@fodigg said:
I don't think equality is a meaningless goal or a 'myth'. It may be unachievable in practice but so are many other worthy ideals, and that doesn't mean the pursuit of them is unjust. As for the idea of feminism being a part of mainstream thought, I don't think that's accurate considering the disdain one sees the very word held in across the political spectrum. Let's drop this. We won't prove anything one way or another about feminism.
Treating men and women with equal status as human beings is not meaningless but women were treated as human beings before feminism. If it were not for feminist influence on our society, men and women would not want to be treated as equal in the sense which feminists want them to be. The fact that feminism is (as you say) still treated with some disdain backs this up.
If Oprah Winfrey approves of it, it's mainstream. Oprah is the most influential person in the media. That also means that the major network Oprah works for supports feminism. What do you call mainstream?
My point was that if women buy DC's comics, then obviously PG does appeal to women and not just males - she is not just drawn for male market. If DC are profiting from sales to female readers, they probably are right. If social justice and equality are about catering to female audiences, then DC are just.The argument begs the question. If you define justice by sales and just assume that these sales exist, and without accounting for any other possible cause for high sales (e.g., nothing better out there, redeeming characteristics of the character other than the boob window) then you're not really proving anything. We should probably drop this too unless we can find sales figures for various demographics on Power Girl over the years.
I'm not defining justice by sales, I'm saying that sales reflect what women naturally like. If women like what DC do, then DC is probably not being unjust toward them. Most women would buy a comic which is unjust toward her.
True, I don't know how many women buy Power Girl comics, but I bet DC knows and would probably not wish to do anything to discourage them. True also that there are other factors in their choice besides the boob window. But if the boob window is as demeaning as you say, and it hides the other, worthy qualities of the character, as you say, then the boob window would probably over-ride the other factors. There is better out there - over 52 other DC characters, and several other major comic imprints.
Traditional roles and sexual morality are built on innate behavior of the sexes but I am only talking about the behavior, not what is built on them. We are talking about a comic book character, not marriage and family or even just sexual relationships.Well, yes, but we're talking about the sexualization of said character. Or, to be more accurate, the reflection of those attitudes in media. I forget why this issue was raised.
You brought up morality. I was only talking about sexual behavior. Sexual behavior is not necessarily moral.
I've given my reasons why it's objectionable. I gave them even in that post. You even respond to it in this paragraph. This argument is an et tu fallacy. You're saying that we shouldn't remove something "to please [certain] fans for no reason" when the element in question is literal fanservice you admit right here has no benefit to the character (although you do say it "enhances" the character somehow, you fail to elaborate). The boob window is "to please fans [certain] for no reason" to begin with, and although you may not agree with our objections we do have them. Our argument is not just "well, we don't like it."
No, I think it does benefit the character - the fan service is incidental. But whether or not it benefits the character,teh issue here is why it is objectional. Just because it doesn't benefit the character does not make it objectional. The stars on Wonder Woman's pants don't necessarily benefit the character, they are just there for aesthetics. That doesn't mean we should object to them. The difference betweenWW's stars and PG's window is that the window shows PG's cleavage. The issue here is what is wrong with showing cleavage?
PG's boob window doesn't overshadow the important aspects of her character any more than Catwoman's zip overshadows her important aspects. This is what I don't get. PG is singled out for things which apply to other characters. PG's prominent boobs represent animportant part of her character - sexiness - which foil or complement the other aspects - strength, ability, intelligence etc. If you don't maintain that dichotomy with a boob window, you still have to do it some other way. I don't think a boobwindow is enoughto overshadow other obvious aspects of the character, even if a reader gets only as far as looking at the cover. PG is (or should be) drawn in such a way that those qualities are all apparent to the reader at a glance. If the "wider audience" don't get that, then they are incapable of getting it. People that shallow or unsophisticated don't deserve to be pandered to.So the people being pandered to now--the "I need to see cleavage or it's not the same character" crowd--are the "sophisticated" ones? That doesn't pass the smell test. The dichotomy you talk about can be readily maintained without the boob window (as you've repeatedly stated re: stretched spandex), and in fact this entire thread started when you pointed out it was more maintained than ever with the disposable costume (not that I like the disposable costume mind you).
That's not pandering. And nobody says PG's costume needs the boob window; we just like it. Not just because we like her boobs, but because it suits her persona. We are sophisticated because we can see past the boob window and enjoy the varied facets of the character. We know that a character need not be one of either vampish sex kitten or strong, intelligent and conservatively attired.
You recognize the dichotomy yourself, so you should not imply others like the boob window for some other, unsophisticated reason.If you think it is okay for PG to be sexy, then why do you object to the boob window? Why is it okay for her to display her boobs with tight spandex butnot with a boob window? Either she is allowed to be sexy or she isn't. Why can it be one way but not the other? I made the point that full spandex or boob window, her boobs are still in your face - there is not much difference on the vamp scale.
The reason why Catwoman and Voodoo's costumes are better is because they can be sexy for the sexy scenes and then focus on other things when that's not as appropriate. The reason why the boob window is worse is because it's stripperific no matter the context of the scene. The reason why the disposable costume is a terrible solution is because then she's only sexily clad in inappropriate contexts--fight scenes. Unless you're Alan Moore and out to show how all superheroes are sexual deviants flying their freak flags all the time (e.g., Watchmen, Top 10, Top 10: The Forty Niners, Promethea) there are better ways to do superhero costumes.
So now it's a matter of when they can and can't be sexy. In action, cover up the boobs. When standing around talking, uncover the boobs. If PG buttoned and unbuttoned her boobs between scenes, that would just draw more attention to them. Okay, Catwoman isn't always zipped up when she's in action and she's often zipped when not in action. She does it because it's practical, not because being unzipped looks silly when she's in action. It doesn't look silly - she sometimes does have her boobs out when in action. Many other female characters are stripperific in and out of combat. Wonder Woman, Red Sonja - just about all of them. Maybe Alan Moore is right.
I'm not defending the disposable costume, though I have to admit that I don't mind PG falling out of her costume. She's occaisionally been drawn with ripped costume prior to this new series.
My point was that having a boob window is not much different to just having spandex stretched over boobs that size - you can't hide this sexy physical feature, without making the charactere less sexy. She's either sexy or not. Her boobs are in your face or they are not. But even if the boob window is sexier than straight spandex, why is that too sexy? By what standard? In the context of the character, it is not vampish. Or if it is vampish (I'll anticipate another argument) then it is one part of PG's style, not definitive of her entire character; she is not primarily a vampish character, though she does vamp. I don't think sales come before an interesting and entertaining character. If people don't get it, that's not a reason for the character to change. Sales should not govern everything. DC can market another character to cater to that demographic. Changing PG to gain more readers will LOSE her some of her present readers.Hiding her "sexiness" is not the problem. You're making my point by saying that it doesn't matter as far as how sexy the character is between window and spandex. The problem with the boob window is that it really isn't any sexier, it's just ridiculous. It makes her cleavage into her superhero symbol. That's problematic thematically. That makes a statement on what the character is about to the audience.
That is even referenced by the writers (i.e., the awful "I left it open because I wanted to put something there" speech).
Yes it was an awful reference - an example of where the writers wrote the character wrongly. So why treat it seriously in a discussion? Previously, PG said that the boob window shows her femininity, which it certainly does. That is the sensible version of what the window means. Even if you choose to take the second it seriously, the window doesn't define her identity, it indicates a lack of identity.
And I am surprised to see you suddenly saying sales don't matter when "it sells" was the entire basis for your argument that DC isn't catering to men with PG's old costume.
Before, I said that the sales reflect what women actually like in a character and that DC would probably design the character to appeal to a female market, to increase sales. That is a sensible way to tailor a character to an audience. Tailoring the character to appeal to the lowest common denominator is a different thing. That just results in a dull character.
Well, if sales don't govern everything and removing the problematic (or at least, controversial) boob window makes for a stronger character with a broader audience (which helps any film adaptation possibilities), then do we necessarily care that some readers who only care about the boob window are dropped? I don't. If someone ONLY reads PG for the boob window then they really aren't much of a PG fan. That'd be like reading Secret Six only for Catman's abs.
No, we shouldn't care whether readers who ONLY care about the boob window are lost. But that is not a reason to drop the boob window. We should equally not care about readers who object solely because of the boob window. Neither are good reasons to have or not have the boob window.
As for film adaption possibilities, boobs weren't a problem for Lara Croft.
I am NOT trying to "de-sexy" Power Girl. I'm trying to address a problematic costume element that negatively affects the character both thematically and in how she's perceived by the general audience.
I still don't see how it is negative.
Log in to comment