But, the sexism should be apparent when females are presented like Catwoman was in the comic Allison pictured. I happened to review a selection of comics and noted the poses of both the men and women, especially the women given our conversation here. The problem of saying "its all subjective so why fight about it?" is that it fails to acknowledge that there is a problem at all. But there is, but we men do not recognize it.
Its not about personal opinion here- Dorkman is trying to call out how it is built in to the comic world. I don't think its as subjective as you think it is.
The problem, as I see it, is that we just regard it par for the course. Many articles I read regarding sexism in comics is that it is normal, the way  females have always been portrayed, that it is just part of the interesting world they live in. The tight outfits are unrealistic physiques are true of both men and women, so what's all the fuss about?
But tight costumes and unrealistic bodies are not the only problem-look at the evolution of Power Girl's outfit:

If I get out my ruler, there's more flesh showing in the first image than the last one, due to the high boots.

You have to admit that since Ellen Ripley and Sarah Connor, women are portrayed a lot less passively than in previous decades. Today they can be strong, independent, snarky, decisive, and confident.

Has anyone posted this yet?- http://www.comicsbulletin.com/columns/1 … mic-books/

Right. Sexism exists outside of comics, too. That doesn't make it not exist in comics, which is the topic at hand.

Maybe because those are aspects of Western culture, and we're talking about a comic book movie right now?

The women are presented in a way that is gratifying toward men primarily, or even exclusively. I.E. men are treated superior (they are not required to be objects of gratification primarily) and their desires are the dominant concern. I.E. sexism as defined.

VOGUE is a women's fashion magazine. This is apparently what women want to see.

Face it, thruout Western culture, women are generally depicted as sexy, and men are generally depicted as handsome, confident, and competent, because that's what members of the opposite sex find most attractive. Expecting anything different from comic books and movie posters is dumb.

Last edited by Zarban (2012-11-24 23:52:31)

Women's romance novels, which I hold to reveal the darkest heart of the female psyche, uniformly depict protagonist men as handsome, confident, and competent. On the few occasions when those novels depict sex graphically, it has become something of a scandal.

Last edited by Zarban (2012-11-24 19:53:28)

Jeez, don't make me take Michael's side now. Sexism is just discrimination based on gender, which commonly takes the form of denying equal treatment to women. That can manifest as a car dealer talking condescendingly to a woman, a man grabbing a waitress' ass, or any number of things other than coercing her to hide her sexuality.

My point is that, in terms of depictions in Western society, men and women are commonly depicted in ways that are most attractive to the opposite sex. For women, that's being sexy; for men that's being successful.

This is so pervasive that getting upset over one use on a movie poster (especially for a movie directed by a card-carrying male feminist) is ridiculous.

Last edited by Zarban (2012-11-24 20:05:27)

I think the main point is getting lost somewhat, the discussion is about the sexualisation of women in comics. One side is saying both men and women are sexualised equally the other is saying women are sexualised more.

Bringing up Taylor Lautner or women's magazines is just confusing matters. I am seeing a lot of very smart people missing points all over the place in this thread and it is quite disconcerting.

But that is not the fullness of female sexual fantasy. The looks of a man are not, repeat not, ever played up over other features like you listed, competence and confidence, as well as other desirable traits. Female fantasy, as I have said before and have had affirmed by Allison, is not looks based.
I'll take your point and reverse it. Comic books are written primarily for a male audience, right? Ok, the men are presented in the peak of physical perfection and yet people are saying that they are being sexualized. Ok, that means that men want to see buff men, to take your point about women's magazines.

Also, as Dorkman has pointed out, this is regarding sexism and comic books, not Western culture at large, though you are right that sexism continues to pervade Western culture against women. We men do not see it because we are born in to a privileged system. Is it being changed? Yes, but that does not mean that a problem still does not exist.

And someone explain to me how Western sexism is not even on the same league. Sexism, regardless of form, is wrong because it holds one group of people and their needs down, or uses them to satisfy the needs of the other. Like Dorkman said, Black Widow is service to the male population because it accents her breasts and rear for no other reason than just for looks. I mean, look at Agent Hill. Her cleavage is not on display-she wears a uniform the same as the rest of the SHIELD bridge crew. But Scarlett does. and she is shown for a male audience. That is sexism, to highlight her body and objectify her parts for the sake of drawing in a male audience.

Great discussion focusing questions Teague, as usual.

I don't think one can go through a portfolio of images and brand them as sexist or not per se. The artist who created them may harbor sexist attitudes, and probably does. "Boys are better than girls," is a well known fact by roughly 50% of any schoolyard, and vice versa. Where there is a difference between people, there are bound to be chauvinists on both sides.

For a direct answer to the question: no image is sexist. It could raise awareness of sexism, or demonstrate, lampoon or otherwise illuminate sexism. Images could be and probably have been used to further the cause of sexism (some sort of deliberate propaganda campaign to repress women), but I don't see that as a wrong inherent to the images themselves.