As a critique to last week’s blog on CW’s fecal kryptonite-powered fecal receptacle Smallville, Alex wrote, “Future, feminist-approved rant idea: Comic books should feature more scantily clad (and preferably bearded) men, and then maybe more girls would read comic books and blog for Semantink.”  Many of you may be thinking that I’m going to disagree — but I’m not.  I think Alex is on to something…

Up to this point women have been considerably objectified in comics.  Most female characters have large breasts, small waists and butts worthy of quarter bouncing.  This is all largely in part to the predominately male following of the comic book world.  Recently the demographic has shifted — while it is still mostly boys reading the books, some girls are taking a more active role in what used to be a male-focused medium.  As far back as I can remember the art depicting women has fallen under one of two categories:  Good Girls and Bad Girls, but not like you’re thinking…

Good Girl Art (GGA) is defined by Richard Lupoff in his book The Great American Paperback as, “A cover illustration depicting an attractive young woman, usually in skimpy or form-fitting clothing, and designed for (mild erotic interest).  The term does not apply to the morality of the ‘good girl,’ who is often a gun moll, tough cookie, or wicked temptress.”  So, what’s so “good” about them?  The way they look, of course!

Women are always standing naked in the window, right?

“Two at once? No! NOOOO!”

So many stereotypes here; taboo-delicious.

Well, if “good” girls are bad, or at least good in the sexually motivating sense of the word, what are “bad girls”?  “Bad Girl Art likes to feature all the women as perhaps even more scandalous while retaining a tough persona, like Elektra. The era of this particular art is most commonly seen as the 80’s-90’s and one of its most famed publishers is Chaos! Comics, with Brian Pulido’s line of numerous ‘bad girl babes.”  Okay…  So Good Girl Art features sexually attractive and morally ambiguous women, while Bad Girl Art highlights even more scandalous, bad-ass women?  Awesome.  For purely scientific purposes, here are some examples:

Sexist? No. She seems…talented.

Yes. Even with the green hair, yes.

Bad Girl OG.

The feminine role in comic books has evolved quite a bit in the last few years — sort of.  There have been lesbians, feminists, independent women and even some truly bad ass attempts at breaking stereotypes, but more often than not, at one time or another, they are presented (for at least a moment) as a sexual stimulant for the overwhelmingly male readers (see below).  And sex isn’t the only way women are used in comics — Women in Refrigerators has a list of women whose deaths, rapes, submissions or other forms of punishment were used as plot devices and that’s pretty much it — but how else do you piss off a male super hero?

Huzzah for feminism and strong female characters!

Okay, so we know how women were used, but now that comics are building a more girl-friendly fan base, what will change?  Probably not much…  Comic books are not about sex or stereotyping.  They are merely a format for both writers and artists to engage in storytelling and at times, political, social (or other) agenda.  Just like any other form of media there will be trashy books and books that aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on, and these books, more than any other will feature sexist, stereotypical and misogynistic images/story lines devoid of any redeeming quality.  I’m here to tell you now that good comics are already avoiding these things to a certain degree.

We may see more men drawn as sexually as the women, but I’m thinking you’re still going to get more scandalously clad women than men and you know what?  That’s fine with me.

Click here to view the embedded video.

So, back to Alex and her “feminist-approved idea” that, “Comic books should feature more scantily clad (and preferably bearded) men, and then maybe more girls would read comic books and blog for Semantink.”  I say, why?  Personally, I don’t need more women to read comics and I definitely don’t want more guys staring at me all sexy-eyed off the pages.  Don’t get me wrong, I think someone should create the comic you’re suggesting (I bet if we looked it already exists), but I’m happy with comics and where they are.  I like beautiful and impossibly-shaped women and tough, blood-soaked battle hungry men.  Misogynistic?  Yes.  But I am also a fan of books without the sex-drive; take the deceptively titled Bone, or the thought provoking American Splendor. I don’t need the provocative women to get me to read a book, but I certainly enjoy them when it happens.

And as far as more women reading comic books?  Well, here is a list of the women involved with the creation of comics and here is an article on some women who currently read comics (despite the current state of the female role), and as I already linked, the female fan-base is already growing!  I believe that the reason women are objectified as they are is because it works — like selling HUMMERS (side note: if you drive a HUMMER you are a douchebag) for public consumption — they’re out there because people spend (a lot) of money on them.

A woman writing for Semantink?  That’s actually a great idea!  I think the feminine voice should be heard more clearly.  It’ll help keep us nerd boys in check.  But before she gets to write she’ll have to vacuum, wear a french maids costume, makes some food, finish our laundry, scratch my back, dust something…

Mr. Wolff

PS:  This is Megan Gale, she was going to be Wonder Woman in George Miller’s never-made Justice League and she’s a fine actress.  Why am I putting the picture here?  Because she is a woman who loves comics.  There, you see, I’m not misogynistic at all.  I’m almost a feminist.

Not at all sexual.