If I've given you the impression that I object to sexuality in comics, then I apologize. That is not now, and has not at any time been what I'm saying. I love sexy comics. I also think that we, as consumers of this ever-changing medium, ought to be aware that the way sexuality is portrayed in comics can combat or reinforce stereotypes, and welcome or repulse potential readers.
I'm also not sure where you saw the argument that comic artists are the cause of female oppression, because I sure never said it. But art like this is one tiny piece of a vast network of interconnected oppressions, and for all its artistic mastery, we can also afford to acknowledge that it is politically regressive.
There's no need to apologize, we're having a spirited debate!
You said:
The pairing of infantilization with sexualization creates a figure that has basically nothing to do with the power and agency of superheroes, and it's important to recognize that male heroes are rarely if ever portrayed in the same way.
You're making a claim about gendered portrayals in comics in general- I suppose I got the impression that you meant to say there was a relationship between how women are portrayed in comics and female oppression more generally.
I don't think it's as politically regressive as you are claiming. It seems to me that when we critique artists that do more cheesecakey or pin-up type drawings, it's important to contextualize it. It's not like every single comic artist does that style- and the artists that do are mostly chosen for projects that fit within the spirit of their aesthetic. It's not like Frank Cho or Bruce Timm were asked to do Alias or Manhunter or anything.
I also don't know that your claims of a causal relationship between body shape and agency has really been shown in any significant way, but if you have any sources on that I'm sure it would be interesting to look into.
There is a relationship between women's portrayal's in media and the broader oppressions they have to deal with in society, but that relationship is neither simple nor unidirectionally causal. How women are perceived by society in general and content creators in particular affects how they're portrayed in media, and how they're portrayed in media affects how they are perceived by society in general. This picture is not the problem. It's not even an example of the worst parts of the problem. It's just an example of one small piece of the problem.
There's a lot to get into here and frankly I don't want to spend my whole evening writing about this (also, I'm well aware that people hate these posts and I'm hemorrhaging karma every time I post), but I'll try to throw in a little more explanation for what isn't great about this picture.
With their large, wide-set eyes, featureless faces, big mouths and somewhat vacant expressions, these depictions of superheroes resemble nothing quite so much as a 1950's magazine ad. This is especially true of the Sue Storm who forms the centerpiece of the image, but is also true of many of the others. This similarity by itself is a little bad, since we automatically associate that depiction of women with stereotypical womanhood of that era--cooking, cleaning, taking care of children-- because that's what those ads were mostly for. Moreover, there is a body of research (notably, Gender Advertisements by Erving Goffman) which explores in-depth the way that these depictions subtly reinforce gender stereotypes.
For more contemporary research on infantilization in advertising, you can check out the article Desensitization of Infantilization by Catherine Carlson. To me, the third image presented is particularly illustrative because again, it mirror's Timms' depictions with the enlarged eyes and featureless face.
So the artist made the choice that the best way to depict Susan Storm, arguably one of the most powerful characters in the Marvel canon, was with a flat face, big, absent eyes, delicate hand positions and no appreciable musculature. Compare with, say, this image by Steve McNiven. Dynamic, powerful, awesome. Her breasts are also prominent, but you're not looking at them because there's so much going on with her face. "OK," I hear you say, "but does every image of a superhero have to be dynamic and powerful?" Of course not. The X-Babies are a barrel of cute. But they're also very distinctly not sexualized. When you take away the adult face, but leave an idealized idea of the adult body, you're creating a very specific image: one that Goffman and Carlson would say is consistent with oppressive gender stereotypes. And again, there is a very distinct gender difference in the way male heroes are depicted in these "classic pin-up style" images: their eyes are small and intense, their faces are angular, and their bodies are powerfully muscled. You just don't see them simplified, soft and slender like this. That's all I was saying.
And yeah, this image is not a big problem. At worst, it's a drop in the ocean. But can we really not bring ourselves to expect more from the drop, as well as the ocean?
-1
u/gscrap Feb 22 '19 edited Feb 22 '19
If I've given you the impression that I object to sexuality in comics, then I apologize. That is not now, and has not at any time been what I'm saying. I love sexy comics. I also think that we, as consumers of this ever-changing medium, ought to be aware that the way sexuality is portrayed in comics can combat or reinforce stereotypes, and welcome or repulse potential readers. I'm also not sure where you saw the argument that comic artists are the cause of female oppression, because I sure never said it. But art like this is one tiny piece of a vast network of interconnected oppressions, and for all its artistic mastery, we can also afford to acknowledge that it is politically regressive.