What do Women think of the current Wonder Woman book?

[misslane38]

Personally it is about the quality of the words on the page, not the quantity. If the writing is shoddy, or if I do not like the characters voice I will put a comic down. From what I have read of the Batgirl book their is more exposition than the Wonder Woman book, but since I was not enjoying Batgirl's voice I wished that there were less words on the page.

This is true for me as well. More text, dialogue, or exposition is not appealing to me unless it is rich. A story could have minimal dialogue and text, and I would still be pleased, as long as what was on the page was true to character, emotionally provocative, and funny/intelligent.

[Deep_Sleeper]

Oops...this is a women-only thread!

Disregard please!

[brettc1]

Oops...this is a women-only thread!

Disregard please!

Its not women only, per se. Men should feel free to ask question, which is how the thread got started in the first place

[brettc1]

This part of the conversation could spiral into something not pretty. But as for the term "mansplaining" that Swat brought up...I have been in conversations on the internet about women's health issues and still seen self identified male posters try to talk over women. But as to discussions about comic books I think the best example of this trend is the sexualization debate. Specifically the idea that men are just as sexualized as women in superhero comics. It doesn't matter how many women have stated that they do not find the artwork appealing in that way, some guys will keep stating the opposite of what women have told them as if it were truth.

The sexualization issue is one I grapple with, I admit. Part of me genuinely feels that more and more women are being encouraged to look at men as sexual objects in the same way the reverse was true 40 years ago. Female characters talk about the guys in ways that could only be described as sexist coming out of a mans mouth, at least thats how it seems. Gail Simone and Nicola Scott hop on line and talk about how hot Nightwings butt is.

But then of course, you see something like this and think "Yeah, its just not the same is it?"





There is no denying the guys in comics are drawn to look amazing. But the way the females are often posed to look like they are delivering their lines while posing for Playboy takes things to a different level.

At least, that seems to be the case. Movies like Captain America and Thor made a point of showing womens reactions to the leads rippling pectorals.

Another reason guys might believe the girls see the guys as sex objects is that we lie about it a lot to avoid getting into trouble and maybe just assume you are doing the same.

Certainly I think Nicola Scott went out of her way to provide some Mills and Boon poses in Secret Six. I am genuinely asking about the reaction to this pic. Not Wonder Woman, but she was in this issue.

Could the difference be that with the men they are they are there to be heroic and look sexy and for the women for a long time it was to look sexy and sometimes heroic?

[Mecegirl]

The sexualization issue is one I grapple with, I admit. Part of me genuinely feels that more and more women are being encouraged to look at men as sexual objects in the same way the reverse was true 40 years ago. Female characters talk about the guys in ways that could only be described as sexist coming out of a mans mouth, at least thats how it seems. Gail Simone and Nicola Scott hop on line and talk about how hot Nightwings butt is.

But then of course, you see something like this and think "Yeah, its just not the same is it?"





There is no denying the guys in comics are drawn to look amazing. But the way the females are often posed to look like they are delivering their lines while posing for Playboy takes things to a different level.

At least, that seems to be the case. Movies like Captain America and Thor made a point of showing womens reactions to the leads rippling pectorals.

Another reason guys might believe the girls see the guys as sex objects is that we lie about it a lot to avoid getting into trouble and maybe just assume you are doing the same.

Certainly I think Nicola Scott went out of her way to provide some Mills and Boon poses in Secret Six. I am genuinely asking about the reaction to this pic. Not Wonder Woman, but she was in this issue.

Could the difference be that with the men they are they are there to be heroic and look sexy and for the women for a long time it was to look sexy and sometimes heroic?

Part of it is the way the characters are posed. It is why Dick and the other Robins get so much attention from female fans. The second part is the art style. On average I would say the less bulky the better. Nicola Scott is an artist I would say draws male characters in a way that women would find sexy. Marcus To, Fracis Manapul, maybe Ivan Reis are others. (I'm sure others can add to the list) But out of all of the artists mentioned none of them engage in extreme proportions that often. And Nicola Scott's work seems to be the most provocative out of the bunch.

As for the assuming women are lying about it. I have gotten into plenty of conversations about this, and it does feel like they think the women are lying. All it does is make it harder to communicate and it makes women not want to participate in conversations with men. Why bother when they are not willing to listen?

What works for that picture is that the character looks relaxed, the cocky smirk doesn't hurt either. Some artists draw male characters so stiff and wooden you may as well paint them and use them for a door. But I am not sure that picture would be the equivalent of cheesecake. Catman is drawn standing straight, in proportion, and not thrusting any body parts at the readers. The "camera angle" is facing straight on and not tilted upward. There is no zooming in on specific body parts. It is proof than none of those tricks are needed to show that a character is supposed to be sexy. The infamous Nightwing picture however...(And well nakedness. :D)

[americanwonder]

I would like to thank the ladies for sharing their thoughts, and thank Brett for that hilarious pic above. :)

If I may, I do have a couple of comments/questions:

- The creative teams who worked on this book since the Perez reboot took the "Virtuous Amazons/Paragon of Peace" riff as far as they could go with it. Mind you, we got some really incredible stories out of that particular riff but it was really time for a dramatic shift.

I was a bit surprised by this comment, Donna, as, in my mind, the creators have barely begun to really utilize the Amazons. It almost feels that there's this assumed dichotomy: that the Amazons are either a) virtuous paragons of peace or b) dirty sex pirate barbarians. I agree that little of substance has been done in some time with the more virtuous version of the Amazons, but I can't help but feel like there's a whole lot of room for interesting opportunities that could still be done, without resorting simply to dirt. In short, I've long felt that they need to give the Amazons something interesting to do, a purpose, if you will. Even the new version doesn't give them anything of substance to do.

I'm going to take a dissenting opinion. I don't hate the revised amazon history. It helps play up the tensions between modern world and ancient culture, which has been a good running conflict for this series. Those stories were from a time when soldiers regularly raped the women in areas they were invading, and while it is deplorable, I'm okay with it as a starting point for Diana's arc as she figure out what she wants to be in relation to where she comes from. Also as a woman and a feminist, I found Marston's depiction of amazon life too dependent on gender existentialism. I'm fine giving up the perfect society for a dated misogynistic myth a kind of fair trade as it gets rid of something I find more troubling.

I can honestly say that I don't think I really understand. What was it that you found troubling? The "gender existentialsim"? How is that worse than a "dated misogynistic myth"?

eta: Speaking of "Mansplaining" (that word makes me laugh ), I know there are men that write female characters very well (eg, Strangers in Paradise). I don't think Azzarello has been doing that here (though I have to give him credit for doing pretty well with our gal, Diana). I'm a man, but it feels obvious to me as if the story is written by men and for men. I don't feel that Gail's plotting was as solid as Azzarello or Rucka, but the story always felt like it had a woman's voice (which is what I appreciated and miss most from Gail's WW). Any of the ladies here get a similar vibe? Thoughts?

[The Man From Room X]

About the argument of sexualisation, I have a few questions.
Warning... NSFW images may follow





































Would you be okay with it if someone like Power Girl posed sexily, or if someone stared at her boobs as an in-joke? Would you be okay with it if PeeGee was sexualized by a female writer/artist, or in the case of Wonder Woman, who Gail Simone outright stated has the second biggest boobs in the superhero community?




Auntie Emma has some serious cameltoe up there^^

Is it okay if a female artist sexualizes a male character?



(That Vartox buttshot made me die a little inside when I first saw it)

[Mecegirl]

About the argument of sexualisation, I have a few questions.
Warning... NSFW images may follow

The answers to your questions have been given again, and again, and again, to the point that I am surprised that you need to ask. Most of the answers are common sense.

Would you be okay with it if someone like Power Girl posed sexily,

The character does not matter. There are no characters that are allowed to pose sexy and others are not. It is all about the context. From Wonder Woman to Starfire if the character is not doing anything in the story that would require her to pose sexy, then why is she posing? If she is fighting, or having a serious/regular conversation, then why is she posing sexy? If she is trying to seduce someone then of course she would be posing sexy. Most of the time if the character is just randomly posing sexy it is actually a way of breaking the fourth wall. It is inviting the reader to ogle the character.

Amanda Conner and Nicola Scott know how to draw really well. Because they know how to draw really well they can get across to the reader that the character is sexy without relying on a random sexy pose. Just like in real life if a person is physically fit and confidant they are bound to be sexy anyway. That panel that Brettc1 posted of Catman does not show Catman making a sexy pose. He is just standing there with his arms crossed, but because of the skill of the artist Catman would still be considered sexy in that panel.

or if someone stared at her boobs as an in-joke?

Then it's just an in joke, and like all jokes if the person telling the joke has no skill then it will fall flat.

Would you be okay with it if PeeGee was sexualized by a female writer/artist, or in the case of Wonder Woman, who Gail Simone outright stated has the second biggest boobs in the superhero community?

If they are contributing to the problem then it doesn't matter what their gender is. Also, having large breasts is not the problem, nor does it automatically sexualize a character. Amanda Conner seems to have a firm grasp of proportions, she also utilizes facial expressions really well, that is why her artwork is acceptable. She may draw a pin up pictures but those are pin up pictures. Nothing is wrong with pin ups, the problem is when the pin up pops up in the comic. Conner doesn't randomly have Powergirl sexualized within an actual comic. This scene.

Is not sexualized. Being naked or half dressed does not automatically sexualize a character. (Though things like the Wonder Thong or when Wonder Woman's bodice is drawn so low that she looks like a nip slip waiting to happen do.) There is an in story reason why she is undressed, and her posture properly shows action and later embarrassment. For a run like the Palmotti/Grey/Conner Powergirl, that is in part a comedy, it works very well.

Is it okay if a female artist sexualizes a male character?

Female artists rarely sexualise male characters, but even for some of Nicola Scott's more infamous work it is often done in a pretty tasteful way. It is also done sparingly. When you have artists like Benes, who doesn't seem to know how to draw a female character without going for a butt shot, there is no comparison. Come back to me with that question when a mainstream female artist gets to be as bad as the more notable cheesecake artists. Cause with the way things are now it sounds more as if you are trying to play devils advocate than asking a legitimate question. The instances of female super comic book artists sexualizing male characters are so few and far between that we only have a handful of examples. But we can list artist after artist that sexualizes female characters. It would seem that on average female artists don't feel the need to break all story based logic and context just to show how sexy the character is as often as male artists do.

(That Vartox buttshot made me die a little inside when I first saw it)

It was supposed to make you die inside...Even Powergirl wants him to put on more clothes. No female reader would look at that page and think how hot Vartox is. They would either laugh, or retch, and nothing suggests that the artist or writer expects the readers to do otherwise.

[swatkat]

Is it okay if a female artist sexualizes a male character?

This discussion NEVER ends well on these boards, and I have been told too many times that my opinions are wrong and ill-informed to even consider going into this debate again, but I will say this: this question will become actually relevant when sexualization/objectification of the male body by women becomes endemic on the same level as sexualization/objectification of the female body by men, and when the representation of male characters in comics becomes at par with the Hawkeye Initiative (http://thehawkeyeinitiative.com/). As of now, the comparison makes no sense.

The Vartox buttshot made everyone die a little inside. That is pretty much the point.

[Auguste Dupin]

This discussion NEVER ends well on these boards, and I have been told too many times that my opinions are wrong and ill-informed to even consider going into this debate again, but I will say this: this question will become actually relevant when sexualization/objectification of the male body by women becomes endemic on the same level as sexualization/objectification of the female body by men, and when the representation of male characters in comics becomes at par with the Hawkeye Initiative (http://thehawkeyeinitiative.com/). As of now, the comparison makes no sense.

The Vartox buttshot made everyone die a little inside. That is pretty much the point.

Isn't part of the difference of treatement between the genders also due to the fact that women don't find that kind of objectification arousing?
I mean, you could argue that pictures of almost naked men do exist. Conan by Buscema or Frazzetta, for instance, wears absolutely nothing but boots and an underpant made of beast skin. Same for Tarzan. And both of them are pretty handsome boys with big muscles and all. But when you look at the way they are drawn, they don't look sexualized the way women are. They look......powerful. Of course, you could take it as the proof that only women are sexualized. But I would tend to think that portraying men as objects of power is actually a way of objectifying them. It's especially obvious with Conan, who is a half naked mountain of muscles stiff as an erection and who generally have a huge phallic symbol (aka: a sword) in his hands (and between his legs, if you go with his most famous picture by Frazzetta). And if you look at Batman, or Superman, what do you have generally? Mountains of muscles stiff as an erection in tights. They're just lucky enough to be objectified in a way that make them portray something else than mere sexual attractiveness.
Of course, the fact that men are objectified as objects of power, while the objectification of women tend to focus on their boobs and asses says a lot about the role each gender tend to be attributed on our western society's subconcious. But men in comic books are objectified as well, if you think about it, and that's what makes the parodies when they are objectified the way a women would be (the Vartox picture) especially disturbing just like men used to be disturbed by overly muscular women (although not quite as much nowadays). It just goes against what we're used to.
Personally, I find the picture of WW that was used a a model for the second Hawkeye parody to be as ugly as said Hawkeye parody. I like sexy women as much as the next guy, but I prefer when they are classy about it.

[Don-Jack]

At least everyone (I hope) agree that the visual sexualization is NOT a problem with the current WW book. Enjoying the book or not.

[LostinFandom]

I can honestly say that I don't think I really understand. What was it that you found troubling? The "gender existentialsim"? How is that worse than a "dated misogynistic myth"?

A small apology first. I meant to say "Gender essentialism" not "gender existentialism". I wasn't really paying attention to what the auto correct was correcting.

On the one hand I respect and admire Marston's goal to make traits like "nurturing", "comforting", "peaceful", "loving" often derided as "feminine" more appealing, and using a female character to do so goes a long way in rectifying the real gender disparity in Superhero comments. All of those qualities are good and it is a shame that they tend to be under-appreciated in our society. That said, I don't agree that women are natural "nurturers", "Peace makers" etc. Insisting that this is true leads to the type of problem with no name Betty Friedan wrote about. It's the type of set up that makes being a "good mother" an impossible thing, and calls women (like me) who don't see themselves as maternal as betrayers of our sex. (Also it does nothing to diminish the male gaze regularity that leads to women in media being sexualized in a way that men aren't.)

I don't mind the dated misogynist myth as much because it is more connected to the historical myth of Amazons. Also it goes with that horror story trope that "we are being punished as we deserve, which is potent. I like that the Amazons no longer exist to demonstrate some ideal society that we should look at and learn from. I'm uncomfortable with a society of women existing primarily for display.

[TrekkieGal]

What does this mean? Why do you think it tarnishes her? Her origin is different, but the intent was obviously to tie her more directly into Greek Myth.

Because what once what made her special now reduces her to a child born from lust. If that's not good enough then try this, if Zeus has been spreading his DNA all over the globe as the book intends to tell us, I guess there i no need for a Wonder Woman now would there be? Truth is she would be no better then any other one of Zeus bastard children all across the globe. That's what happens when you make a God mortal, and Don't think of the consequences.

[Superdog]

Because what once what made her special now reduces her to a child born from lust. If that's not good enough then try this, if Zeus has been spreading his DNA all over the globe as the book intends to tell us, I guess there i no need for a Wonder Woman now would there be? Truth is she would be no better then any other one of Zeus bastard children all across the globe. That's what happens when you make a God mortal, and Don't think of the consequences.

I can see that, the clay was much more unique. I think there is some gain with the changed origin though. WW is now hero in the Greek sense of the word, and a demi-god.

[Superdog]

I will never understand men who don't get the sexualized imagery thing. A theory would be that they are so used to consuming male centric media that they have become completely blind to it, even the completely illogical or ridiculous. Honestly, porno-y art scares me away from trying books. It's one of the reasons it took me so long to try Wonder Woman out.

I really liked the story in Hiketia, for example, but I pretty much rolled my eyes at every page at the way WW was drawn.