* <<F4F.0744>> WW Script draft
Look, what's important is not what you wear, but how you wear it.
The sexual objectification of female characters in comics IS a
problem. Let's not be naïve and say it isn't. But is covering-up
the solution?
Some well-meaning people say that outfits like these aren't
practical, or realistic, and that the only purpose they serve is to
titilate male readers.
You want practical and realistic? Okay, let's get real:
---
This is what a female warrior wears. This is serious business. Lots
of protection, lots of mobility -- plenty of supplies on-hand,
practical footwear... but here's the problem:
If an artist wants to sexualize me, they're going to do it no matter
what I'm wearing.
---
The nude figure is a powerful medium of expression. Without the
protection of clothes we are our most vulnerabile, our most fragile.
But the naked form in action -- how better can you corporealize
strength, courage, bravery?
In my opinion ...or, rather, in the artist's opinion -- I'm only a
projection of the artist, after all -- the reason superheroes are
visually compelling is largely due to their effectual nakedness.
There is nothing practical or realistic about men and women running
around in their underwear fighting crime. The costumes are symbolic,
the figures are expressive.
--sidebar--
Kids get this. Kids may not be versed in semiotics, but they intuit
the difference between signifier and signified, and they get the
symbolic content of cartoons without getting hung-up on the verity of
representation. As we get older, we tend to lose this, demand
"realism" ...why?
-----------
Now, before you accuse ME of being naïve, let me concede that there
ARE costumes intended to titilate. I don't think this is one of
them...
..tho' I'm not entirely sure about Plastic Man's...
..and there are issues with the way this one gets drawn. You know:
too low in the top, and too high at the bottom.
But THAT's the problem -- it's usually not the costume, it's the
tweaks some artists make to sex-up the costume, and that's part of
the larger problem of the overall visual treatment of female
characters.
Like, why are we sticking our butts out all the time, when we're
doing things that don't require sticking your butt out? Don't give
me that shit about female lumbar curvature -- this is sticking your
butt out.
For that matter, why are we presented backside-front, looking over
our shoulder so much more frequently than male characters?
And why are THEY so frequently shown DOING stuff, while we're so
frequently shown standing around trying to look glamorous or cute?
-----
There are quick and easy answers, of course.
Artists like to draw what they like to see, and editors are never
eager to send work back for revision, even if it might be a bit
inappropriate, since there's usually not much public outcry from the
core superhero comic demographic, and, frankly, a little bit of sex
never DECREASED a book's sales, right?
Those are valid, surface-level complaints -- but it's a deeper
problem than that.
Sexual inequality is a problem endemic to ...heck, I was going to say
western civilization, but it's a problem endemic to civilization,
period.
There are still a LOT of people in the world who believe that it is
by divine ordinance that women belong in roles deferential to men.
In some cases, roles of downright obedience and servitude.
Even many people with more secular viewpoints believe that women are
subject to sexual objectification simply by the law of nature --
~that's just the way it is~.
..
--
Excerpted from:
PUBLIC NOTES (F)
http://alph.laemeur.com/txt/PUBNOTES-F
©2015 Adam C. Moore (LÆMEUR) <
[email protected]>
