New Wonder Woman Costume Revealed

I don't like the blades.

@ms-lola:

I think you are mostly correct here ... although it's clear that there is a conservative fan movement creating pressure, Gail Simone famously broke through in a similar fashion ... I sincerely doubt that DC would ever allow even the most extreme pressure to impact sales so regardless of WHY this new look appeared if it affects sales it'll be gone before you can blink!

I also agree with your points on HOW they are depicted ... sexuality isn't about what someone is wearing, but neither is it completely about posing ... the Spiderwoman cover that got so much attention a few month back is an excellent example ... the artist got RIPPED apart for the pose, and commentary around it was all about how it was so blatantly sexist to make her look like that ... only to vanish when it came out that another artist had done almost the exact same image with Spiderman and it went totally unnoticed ... by and large these things tend to explode because some "watchdog" organization causes a stir.

Personally I don't hate the uniform ... but it doesn't really feel like WW to me ... maybe it's because I grew up in the age of underroos and Lynda Carter, but WW's costume is burned into my brain as a bathing suit. I have no problem with the variations she's had over the years ... more armor style etc ... but ultimately I think the whole argument is rather silly. I do get very tired of people who claim to be feminists trying to position every panel of every comic as an attack on women.

I can't argue with that mindset because honestly, it is right. Coming into a thread solely with the intention to win does usually spiral into pissing matches like you said. However, you must also keep in mind that to an outside observer like me, it definitely seems like that shoe would fit you. Frozen's arguments are most-certainly and objectively well constructed, going as far as using supporting evidence from actual feminist leaders even among other things that strengthen his arguments. The arguments I have seen from you tend to twist his words, either intentionally or accidentally. That does not make for a strong argument. In fact, it is a logical fallacy and a pretty distasteful one at that. You said Frozen made better arguments than you in a sarcastic way but why? What real purpose does being sarcastic serve if you are trying to have a genuine conversation or just to share opinions? It makes you seem like you want to win the debate. Wanting to win is fine. As a debating veteran, I often want to win as well but it seems disingenuous to say that you don't come into a conversation to win, when you are using debating tactics that are specifically employed to defeat arguments instead of trying to come to some kind of understanding or exercise your ideas.

Frozen sounds like he binged watched Sargon of Akkad's and Thunderf00t's youtube videos and is dead set on spreading their sophistry like a staunch disciple of the anti-feminist gurus. Now I won't take those insults to heart just because I know how much you value quantity over quality too.

I have to say though, his argumentation, not matter how abundant, is predicated on this preposterous belief that there's a feminist anti-straight-male agenda pushed by a small group of loud, ugly, jealousy-driven feminist women on tumblr that collude to cover up beautiful females and wash away their sex-appeal down to the last tiny bit. However, this is really just a self-serving perversion of an otherwise legitimate fight. Granted, the feminist militia has a tendency to exaggerate a great deal and I ashamedly admit to have done it too. The real goal is just to wash away the excess you know, and implement some criteria as to WHO and WHEN it's appropriate to depict a woman in a sexual-light.

Obviously if you can somehow bust this belief of his, all this anti-feminist mumbo jumbo he constructed on top of it will just crumble apart, that's why Frozen willfully ignores the fact that Fabok's design was a smashing success despite not covering a lot of skin, and that the feminists have sung Chiang's praises.

Black Canary and Starfire are all set to star in their eponymous books in fishnets and crop tops though both comics are geared towards a female target demo…showing skin is really not the bloody problem

WW gets a cool looking outfit and Supes gets what? Jeans and a Shirt from Wal-Mart?

I call bull shit.

Thank you for supporting my points with passive-aggressive behavior. There is nothing in my post that can even be misinterpreted as an insult. So I suppose we can add lying to your list of delightfully quaint debating strategies.

As for Frozen's argument that there is a feminist group that is anti-male and beauty-shaming, it's absolutely true. To deny it is to post from extreme ignorance, which isn't very surprising considering the ignorant claims you are willing to make of me, having only had 2 or 3 exchanges with me ever. You may not be anti-male and beauty-shaming but to say that there is not an anti-male feminist group is just a stupid statement. That's like saying there is no such thing as Muslim terrorists because you know a Muslim that is a very relaxed bloke. Or as a popular TV host once said, "In other news, world hunger doesn't exist because I ate today".

Even admitting that there is a feminist militia defeats your own argument, in addition to admitting that they exaggerate to serve their own needs. Thank you for admitting to such actions as well, though that is no surprise considering you have been swinging for the bleachers with me during our entire exchange, despite my previously benign posts towards you. But I guess anyone that disagrees with you is the enemy, right Mr./Ms. Feminist-militia?

I hardly think you are in a position to make the judgement call on what is or what is not appropriate. You can't even keep your own arguments straight or properly differentiate between friend and foe.

I am not sure if you are aware of this but... you have once again inadvertently agreed with Frozen. Just thought I would let you know. I bet if you weren't so busy trying to wage your own personal feminist war here, you might actually find that you and Frozen had some common ground. But you won't do that because he said some feminists are jealous and ugly. Darn him and his evil, shallow, male ways, amiright?

Much better. You didn't try to present it as similar to "forcing women" to do anything. Awesome, as for the next paragraph, there is nothing inherently wrong with your argument here, but it's a bit simplistic and off. Kinda smarmy. I suppose I should let it slide, but I just can't. I'll break down the problems.

@frozen said:

Wonder Woman can be objectified.

True, and this happens often.

@frozen said:

Any male character can be objectified too.

Also true, but this happens much less often. You can't just list two things that are different in frequency as if they are the same. It's really dishonest.

@frozen said:

What you are not understanding, and what I need to stress is that the objectification of characters often just leads to costume blaming, e.g. if that costume is showing too much skin, it's objectification!

Not exactly true... but truish. What you are juuuuust missing is that often the costumes themselves were created with that intention. This isn't always the case, but not all costumes are neutral in terms of sexualization and objectification.

@frozen said:

If that costume is showing too much muscle, it's objectification!

Showing too much muscle? You tried waaay too hard there. sorry. Look, yes, men can be objectified, but they usually aren't. As I mentioned before, If women were objectified at the same frequency as men currently are, it'd hardly be an issue. And noo objectification is not the same as "looking good." That's what you said laaast time I brought this up. Please don't pretend things are "even". It's dishonest and silly.

@frozen said:

The comic writer Erik Larsen perfectly echoed my sentiments; the design of her costume does not objectify her. The definition of objectification, is basically treating someone as an object. Here is a snippet from Larsen's interview:

Larsen:

https://www.reaxxion.com/6512/erik-larsen-speaks-on-online-outrage-women-in-comics-and-sexist-costume-designs

Readers have often been prickly when it comes to bodies, especially those of women. What doesn’t seem to be understood is that there’s a big difference between costume design and character design. Wonder Woman’s costume is perfectly fine. It’s strong, it’s iconic, it harkens back to ancient Greece with athletes in appropriate sporting attire. It’s a costume that functions.

But it’s also one which can be abused. Women characters can be drawn sexy or strong, girlish or mature, thin or voluptuous and everything in between. If DC doesn’t want Wonder Woman to pose seductively and prance around like a sex object, they should make that point clear. Frank Miller drew Elektra as a powerful, taut ball of muscle. Wonder Woman can be that: she doesn’t need to be a tart. But that’s the way she’s drawn, not costume design.

I’ve attached two images that I’ve joined together showing Wonder Woman drawn by artists Mark Beachum and Bruce Timm. Both draw the same Wonder Woman costume, but one looks weak, vulnerable and slutty as all hell and one looks proud, confident and powerful.

So is it the costume to blame or the approach to drawing the character? I say the problem is the approach. DC and Marvel seem to act as though the problem is the costume design.

The image on the left, or any other image/depiction which depicts Wonder Woman as 'sexualized' can be noted. She's visibly depicted as a piece of meat, the version on the right is strong, strident and confident. Everything she does is a rejection of the objectification label; in the Justice League cartoon, she was one of the most powerful members in the League, she kicked ass and simply looked good while doing it. Want her to stop being sexualized? You needn't demand a costume change for that, demand superior writing.

(Why do you use scare quotes around sexualized? you even admit it's happening, but you still put in 'sexualized'. Weird)

Anyway, a couple things. Is he where you got the Greek roots spiel you were throwing out there earlier about Wonder Woman's costume? Because this guy did it too. What is this messed up history class teaching people that wonder woman's costume looks anything like what ANYBODY wore in ancient Greece. Wonder Woman's costume was based on Varga girl pin up calendars. Not some Greek battle clothing. That Greek clothing thing needs to be rolled into a ball, set on fire, the ashes put in pouch weighted by rocks and dropped into the ocean's deepest trench.

And I'm sorry... a costume that "functions"? Going by those images there, if she does anything really athletic, those things are going to pop out. No matter what, there's going to be tons of adjusting. That is not a "functional" outfit. It's meant to look good, not function. More accurately, it's a suit made to look good at the expense of actual function.

Anyway, If this was your actual argument, couldn't you have been a lot clearer and less silly and been all, "hey artists, can't you just not draw wonder woman sexually in her current costume instead of designing a whole new one?" You and Eric agree she's been sexualized... So you can't really argue with people saying she's been sexualized.

But no, you had to compare people who say she's sexualized the taliban. Shouldn't you blame the artist just for not being original, or being lazy, rather than likening feminists to a terrorist organization?

Also, this argument doesn't contradict anything I've said. I've said many times sexualization is largely about the presentation (thought not always exclusively)... however, we've gotten into a sub conversations, like the one about Wonder Woman's origin and stuff. But about the change itself, regardless whether or not they could have kept the concept the same or whatever, comparing it to the taliban is not the way to go.

@frozen said:

This is largely an ignorant viewpoint; I'm not sure if it's intentional, but you've left a lot of context out. Firstly, to start --- looking good is a requirement, especially in a fantasy medium; and you cannot cling to your double-standards. The most popular male superheroes look extremely attractive; and are depicted as physical perfections, even if they have superpowers and do not necessarily need to be in shape for power. This is not objectification if those characters are written to be more than objects. Nor is Wonder Woman the only subject to it --- most superhero comics depict both males and females as attractive, and there's nothing wrong with it.

OK, just stop stop stop with the "good looking is a requirement" BS. It's ridiculous. This isn't about "looking good" So just stop. Most characters are going to "look good". The creator of Wonder Woman specifically said he wanted to make her alluring to the point they'd see the fact she was stronger than them as a sexual plus so they'd want to be her "willing slaves." This is not "looking good." Do you honestly think the women that his "masculine authorities" thought wouldn't be liked by men was going to be ugly? Noooo. In fact he even decided to suggest her very strength and powers was intended to turn on the men. They couldn't even accept a women being strong unless they found it hot. This is the trade off the creator made to get her published. So yes, as I said, he bribed men by making her creation sexual. No it's not ignorant, no that's not dishonest. That is the fact out of the creator's own mouth.

@frozen said:

Secondly, you are ignoring the context. The social atmosphere at the time, in comparison to now was mostly conservative and religiously puritan. This was the type of fashion you'd find for females, though there were exceptions. Wonder Woman's costume, although designed for arousal was a first step in the liberalizing of such mediums. Wonder Woman was at the time, a very liberal figure. That is why she was an icon for the 1970's women's liberation movement. In 1972, Gloria Steinem (significant Feminist scholar) and the other founders of Ms magazine chose Wonder Woman to be the cover girl for its first issue. She's expanded upon this before, by saying:

"Wonder Woman's family of Amazons on Paradise Island, her band of college girls in America, and her efforts to save individual women are all welcome examples of women working together and caring about each other's welfare. The idea of such cooperation may not seem particularly revolutionary to the male reader. Men are routinely depicted as working well together, but women know how rare and therefore exhilarating the idea of sisterhood really is. Wonder Woman's mother, Queen Hippolyte, offers yet another welcome example to young girls in search of a strong identity. Queen Hippolyte founds nations, wages war to protect Paradise Island, and sends her daughter off to fight the forces of evil in the world... Wonder Woman symbolizes many of the values of the women's culture that feminists are now trying to introduce into the mainstream: strength and self-reliance for women; sisterhood and mutual support among women; peacefulness and esteem for human life; a diminishment both of "masculine" aggression and of the belief that violence is the only way of solving conflicts."

You know... Not one word of what Steinem said there had anything to do about Wonder Woman's costume... Hmm let's read that again:

"strength and self-reliance for women; sisterhood and mutual support among women; peacefulness and esteem for human life; a diminishment both of "masculine" aggression and of the belief that violence is the only way of solving conflicts."

yeah... nothing in there about making sure she's alluring to the point the men will want to submit as her willing slaves, so that's why she must wear a bodice... Gee... it's almost as if Steinem appreciated her for non sexy mistress aspects of her creation. So very weird. Of course there were many good aspects of her creation. I have never once said otherwise, but the point is that as always she had to be created with the male libido in mind in order to allow her to have these good points. I've said this from the very beginning. Women aren't just allowed to be powerful. And I'm pre-emptively stopping your "but but but they're all attractive" bit again. Pandering is very different than just being attractive and I can't believe even you can't admit the creator admitted explicitly to pandering to the male audience so he was allowed to give her powers.

Wonder Woman being liberating had little to do with her costume. She was based on pin ups and she was one of a group of "headlight" comics. What you have to understand is that pictures of women in revealing clothes had been around long before Wonder Woman. You know...with the purpose of exciting men. Including several other comics around the time of Wonde Woman's creation. So regarding actual liberation, the problem is with a real live woman being able to wear such clothing for herself without judgement or being objectified by men as if her clothing was for them. Hmm let's ask the person who played Wonder Woman on TV...Lynda Carter said:

"I never meant to be a sexual object for anyone but my husband. I never thought a picture of my body would be tacked up in men's bathrooms. I hate men looking at me and thinking what they think. And I know what they think. They write and tell me."

Simply plopping a woman on a comic with Wonder Woman's outfit isn't enough, you have to present her right... And starting from the beginning hoping men will want to do her so much they'll see past her strength (or turned on by it) they'll let her exist. Does this make her a wash? No. They did do some things amazingly well. But you can't pretend the bad didn't happen. You can accept the bad, but you shouldn't forget it.

@frozen said:

This is a snippet from a Guardian article in regards to Wonder Woman's history, but it gives insight into her creation.

Superman’s publisher, Charlie Gaines, read Byrne’s article and was so impressed that he decided to hire Marston as a consulting psychologist. Marston convinced Gaines that what he really needed to counter the attack on comics was a female superhero. At first, Gaines objected. Every female pulp and comic-book heroine, he told Marston, had been a failure (which wasn’t strictly true). “But they weren’t superwomen,” Marston countered. “They weren’t superior to men.” A female superhero, Marston insisted, was the best answer to the critics, since “the comics’ worst offence was their bloodcurdling masculinity”. In February 1941, he submitted a typewritten draft of the first instalment of “Suprema, the Wonder Woman”. For an editor, Gaines assigned Marston to Sheldon Mayer, who edited Superman. In a letter Marston sent Mayer with his first script, he explained the “under-meaning” of the story: “Men (Greeks) were captured by predatory loveseeking females until they got sick of it and made the women captive by force. But they were afraid of them (masculine inferiority complex) and kept them heavily chained lest the women put one over as they always had before. The Goddess of Love comes along and helps women break their chains by giving them the greater force of real altruism. Whereupon men turned about face and actually helped the women get away from domestic slavery – as men are doing now. The NEW WOMEN thus freed and strengthened by supporting themselves (on Paradise Island) developed enormous physical and mental power. But they have to use it for other people’s benefit or they go back to chains, and weakness.”

It might sound like a fantasy, Marston admitted, but “all this is true”, at least as allegory, and, really, as history, because his comic was meant to chronicle “a great movement now under way – the growth in the power of women”. Mayer made one change: he nixed “Suprema”. Better to call her just “Wonder Woman”.

Fake Feminists such as yourselves, who think ''making Wonder Woman sexy'' undermines her (nevermind this approach ignores most depictions of superheroes) is the problem. You intentionally ignore the historical and social atmosphere of when Wonder Woman was written, and how women at the time were treated. You're just a puritan in disguise.

No, I think wonder woman's design and depiction being required to make men horny does undermine her. It's not "wonder woman can kick ass and look good while doing it" it's that wonder woman can kick ass and also has to be done so in a sexual way. This was the design from the beginning dude. Yes it's in addition to all the positive aspects. But the sexyness is the requirement, the positive stuff was optional and could only happen if the first is there. Male sexuality trumps all. This is part of the message Wonder Woman started with. Not the entire message, but it was there. And women have had to look past and ignore the sexualization to see all the positive stuff.

This whole "puritan in disguise" thing is really silly. Just because I don't think men and their penises are more important than everything else ever, it doesn't make me a puritan. Because I believe it would be nice if women in comics could have accomplishments that don't require they also satisify male sexuality. And no this is not just looking good... it's poses as well as designs as I have been saying.

And where have I ever ignored how women were treated at the time? I'm quite aware of how they were treated at the time.

@frozen said:

Faux-Feminists decrying Wonder Woman's costumes, and those of many other female superheroes just because they look better than the ''Feminists'' who complain are the authoritarian thought-police --- obviously I don't mean that in the literal sense, just as I don't literally refer to them as the thought-police, but the nonsense campaigning to censor and change things that other people like just because they personally feel offended is crap. Same nonsense when faux-Feminists got GTA V banned in Target Australia.

Wow. You went for the feminists are just bitter and ugly bit? Really? That's awesome. Jeesh, dude, that argument has been around since before we got the right to vote. Hey did you know that those filthy ugly suffragettes only want to vote because they're ugly and jealous of cute women? True story bro, I saw it on a post card.

And really, you've had this whole hate on for unattractive women from the get go. The new suit is unattractive because it doesn't show skin. I'm curious. Are you suggesting that women you don't find attractive should get "the taliban treatment" while attractive women must be uncovered? That is kinda the undertone I'm getting from you.

Oh and what exactly is the point of the insult? "Oh noes! If he thinks only an ugly woman would say such things, my feminine vanity forces me to change so he will be convinced of my beauty!" And is the actual suggestion "I must be at the pinnacle of beauty... If I can't do so naturally, I must make all fictional women ugly so that I can be on top! My feminine vanity demands it!"

He's onto me! *smoke bomb* (but it's a very beautiful smoke. Goddess like even.)

@frozen said:

Firstly, why did you say ''uh...no, you said''? You just quoted what I initially said. That showing skin is not a sin; I literally refer to that in both my comments.

Can you please explain to me in what universe "nothing wrong with" and "not a sin" equals "and writers must convey that" and "They cannot adequately convey that trait"

One means it's optional, and one means it's a requirement. You are explicitly saying Wonder Woman HAS to show skin... And then applying some moralistic reason for it (if you don't you're the taliban, or it's out of character, or it's disrespectful for the american way of life as we know it today, etc). My argument about the costume change itself has always been that her new costume is a unitard, with shoulder armor and admittedly pointlessly long boots. Hhardly the thing of the taliban, and pretty common among Super Heroes (minus the boots), and demands that she must show skin for FREEEDOM are silly.

So no... saying "it's not a sin to show skin" is not the same as "it's disrespectful to the character not to show skin" or "you are the taliban if you don't show skin"

@frozen said:

Secondly, yes, I argue that it is a disservice to Wonder Woman to give her a new costume (unless it's for a special occasions) with unnecessary, clunky armor which strips away her femininity and grace. This feminine grace is largely based on the Greek goddesses; it's not based on some Viking warriors or a Taliban fighter. I never said a beautiful woman has to be graceful either; I'm referring to Wonder Woman's roots in having the beauty of Greek goddesses. Pictures like this, among countless others atleast attempt to depict that. Also seemingly you misunderstood my unattractive woman comment, I made that in reference to jab at the fact that many Feminists who campaign for characters to have the puritan treatment do so because they're jealous. This nonsense happens in video-games too. I also didn't say ''anything which covers her skin'' --- I'm objecting to the clunkly baggaged armor in the OP which is clearly not feminine or graceful.

1)Congrats! This is for a special occassion.

2)Ohhhh so it was another feminists are ugly crack? Here have another postcard.

Anyway, even if she has the beauty of the Greek Goddesses, that doesn't automatically translate to SKIIIIN. This is your implication. Even the most absolutely beautiful Goddess-like woman in the known universe has no obligation at all to be your sex object. Or "show skin" or "not have shoulder armor." So any indication that beauty or grace = skin is messed up. This is why your attempts to blur lines between real women and fiction with your Taliban crap are really transparent. Because real live women have and SHOULD HAVE the real live choice about how much or how little skin they show independent of how hot dudes think they are or how much guys want to see them. A woman's body is all about herself.

@frozen said:

Those thigh-high boots, wrist-blades, extended torso-armor, shoulder-pads and hell even long neck coverings strip away the grace. No, the Taliban don't force amor per-se but they force women to cover head to toe because they do not want them to arouse any sort of response from others...you know, sort of like your artist-reader parallel.

I'm going to go with no, not like it at all.

Hmm actually... Are you suggesting that since women's body are inherently the natural domain of male sexuality, and the parallel is that the taliban are wrong for denying other men the ability to see real women's bodies as they're entitled, just like feminists are wrong for denying men the ability to see fictional women's bodies as they're entitled?

You seem to be putting lots of emphasis on "arouse any sort of response" rather than... you know... taking away women's freedoms.

@frozen said:

These days it's kept for women; hence the example I gave you for Man of Steel. That is an example of how male attractiveness is depicted, it's distinctly different to how females are depicted. While 'impressing' guys with the muscles, it also acts as stimulating for women.

This is complete BS. Women could be forbidden from reading comics by some new totalitarian regime and the men would be just as muscular. They are not drawing the guys all muscly "for the ladies". You are so quick to agree with Larsen, but you can't seem to fathom that the muscles are not usually presented in a way to display for women who like muscles, they are presented for men as a power signifiers. Men began getting exceptionally muscled as the male readership became more and more dominant.

@frozen said:

You completely miss the point, yet again. Wonder Woman as a physical depiction is what women would probably love to become; just as Superman and Batman, physically represent what men would desire to look like.

You know... You quoted Steinem. Never in there did she mention looking like wonder woman. The point for women was never about looking like Wonder Woman... it was about what she represented, and those qualities Steinem talked about in that quote.

Let's see that again:

"strength and self-reliance for women; sisterhood and mutual support among women; peacefulness and esteem for human life; a diminishment both of "masculine" aggression and of the belief that violence is the only way of solving conflicts."

And guess what, if you'd gone with pushing forth the fact she's much more warrior and much less peacefulness and esteem for human life with her new warrior look, or how she's losing her belief that violence is the only way to solve conflicts with the wrist blades... Then hey, that'd sound honest. Well more so if you'd been pushing that for years. Because even that ship has sailed for a while.

But no... The grace has to be in the showing of skin. HAS TO! OR TALIBAN! AND UGLY!

@frozen said:

What is wrong with the examples I gave? Batman is wearing a Nylon suit; prominent in bondage. In those covers I provided, in some we see Batman's body stretched so that his muscles are pointed to the viewer (as you can clearly see with the one with The Joker, third scan I posted).In terms of ''another hero watching'' --- that is easily visible in the image of Catwoman grabbing Batman with her whip, three other female characters in the background are cheering her on, visibly watching. All of the examples I provided are simply male-counterparts; to meet your double-standard.

As for your cherry-picked image of Wonder Woman's ass showing; I explained that in my second paragraph by quoting and expanding upon the points of Erik Larsen.

1) Batman is wearing a spandex suits. Nylon is used to make ropes. It's used in bondage because they're ROPES. Geesh.

2) No, batman having muscles isn't the same. Please stop this.

3) Do you not know the difference between henchpeople cheering on their leader and a hero outside of the image looking in voyeuristically? There is a difference.

4) It's not cherry picking when the trees are overflowing with ripe perfect cherries. It's the norm. Remember her weakness is getting tied up. If you claim to know about the history of wonder woman and her creator you know both have deep roots into bondage imagery. Cherry picking would have been posting this image:

5) The coversation was in a discussion about wonder woman having not been sexualized. You compared her to the way Star Fire was. I brought out images where Wonder Woman was sexualized and pointed out her bondage roots. Erik Larsen's point fits in since we were talking about sexualized images of wonder woman... That thread wasn't specifically about the suit but how Wonder Woman was portrayed.

---------------------------------

OK look, I don't have a problem with Wonder Woman's main suit by itself. (Well, it is kinda silly compared to the men super heroes when it comes to functionality. Breasts need support if you're going to be active. Sports bras exist for a reason.) In a perfect world where artists could consistently draw Wonder Woman without neeeeding to sexualize her, there would be no conversation to have. But we don't live in that world. It's not a coincidence that the one Larsen showed as the non sexualized example was from a kids' cartoon where they were not allowed to draw her to pander.

That said, the new costume looks fine to me as well. Looks more functional in terms of support and makes her look more like a warrior. Those are positives to me. But you want to know something? I would LOVE if they managed to consistently draw her without pandering in her old costume all on their own. It is iconic. Minus the shrinking bottoms, it's been mostly intact for all these years.

@foamborn: Why do you insist on lying so much? This intentional ignorance is going to get you nowhere. You are building a reputation for being a notorious troll on these forums and it's not surprising. @makhai has already debunked your points but I'll expand.

Frozen sounds like he binged watched Sargon of Akkad's and Thunderf00t's youtube videos and is dead set on spreading their sophistry like a staunch disciple of the anti-feminist gurus. Now I won't take those insults to heart just because I know how much you value quantity over quality too.

I have to say though, his argumentation, not matter how abundant, is predicated on this preposterous belief that there's a feminist anti-straight-male agenda pushed by a small group of loud, ugly, jealousy-driven feminist women on tumblr that collude to cover up beautiful females and wash away their sex-appeal down to the last tiny bit. However, this is really just a self-serving perversion of an otherwise legitimate fight. Granted, the feminist militia has a tendency to exaggerate a great deal and I ashamedly admit to have done it too. The real goal is just to wash away the excess you know, and implement some criteria as to WHO and WHEN it's appropriate to depict a woman in a sexual-light.

Obviously if you can somehow bust this belief of his, all this anti-feminist mumbo jumbo he constructed on top of it will just crumble apart, that's why Frozen willfully ignores the fact that Fabok's design was a smashing success despite not covering a lot of skin, and that the feminists have sung Chiang's praises.

Black Canary and Starfire are all set to star in their eponymous books in fishnets and crop tops though both comics are geared towards a female target demo…showing skin is really not the bloody problem

First and foremost, I do like Sargon of Akkad and Thunderf00t. Why are you using this as an insult? Both demolish and pick-apart ideologue arguments; they use facts and evidence. Are they perfect? No. But they are certainly better than those they often criticize. With that aside, you are putting forward false information. I did not claim myself Anti-Feminist, if you actually read my posts on other topics, I have strongly advocated for the progress of Feminism in the Islamic world; to combat the misogyny which poisons that way of life. I do however, make sure to separate that from Third-Wave Feminism in the First World. You cannot simply give me the textbook definition of Feminism and say ''anyone who argues against this is against equality'' --- you're doing a disservice to the true equity Feminists by conflating the radical and politically correct nonsense with the equity scholars.

I've cited evidence, recent even of the Tumblr-clique puritans using the guise of Feminism to bully and censor things they dislike. This is faux-Feminism; the Shirt-Storm incident of November last year? That's faux-Feminism. The Spider-Woman outrage? Faux-Feminism. Anita Sarkeesian? Faux-Feminism. I have made it clear that I am opposed to the Third-Wave cult-like version of ''Feminism'' which plagues the Western world. As I wrote in my post, Wonder Woman can be drawn with the classical costume and still look powerful; what I'm against, is the Faux-Feminist costume blaming which has been ignorantly advocated.

There are you, lying again. I've come to expect it from you --- I fully made it clear that I like Fabok's design. I have nothing against it. I also said that showing skin is NOT the problem, I made it very clear that the way the artist draws the character is the problem; what poses he decides to use, my argument is that many people do not understand this and instead blame the costume. Stop putting words in my mouth in an attempt to make a point, it's not a valid way of debate.

It looks great, people just like to nitpick at very small things.

@foamborn: @csg_cl: @makhai: @galacticfork: @frozen:

I stumbled across http://panels.net/aint-broke/ this article yesterday and thought it fit exactly with, what I think, Frozen has been arguing. I would elaborate more but the article speaks for itself.

Edit: couldn't get link to work. [shrugs]

@foamborn: I commend your attempts to have an honest conversation.

@galacticfork: Your posts have been enjoyable to read. Kudos.

@galacticfork: I agree with Ms-Lola. Your posts has brightened my spirit today. I am very pleased with your arguments and I hope you continue to fight for what is right.

Sincerely, Somaya Reece.

You are the shameless liar Frozen and you, together with your ally, are falling back on smear tactics, unless you actually believe the things that are coming out of your mouth. Let's get this one thing straight though, I care as much about your stupid opinions as you do about mine so I guess we're even. I can tell that Sargon of Akkad and Thunderf00t have corrupted your mind because you're literally parroting their bullshyt. I'm saying for your own good, don't drink that kool aid

I thought it was abundantly clear that we're strictly talking about the "feminist comic book agenda", what you designate as "faux-feminism". By "anti-feminist mumbo jumbo" I obviously meant "anti-faux-feminism mumbo jumbo" or "anti-tumblr-feminism mumbo jumbo" if you will, I by no means meant to paint you out as misogynistic pig who's against gender equality in third world countries, that's insane. btw I learned recently that this recurring argument that "women in the middle east go through so much worse" is called the fallacy of relative privation. Look it up and think about all the poor south asian males literally slaving away in the UAE, whatever third-wave-feminism's done to you, all of you american men, is nothing compared to the hardship they endure

Also I never claimed that you didn't like Fabok's design wtf, I said it was well received by the so called faux-feminists despite showing a lot of skin, they also liked Chiang's rendition of Wonder Woman, they love Rat Queens and I don't know what else, clearly these "puritans" are not so prude after all…

Thanks, that means a lot :-)

@somayareece: @ms-lola: Thanks so much! It really means a whole lot.

OK, yes. This, so much this. So incredibly this! I totally cosplayed as Superman last week when I went grocery shopping!

What exactly is your definition of beauty shaming? And who is being shamed?

I really don't understand why a statement like that needs clarification but words like slut-shaming don't. Can't you just work it out?

Because I really don't think the definition of beauty shaming I've heard of is the same as yours, so I'm curious what yours is.

@foamborn:

You are the shameless liar Frozen and you, together with your ally, are falling back on smear tactics, unless you actually believe the things that are coming out of your mouth. Let's get this one thing straight though, I care as much about your stupid opinions as you do about mine so I guess we're even. I can tell that Sargon of Akkad and Thunderf00t have corrupted your mind because you're literally parroting their bullshyt. I'm saying for your own good, don't drink that kool aid

I thought it was abundantly clear that we're strictly talking about the "feminist comic book agenda", what you designate as "faux-feminism". By "anti-feminist mumbo jumbo" I obviously meant "anti-faux-feminism mumbo jumbo" or "anti-tumblr-feminism mumbo jumbo" if you will, I by no means meant to paint you out as misogynistic pig who's against gender equality in third world countries, that's insane. btw I learned recently that this recurring argument that "women in the middle east go through so much worse" is called the fallacy of relative privation. Look it up and think about all the poor south asian males literally slaving away in the UAE, whatever third-wave-feminism's done to you, all of you american men, is nothing compared to the hardship they endure

Also I never claimed that you didn't like Fabok's design wtf, I said it was well received by the so called faux-feminists despite showing a lot of skin, they also liked Chiang's rendition of Wonder Woman, they love Rat Queens and I don't know what else, clearly these "puritans" are not so prude after all

Nothing me or Makhai have said qualify as smearing. You have intentionally lied in your posts and we have called you out on it. Why do you keep using Thunderf00t and Sargon of Akkad as insults? It's not a valid comment. Both men use facts, reason and evidence. They are not like the ideologues they criticize. If I were to ''drink the kool-aid'' --- I would be parroting the third-wave Feminist nonsense of say, Anita Sarkeesian; someone who forms arguments that a 12 year old is capable of. That would be the 'kool-aid' --- I care about facts, reason and evidence; all of this is missing from your posts. I call it faux-Feminism to do you a favor; you have constantly accused me of being an anti-Feminist, despite the fact that my posts make it clear that this is not true. That is an example of you lying, as per usual. I advocate Feminism, what I do not advocate is the Third-Wave garbage, so to dissociate this with true Feminism, I will label it by what it is: faux-Feminism. Every group has it's radicals, they must be called out, condemned and ridiculed. The fallacy of relative privation is not what I argue, because yet again, my only claim was that is where I personally argue for Feminism --- in the first-world America, it's largely obtained it's goal. Arguments such as slut-shaming under the guise of Feminism is not Feminism, it has nothing to do with gender equality.

Again, I covered that in my posts. I've made it clear that most people like Wonder Woman's attire; even Feminists. My point is that there is a vocal minority which exists to oppose skin-showing costumes; for most of the time, they do not get their way; hence Fabok's design serving as an example.

@frozen: All this ad hominem bs you and Mikhai threw at my face is smear and I've already busted those lies I allegedly fabricated against you so if you're just going to insist that I "deliberately lied" blablabla, I'll just have to politely tell you to sod off. If your goal is to win this pissing contest then I'll happily concede the win I guess. Congratulations Frozen, you walk away with a head full of shyte

You did lie. This is not a fabrication --- this is a fact. It is evident in your posts; you clearly said that I am an anti-Feminist and have a hatred for Feminism. This is not true; I made it clear that I am an advocate for Feminism depending on circumstances, and that I'm specifically against certain strands of Feminism. Stop bringing up ''it's an ad hominem!'' just because I called out your lies --- you made assertions on my positions so I corrected your posts for you. What 'pissing contest' do you refer to? You should be thanking me and Makhai for amending your nonsense.

On the topic of ad-hominem, it was you who attempted to insult me for liking some You-Tubers. Therefore I must yet again, call you out on your double-standards.

I called you an anti-feminist as in "anti-faux-third-wave-internet-comic-book-tumblr-feminism", I swear I thought that was clear as crystal, especially after I broke it down for you in #514. I guess you're not very quick on the uptake or maybe I should've written a whole dissertation on the word "anti-feminism". Sorry, I take no ownership for those "lies"

@foamborn: The definition of Feminism is the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes. By calling me an anti-Feminist, you are attempting to paint me with a broad brush; this is both manipulative and intellectually dishonest. I made it very clear that my opposition is in regards to the radical and politically correction interpretations; similar to someone will oppose the radical aspects of religion but not the whole religion. It took until post #514 for you to state: ''by "anti-feminist mumbo jumbo" I obviously meant "anti-faux-feminism mumbo jumbo" or "anti-tumblr-feminism mumbo jumbo" if you will'' --- it was only once Makhai and me pointed out your deceptive behavior, did you actually bother to clarify your misleading comments.

On that note, in post #506 --- it is pointed out by Makhai that you are denying the existence of a man-hating radical Feminist interpretation; yet now you are acknowledging that I am anti-radical Feminist? Mmmmh, more deceptive posts on your behalf...

On the topic of ad-hominem, why have you decided to bring it up but then ignore it once I call you out on your double standard? Your first comment of me was:

Frozen's whose mind's sadly been irreversibly poisoned by Sargon of Akkad and now goes around spreading sophistries on the internet like a loyal disciple of his.

You have continued in an unsuccessful attempt to character assassinate me by associating me with You-Tubers I happen to like. Did you know there's a word that? It's called an ad-hominem.

Terrible design.

So much sadness and salt.

That doesn't have to do with anything...

@galacticfork:

but it's a bit simplistic and off. Kinda smarmy. I suppose I should let it slide, but I just can't. I'll break down the problems.

My argument is clear and precise. I have used evidence and reason with all of my points. I will thereby address why my posts are not ''problems''.

Also true, but this happens much less often. You can't just list two things that are different in frequency as if they are the same. It's really dishonest.

This is not true. I have given you more than enough examples of male objectification. You are desperately trying to write it off because it does not abide by your ideology. What I've said in regards to male objectification is completely true; male beauty is depicted differently and nearly every single male character is objectified. You just pay more attention to female objectification. Everyone does. It happened yesterday with LionHead studios.

Not exactly true... but truish. What you are juuuuust missing is that often the costumes themselves were created with that intention. This isn't always the case, but not all costumes are neutral in terms of sexualization and objectification.

It does not matter if the costume was created with that intention; to objectify someone is to see someone as an object. As the years have went by, Wonder Woman has been characterized as a strong, independent woman --- it is you who will cling to the ''objectification'' argument.

While I did say that Wonder Woman, and many other characters can be 'objectified' to an extent --- it's inconsequential. The argument of objectifying is outdated Feminist argument, nowadays it's just used as weaponized propaganda to take down anything which is more attractive than those complaining. To put it plainly, the idea is becoming embarrassing --- it's a problem with modern ''Feminism''. This is a post from a blog-post which detailed how the argument of ''objectification'' lacks merit.

“Objectification” is B.S, plain and simple. It is just a made-up term created to bash and demonize natural male sexuality. It is the misandric belief that men have an evil sexual gaze that can harm women. It is the misandric belief that Joe looking at a picture of Susan harms Susan but Susan looking at a picture of Joe does not harm him. It is the misandric idea that when men look at random women in the streets they see body parts floating around, but when women are looking at strangers they always assess their whole life, personality, qualities and whatnot.

Looking at cleavage is not objectification, it’s just natural sexual curiosity. Looking at porn is not objectification, it’s just natural sexual desire looking for an output. Half-naked women in the media is not objectification, it’s the media selling things the way they can sell things best. (Mostly to women by the way.)

The reason why Wonder Woman is now more free of objectification is that modern comic-book writing has given her the chance to be written with more layers; this holds true for other comic-book characters too. For you to ignore her character depth and focus on the costume because ''it was designed with sexual intent'' is dishonest; it's ever the more ignorant because it does not give credit to how characterization in comics, especially females have changed over the years.

Showing too much muscle? You tried waaay too hard there. sorry. Look, yes, men can be objectified, but they usually aren't. As I mentioned before, If women were objectified at the same frequency as men currently are, it'd hardly be an issue. And noo objectification is not the same as "looking good." That's what you said laaast time I brought this up. Please don't pretend things are "even". It's dishonest and silly.

That is male objectification. I have given you several examples of Man of Steel; with fan-girls drooling over Henry Cavill. Male appeal is illustrated with muscle; this has been the case for more than a thousand years, and continues to be the case today. The way in which males and female are ''objectified'' is different; males are objectified with muscle, as it signifies strength, dominance and masculinity. In terms of ''it'd hardly be an issue'' --- again, ignore your ideology and start to acknowledge the facts. In addition to the sex appeal used for Man of Steel, it's in common-place on novel covers, wildly successful in movies and pretty rampant in music. The reality is that nobody cares. If you read into evolutionary psychology, you'll find that ''objectification'' to some extent is perfectly natural; it is nothing to be ashamed of.

Frankly, Wonder Woman has been very lucky in the response she's given. As comics have evolved, she's been given a strong personality which empathizes strength and confidence: as I noted, the way the artist draws and the way the writer writes is what determines how she is. The only other alternative is changing the costume; and that always leads to neo-puritans.

(Why do you use scare quotes around sexualized? you even admit it's happening, but you still put in 'sexualized'. Weird)

Anyway, a couple things. Is he where you got the Greek roots spiel you were throwing out there earlier about Wonder Woman's costume? Because this guy did it too. What is this messed up history class teaching people that wonder woman's costume looks anything like what ANYBODY wore in ancient Greece. Wonder Woman's costume was based on Varga girl pin up calendars. Not some Greek battle clothing. That Greek clothing thing needs to be rolled into a ball, set on fire, the ashes put in pouch weighted by rocks and dropped into the ocean's deepest trench.

And I'm sorry... a costume that "functions"? Going by those images there, if she does anything really athletic, those things are going to pop out. No matter what, there's going to be tons of adjusting. That is not a "functional" outfit. It's meant to look good, not function. More accurately, it's a suit made to look good at the expense of actual function.

Anyway, If this was your actual argument, couldn't you have been a lot clearer and less silly and been all, "hey artists, can't you just not draw wonder woman sexually in her current costume instead of designing a whole new one?" You and Eric agree she's been sexualized... So you can't really argue with people saying she's been sexualized.

But no, you had to compare people who say she's sexualized the taliban. Shouldn't you blame the artist just for not being original, or being lazy, rather than likening feminists to a terrorist organization?

Also, this argument doesn't contradict anything I've said. I've said many times sexualization is largely about the presentation (thought not always exclusively)... however, we've gotten into a sub conversations, like the one about Wonder Woman's origin and stuff. But about the change itself, regardless whether or not they could have kept the concept the same or whatever, comparing it to the taliban is not the way to go.

That's not the core of the 'Greek roots' argument --- because as per usual, you ignore the goddess aspect. On the topic of the attire, her costume is similar to the Amazon warriors; as I have explained. The only difference is that the Amazon Warriors are depicted to have leggings armor and partly on the arms --- Wonder Woman does not have this because she does need extra-armor; with the powers of the Greek Gods/Goddesses, she can fight without the extra baggage that an Amazon hypothetically needed; thus, it's loosely based on what the Amazons wore, the tiara and extra-plates were simply mixed with the pin-up girl, and there's some resemblance to what an Amazon Warrior wears. You need to read the interview carefully and not cherry-pick, the writer goes on to explain:

But it’s also one which can be abused. Women characters can be drawn sexy or strong, girlish or mature, thin or voluptuous and everything in between

Me and Erik have agreed on that point, but again, my point is that it's better to keep her costume which for years has brought about good and inspiration to millions of women everywhere, rather than change her costume for the sake of it. Again, stop skewing my Taliban point --- I said that costume-blaming Wonder Woman and then consequently covering up because of that criticism is akin to the Taliban covering up women. It's neo-puritan. Obviously it's not a literal comparison to the Taliban/terrorist organisations, it's an exaggeration but it illustrated my point.

OK, just stop stop stop with the "good looking is a requirement" BS. It's ridiculous. This isn't about "looking good" So just stop. Most characters are going to "look good".

Why should I stop? I'm calling you out on your comments. You say ''this isn't about looking good'' yet state:

Also, there's that whole, "kick the asses of men, and look good while doing it" that's part of the problem, because it's not an option. It's a requirement

Yet again, your argument is all over the place. You claim it's ''part of the problem'' --- it isn't. It's fantasy. Fiction --- characters can be portrayed to be the best looking of people, that's part of the allure.

The creator of Wonder Woman specifically said he wanted to make her alluring to the point they'd see the fact she was stronger than them as a sexual plus so they'd want to be her "willing slaves." This is not "looking good." Do you honestly think the women that his "masculine authorities" thought wouldn't be liked by men was going to be ugly? Noooo. In fact he even decided to suggest her very strength and powers was intended to turn on the men. They couldn't even accept a women being strong unless they found it hot. This is the trade off the creator made to get her published. So yes, as I said, he bribed men by making her creation sexual. No it's not ignorant, no that's not dishonest. That is the fact out of the creator's own mouth.

How does this in any way change my point? What you think her creation meant was not what it actually was. I quite clearly quoted a piece which said as much. The writers did this to challenge the sexist hierarchy of the time --- what they did was not demeaning to women, it was actually incredibly ambitious and issuing a challenging to masculinity. The words of the writers also stated behind her inception:

Superman’s publisher, Charlie Gaines, read Byrne’s article and was so impressed that he decided to hire Marston as a consulting psychologist. Marston convinced Gaines that what he really needed to counter the attack on comics was a female superhero. At first, Gaines objected. Every female pulp and comic-book heroine, he told Marston, had been a failure (which wasn’t strictly true). “But they weren’t superwomen,” Marston countered. “They weren’t superior to men.” A female superhero, Marston insisted, was the best answer to the critics, since “the comics’ worst offence was their bloodcurdling masculinity”.

The reason why they needed her to be hot is painfully obvious. They needed to sell. Selling a female protagonist in the 1940's was not easy. What is being dishonest is deceptively quoting that while ignoring the social context --- you continue to do this; her creation was a challenge to the sexist attitudes of the time. That is why Harry. G Peter was hired for Wonder Woman for the time, he was drawing allegories between her and the political struggles of the women's suffrage movement of the 1900s/1910s. You selectively quote ''oh but she was made sexual so people could buy her!'' and it is ignorantly ignoring the sociopolitical influences of Wonder Woman and what she actually meant. This is why I call you a Faux-Feminist, your arguments are disgustingly bias in what they choose to acknowledge when it comes to quoting creators. This is because your ideology depends on it.

You know... Not one word of what Steinem said there had anything to do about Wonder Woman's costume... Hmm let's read that again:

Because that's the point...

Steinem doesn't give a sh*t about her costume. It's only faux-Feminists and puritans such as yourselves who see problems which do not exist. Steinem did not care about her costume because she meant and represented so much more.

yeah... nothing in there about making sure she's alluring to the point the men will want to submit as her willing slaves, so that's why she must wear a bodice... Gee... it's almost as if Steinem appreciated her for non sexy mistress aspects of her creation. So very weird. Of course there were many good aspects of her creation. I have never once said otherwise, but the point is that as always she had to be created with the male libido in mind in order to allow her to have these good points. I've said this from the very beginning. Women aren't just allowed to be powerful. And I'm pre-emptively stopping your "but but but they're all attractive" bit again. Pandering is very different than just being attractive and I can't believe even you can't admit the creator admitted explicitly to pandering to the male audience so he was allowed to give her powers.

Yes, she has the male libido in mind. But it does not matter. You keep bringing up ''male libido!'' every three to four sentences as if it is the devil reincarnate. I am going to shut down this Feminist talking point you keep bringing up because it is seriously intentionally ignorant. She was created to be sexually appealing because it was the only way to get her to sell; in the 1940's, it was a bold and brave move to roll out a female superhero, especially one that was supposedly comparable to Superman in power. However, this is not ''objectification'' as she was actually given writing which rejects that label. What did early-Wonder Woman did in the comic, in addition to being sexually appealing was usually beating up men and in some Golden-Age comics, moving entire planets, and often role-reversal by saving men. Not only does she look appealing, but she can break steryotypes while doing so. This is not objectification, this is by definition, female empowerment.

That's literally substantiated by the words of the creator, who said the Wonder Woman comic was to chronicle “a great movement now under way – the growth in the power of women”.

No, I think wonder woman's design and depiction being required to make men horny does undermine her. It's not "wonder woman can kick ass and look good while doing it" it's that wonder woman can kick ass and also has to be done so in a sexual way.

Your positions are incredibly unclear. I proposed whether you think covering up Wonder Woman would maker her less sexual, and you disagreed. I then proposed whether you think artists drawing her in a non-sexual way would make her less sexual, and yet you still disagree, continuing to blame the design. There are only two ways to go about it:

• Change her design. To make her 'less sexual' - that almost always ends up in covering up, as shown in the OP
• Change the way artists draw her. As I showed in the comparison pictures; one is slutty, the other is strong and confident

For the first point, you denied that covering her up would make her less sexual. You then denied the second point, by saying that her costume is still a problem. By this point you are simply running away from arguments; there are two ways to make her less ''sexual'' and I have presented them to you, and you have denied them both.

You personally think Wonder Woman wearing that costume is bad, despite the fact that millions of women world-wide see her as a source of empowerment. Despite the fact that she has represented much more --- by this point, I see you as nothing more than a slut-shaming puritan in disguise.

This was the design from the beginning dude. Yes it's in addition to all the positive aspects. But the sexyness is the requirement, the positive stuff was optional and could only happen if the first is there. Male sexuality trumps all. This is part of the message Wonder Woman started with. Not the entire message, but it was there. And women have had to look past and ignore the sexualization to see all the positive stuff.

No, it was not. As I covered in my earlier paragraphs --- the creator literally admits she is about female empowerment, not ''objectification''. Wonder Woman began with sexiness in mind and having the power of Superman; this was a sex radical idea but it was the intent of female empowerment, that a woman could look sexy and still kick ass. Wonder Woman did not start with ''male sexuality trumps all'' --- good grief, it's just getting embarrassing by this point with you. You are essentially promoting puritan ideas.

This whole "puritan in disguise" thing is really silly. Just because I don't think men and their penises are more important than everything else ever, it doesn't make me a puritan. Because I believe it would be nice if women in comics could have accomplishments that don't require they also satisify male sexuality. And no this is not just looking good... it's poses as well as designs as I have been saying.

It's not silly. That's what you are; what you're advocating, or trying to hide is puritan ideology. Rather than the way Wonder Woman has been; a source of female empowerment, used in Feminist campaigns, cited and adored by scholars, seen as a source for comfort for sick women world-wide, etc, you prefer to slut-shame. Even with that, you selectively ignore the words of the writer --- who explained that she was an allegory for female power. If you think that she should not ''satisfy'' male sexuality (which is in itself stupid, and denying basic biological processes) and that you think her costume is the source of blame (and not the way she is drawn), then the only alternative is to alter her design --- give her more clothing, and cover her up. The only alternative you're offering is a neo-puritan ideology. I gave you a perfect example of two pictures of Wonder Woman, side-by-side, and you denied that.

And where have I ever ignored how women were treated at the time? I'm quite aware of how they were treated at the time.

You might be quite aware, but you're certainly not factoring it into your responses. You are holding Wonder Woman up to this weird standard despite the fact that she was ahead of her time.

And really, you've had this whole hate on for unattractive women from the get go. The new suit is unattractive because it doesn't show skin. I'm curious. Are you suggesting that women you don't find attractive should get "the taliban treatment" while attractive women must be uncovered? That is kinda the undertone I'm getting from you.

I do not hate unattractive women. I'm not into muh-soggy-knees, I'm contesting this new costume because it brings the connotation that the only way to make Wonder Woman ''less sexualized'' is to cover her up. I never said unattractive women should ''get the Taliban treatment'' either --- I have an intense disdain for religion, I don't want any women to have the Islamic treatment.

Anyway, even if she has the beauty of the Greek Goddesses, that doesn't automatically translate to SKIIIIN. This is your implication. Even the most absolutely beautiful Goddess-like woman in the known universe has no obligation at all to be your sex object. Or "show skin" or "not have shoulder armor." So any indication that beauty or grace = skin is messed up. This is why your attempts to blur lines between real women and fiction with your Taliban crap are really transparent.

Yes it does. And if it does not, it still certainly shows far more skin that of the new-design. The new design literally is covered from neck to toe. She is closer to something from a Viking film rather than a Greek. The Greek Goddesses were graceful and showed skin. Adding clunky shoulder armor is a disservice to her traditional designs --- my Taliban comments are in reference to the claim that Wonder Woman is now ''less sexualized'' and ''better off than she was in a bathing suit''.

I'm going to go with no, not like it at all.

Hmm actually... Are you suggesting that since women's body are inherently the natural domain of male sexuality, and the parallel is that the taliban are wrong for denying other men the ability to see real women's bodies as they're entitled, just like feminists are wrong for denying men the ability to see fictional women's bodies as they're entitled?

I'm arguing that Wonder Woman is associated with Feminine beauty. This is not a point to debate, this is a fact; it's rooted in her character mythos. She wields the beauty of Aphrodite, who is the Goddess of beauty and love; she is staunchly a feminine figure. That is why I argue clunking on heavy armor pads strips away that Feminine aspect. You have this habit of generalizing Wonder Woman's appearance to ''natural domains'' and it's incredibly stupid.

This is complete BS. Women could be forbidden from reading comics by some new totalitarian regime and the men would be just as muscular. They are not drawing the guys all muscly "for the ladies". You are so quick to agree with Larsen, but you can't seem to fathom that the muscles are not usually presented in a way to display for women who like muscles, they are presented for men as a power signifiers. Men began getting exceptionally muscled as the male readership became more and more dominant.

Again, you ignored the point. Muscles, especially in regards to the tone that Superman has are also appealing to women. They work on several functions. I flat-out gave you a specific scene of that movie which depicted that effect on females; there's also another scene from that movie with him shirt-less. Get real, film-makers do not put specific scenes of a shirt-less Superman for the guys. Scenes like that are specifically designed to appeal to women. And then we have the fan-girls drooling over him. You keep putting forward this ''power signifies'' argument yet intentionally ignore it also appeals to women. You are operating under an assumption that ''muscle signifies'' can only appeal to men, and it's incredibly dumb.

You know... You quoted Steinem. Never in there did she mention looking like wonder woman. The point for women was never about looking like Wonder Woman... it was about what she represented, and those qualities Steinem talked about in that quote.

I covered this exact point earlier by writing:

Because that's the point...

Steinem doesn't give a sh*t about her costume. It's only faux-Feminists and puritans such as yourselves who see problems which do not exist. Steinem did not care about her costume because she meant and represented so much more.

As for your next panels, I'm not sure why you're time wasting. Most comic-book characters have become more violent since the Post-Crisis; this began from Crisis on Infinite Earths on-wards and peaked during the 1990's.

1) Batman is wearing a spandex suits. Nylon is used to make ropes. It's used in bondage because they're ROPES. Geesh.

2) No, batman having muscles isn't the same. Please stop this.

3) Do you not know the difference between henchpeople cheering on their leader and a hero outside of the image looking in voyeuristically? There is a difference.

4) It's not cherry picking when the trees are overflowing with ripe perfect cherries. It's the norm. Remember her weakness is getting tied up. If you claim to know about the history of wonder woman and her creator you know both have deep roots into bondage imagery. Cherry picking would have been posting this image:

As per your points:

1) He is wearing spandex; that was a mistake on my behalf. However that does not change the point whatsoever; spandex is also prominent in BSDM/bondage

2) Again, you showed a double standard; you attempted to argue that Wonder Woman being 'stretched out' was somehow ''objectification'' yet failed to acknowledge the same for Batman. This is painfully dishonest on your behalf.

3) That is cherry-picking to the extreme. By this point you're just attempting to cast out any little detail for your agenda; both covers depict observers yet you're beating around the bush. This isn't dishonest as it is silly.

4) On the topic of ''getting tied up'' --- there's also been symbolic imagery of Wonder Woman breaking out of chains, which was in reference to Wonder Woman breaking the chains of patriarchy. This has been quite prominent in her history. I think you need to do some more reading but you needn't worry as I've already provided you with further quotes from the creator himself; his intent with Wonder Woman was to create female empowerment; you need to disassociate this with ''objectification'' because the writer himself had that intent. That aside, Batman happens to wear a suit crafted from spandex material and he has similar covers; that might not be intentional, but the link can and has certainly been depicted with comic-covers. In regards to that picture you've posted, there are similar panels with Batman & Robin during the Golden/Silver Ages.

But we don't live in that world. It's not a coincidence that the one Larsen showed as the non sexualized example was from a kids' cartoon where they were not allowed to draw her to pander.

That said, the new costume looks fine to me as well. Looks more functional in terms of support and makes her look more like a warrior. Those are positives to me. But you want to know something? I would LOVE if they managed to consistently draw her without pandering in her old costume all on their own. It is iconic. Minus the shrinking bottoms, it's been mostly intact for all these years.

Larsen posted a picture from a cartoon, yes. But that cartoon picture costume is identical to the Post-Crisis comic version. That version has been depicted in comics many times; at-least more often than not.

Still despise it.. Those wrist blades things remind me of this tiger like person from an anime I use to watch as a little girl..

Whoa, a costume change became a serious topic... oh well, wishing well.

What is it called??

@kingvenus: It was a Bakugan from that anime Bakguan.. heh. I remember when the Bakugan was a hit back like 5 years ago..

@ancient_0f_days said:

@tigerkaya said:

Terrible design.

theres always whining and moaning once this one wonder woman "fan" starts posting.

This thread summarized:

• Wonder Woman costume is polarizing.
• Neo-feminism rabble rabble.
• Frozen destroys opponents.

Well, your political idols proudly wear the "anti-feminist" label while purporting to be "egalitarians". "Anti-feminist" usually refers to individuals such as yourself who oppose the third wave feminist movement in the developed world. Moreover, we're talking about Wonder Woman getting a new costume here, presumably following demands made by a loud comic book-reading group of feminist men and women that you call "faux-feminists". The only thing I acknowledged is the existence of such a group and that they get a little carried away sometimes. However there's no conservative anti-straight-male conspiracy, sorry to burst your bubble you little silly sausage

The difference between your ad hominem and my ad hominem is that whereas you're deliberately fabricating lies to paint me out as a liar, I was spot-on, you do admittedly follow them on youtube. Trust me Frozen, the fact that you sound so much like them is nothing to be proud of, Sargon is a body-shaming, male supremacist scumbag.

I think beauty shaming is when a fat ugly feminist wench is so horribly jealous of beautiful women that she does her absolute best to make them feel like shyte.

The more I look at it, the more I am not liking it. Omg

Interesting. Outside of the tiara being a bit too thick, that's pretty good.

Seems like every week there is an Awesome Art Picks that features a better redesign of WW than this new one:

Who is that quote from?

Anyway, What exactly is your definition of "natural male sexuality"? And how is it being demonized? How would you define "natural female sexuality"?

And nobody thinks the male gaze is inherently bad. The problem is that it has somehow become so important, you demand most things get filtered through it. Especially when women are concerned. Thinking something shouldn't be the most important thing isn't the same as thinking it's evil, or demonizing, or bashing. Not everything's about your sexuality. It'd be nice if most women in comics weren't filtered through it and were allowed to just be superheroes.

As for: " Joe looking at a picture of Susan harms Susan but Susan looking at a picture of Joe does not harm him."

That is probably the most simplistic thing I've ever heard in my life. That is in no way what objectification is. It's almost as if you equate "objectification" with "finding someone attractive" or "looking at someone." Actually... You do keep bringing up that Superman movie clip where the woman says she thinks superman's hot. Is that really what you think objectification is? Can it actually be that always bringing up men having muscles... that wasn't dishonest but such a completely horrible lack of understanding of what the actual problem is?

OK, objectification is not simply looking at someone and finding them attractive. Objectification isn't even being pretty or expressing whatever forms of male or female beauty you've decided is monolith of the two most typical genders. When talking about real people, sexual objectification is thinking of someone only or mostly in terms of your own sex drive rather than as an individual human with their own wishes, desires, etc. Something to be used for sex. So, if you look at an image and are only thinking about their use for sex, then yes, that's objectification. It is very very possible to look at someone and be attracted and think of them as a whole person independent of your sex drive.

And sexual objectification itself isn't inherently bad, but the prevalence aimed at women in society is very excessive and often outside the context of actual sex, exacerbating the issue even further. I'm not suggesting to objectify men more, I wouldn't wish that on men. Lowering both would be nice, but the problem is very uneven, and I go into detail with respect to comics here below.

Within the spoilers is a detailed explanation of sexualization. I'm putting it behind spoilers just because these posts are getting long enough. (and this is pretty long)

As you and Larsen claim to understand, that picture of Wonder Woman on the left was sexualized. What Larsen got wrong was the assumption of what was sexualizing about it.

In his description: "Both draw the same Wonder Woman costume, but one looks weak, vulnerable and slutty as all hell and one looks proud, confident and powerful."

The weak and vulnerable aren't actually remotely important for sexualization. They do accompany it sometimes, but it's not necessary an indicator. She could be drawn proud, confident, and powerful and still be sexualized. There is a study by the APA about the sexualization in the media and how it affects girls. It does contrast it with boys, and you can read it here. That's a very good thing to read anyway, since you don't believe there's an uneven depiction in the media.

They give some examples of what they mean by sexualization.

• A person’s value comes only from his or her sexual appeal or behavior, to the exclusion of other characteristics
• A person is held to a standard that equates physical attractiveness (narrowly defined) with being sexy
• A person is sexually objectified—that is, made into a thing for others’ sexual use, rather than seen as a person with the capacity for independent action and decision making;
• Sexuality is inappropriately imposed upon a person.

The items that happen most in comics are the first, third, and fourth. The biggest problem is kinda a mixture of the third and the fourth. That even if a character has other positive traits and typically have their own agency and decision making, often within a comic, in a situation unrelated to sexuality, the characters will be randomly put into sexual poses for the use of the viewer independent of the characters themselves. Or they'll be drawn in a way to draw attention to sexuality. This you seem to understand, because you bring up Larsen's quote. The part that's weird is that you seem to think it's equal for men and women and cite a woman just saying she thinks superman is hot.

I could post image after image after image of sexual poses in comics. Just because I am not flooding comicvine with them doesn't mean they aren't there, plus I've posted a few. Anyway, here's one featuring Wonder Woman:

The scene inherently not sexual. There's nothing regarding sex at all, but the artist feels the need to twist Wonder Woman and the angle to highlight both her butt and her boobs. This is completely independent of Wonder Woman and intended for the use of the viewer. Osira's pose is also one more about displaying to the viewer than an actual way someone would move. Both are set as displays for the viewer. The boob butt twist is very very very common in comics. On the bright side, with that one, it doesn't attempt to show both boobs at the same time. Also these two I've shown earlier:

Gallery

Both are drawn at angles specifically made to highlight the butt. These are meant to add a sexual element for the viewer were one doesn't exist. This has nothing to do with her beauty or being ideal woman. It's an action scene where the woman is made into a sex object. This is not rare. I am not cherry picking. And how many would I have to provide for it to not be cherry picking, rather than giving examples of something that's prevalent? Anyway, for more you can see the before images at the Hawkeye Initiative and if you want to see how this can go horribly wrong and disfigure the images as a result, go to Escher Girls.

OK, that said, now about the men. Yes it can happen to men. And it's not simply existing while muscled, or having big muscles. If it was simply having muscles, you'd think the Hulk would have been the most popular comic ever. Anyway, here are a couple examples of this happening:

Notice how the angle makes no sense except to show off his butt? It's from below the whole angle is rather awkward except you get to see his butt. It's also front and center of the image.

Also:

Anyway, it doesn't have to be just the butt, other parts could be accented. But it's the manner in which the male character is displayed with the purpose of applying sexuality to the character. Existing with muscles on the page is not a sexual display. Existing with muscles in a comic while displaying dominance and power, isn't a sexual display. Those are more for men. And if muscles in the manner they're displayed typically in comics were somehow all for the straight ladies (who are into muscles), do you think Marvel and DC would have been wondering why their non-male readers have dwindled? Nope. Because the two are not the same.

Like the fanart I showed you before:

These images aren't just in various states of undress, they are more suggestively posed. It's a display of their bodies themselves rather than displaying power or dominance. The characters are displayed for the viewer to see sexually.

See the similarities to this image of Emma frost (though of course her costume was designed for that purpose?)

OK, this is why just having big muscles doesn't mean anything. And the costumes aren't designed with these sexual displays in mind when it comes to men. You can't say that's not the case for that Emma Frost image or Wonder Woman's costume. And women are almost always given costumes with this in mind, to draw attention to sexuality. The men's costumes are usually tight as well, but nothing about the design usually draws attention to the parts independent of the angle of drawing. Even excluding the women with random bits and pieces missing to draw attention to the skin, there are the boobsocks which make no sense because if the uniforms are tight, they'd look like actual unitards, and compress and support rather than mold around the boobs individually. This draws more attention, giving the impression of nudity rather than a tight outfit as the men's outfits do. You don't see penis and ball socks, so that means they actively have these costumes with individual molded socks for the boobs.

This is all by intent and design as well, and while yes, the artist also has to actively pose the characters, but when the design already has the built in intention,it implies the character is supposed to be sexualized, making the actual art more about actively not sexualizing them when the character is not sexualized, rather that actively doing so when the character is sexualized.

OK, to the Man of Steel clip. A couple things. That was written, by men... If anything that was to impress men, using a female character to tell men that he's not only strong and powerful, but women want him, too. Also, being attracted to someone isn't the same as objectification. Nobody hates that straight men find women attractive. Some women find women attractive, even without objectifying them... Unless you're suggesting "natural male sexuality" automatically has an element of objectification. I think men are quite capable of looking at and thinking of women outside of the context of sex.

No, looking at cleavage is not inherently objectifying, but it can be. And saying something like "it's just natural sexual curiosity" is heading that way, as it's implying entitlement. We're social beings, so disregarding the feelings of people around you in favor of your own sexual gratification is very much objectification of the people you're looking at.

Looking at porn is not objectification. However, a lot of (read:most) mainstream porn is made in a manner that objectifies the female characters. It is quite possible to make porn that's not objectifying. Mainstream porn manages not to objectify men, so porn isn't objectifying by default. The point is not presenting it as if the women in the movies are there simply to gratify the men. The women can be sexual subjects themselves, deserving of sexual gratification as well. (Oh wait... Actually that part is a Puritan ideal... That sex is for both partners. Of course they limit it to only a man and a woman, and when married, which I don't agree with.) This kind of porn does exist, too.

And uhh... Half naked women in the media as a means to sell things is objectification... They are being used as sexual commodities... Oh, and about the "sex sells" thing, it's interesting. In the APA thingie I posed in the spoilers above, there was a quoting of a study on that.

"Recent evidence, however, indicates that drawing attention does not always translate into selling products. In an experimental investigation involving 366 adults 18–54 years of age, Bushman(2005) demonstrated that participants exposed to programming featuring sexual commercials were less likely to remember the advertised brands and expressed less interest in buying those brands than participants who had seen ads with no sexual content.

These data indicate that young women and adult women are frequently, consistently, and increasingly presented in sexualized ways in advertising, creating an environment in which being female becomes nearly synonymous with being a sexual object. Although advertisers are typically careful not to sexualize young girls directly. several advertising techniques do so indirectly."

As for romance novels. You're joking right? It's actually in a sexual context already. That's like not having sexual images on porn covers. The books themselves don't usually objectify men. Well, not usually in the ones I've read. They are subjects as much as the women are, even if they aren't the voice.

And did I see evolutionary psychology mentioned? How did I know it would come to that. Yes, I have read a bit of evolutionary psychology, and I wasn't exactly impressed. The popular manifestation of Evolutionary Psychology would make Darwin shake his head and walk away in shame with the Incredible Hulk closing music playing behind him.

I can't even subject everybody to my rant about evo-psych. I'm going to put another spoiler block to save page space. So if you don't care about Evolutionary Psychology please don't click the spoiler.

I'm going to let some scientists speak for me. I'll quote some prime bits and provide links. Plus give my thoughts as well. In an article by Jonathan Marks on the site the Evolution-Institute.org, he gives some of his problems with Evo-Psych. One is making a big flawed assumption about selection.

"Another problematic idea to students of human evolution is the broad assumption in evolutionary psychology that an evolutionary explanation for any particular feature is ipso facto an adaptive explanation. But again, our knowledge of human evolution tells us that (1) non-adaptive or even maladaptive traits can evolve under appropriate demographic conditions (notably, small population size); (2) those were precisely the conditions under which the great bulk of human evolution occurred; and (3) origin and modern use do not map well onto one another, for either biological or cultural traits. Consequently, there is not the slightest reason to think that any specific feature has to have an adaptive explanation, much less that we have a reliable method for ascertaining it. While of course there are features of the human form that are probably the result of adaptive selection – for example the distinctive shape of the human pelvis in relation to the vertical posture of our ancestors – the human mind seems to be characterized by the opposite condition – adaptability, not adaptedness."

This assumption also leads to simple explanations, with no actual evidence that it manifests genetically. They definitely never try to link behavior to specific genes. This is all very bad evolutionary science.

Also, the complete and total lack of correcting for culture is the biggest problem for me. Also from Mark's article:

"From these opposed starting points, other divergences quickly accumulate. For example, the idea that there is an instinctual “human nature” that is analytically separable from human culture. Whether or not you believe it, the idea has far stronger roots in Aristotle than in Darwin. But what our knowledge of human evolution tells us is that even our most fundamental evolutionary instincts, walking and talking, are also learned and highly cultural. Moreover, any familiarity with the history of the subject can show that assertions about “human nature” have a great deal of political valence. They consequently must endure high degrees of scrutiny to be taken seriously; the propositions that regularly emerge from evolutionary psychology tend to wither under the merest criticism.

My personal favorite is the claim that 37 different cultures attest to the divergent features that men and women like in mates, which can now be safely ascribed to nature – until you control for gendered economic inequality, at which point the apparent divergence disappears.[5] It wasn’t nature at all; it was history and sloppy scientific reasoning. My second personal favorite is the presumptively evolved disposition for men to be attracted to women with a waist-to-hip ratio of 0.67, the same as that of the stereotypical 36-24-36 Hollywood starlet. Again, naively cross-culturally supported, until you try to control for familiarity with Hollywood. Then it breaks down quickly.[6] Again, history and sloppy scientific reasoning; what passes for cross-cultural generalization in evolutionary psychology tends to appall scholars actually familiar with cross-cultural analyses.[7]"

Also the methods are pretty flawed. Are you familiar with the concept of WIERD? It means "Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, Democracies" and refers to the actual research subjects of the evolutionary psychology. Seventy-five percent of the studies only use humans from WIERDs. Yet they somehow claim to represent a study of humanity in general. Here have a picture.

That's a view of the research subjects of 3 different Evolutionary Psychology Journals. It's part of an article over on www.evoanth.net called evolutionary psychology has problems and it isnt getting better by Adam Benton. What really bothers me is that even within WIERDS, many of these studies are performed by underfunded groups who can't afford large studies, so end up only using subjects locally, and often students that attend the universities the studies are performed (about 40%). They aren't even doing a cross section of their own culture, much less cross cultural.

I'm also not a fan of assuming that when they compare humans to some of the higher apes, that the apes' behavior isn't somewhat the result of their learned behavior. There is a lot of evidence suggesting culture and learned behavior is a big part higher primates (some whales too), not simply innate genetically evolved behavior.

OK, I'm going to stop here because I don't want to get into a big thing on evolutionary psychology. But it needs a reform before it starts sliding into pseudoscience land.

@frozen said:

The reason why Wonder Woman is now more free of objectification is that modern comic-book writing has given her the chance to be written with more layers; this holds true for other comic-book characters too. For you to ignore her character depth and focus on the costume because ''it was designed with sexual intent'' is dishonest; it's ever the more ignorant because it does not give credit to how characterization in comics, especially females have changed over the years.

No... see. She isn't free of objectification. She is often presented in a sexual manner despite the scene not being sexual, despite her character not actual intending anything sexual, and completely independent of her own contextual sexuality. You cannot claim this doesn't happen often. Do you actually think she's purposely posing in ways that accent her butt or boobs? Or ways that manage to show both butt and boobs at the same time.

@frozen said:

That's not the core of the 'Greek roots' argument --- because as per usual, you ignore the goddess aspect. On the topic of the attire, her costume is similar to the Amazon warriors; as I have explained. The only difference is that the Amazon Warriors are depicted to have leggings armor and partly on the arms --- Wonder Woman does not have this because she does need extra-armor; with the powers of the Greek Gods/Goddesses, she can fight without the extra baggage that an Amazon hypothetically needed; thus, it's loosely based on what the Amazons wore, the tiara and extra-plates were simply mixed with the pin-up girl, and there's some resemblance to what an Amazon Warrior wears. You need to read the interview carefully and not cherry-pick, the writer goes on to explain:

But it’s also one which can be abused. Women characters can be drawn sexy or strong, girlish or mature, thin or voluptuous and everything in between

Me and Erik have agreed on that point, but again, my point is that it's better to keep her costume which for years has brought about good and inspiration to millions of women everywhere, rather than change her costume for the sake of it. Again, stop skewing my Taliban point --- I said that costume-blaming Wonder Woman and then consequently covering up because of that criticism is akin to the Taliban covering up women. It's neo-puritan. Obviously it's not a literal comparison to the Taliban/terrorist organisations, it's an exaggeration but it illustrated my point.

Not the only difference. The amazons didn't wear bodices and underwear. Even without the leggings or sleeves, it went over their shoulders, because you know... pain in the butt adjusting a bodice while running around fighting villains. And have you looked at the varga girls? Bodices galore. Much closer to Wonder Woman than Amazons, or anybody in ancient Greece.

No it's not the same as the Taliban covering up women, and has nothing to do with Puritanism. You see... Puritans believed sex was reserved for during marriage, and before marriage all expressions of sex was wrong.

@frozen said:

Why should I stop? I'm calling you out on your comments. You say ''this isn't about looking good'' yet state:

Also, there's that whole, "kick the asses of men, and look good while doing it" that's part of the problem, because it's not an option. It's a requirement

Yet again, your argument is all over the place. You claim it's ''part of the problem'' --- it isn't. It's fantasy. Fiction --- characters can be portrayed to be the best looking of people, that's part of the allure.

How does this in any way change my point? What you think her creation meant was not what it actually was. I quite clearly quoted a piece which said as much. The writers did this to challenge the sexist hierarchy of the time --- what they did was not demeaning to women, it was actually incredibly ambitious and issuing a challenging to masculinity. The words of the writers also stated behind her inception:

Superman’s publisher, Charlie Gaines, read Byrne’s article and was so impressed that he decided to hire Marston as a consulting psychologist. Marston convinced Gaines that what he really needed to counter the attack on comics was a female superhero. At first, Gaines objected. Every female pulp and comic-book heroine, he told Marston, had been a failure (which wasn’t strictly true). “But they weren’t superwomen,” Marston countered. “They weren’t superior to men.” A female superhero, Marston insisted, was the best answer to the critics, since “the comics’ worst offence was their bloodcurdling masculinity”.

The reason why they needed her to be hot is painfully obvious. They needed to sell. Selling a female protagonist in the 1940's was not easy. What is being dishonest is deceptively quoting that while ignoring the social context --- you continue to do this; her creation was a challenge to the sexist attitudes of the time. That is why Harry. G Peter was hired for Wonder Woman for the time, he was drawing allegories between her and the political struggles of the women's suffrage movement of the 1900s/1910s. You selectively quote ''oh but she was made sexual so people could buy her!'' and it is ignorantly ignoring the sociopolitical influences of Wonder Woman and what she actually meant. This is why I call you a Faux-Feminist, your arguments are disgustingly bias in what they choose to acknowledge when it comes to quoting creators. This is because your ideology depends on it.

Hrm... Let's look at what I was responding to in that quote above:

"Wonder Woman was created during an era to which women were considered second-class to men. They were expected to dress conservatively. There was very limited sex-appeal at all. Feminism had achieved political goals but not social. Inequality existed; this era was very Conservative --- Wonder Woman's inception was groundbreaking in the sense that there was now liberalization in the entertainment; portraying a woman who can kick the asses of men (absolutely unheard of in the 1930s/40s) and look good while doing it was very empowering as a source of inspiration for females. Your argument is deliberately leaving out context yet again; you act as if Wonder Woman was created as a piece of meat, yet completely ignore the social context of the time. She was an empowering figure."

And here is my whole response to that:

"Wonder Woman did do a lot for feminism, and it was wonderful she other heroines were able to fight crime, but don't pretend their suits and designs were about liberating women. You know there was an explosion in the 40s of women in tiny costumes. There was a nickname boys gave those because they gave them a chance to look at images of half naked women a bunch. They were named "headlight comics" (three guesses what the "headlights" refer to). Also, there was a lot of bondage imagery in her books. I wasn't kidding in that post about covers of her being tied up with long cylindrical objects flying at her. These weren't accidents. Also, there's that whole, "kick the asses of men, and look good while doing it" that's part of the problem, because it's not an option. It's a requirement. As I've said before. She can be a hero, as long as she looked good for dudes. It's not empowering if it's a rule. And it's not empowering to her if it's not about her."

You attempted to make her costume about "liberating" Wonder Woman, where I was saying that's bull and it was about getting men to to want her. Now you seem to agree with my point, so we can at least stop this thread. Because as I said before, media with women dressed like that wasn't uncommon. it was easy to find. And all were intended for men. And the actual problem is getting real live women to be able to dress how they want without men assuming it's for them. And the idea that the best way to get a guy to buy something is to provide him with women dressed skimpily is not helpful at all to that cost.

"They needed to sell" is not really an appropriate defense when I had specifically said that was the case...

@frozen said:

Because that's the point...

Steinem doesn't give a sh*t about her costume. It's only faux-Feminists and puritans such as yourselves who see problems which do not exist. Steinem did not care about her costume because she meant and represented so much more.

So why did you quote her? You are the one who thinks Wonder Woman's costume is some especially supreme importance over any aspect of her personality. It's funny, you quote what Steinem said about the positive aspects of Wonder Woman and what was great about her character. You quote Marston and bold the part about blood curdling masculinity. You even admit that "The reason why they needed her to be hot is painfully obvious. They needed to sell." After all that, and after making the big hoopla about caring about Wonder Woman's roots, you shrug off the fact most of the ideals are wiped away with "Most comic-book characters have become more violent since the Post-Crisis."

This means you don't actually care about Wonder Woman's roots, or what she was founded on. And even though you admit her design was to sell her, you only actually care about the costume. Changing her whole personality and no longer caring about those ideals are fine, but they change her costume and suddenly, "you're being disrespectful! SO much disrespect. They made her hot in the 40s for a reason! To sell! How dare you tarnish that legacy!"

@frozen said:

Your positions are incredibly unclear. I proposed whether you think covering up Wonder Woman would maker her less sexual, and you disagreed. I then proposed whether you think artists drawing her in a non-sexual way would make her less sexual, and yet you still disagree, continuing to blame the design. There are only two ways to go about it:

• Change her design. To make her 'less sexual' - that almost always ends up in covering up, as shown in the OP
• Change the way artists draw her. As I showed in the comparison pictures; one is slutty, the other is strong and confident

For the first point, you denied that covering her up would make her less sexual. You then denied the second point, by saying that her costume is still a problem. By this point you are simply running away from arguments; there are two ways to make her less ''sexual'' and I have presented them to you, and you have denied them both.

I'm not sure where I "denied" either. I have said it's possible to depict her in a non sexual way in her original... well her current version of the original costume. But I also don't believe it is a neutral thing that doesn't encourage sexualization because that was its original intent. It was a matter of attraction over function from the very begging.

As for the new costume, it would still be possible to draw her in a sexual way in the new costume, but I don't believe it was designed with sexualization or even "de-sexualization" in mind. The shoulder armor doesn't scream "we must cover her up" as much as making her look like a warrior. And as Ms-Lola said about the covering: "An uptotheneck shirt and long sleeves aren't really 'covering up' so much as looking more like a uniform of sorts." I can definitely see that, though to me it seems more like a standard unitard under her bodice. But I definitely understand the uniform feel. The point though is that you are assuming it was designed to decrease sexuality, where I'd posit it was simply designed without taking sexuality into consideration. They just imagined how to make her warrior like. So they put her in more typical super hero garbs with armor in parts, with wrist blades. The bodice is part of Wonder Woman's history so that had to be the center piece, though they made even that more armory. The boots are really long boots... It's your projection that it was simply a matter of taking your boobies away.

Also, I take issue with the "one is slutty" bit. THIS is a big problem. You are equating an image drawn sexually for men with a real woman who chooses to have sex with however many people on her own terms. Wonder Woman is not "slutty" in that image. She is drawn with the intent for male gratification. That image is an extension of male sexuality, a woman's sexual proclivities are a matter of her own sexuality. See, you can't even separate the two, but you call me a slut shamer later.

@frozen said:

You personally think Wonder Woman wearing that costume is bad, despite the fact that millions of women world-wide see her as a source of empowerment. Despite the fact that she has represented much more --- by this point, I see you as nothing more than a slut-shaming puritan in disguise.

Ok, you said a little above that Steinem didn't give a crap about her costume. Which is it, is her costume intrinsic to her feminist ideals, or was it the trade off to sell to men? Do women like her for her ideals and creation, or for her costume?

And who exactly am I slut-shaming?

@frozen said:

No, it was not. As I covered in my earlier paragraphs --- the creator literally admits she is about female empowerment, not ''objectification''. Wonder Woman began with sexiness in mind and having the power of Superman; this was a sex radical idea but it was the intent of female empowerment, that a woman could look sexy and still kick ass. Wonder Woman did not start with ''male sexuality trumps all'' --- good grief, it's just getting embarrassing by this point with you. You are essentially promoting puritan ideas.

You really need to read up on Puritans. Even if I did believe what you're saying, those aren't puritan ideals. Anyway, the radical idea was the woman kicking ass. Full stop. There. That was the radical idea. Marston sold that idea by saying, if we make her sexy, the power will also be sexy and men will want to be her willing slaves. Fetishizing female power. The "Male Sexuality Trumps All" part was that in order to sell it, it needed to appeal to Male Sexuality. Male Sexuality was so important it wouldn't sell without it. You've readily admitted it was needed. Heck, in this post you're using it a lot:

"She was created to be sexually appealing because it was the only way to get her to sell"

"The reason why they needed her to be hot is painfully obvious. They needed to sell."

@frozen said:

It's not silly. That's what you are; what you're advocating, or trying to hide is puritan ideology. Rather than the way Wonder Woman has been; a source of female empowerment, used in Feminist campaigns, cited and adored by scholars, seen as a source for comfort for sick women world-wide, etc, you prefer to slut-shame. Even with that, you selectively ignore the words of the writer --- who explained that she was an allegory for female power. If you think that she should not ''satisfy'' male sexuality (which is in itself stupid, and denying basic biological processes) and that you think her costume is the source of blame (and not the way she is drawn), then the only alternative is to alter her design --- give her more clothing, and cover her up. The only alternative you're offering is a neo-puritan ideology. I gave you a perfect example of two pictures of Wonder Woman, side-by-side, and you denied that.

Again, who am I suddenly slut shaming? The way you throw that around it's as if you don't know exactly what it is and the reason it's important not to do. Oh, and can you please clarify the "denying basic biological processes" part? I'm really curious what you mean by that.

As for the costume bit, I explained above, and you really need to look up what the puritans believed.

@frozen said:

1) He is wearing spandex; that was a mistake on my behalf. However that does not change the point whatsoever; spandex is also prominent in BSDM/bondage

Spandex also allows ease of movement... And denim jeans were invented for miners, yet most of us wear jeans... the existence of something doesn't = intent. Intent = intent. Batman's outfit was not bondage gear.

2) Again, you showed a double standard; you attempted to argue that Wonder Woman being 'stretched out' was somehow ''objectification'' yet failed to acknowledge the same for Batman. This is painfully dishonest on your behalf.

No, it wasn't simply "stretched out." It was legs spread on a phallic symbol. It was looking towards the crotch and of course the rope was above and below her breasts framing them purposely. These don't just happen. The batman pic is not angled in any sort of display manner, it's from above, and at an angle. It's drawn at an awkward angle, this highlights how painfully contorted he's tied up, especially with how his left shoulder is drawn. His crotch is a flat black plane to draw attention away. The whole image is about showing batman's discomfort rather than any sort of display.

3) That is cherry-picking to the extreme. By this point you're just attempting to cast out any little detail for your agenda; both covers depict observers yet you're beating around the bush. This isn't dishonest as it is silly.

Beating around the bush? How does that expression even apply here? What the heck?

4) On the topic of ''getting tied up'' --- there's also been symbolic imagery of Wonder Woman breaking out of chains, which was in reference to Wonder Woman breaking the chains of patriarchy. This has been quite prominent in her history. I think you need to do some more reading but you needn't worry as I've already provided you with further quotes from the creator himself; his intent with Wonder Woman was to create female empowerment; you need to disassociate this with ''objectification'' because the writer himself had that intent.

And there have also been fans writing Marston asking where they can get the bondage implements shown in the comics. And Marston was known to be into bondage himself. Even if he also used symbolic imagery, it was rather convenient he was able to use the imagery from his interest in bondage.

@frozen said:

Larsen posted a picture from a cartoon, yes. But that cartoon picture costume is identical to the Post-Crisis comic version. That version has been depicted in comics many times; at-least more often than not.

Uh, the one on the left was also the same costume. the point was that the situation that resulted in a non sexualized depiction of the same costume just so happened to be from the cartoon. Read what Larsen was saying, that it all depends on the artist's depiction, and the non-sexualized depiction is from the cartoon where she wasn't allowed to be sexualized.

Wow, that was incredibly long. I'm so sorry.

@foamborn:

Well, your political idols proudly wear the "anti-feminist" label while purporting to be "egalitarians". "Anti-feminist" usually refers to individuals such as yourself who oppose the third wave feminist movement in the developed world. Moreover, we're talking about Wonder Woman getting a new costume here, presumably following demands made by a loud comic book-reading group of feminist men and women that you call "faux-feminists". The only thing I acknowledged is the existence of such a group and that they get a little carried away sometimes. However there's no conservative anti-straight-male conspiracy, sorry to burst your bubble you little silly sausage

The difference between your ad hominem and my ad hominem is that whereas you're deliberately fabricating lies to paint me out as a liar, I was spot-on, you do admittedly follow them on youtube. Trust me Frozen, the fact that you sound so much like them is nothing to be proud of, Sargon is a body-shaming, male supremacist scumbag.

My political ''idols''? I admire some political philosophers and leaders but they're not the You-Tubers you refer to. Again, another lie on your behalf; these You-Tubers hold an anti-Feminist label once it comes to modern Third-Wave Feminist. If you actually watch the videos, the people they criticize are stupid; they don't criticize the likes of true Feminists such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, they criticize campaigns such as 'Ban Bossy' or the Shirt-Storm incident. This is deliberate, because this is the brand of ''Feminism'' which people dislike. It's not even that I oppose Feminism in the 'developed' world --- I oppose the ''Feminism'' which is fought over trivial, and often ridiculous BS.

You reluctantly acknowledged the existence of such a group; they are Conservative in ideology, I refer to them as puritans because it harps back to the horsehshoe theory. They're so far-left that they're actually right-wing. It's not even a conspiracy; there has always been a strand of ''Feminism'' which is man-hating (especially CIS man hating) and puritan. For you to deny the existence of this group, as Makhai said, is profoundly ignorant.

I've only quoted your own posts to illustrate how you've lied; Makhai also pointed this out, you can attempt to worm, you're attempting to worm your way out of it. Your ad-hominem on the other hand is an attempted character-assassination --- what is wrong with following two established and respected You-Tubers? Both have debated the faux-Feminists they criticize they won because they're free of ideology. Do you have any evidence that Sargon is a ''male supremacist''? Seems like to me you're just salty that he debunks these faux-Feminists.

You also led quite the trail of destruction too.

Well I've had enough Frozen, have a good day.

No.

Wonder Woman needs to be sexualised. Female protagonists usually can't rely on their characters to remain interesting enough, this is a reflective of society reality.

Beauty, femininity, sexuality are the main values which women are, and should be judged on. That's just how it is

just like penis size is what a man should be judged on? what are you 12?

Men are judged by success, character and intellect

clearly something you don't have since you can't even spell it

Edited : Men are judged by success, character and intellect