Amph What would female comic book heroines look like

beezel dates end the second he opens his mouth.

 

The date was with an anthropomorphic white rabbit carrying a pocket watch...

 

Look guys i am on super heroine right now and i can tell you that it is not able to have a good woman representation in the world untill we take away the large breast boobs becuse that is what man want. i am a man and I can tell you boy do i like a big boob now an than but that do not meean what we should have every wear because let me tell you it is demeaning for a woman when i like them. and i feel bad for a women, what is demeaned because i am a femnist now after the internet told me that is what you do to be good person and also have the woman get their pant off for you.

What i mean is a woman should not be stereotyped about havin big boobs that is unrealistic and just for the pleasure of men. do you think like me that women shoud make theyre own super heroins so that they can talk about girls stuff like babys and dresses and gettign pregnint an how they like richards reeeds butt in his spandex pants an be afraid what if they get a period in middle of fighting whoever wonder Woman fights. and so this way not to get sterotype because of the women to create a stories. It would be so weird all this girl stuff but so much nicer to all girls because not all the tight pants and big boobs to make them feel bad about there own boobies not so big or oh no is a man masserbatig about womens. I think much better for all women to hear about things they like such as being wonder Woman choosing her color lipstick for big date to make sure she has a Pill and i do not understand why you so angry about it all what is wrong with wanting nice things for women and them to finaly make some their own comics i ask you

 

I would tend to agree. Although, at the time I remember misguidedly believing that it would be in the interest of her character, and a victory against sexism if her outfit was made less revealing for the movie, arguing that her skimpy outfit objectifies her and diminishes her character. However, I realise now that in invoking the argument that less clothing objectifies her, I am giving in to society's judgment that less clothing warrants objectification and surrendering to old patriarchal moral norms. By arguing that her outfit should cover more so that she is not objectified, you're letting society shift the blame onto her character, and make compromises from her original design to meet their standards. In the end, that ends up being sexist, regardless of my well-meaning intention. So the only right thing to do is to make no compromises.

 

A lot of it for me is the original look really keeps the Greek aesthetic. I mean men showed 'about' the same amount of skin minus the bare shoulders and neckline in ancient greek style armor, so it's kind of accurate to the mythology she's meant to evoke. The pants and leather jacket just didn't feel like it captured the mythological nature and aesthetic Wonder Woman should have.

 

Listen, I don't know who you think you are, some kind of internet celebrity (?) but I've been endorsed by DINGO! I'm cool now. You're too late. You don't have the jurisdictional authority to uncool me.

 

He uncools you, by about ten million miles.

 

Why must you sexualize everything? Geez... dude's funny, get over it, pig.

 

giant, swingin' bag boobs clobberin' me in the face

 

It's called agency. If Wonder Woman were a real person deciding that her outfit were empowering, that would be appropriate. But she's not, and her costume (and the costumes of pretty much any woman who is a fictional superhero) is designed--by a man--to objectify her.

This:

Is a Greek warrior aesthetic. Notice the full, practical coverage of the armor, even without the legs or arms covered.

These:


are bathing suits. From the heeled boots to the jingoistic red white and blue with stars, there's absolutely nothing evocative of "Greek aesthetics". There's nothing wrong with a woman wearing this. Arguing that it is somehow important to the character, or true to her roots, or something else that isn't just a male fantasy is incorrect.

Arguably Wonder Woman doesn't actually need a lot of clothing because she's superhuman, and clothes aren't really necessary for protection or to keep warm, but you're being disingenuous to propose that that is the reason for her outfit.

 

I think it's worth noting that the original design was not to objectify her; that came later.

 

Well, that's a point that is to the author's credit, but just because he didn't have ill intentions doesn't mean that wasn't the practical effect.

 

Well you've made clear that all female characters, if a man created them, are therefore objectified and sexist for simply existing. I mean there really isn't anything that can be done. A woman creating a superhero is still creating one in a universe men created so the character is governed by those rules. So effectively your stance would render all fictional female characters sexist.

And also you have voiced that you don't care about fictional universes or see why anyone cares about them. So are you arguing from a point that this is a genre that interests you and you'd like to see it do better or is it one you have no interest in but despise?

When someone mentions Greek Aesthetics in fiction or popular culture they aren't going to imagine real life Greek Hoplites. They are going to imagine all the shirtless men from the 60s sword and sandal movies. They are going to imagine something like in 300. Wonder Woman's costume is no more incorrect than those.



I mean minus having more coverage in the neckline and having shoulder straps it's pretty good and a realistic blend of fantasy and real life Greek aesthetics.

Much more so than a costume based on this in my opinion

 

I assume you're commenting without having seen the costume:

 

You're pretty dense, you know that?

 

http://io9.com/why-early-wonder-woman-was-a-champion-of-feminism-an-1681441158

Also, I do love the new design for the films -- other than boob-armor, because it's stupid and counter-productive -- as it seems fairly practical while a modern retelling of the older designs...

 

That's not what factoid means.

 

I feel like this is relevant.

 

You're talking about her original costume, which is not widely known or seen, not the iconic one that everyone has seen and is used to the present. Thanks for the history lesson though.

 

She doesn't have agency? Of course she doesn't, she doesn't exist. If you decide that she's a victim of male subjugation because of her outfit, then that will be your reality. She's a drawing on a piece of paper! Her reality depends on the prism you look at her through. Her lore describes her as quite empowered and anything but a victim. You're going after the symptom and not the root cause. You want to cover her up because her outfit encourages objectification. Islamists use the same logic when they mandate veils. Rather, it's the mindset that a skimpy outfit warrants objectification that should be challenged. Why is a scantily clad man not subject to the same type of objectfication? It's a double standard. And as long as we play by the rules of that double standard, as long as we consciously try to steer clear of their notions of what warrants objectification, we're empowering and allowing those mindsets to stay in control and set the agenda.

 

I want a thread about this, only this and nothing but this. Judi is eager to contribute and if you don't let her, she'll make a hyperinternet jump to bite all of your rear-ends.