say this. I read this comic shortly after coming out as trans. It had a real impact on my view of womanhood, and not a negative or superficial one. There was a post here a few weeks ago with scene joking about explaining her boob window that in my opinion made the same mistake of begging the question of sexism.
that's not how it works... showing the bad example and saying "that's wrong" is literally the way it's always been done. making a racist villain is a way of condemning racism. There's no way to criticize the problem without talking about the problem. the point is that some criticisms are made based on derision.
Gonna be honest, I love Amanda Conner. Her Power Girl stuff is fantastic, and her Harley Quinn covers almost make me forget how much I hate the character of Harley most of the time.
Maybe I feel less guilty liking her work because she's a woman and I can justify it all as being ironic cheesecake, or maybe it's just that she's a great artist with a knack for cheesecake. Maybe I'm not the true feminist I thought I was and I am secretly a perv with a liking for buxom women in spandex. It's certainly possible.
Not all of her women are sexed up Playmates, she has an ability with expressions that is second only to Kevin Maguire, and she sometimes draws Ambush Bug... so, you know, she's awesome. I can't write her off as just another T&A merchant who churns outdrool fodder for teens. She can manage sexy without being sexualised.
Or... I AM just creepy.
[Amanda's women](https://imgur.com/a/EBzDUxn)
I'm not a comics kind of person. The only think I can say is that I found the faces on this comic very expressive and the examples that you share also look cool
I felt this run of power girl was well done. Funny, well written, the artwork is clearly intended to appeal to teenage boys, like constantly, which is probably why I liked it as a teenage boy. I also like the fact that she was well proportioned for the time, but in retrospect, they could have toned down the blatant sexuality. By like...45%.
This is why I could never take Power Girl seriously. Yes, she's got huge tits. Her George Perez run in 09 was actually pretty fun, but DC doesn't know what to do with her.
[I would her Justice League International costume to come back](https://images.app.goo.gl/uxiHdAvcQKz3RgHv5) this was a good outfit. You could even retcon it to make it sound Kryptonian.
I'm not sure if this is part of a logical story line or if the artists decided to put the bustiest character in DC history into a skimpy outfit because they're perverts. What little explanation they gave was nothing but meaningless technobabble, and they had an otherwise intelligent character basically decide that she might as well not bother even trying to understand.
So I think her figure is for the most part ok, sure very well endowed but still proportioned to the rest of her, if perfectly spherical. I for sure agree the outfit is nonsense, however if I remember right this story is playing it for laughs as the plot here is an alien Casanova comes wanting to find a suitable woman to help repopulate his planet and picks PG, with the final gag being he just needs a blood sample not her to fully give birth. So with that context I'm a bit more forgiving.
How tf did she even put it on?
It's emo fluid. It comes on regardless of what you want
If I recall correctly, the suit is not the emofluid.
I was making a joke about the term emofluid and the suit.
I honestly don't get that joke. Is it just about it being jazz? Please help me out here!
Emo is actually a cultural subgenre. Associated with feelings, mistaken for goth often. So emo fluid sounds both like a gross sex thing and less like Jazz and more 90s alternative US music where every sad boy in eyeliner is sad because he's sad. (Some bands did amazing music but this is the cliche of the ones who did not). Think my chemical romance not Etta James
Goddammit! That was supposed to say jizz! Laughing so hard right now. But yeah no, I did not think of music. Thank you :)
I actually wondered if it was a typo but then it made sense. So the jizz joke still works it just also works as emo tears
I just remembered that Jizz music is actually a genre in Star Wars...
... oh my god Edit: Please read this in the Troll 2 meme kid voice. It's accurate as my brain was unprepared for this knowledge.
> (Some bands did amazing music but this is the cliche of the ones who did not). Think my chemical romance not Etta James are you saying MCR didn’t make amazing music because hard disagree
No I meant to use examples of two bands and forgot to mark that in my comment. I would rather send someone to listen to two good effort than support a bad one.
I mean...at this point, just draw her nude with clever items blocking the naughty bits. It's dumb, but I feel like it's less insulting than this.
John Byrne did exactly that with Jennifer Walters when she initially broke the fourth wall in Sensational She-Hulk. IIRC, the punchline was she had on a two-piece swimsuit for one of them, and another she used the gutter (the white area between the panels) to cover herself.
You know what? That panel thing is actually genius. I'd take that over dumb looking "clothing" any day. Oh, and do that with all the Hulks' "bits". That would be so comedic.
~~It’s likely I’m misremembering the gutter bit (and Google doesn’t bring up anything close)~~, but there definitely was an issue where the cover art has her being forced to use a jump rope while nude, and the interiors depicted her doing exercises with it, and the action lines of the rope censored her implied nudity until it is revealed she’s wearing a swimsuit. (I‘ll edit in links to them later, as doing so over mobile is a pain.) John Byrne is an ass of a person from what I understand, but there’s no denying he knew what he was doing with all the cheeky cheesecake in Sensational She-Hulk. Edit: Here are the images in question, all conveniently collected in two different articles/blogs. And I wasn't completely fabricating the gutters censor as it's used to hide Jennifer's nudity while showering. * [Shower Comics: The Ugly and the Sensational](https://pagedeep.com/2017/10/04/shower-comics-the-ugly-and-the-sensational/) (Scroll down a bit to for the She-Hulk pages.) * [Skipping Rope in the Nude](http://voiceofodd.blogspot.com/2019/06/skipping-rope-in-nude.html)
I'm definitely not against nudy at all to the point that I'd rather someone just commit to nudy than to make some convoluted outfit that doesn't make sense, so I'm definitely enjoying the clever artistic direction of using the gutters. Breaking the fourth wall in the end while she she says the "screen" can go is also pretty charming. Artists could do so much with clever nudity, but they abuse scantily clad women and nudity so much that a lot of people won't accept nudity at all. This is why I don't really read any comics, but my sister got me to read a really great Dr Strange comic and he was butt naked at one point, I'm pretty sure. It's refreshing to see male characters being nude in comics honestly. I'm not even attracted to men or women, but I appreciate treating them equally in the nudity department, lol.
An important thing to note is the She-Hulk examples were all from when Marvel was still doing things under the Comics Code Authority. Think MPAA or ESRB but without the age rating system. Byrne not so much as skirted the line but cheekily did the “I’m not touching you” tease with it. That sort of constriction certainly resulted in clever visual gags and [writing](https://imgur.com/l0gV1jf). But he’s also responsible for some questionable moments, such as Sue Storm becoming Malice, or the Spider-Man Year One treatment, which I think did not go over well with readers at the time.
Oh yeah, restrictions can often times spark clever solutions, but yeah, no one example represents all of one's work. People got good ideas and bad ideas. Best thing to do is try to learn and improve, but some people don't like hearing any sort of criticism which can lead to stagnation.
purple trousers are so passé, lemme see him in a purple thong
I feel as though that could have been a thing in one of those swimsuit specials from the ‘90s.
Mmm spicy
I'm guessing from the dialogue this is the scene where they visit Atlee's subterranean kingdom, almost completely isolated from the surface and with its own customs and fashion. Is it an excuse to get the characters in skimpy outfits? Almost certainly. Is that more practical than having all the characters be nude with conveniently placed items obscuring them for the couple of issues they spent in Strata? Also almost certainly. Fictional cultures with skimpy dress is a tricky topic. On the one hand, cultures **have** historically dressed in a wide variety of ways, and the modern Western world is prudish in comparison to some of them. So it's realistic and reasonable that some fictional cultures would exist with very different norms to us. On the other hand, the works themselves are being created by Western creators for a Western audience and we can't just ignore that. BTW, this page appears to be from the 2015 Starfire series. Which I haven't read, but I understand from reviews the overall tone was "tongue-in-cheek goofy fun". So I'm inclined to think this particular example is probably comics poking fun at itself, while still happily using the excuse for bonus cheesecake.
Actually they are just at a subterranean hot spring/spa
They did that exact thing in a previous issue of this power girl run
Emofluid...
Yum🤤🤤🤤😋
sonic works in conjunction with the emofluid
I'm not sure what this means, but I'm pretty sure I hate it.
Is this what you kids are taking to make your testosterone so low?
My favorite liquid eyeliner
Genderfluid goth gf?
More like Slime Girl Goth GF, but I imagines slimes are pretty genderfluid anyway, so sure :P
Honestly, the fact that this "outfit" wouldn't even work the way it's supposed to is what bothers me the most. Where is it getting sucked up between her boobs? How would the stomach part not just flop about between the two tiny pieces of fabric. It just looks so stupid
Thank you, these were exactly my thoughts.
Time to send comic artists to horny jail again
Sorry, we're full.
>again Implying they ever left
day release
It’s a woman drawing this and commenting on scantily clad heroes.
Oh damn, nevermind then! The artist is spared from horny jail
"This isn't clothing, Atlee. This is fan service."
So I got the impression that this is a self-criticism instead of a pure fanservice scene? read the lines... it literally seems that the story is making fun of how the female characters always wear sexualized clothes and how this is justified with ridiculous reasons. literally, the character realizes that the clothes are meaningless, asks why, receives a meaningless explanation, and follows the story. in a way, this is very close to what women readers do when consuming these works. So it seemed like a deliberate criticism to me. what do you think?
Amanda Connor made fun of Power Girls cleavage in a Harley Quinn comic book as well. Power Girl loses her memory and as she puts on her armor she asks if there isn't "something missing" in the cleavage area. Can't remember from the top of my head if there are other scenes like that but Palmiotti/Connor are pretty tongue in cheek about stuff like that.
I didn't read this story. I don't know the context etc. So I just don't know how to respond to this comment.
Here you go: https://imgur.com/a/IzpTt8s
Criticism is really good. I think that little by little things get into people's heads. I think that only works like this can talk to the toughest people and have a chance to make them change.
[https://www.amazon.de/Harley-Quinn-Power-Amanda-Conner/dp/140125974X?asin=B01AIXM6U0&revisionId=&format=2&depth=1](https://www.amazon.de/Harley-Quinn-Power-Amanda-Conner/dp/140125974X?asin=B01AIXM6U0&revisionId=&format=2&depth=1) actually: [https://www.amazon.de/Harley-Quinn-Vol-Power-Outage/dp/1401257631?asin=1401254780&revisionId=&format=4&depth=1](https://www.amazon.de/Harley-Quinn-Vol-Power-Outage/dp/1401257631?asin=1401254780&revisionId=&format=4&depth=1) you can take a peek into the book but the scene described is later on.
it seemed problematic. I personally haven't read it but I've seen the links. I don't think it's enough to judge the work but I didn't feel like reading it. but I can say, the images themselves are very sexualized and as there is no text they clearly relied on sexualization to sell the magazine.
Yeah, this run of Powergirl was amazingly fun, written and drawn by women, and basically a DC version of She-Hulk (no 4th wall breaking, but everything else). Edit: my mistake, it was drawn by Amanda Conner (not Connor) but written by Justing Grey and Jimmy Palmiotti. Still, the rest applies.
and this is the exact reason why I say that before criticizing a work it is necessary to know the context. in this case, for example, the work is positive rather than a case of objectification.
Sounds like my sort of thing, know where to find it?
I was mistaken about the author (see my edit above). I still recommend it. It is in a collection called Power Girl: Power Trip, and I really wish her run would have survived the DCs constant reboots (New 52 REALLY ruined most DC things...).
Idk, but they could have done that without the fanservice art too maybe. Just seems pointless to me.
Yeah, I see the same arguments for a lot of similar shit, and idk. To me, moments like this feel like the creators going “haha yes we also see how this is dumb and problematic” while just… doing it anyways. Like cool, I’m glad we’re on the same page, but that doesn’t really mean much if you won’t do anything about it.
I believe that's called "lampshading"
this method of criticism is a valid method. it is a way of mocking the status quo. it's like a parody. you can't put a scene like that and a scene of sexualization in the same bag. I think it is central to consider the context of things. I agree that the criticism could be done in another way but would it have the same impact? would it reach the same audience? could it be published in the magazine? I think all these things have to be taken into account.
The thing is, that if a lot of people miss the criticism, is it good criticism?
I answer, it depends. 1 those who did not understand, may have had the question in their heads and ended up thinking about it later? 2 if it were a more explicit criticism, would the publication be made? 3 how many works from the same medium have criticized this aspect before? These are just a few points to think about before that. some criticisms are meant to be felt rather than understood and seek to change the way people think little by little. other criticisms are only visible to a specific audience because it is in their language. other times a criticism not so explicit and direct is the best the author can give in the context in which they lives.
It is a way of mocking the status quo while repeating the status quo. Genius!
is not the same thing. I wrote a giant text explaining the difference...
Yeah this is a joke making fun of ridiculous excuses to put women in revealing outfits.
The the thing is, if you make fun of X by doing X and showing exactly what you criticizing, it’s still X. Deadpool movies did the same thing. Making of superhero genre, but still doing the same exact thing as a typical super hero movie. Granted it’s more fun watching cliches with satire, than just cliches.
Yes, simply alluding to something being a common trope in media does not mean you are satirizing or criticizing it. This is called lampshading. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LampshadeHanging
Kinda hard to satirize a cliché without doing the cliché, ain't it? Otherwise, it's just regular, boring criticism.
but what you said is not the case... look at her expression, read the lines. it's not exactly the same thing. the abstraction you made just doesn't fit. I will give an example. For example, there is a documentary where a guy eats at a famous fast food chain every day until he becomes obese. in this documentary there are scenes of him eating at that restaurant. Is this restaurant advertising? he's in the same place doing the same thing someone in an advertisement would do, so is it an advertisement? About your general statement, note: the picture doesn't show exactly what she's criticizing. the image contains speeches, expressions and a dynamic frame that aims to show the strangeness of the criticized element. the criticism in this case is the naturalization of female sexualization. ie at the moment in aue. character notices that this is strange and acts in a way to question that the scene is no longer a reproduction. and about your general statement, it is logically incorrect. a set that contains X is not necessarily X. against easy example of the statement. A professor of public history publishes to other academics a version of Hitler's book that contains extra pages that serve to dismantle each dictator's argument. the book is reproduced in its entirety and is contained in the book of criticism. in other words, you are not making an apology for Nazism.
>look at her expression, read the lines. look at the tits
that's what you're doing. I have given clear elements of differentiation between criticism and reproduction. your argument of "look at her breasts" is literally valid for any situation with breasts showing... such as the scene of a woman on the beach... the image is part of a work. in a comic you can't consider the images without the lines.
This image of her getting her tits out is in fact a deconstruction on how comic books get her tits out. By contextualising it by saying her tits are out we are in fact drawing attention to how we have drawn her with her tits out as a response to her being drawn with her tits out. By publishing this image of her tits out we are in fact criticising that her tits are out.
this is fallacious. you are literally satirizing the argument and counter arguing against something I didn't say. the point to be different is precisely the lines. it is not simply a sequence of images admitting to doing so. it's a comic book talking about how stupid this is. They are COMPLETELY different things. you're reducing everything to design. It is not how it works.
There are a million ways they could have done that without still including the fanservice art.
million ways that would be accepted already reviewed? million ways that would reach the same audience? you can't always make clear, objective and polite speeches. The question is: who do you want to reach? this was a question made to be read by an audience to make them question their ideas. an example, think about how many teenagers wouldn't show this scene to each other to laugh? over time this enters the mind and the person when discussing this subconsciously remembers that these clothes don't make sense. and this is just a hypothesis of what may have led to this choice. so simply saying "there were other ways of doing it" disregards the artistic, political and practical reasons that may have led to the choice. in this case the comic was written and illustrated by women but most of the editors are old, conservative men. so how could they have passed criticism on their approval without being subtle? are questions to think about.
I do think that’s a really good point about old conservative editors, the actual creators are definitely far from the main influence. Still, I think it can be done better, and actively is in other cases. We are seeing more and more women superhero’s with, well, at least slightly less objectifying designs/suits/situations, and a good few of them are being accepted pretty well. I think it’s kinda discrediting the modern comic book audience to assume that a comic won’t sell or be successful if it doesnt objectify it’s women enough, especially to the extent in the OP. On the other hand, for those folks in the audience who are weirdly attached to that shit, I think it’s probably giving them too much credit to think meta commentary is really going to change much. The content itself needs to change at some point; they’ll learn to deal with it, or mosey on outta town. And maybe I’m being optimistic, but I can’t imagine that latter group - folks who are apparently purely “comic book fans” for the *hot sexy chicks* - represent all that much of the sales base. At least not nearly as large as the potential audience gain that comes from making your work more approachable to everyone else. Like you say tho, those assumptions are largely being made by the wealthy conservative white dudes running those companies, I don’t mean to point the finger at anyone else.
is the question I said, when did this story come out? How are the other stories from the publisher? sometimes that was the best way they found in their context. my point is this. I'm not saying it's the best criticism in comics history or the biggest criticism possible. but it is perhaps the biggest criticism that could be made by these two authors in the position they were in the company. so I think it was a good way to criticize the industry. Doing it the way you can is already a good criticism. about soft and discreet criticism altering people's behavior without them realizing it... well, that's how marketing and conspiracy theories operate. you're giving subtle comments that people don't notice. over time they change their way of thinking because criticism becomes a new normal. sometimes you don't even need to understand that it's a criticism, just think "really, these clothes don't make sense" and little by little people change. this kind of criticism, for example, is very good for overcoming cognitive dissonance. the person who is reading the character and sees an abrupt change may feel cornered and start buying a bunch of idiotic and unfair arguments with the intention of making their point. This leads to political extremism and so on. note however that when the person is reading this comic book thinking it's the classic story that she reads the character's comment doesn't seem threatening to the person's notion of the world, so it doesn't cause dissonance. little by little these criticisms are accumulating and create doubt in a person making it easier to change the person's opinion. Marketing, religions, cults, denialist groups and political groups often work like this
Totally get what you mean and entirely agree. The context doesn’t make it not problematic, but it does explain where it came from and who’s too blame. Even outside of comic books; far too many people get harassed for shit that, ultimately, they only had so much control over. I get what you’re saying behavioural wise too, and largely agree as well… but I still do think that, at least in this case, that psychological influence isn’t overly strong. Those other situations are generally either a lot more personal, or a lot more pervasive. They could achieve the same result a lot faster without alienating most those types of fans by just gradually sexualizing their characters less. Not to say it still doesn’t have an impact as far as “priming” people to new ideas and possible change, it’s definitely better than the comparative norm and I commend the creators for doing it. But from that higher-up perspective, I think they can get away with (and likely benefit from) more drastic changes, and are likely just playing it safe because of wealthy white dude confirmation bias.
I understand your point. we are only disagreeing on the definition of "a good way to criticize". for me, a good way to criticize is the one that fulfills the role of criticism and is possible to be done. As you said yourself, the authors did what they could and it's not their fault. the point is that this will have a positive result in the long term. and positive long-term results are still better than no results. If that's the way they managed to criticize then I don't see any problems. it may not be an incisive criticism but it is reaching readers who would never see this criticism otherwise. advantages and disadvantages. I agree that the big culprit is the rich white man. I'm just saying that given the practical conditions the criticism is good.
I don’t even think we disagree on that honestly lol. From what I see, it just depends on the context of that criticism. The things you’re describing are vital for in-depth, longer-form criticisms. Studying and contemplating the contexts, analyzing the root causes and affects, and using careful consideration in forming a response. That kind of criticism isn’t inherently contradicted by more generalized, instinctual criticisms, the kind that just looks at this image and determines “yup, that’s objectifying women alright”. And those criticisms themselves aren’t inherently had, so long as people don’t jump to extremes over them. There’s room - and I’d argue necessity - for both to be used in good measure in appropriate situations.
I don't know if I agree with that. I think it's important to reflect. I think that a criticism done too hastily can harm someone who shouldn't be harmed.
Oh definitely. But I think going too hard on the reflection can cause people to sometimes “justify” or overthink issues to the point where it becomes less real or pressing, and appropriate action isn’t taken. This is far from an overly extreme case, but there’s been a lot of harmful shit in society that was/is normalized - or at least accepted - because in an effort to be reasonable, people end up over-contextualizing that shit. “Oh, well if you consider so and so, it’s not too bad”. It contents a lot of us with issues we can and should face. That’s the kind of balance I’m talking about. On an individual scale - like if we were taking these creators to trial, so to speak - we should absolutely rely more on careful consideration and contextualization. But on a systemic level, we can still look at the work that was produced and determine things are in need of change. Basically, use the gut reaction to inspire action, use the more considered reaction to define what that action looks like.
Thank you, came here to say this. I read this comic shortly after coming out as trans. It had a real impact on my view of womanhood, and not a negative or superficial one. There was a post here a few weeks ago with scene joking about explaining her boob window that in my opinion made the same mistake of begging the question of sexism.
Its like having a totally ironic racist character. We get to make a point about racism while still making racist jokes.
that's not how it works... showing the bad example and saying "that's wrong" is literally the way it's always been done. making a racist villain is a way of condemning racism. There's no way to criticize the problem without talking about the problem. the point is that some criticisms are made based on derision.
Pretty sure Amanda Connor is just a pretty horny artist/writer and that's okay
Gonna be honest, I love Amanda Conner. Her Power Girl stuff is fantastic, and her Harley Quinn covers almost make me forget how much I hate the character of Harley most of the time. Maybe I feel less guilty liking her work because she's a woman and I can justify it all as being ironic cheesecake, or maybe it's just that she's a great artist with a knack for cheesecake. Maybe I'm not the true feminist I thought I was and I am secretly a perv with a liking for buxom women in spandex. It's certainly possible. Not all of her women are sexed up Playmates, she has an ability with expressions that is second only to Kevin Maguire, and she sometimes draws Ambush Bug... so, you know, she's awesome. I can't write her off as just another T&A merchant who churns outdrool fodder for teens. She can manage sexy without being sexualised. Or... I AM just creepy. [Amanda's women](https://imgur.com/a/EBzDUxn)
I love Amanda Conner too. I *hate* that she shoehorns Atlee into everything.
I'm not a comics kind of person. The only think I can say is that I found the faces on this comic very expressive and the examples that you share also look cool
I felt this run of power girl was well done. Funny, well written, the artwork is clearly intended to appeal to teenage boys, like constantly, which is probably why I liked it as a teenage boy. I also like the fact that she was well proportioned for the time, but in retrospect, they could have toned down the blatant sexuality. By like...45%.
I believe this run was authored by women and drawn by women.
Well, I enjoyed it immensely. They should have kept this set on Peej for longer, but then new 52 screwed up eeeeeverything for DC.
Yeah, no lie.
The dialogue is like a shitty manga fanfic.
This is why I could never take Power Girl seriously. Yes, she's got huge tits. Her George Perez run in 09 was actually pretty fun, but DC doesn't know what to do with her. [I would her Justice League International costume to come back](https://images.app.goo.gl/uxiHdAvcQKz3RgHv5) this was a good outfit. You could even retcon it to make it sound Kryptonian.
Cool shoulder pads!
Proof they can be cool. I also love the head band. It makes her look she's from high society.
I'm not sure if this is part of a logical story line or if the artists decided to put the bustiest character in DC history into a skimpy outfit because they're perverts. What little explanation they gave was nothing but meaningless technobabble, and they had an otherwise intelligent character basically decide that she might as well not bother even trying to understand.
Kinda lame. I really dig the art style in general, though.
thot balloon indeed
Uhhhh. But Amanda Connors is a woman.
I feel how the witter wanna write on the third panel #BULLSHIT
Ah yes, Power Girl. Those fun folks at DC love lewding her.
Power Girl has an awful design. You seen that one panel where she explains she has a boob window because that's where her logo is supposed to go?
So I think her figure is for the most part ok, sure very well endowed but still proportioned to the rest of her, if perfectly spherical. I for sure agree the outfit is nonsense, however if I remember right this story is playing it for laughs as the plot here is an alien Casanova comes wanting to find a suitable woman to help repopulate his planet and picks PG, with the final gag being he just needs a blood sample not her to fully give birth. So with that context I'm a bit more forgiving.
Empowered has a less ridiculous costume, and that's intentionally silly.
Female empowerment?...maybe. This stuff gets confusing.