Strong Female Role Models in Comics

[Marvelfangirl]

That's probably the only thing I don't see

 

 

You probably need some of those X-ray glasses that they used to sell in comics.

 

I hear they have an app for that now

You're a bunch of pervs

[adamstrange]

Akiko

Scary Godmother

Leave it to Chance

Amelia Rules

Courageous Princess

Wendy the Good Little Witch

Little Dot

Girl Genius

Zot (Jenny and Zot are the lead characters)

Golden Age: Black Canary available in a DC Archive

Silver Age: Zatanna

 

I'd add:

 

Courtney Crumrin

Amulet Series by Kazu Kibuishi (sister & brother are the lead characters)

Castle Waiting

[Smokinghawk]

While finding myself in agreement with some of your observations, I think that it would be wise to step back and look at the bigger picture, because there has always been some element of sexism in every aspect of human endeavor.

 

Exploitation is nothing new nor is it arguably more prevalent today than in decades past. In fact, I've yet to see it demonstrated that harassment is an escalating pattern of behavior occurring at most conventions. This may be an over-reaction to a few isolated incidents or be some sort of legal *spoon* covering, but I'll reserve judgment.

 

The danger from focusing too much attention on comics as role models for girls (or boys for that matter) is that the slippery slope of PC activism starts creeping into the discussion.

 

First of all, one should consider comics as an entertainment medium. While I'm sure that many examples of positive behaviors can be found in both male and female comic book characters, the foremost goal of any written or illustrated entertainment is service to story.

 

For better or worse, modern comic book storytelling is less B&W, with more reality based character development. That means the characters are more relativistic in their attitudes or behavior and prone to personal foibles as well as heroics or evil machinations. Hey, even evil doers can be rehabilitated, right?

 

So, where does that leave us?

 

We live in a society that emphasizes sexual attractiveness (in theory, if not in practice), hence tight fitting attire ...for arts sake, lets call it minimalism... and physically alluring female characters, especially in super hero comics.

 

We live in a society where teen girls compete for the attention of boys and exploration of their identities, hence teen romance comics and all the angst that goes along with each generation's growing pains.

 

I'm not quite sure where funny animal comics takes us, so I won't go there.

 

Yes, there are stereotypes and most characters lack believable depth, but after all, we're talking about comic books here, aren't we? First and foremost it's about entertainment told through illustrated panels.

 

Parents should provide guidance and be role models, not comics, as comics provide entertainment for mass consumption and one size never fits all. The alternative is imposing societal norms or community standards to everything marketed to kids, on library shelves or taught in our public schools. We've been down that road before, and isn't pretty.

 

But I digress...

 

There are lots of comics out there with strong female characters; they fight the good fight against evil doers, right along with their male counterparts or solo. Some are even dressed as nuns ...or even a burka (OK, maybe not), but what fun would that be (except for a fetishist)? Tight fitting attire has always been standard fare for both genders since the dawn of costumed characters.

 

Exploitation? Sure, in some cases; I know it when I see it, but I'd respectfully urge critics to consider how female characters handle the circumstances they're given before passing judgment based solely upon appearance.

 

Society exploits, there is no getting around it or away from it; it's futile to try. Is an evocatively clad female heroine freeing herself from bondage to overcome an evil adversary any more exploitive than a Stepfordized Suzy Homemaker waiting patiently at the door for hubby? Which message is the more exploitive for girls to assimilate? I wouldn't want to be the arbiter.

 

Were those examples too extreme?

 

Perhaps, so lets tone it down a notch. How exciting would a comic be which focused on a day at the office or the factory?

 

Not exciting enough? OK, how about a thrilling comic examining the stress of studying for tests, starting a business or planning a family? Would those be better role models for girls?

 

In a perfect world one would hope that children have solid parental support for whatever they do and good peer influence, but entertainment should be a respite from reality. There are many choices after all. The general admonition of comics for societal misgivings or the inevitable urbanization of culture only serves to invite calls for censorship and that leads to a dark place indeed.

 

I seem to recall reading somewhere that late in life, Frederick Wertham admitted he'd been hasty in his scathing assessment of pre-code comic books. Crime and horror comics of the era were certainly exploitive of sex and violence, but they were also reflective of the more sensational aspects of an otherwise repressed society. Most here would probably agree that Wertham's Seduction of The Innocent and the Senate hearings that followed it's publication had a devastating impact on the comics industry.

 

In a manner of speaking, your post reminded me that misdirected public outrage can have consequences; no offense is intended and apologies for the length of this response.

 

 

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Here's mine, and although we have different points of view on some topics, I appreciate your giving us the opportunity for thoughtful conversation:

 

First, while it's true that there is a streak of sexism somewhere in nearly any aspect of human life, this particular topic was about females in comic books, specifically, so that's why I answered on that basis. I didn't give an essay on sociology because it's not what the thread was about. I wrote on the limited topic of women in comics just to stay on-topic. But the problem, and point I'm trying to make, is that the sexism streak isn't just somewhere present if one but seeks for it. Rather, it is the mainstream of comic material itself. So rather than magnifying the inevitable sexism of any art genre to make a point, I'd hope to demonstrate that the entire genre has a problem on its hands. I think on balance the state of things is so blatant that we find ourselves hard-pressed to find exceptions to comic sexism.

 

I disagree that taking issue with rampant sexism is in any sense a "danger" leading to "PC police." The problem we have comes from the opposite danger: too LITTLE critical conversation about the problem. Objecting to misogyny ought not to be a controversial stand, nor be greeted with "careful there, buddy, you might start being too PC." I propose this: let's dispense with the typical go-to terminology of "political correctness" and address comic sexism for what it is: a problematic and rampant (and undeniable, I think) pornification of women as characters in comics. If it seems I'm dramatizing my case with the term, I have to say that I think the mountains of printed matter offer me the vast advantage of evidence; I've already mentioned that "Comic Book Women" results in porn-mistakable Google image returns.

 

The fallback that "it's only entertainment" is, unfortunately, a very standard way that we with privilege defend the status quo and minimize the authentic concerns of those who are harmed by the preponderance of T&A, misogyny, and pornification. By reducing the real issue of offensive images (and characterizations) of women to one of mere amusement issues, we deny the concerns of real-life women (and we male partners) over how they are portrayed to have any substance or legitimacy in the conversation. But it's especially critical that those concerns NOT be denigrated, and here's why: first, these images have real-life consequences. As the father to two sons, I am VERY concerned with what "normal media entertainment" offers as valid images of women. The more commonplace an image is, the more it can be assumed to be both normal and valid. When comics offer ONLY a particular image of women, my point becomes harder to deny.

 

And second, the "it's just entertainment" argument would work better if the T&A issue were only some slim edge of the genre; when it's 99.9% prevalent in EVERY comic title, we've gone beyond as aspect of entertainment into routine propaganda. Imagine if EVERY magazine were "Maxim"! It'd be a lot harder to shrug it off; we'd have to face the fact that something very serious has been going on. I have no problem with Maxim or images of hot women--I'm not urging Pollyanna/Fred Wertham hysteria here--but I want so badly to say "they have their place" and I can't. With comics, I can't say that. They don't just have a "place" within the genre, they ARE the genre. Saying that "it's only entertainment" will only work if other alternatives are also offered to those who are entertained by something different. That alternative isn't offered. Therefore, the comic book publishers have chosen for us that only one style of female character will entertain us.

 

I'm afraid that the "it's only entertainment" line is a sibling to the "in a perfect world, parents would..." line. It's the kind of thing we say to prop up the moral option, rhetorically, while in reality giving the corrupt status-quo consent to continue without critique. Let me try an alternative: In a perfect world, men would influence widespread cultural changes that raise the standard of respect for ALL humans, rather than waiting for women to do it themselves while we remain passive (or worse, obstructionist) spectators. Sadly, the image of women in any media is regarded as purely a women's issue (at best), or not an issue at all. The notion that we men ought to, I dunno, take a stand against sexism is wacky to us, because we're told it's all just entertainment.

 

We do indeed live in a society that emphasizes physical attractiveness. I'm not sure if that's a point for the defense of the genre status quo, or a point I ought to be making to critique it! See, that point works well for MY case: comics actually go further than merely emphasizing physical attractiveness, which is normal. It propagandizes it (*I'm using the word deliberately, and correctly) by making it EVERY representation. ONLY physical attractiveness (to a hyper-real level) is permitted. As I said in my first post, every female character has an interchangeable body in a different costume. There are no other body types shown, whatsoever. Consequently, comics aren't merely emphasizing attractiveness, they're making physical perfection the single most important standard for female characters to portray--hence the goofy pantheon of grown-women parading through public with thongs, BDSM outfits, bra-less chests, and spandex! Is there anyone seeing this who seriously does not think it makes my point?

 

When "normal" body types are excluded in every single issue of every single comic every single month, we've gone beyond mere appreciation of attractiveness; we've agreed without objection that not one single alternate body type is acceptable. Show me the full-figured female protagonist/hero. There might be one, I don't know, but admit it: it'd be easier to be tasked with finding a thousand giant-chested size 0 hotties in thongs who fight with their cleavage or crotches widely exposed than to find a SINGLE example to the contrary. This isn't mere "appreciation." This is pathological obsession. It makes Howard Wolowitz look chaste. I take a different approach, I'm afraid, and have to conclude that critique, perhaps even outrage, are morally warranted, and passivity in the face of misogyny can have consequences--not the least of which are some god-awful comics.

 

I think it's a false dichotomy to suggest that the only options are "exploitative excitement" versus "dull storyline of life in a factory." Perhaps that kind of bipolar thinking is what guides the male writers of most comics? "I can either show a chick with perky boobs fighting in karate-style poses with her thong wide open between her thighs, or my comic will be dull." That's practically an admission of a defeated imagination. Joss Whedon has shown time and again that a heroine CAN be sexy, attractive, even HOT, while also being intelligent, confident, studious, and empowered without having to constantly lead with predictable sexual innuendo.

 

To sum: I'm not calling for censorship. The problem is that there's too much censorship on this issue already. When every single image of women, storyline about women, and fate of women in comics fits into the narrow range of "sex object," there is censorship. What's been excluded is any other possible portrayal! Women of various body types? Absent. Women heroes who aren't sexualized? Absent. Women who aren't subjected to violence? Rare. I'm asking for broader, more imaginative, more intelligent examinations of women in comics, which is the opposite of censorship or political correctness. That ought not to be a threatening or objectionable request. I'm not asking that all sexual images of women in comics be banned. I'm not asking that women not be shown attractively--sexuality and erotic beauty are real and thrilling parts of life. I'm not asking that any comic, or comic reader, have anything in comics taken away or prohibited. I'm asking that in addition to those options, there be some other imaginative, diverse, and just plain smart portrayals be available, too.

 

Why should we broaden our minds when it comes to women in comics?

 

Because it's entertainment. And that matters.

 

 

 

[CycleGirl]

There are VERY few positive female role models in comics. Sexism in comics is rampant. Look at how every single female superhero character is drawn--every single one!

 

And they have ginormous chests on bodies that are interchangeable. And costumes that increasingly rely on thongs--yes, THONGS!--as standard accessories.

 

You're tilting at windmills. Comic book publishers are like everyone else. They do what sells, and sex sells.

 

And that bothers me not in the least. Moreover I can't see why it should bother anyone else either unless they have some sort of an agenda.

 

Case closed.

 

 

True, sex sells, and a lot of it would not be would what I would want my own kids to be reading. The Emma Frost covers - they say you can't judge a book by it's cover but I don't know...

 

The OP said that they had 3 daughters at home interested in comic books. What I believe this thread is about is recommending appropriate material for children or teens - in particular, girls.

 

With regard to the "thong" generalization, like most generalizations, it's simply not true.

 

Here is some art from X-Men First Class

 

 

 

Of course we have Mennonites living nearby whom I'm sure would find this pretty offensive. However, I find it more than acceptable. It's true, that features are exaggerated - I like to say "idealized" on both the males and the females. Do the muscles on the male superheroes make you guys feel inadequate or do you understand that this is fantasy? That's what I thought.

 

Superheroes are modern mythology. They are like Olympian gods - they are supposed to be idealized, beyond us. They stretch our imagination beyond our mundane limitations, and so like Greek and Roman statuary that show idealized anatomy, so too, our heroes and heroines are drawn with superior physiques.

 

-Rhonda

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Marvelfangirl]

While finding myself in agreement with some of your observations, I think that it would be wise to step back and look at the bigger picture, because there has always been some element of sexism in every aspect of human endeavor.

 

Exploitation is nothing new nor is it arguably more prevalent today than in decades past. In fact, I've yet to see it demonstrated that harassment is an escalating pattern of behavior occurring at most conventions. This may be an over-reaction to a few isolated incidents or be some sort of legal *spoon* covering, but I'll reserve judgment.

 

The danger from focusing too much attention on comics as role models for girls (or boys for that matter) is that the slippery slope of PC activism starts creeping into the discussion.

 

First of all, one should consider comics as an entertainment medium. While I'm sure that many examples of positive behaviors can be found in both male and female comic book characters, the foremost goal of any written or illustrated entertainment is service to story.

 

For better or worse, modern comic book storytelling is less B&W, with more reality based character development. That means the characters are more relativistic in their attitudes or behavior and prone to personal foibles as well as heroics or evil machinations. Hey, even evil doers can be rehabilitated, right?

 

So, where does that leave us?

 

We live in a society that emphasizes sexual attractiveness (in theory, if not in practice), hence tight fitting attire ...for arts sake, lets call it minimalism... and physically alluring female characters, especially in super hero comics.

 

We live in a society where teen girls compete for the attention of boys and exploration of their identities, hence teen romance comics and all the angst that goes along with each generation's growing pains.

 

I'm not quite sure where funny animal comics takes us, so I won't go there.

 

Yes, there are stereotypes and most characters lack believable depth, but after all, we're talking about comic books here, aren't we? First and foremost it's about entertainment told through illustrated panels.

 

Parents should provide guidance and be role models, not comics, as comics provide entertainment for mass consumption and one size never fits all. The alternative is imposing societal norms or community standards to everything marketed to kids, on library shelves or taught in our public schools. We've been down that road before, and isn't pretty.

 

But I digress...

 

There are lots of comics out there with strong female characters; they fight the good fight against evil doers, right along with their male counterparts or solo. Some are even dressed as nuns ...or even a burka (OK, maybe not), but what fun would that be (except for a fetishist)? Tight fitting attire has always been standard fare for both genders since the dawn of costumed characters.

 

Exploitation? Sure, in some cases; I know it when I see it, but I'd respectfully urge critics to consider how female characters handle the circumstances they're given before passing judgment based solely upon appearance.

 

Society exploits, there is no getting around it or away from it; it's futile to try. Is an evocatively clad female heroine freeing herself from bondage to overcome an evil adversary any more exploitive than a Stepfordized Suzy Homemaker waiting patiently at the door for hubby? Which message is the more exploitive for girls to assimilate? I wouldn't want to be the arbiter.

 

Were those examples too extreme?

 

Perhaps, so lets tone it down a notch. How exciting would a comic be which focused on a day at the office or the factory?

 

Not exciting enough? OK, how about a thrilling comic examining the stress of studying for tests, starting a business or planning a family? Would those be better role models for girls?

 

In a perfect world one would hope that children have solid parental support for whatever they do and good peer influence, but entertainment should be a respite from reality. There are many choices after all. The general admonition of comics for societal misgivings or the inevitable urbanization of culture only serves to invite calls for censorship and that leads to a dark place indeed.

 

I seem to recall reading somewhere that late in life, Frederick Wertham admitted he'd been hasty in his scathing assessment of pre-code comic books. Crime and horror comics of the era were certainly exploitive of sex and violence, but they were also reflective of the more sensational aspects of an otherwise repressed society. Most here would probably agree that Wertham's Seduction of The Innocent and the Senate hearings that followed it's publication had a devastating impact on the comics industry.

 

In a manner of speaking, your post reminded me that misdirected public outrage can have consequences; no offense is intended and apologies for the length of this response.

 

 

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Here's mine, and although we have different points of view on some topics, I appreciate your giving us the opportunity for thoughtful conversation:

 

First, while it's true that there is a streak of sexism somewhere in nearly any aspect of human life, this particular topic was about females in comic books, specifically, so that's why I answered on that basis. I didn't give an essay on sociology because it's not what the thread was about. I wrote on the limited topic of women in comics just to stay on-topic. But the problem, and point I'm trying to make, is that the sexism streak isn't just somewhere present if one but seeks for it. Rather, it is the mainstream of comic material itself. So rather than magnifying the inevitable sexism of any art genre to make a point, I'd hope to demonstrate that the entire genre has a problem on its hands. I think on balance the state of things is so blatant that we find ourselves hard-pressed to find exceptions to comic sexism.

 

I disagree that taking issue with rampant sexism is in any sense a "danger" leading to "PC police." The problem we have comes from the opposite danger: too LITTLE critical conversation about the problem. Objecting to misogyny ought not to be a controversial stand, nor be greeted with "careful there, buddy, you might start being too PC." I propose this: let's dispense with the typical go-to terminology of "political correctness" and address comic sexism for what it is: a problematic and rampant (and undeniable, I think) pornification of women as characters in comics. If it seems I'm dramatizing my case with the term, I have to say that I think the mountains of printed matter offer me the vast advantage of evidence; I've already mentioned that "Comic Book Women" results in porn-mistakable Google image returns.

 

The fallback that "it's only entertainment" is, unfortunately, a very standard way that we with privilege defend the status quo and minimize the authentic concerns of those who are harmed by the preponderance of T&A, misogyny, and pornification. By reducing the real issue of offensive images (and characterizations) of women to one of mere amusement issues, we deny the concerns of real-life women (and we male partners) over how they are portrayed to have any substance or legitimacy in the conversation. But it's especially critical that those concerns NOT be denigrated, and here's why: first, these images have real-life consequences. As the father to two sons, I am VERY concerned with what "normal media entertainment" offers as valid images of women. The more commonplace an image is, the more it can be assumed to be both normal and valid. When comics offer ONLY a particular image of women, my point becomes harder to deny.

 

And second, the "it's just entertainment" argument would work better if the T&A issue were only some slim edge of the genre; when it's 99.9% prevalent in EVERY comic title, we've gone beyond as aspect of entertainment into routine propaganda. Imagine if EVERY magazine were "Maxim"! It'd be a lot harder to shrug it off; we'd have to face the fact that something very serious has been going on. I have no problem with Maxim or images of hot women--I'm not urging Pollyanna/Fred Wertham hysteria here--but I want so badly to say "they have their place" and I can't. With comics, I can't say that. They don't just have a "place" within the genre, they ARE the genre. Saying that "it's only entertainment" will only work if other alternatives are also offered to those who are entertained by something different. That alternative isn't offered. Therefore, the comic book publishers have chosen for us that only one style of female character will entertain us.

 

I'm afraid that the "it's only entertainment" line is a sibling to the "in a perfect world, parents would..." line. It's the kind of thing we say to prop up the moral option, rhetorically, while in reality giving the corrupt status-quo consent to continue without critique. Let me try an alternative: In a perfect world, men would influence widespread cultural changes that raise the standard of respect for ALL humans, rather than waiting for women to do it themselves while we remain passive (or worse, obstructionist) spectators. Sadly, the image of women in any media is regarded as purely a women's issue (at best), or not an issue at all. The notion that we men ought to, I dunno, take a stand against sexism is wacky to us, because we're told it's all just entertainment.

 

We do indeed live in a society that emphasizes physical attractiveness. I'm not sure if that's a point for the defense of the genre status quo, or a point I ought to be making to critique it! See, that point works well for MY case: comics actually go further than merely emphasizing physical attractiveness, which is normal. It propagandizes it (*I'm using the word deliberately, and correctly) by making it EVERY representation. ONLY physical attractiveness (to a hyper-real level) is permitted. As I said in my first post, every female character has an interchangeable body in a different costume. There are no other body types shown, whatsoever. Consequently, comics aren't merely emphasizing attractiveness, they're making physical perfection the single most important standard for female characters to portray--hence the goofy pantheon of grown-women parading through public with thongs, BDSM outfits, bra-less chests, and spandex! Is there anyone seeing this who seriously does not think it makes my point?

 

When "normal" body types are excluded in every single issue of every single comic every single month, we've gone beyond mere appreciation of attractiveness; we've agreed without objection that not one single alternate body type is acceptable. Show me the full-figured female protagonist/hero. There might be one, I don't know, but admit it: it'd be easier to be tasked with finding a thousand giant-chested size 0 hotties in thongs who fight with their cleavage or crotches widely exposed than to find a SINGLE example to the contrary. This isn't mere "appreciation." This is pathological obsession. It makes Howard Wolowitz look chaste. I take a different approach, I'm afraid, and have to conclude that critique, perhaps even outrage, are morally warranted, and passivity in the face of misogyny can have consequences--not the least of which are some god-awful comics.

 

I think it's a false dichotomy to suggest that the only options are "exploitative excitement" versus "dull storyline of life in a factory." Perhaps that kind of bipolar thinking is what guides the male writers of most comics? "I can either show a chick with perky boobs fighting in karate-style poses with her thong wide open between her thighs, or my comic will be dull." That's practically an admission of a defeated imagination. Joss Whedon has shown time and again that a heroine CAN be sexy, attractive, even HOT, while also being intelligent, confident, studious, and empowered without having to constantly lead with predictable sexual innuendo.

 

To sum: I'm not calling for censorship. The problem is that there's too much censorship on this issue already. When every single image of women, storyline about women, and fate of women in comics fits into the narrow range of "sex object," there is censorship. What's been excluded is any other possible portrayal! Women of various body types? Absent. Women heroes who aren't sexualized? Absent. Women who aren't subjected to violence? Rare. I'm asking for broader, more imaginative, more intelligent examinations of women in comics, which is the opposite of censorship or political correctness. That ought not to be a threatening or objectionable request. I'm not asking that all sexual images of women in comics be banned. I'm not asking that women not be shown attractively--sexuality and erotic beauty are real and thrilling parts of life. I'm not asking that any comic, or comic reader, have anything in comics taken away or prohibited. I'm asking that in addition to those options, there be some other imaginative, diverse, and just plain smart portrayals be available, too.

 

Why should we broaden our minds when it comes to women in comics?

 

Because it's entertainment. And that matters.

 

 

Oh,I'm sorry I fall asleep when I read REALLY long post.

 

I have an attention span of a monkey on Redbull sometimes

[BaltimoreLauren]

While finding myself in agreement with some of your observations, I think that it would be wise to step back and look at the bigger picture, because there has always been some element of sexism in every aspect of human endeavor.

 

Exploitation is nothing new nor is it arguably more prevalent today than in decades past. In fact, I've yet to see it demonstrated that harassment is an escalating pattern of behavior occurring at most conventions. This may be an over-reaction to a few isolated incidents or be some sort of legal *spoon* covering, but I'll reserve judgment.

 

The danger from focusing too much attention on comics as role models for girls (or boys for that matter) is that the slippery slope of PC activism starts creeping into the discussion.

 

First of all, one should consider comics as an entertainment medium. While I'm sure that many examples of positive behaviors can be found in both male and female comic book characters, the foremost goal of any written or illustrated entertainment is service to story.

 

For better or worse, modern comic book storytelling is less B&W, with more reality based character development. That means the characters are more relativistic in their attitudes or behavior and prone to personal foibles as well as heroics or evil machinations. Hey, even evil doers can be rehabilitated, right?

 

So, where does that leave us?

 

We live in a society that emphasizes sexual attractiveness (in theory, if not in practice), hence tight fitting attire ...for arts sake, lets call it minimalism... and physically alluring female characters, especially in super hero comics.

 

We live in a society where teen girls compete for the attention of boys and exploration of their identities, hence teen romance comics and all the angst that goes along with each generation's growing pains.

 

I'm not quite sure where funny animal comics takes us, so I won't go there.

 

Yes, there are stereotypes and most characters lack believable depth, but after all, we're talking about comic books here, aren't we? First and foremost it's about entertainment told through illustrated panels.

 

Parents should provide guidance and be role models, not comics, as comics provide entertainment for mass consumption and one size never fits all. The alternative is imposing societal norms or community standards to everything marketed to kids, on library shelves or taught in our public schools. We've been down that road before, and isn't pretty.

 

But I digress...

 

There are lots of comics out there with strong female characters; they fight the good fight against evil doers, right along with their male counterparts or solo. Some are even dressed as nuns ...or even a burka (OK, maybe not), but what fun would that be (except for a fetishist)? Tight fitting attire has always been standard fare for both genders since the dawn of costumed characters.

 

Exploitation? Sure, in some cases; I know it when I see it, but I'd respectfully urge critics to consider how female characters handle the circumstances they're given before passing judgment based solely upon appearance.

 

Society exploits, there is no getting around it or away from it; it's futile to try. Is an evocatively clad female heroine freeing herself from bondage to overcome an evil adversary any more exploitive than a Stepfordized Suzy Homemaker waiting patiently at the door for hubby? Which message is the more exploitive for girls to assimilate? I wouldn't want to be the arbiter.

 

Were those examples too extreme?

 

Perhaps, so lets tone it down a notch. How exciting would a comic be which focused on a day at the office or the factory?

 

Not exciting enough? OK, how about a thrilling comic examining the stress of studying for tests, starting a business or planning a family? Would those be better role models for girls?

 

In a perfect world one would hope that children have solid parental support for whatever they do and good peer influence, but entertainment should be a respite from reality. There are many choices after all. The general admonition of comics for societal misgivings or the inevitable urbanization of culture only serves to invite calls for censorship and that leads to a dark place indeed.

 

I seem to recall reading somewhere that late in life, Frederick Wertham admitted he'd been hasty in his scathing assessment of pre-code comic books. Crime and horror comics of the era were certainly exploitive of sex and violence, but they were also reflective of the more sensational aspects of an otherwise repressed society. Most here would probably agree that Wertham's Seduction of The Innocent and the Senate hearings that followed it's publication had a devastating impact on the comics industry.

 

In a manner of speaking, your post reminded me that misdirected public outrage can have consequences; no offense is intended and apologies for the length of this response.

 

 

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Here's mine, and although we have different points of view on some topics, I appreciate your giving us the opportunity for thoughtful conversation:

 

First, while it's true that there is a streak of sexism somewhere in nearly any aspect of human life, this particular topic was about females in comic books, specifically, so that's why I answered on that basis. I didn't give an essay on sociology because it's not what the thread was about. I wrote on the limited topic of women in comics just to stay on-topic. But the problem, and point I'm trying to make, is that the sexism streak isn't just somewhere present if one but seeks for it. Rather, it is the mainstream of comic material itself. So rather than magnifying the inevitable sexism of any art genre to make a point, I'd hope to demonstrate that the entire genre has a problem on its hands. I think on balance the state of things is so blatant that we find ourselves hard-pressed to find exceptions to comic sexism.

 

I disagree that taking issue with rampant sexism is in any sense a "danger" leading to "PC police." The problem we have comes from the opposite danger: too LITTLE critical conversation about the problem. Objecting to misogyny ought not to be a controversial stand, nor be greeted with "careful there, buddy, you might start being too PC." I propose this: let's dispense with the typical go-to terminology of "political correctness" and address comic sexism for what it is: a problematic and rampant (and undeniable, I think) pornification of women as characters in comics. If it seems I'm dramatizing my case with the term, I have to say that I think the mountains of printed matter offer me the vast advantage of evidence; I've already mentioned that "Comic Book Women" results in porn-mistakable Google image returns.

 

The fallback that "it's only entertainment" is, unfortunately, a very standard way that we with privilege defend the status quo and minimize the authentic concerns of those who are harmed by the preponderance of T&A, misogyny, and pornification. By reducing the real issue of offensive images (and characterizations) of women to one of mere amusement issues, we deny the concerns of real-life women (and we male partners) over how they are portrayed to have any substance or legitimacy in the conversation. But it's especially critical that those concerns NOT be denigrated, and here's why: first, these images have real-life consequences. As the father to two sons, I am VERY concerned with what "normal media entertainment" offers as valid images of women. The more commonplace an image is, the more it can be assumed to be both normal and valid. When comics offer ONLY a particular image of women, my point becomes harder to deny.

 

And second, the "it's just entertainment" argument would work better if the T&A issue were only some slim edge of the genre; when it's 99.9% prevalent in EVERY comic title, we've gone beyond as aspect of entertainment into routine propaganda. Imagine if EVERY magazine were "Maxim"! It'd be a lot harder to shrug it off; we'd have to face the fact that something very serious has been going on. I have no problem with Maxim or images of hot women--I'm not urging Pollyanna/Fred Wertham hysteria here--but I want so badly to say "they have their place" and I can't. With comics, I can't say that. They don't just have a "place" within the genre, they ARE the genre. Saying that "it's only entertainment" will only work if other alternatives are also offered to those who are entertained by something different. That alternative isn't offered. Therefore, the comic book publishers have chosen for us that only one style of female character will entertain us.

 

I'm afraid that the "it's only entertainment" line is a sibling to the "in a perfect world, parents would..." line. It's the kind of thing we say to prop up the moral option, rhetorically, while in reality giving the corrupt status-quo consent to continue without critique. Let me try an alternative: In a perfect world, men would influence widespread cultural changes that raise the standard of respect for ALL humans, rather than waiting for women to do it themselves while we remain passive (or worse, obstructionist) spectators. Sadly, the image of women in any media is regarded as purely a women's issue (at best), or not an issue at all. The notion that we men ought to, I dunno, take a stand against sexism is wacky to us, because we're told it's all just entertainment.

 

We do indeed live in a society that emphasizes physical attractiveness. I'm not sure if that's a point for the defense of the genre status quo, or a point I ought to be making to critique it! See, that point works well for MY case: comics actually go further than merely emphasizing physical attractiveness, which is normal. It propagandizes it (*I'm using the word deliberately, and correctly) by making it EVERY representation. ONLY physical attractiveness (to a hyper-real level) is permitted. As I said in my first post, every female character has an interchangeable body in a different costume. There are no other body types shown, whatsoever. Consequently, comics aren't merely emphasizing attractiveness, they're making physical perfection the single most important standard for female characters to portray--hence the goofy pantheon of grown-women parading through public with thongs, BDSM outfits, bra-less chests, and spandex! Is there anyone seeing this who seriously does not think it makes my point?

 

When "normal" body types are excluded in every single issue of every single comic every single month, we've gone beyond mere appreciation of attractiveness; we've agreed without objection that not one single alternate body type is acceptable. Show me the full-figured female protagonist/hero. There might be one, I don't know, but admit it: it'd be easier to be tasked with finding a thousand giant-chested size 0 hotties in thongs who fight with their cleavage or crotches widely exposed than to find a SINGLE example to the contrary. This isn't mere "appreciation." This is pathological obsession. It makes Howard Wolowitz look chaste. I take a different approach, I'm afraid, and have to conclude that critique, perhaps even outrage, are morally warranted, and passivity in the face of misogyny can have consequences--not the least of which are some god-awful comics.

 

I think it's a false dichotomy to suggest that the only options are "exploitative excitement" versus "dull storyline of life in a factory." Perhaps that kind of bipolar thinking is what guides the male writers of most comics? "I can either show a chick with perky boobs fighting in karate-style poses with her thong wide open between her thighs, or my comic will be dull." That's practically an admission of a defeated imagination. Joss Whedon has shown time and again that a heroine CAN be sexy, attractive, even HOT, while also being intelligent, confident, studious, and empowered without having to constantly lead with predictable sexual innuendo.

 

To sum: I'm not calling for censorship. The problem is that there's too much censorship on this issue already. When every single image of women, storyline about women, and fate of women in comics fits into the narrow range of "sex object," there is censorship. What's been excluded is any other possible portrayal! Women of various body types? Absent. Women heroes who aren't sexualized? Absent. Women who aren't subjected to violence? Rare. I'm asking for broader, more imaginative, more intelligent examinations of women in comics, which is the opposite of censorship or political correctness. That ought not to be a threatening or objectionable request. I'm not asking that all sexual images of women in comics be banned. I'm not asking that women not be shown attractively--sexuality and erotic beauty are real and thrilling parts of life. I'm not asking that any comic, or comic reader, have anything in comics taken away or prohibited. I'm asking that in addition to those options, there be some other imaginative, diverse, and just plain smart portrayals be available, too.

 

Why should we broaden our minds when it comes to women in comics?

 

Because it's entertainment. And that matters.

 

 

 

Well, if you asked any shlub the normal answer would be "Women don't read comics". Obviously that's not true, but this is still a male dominated hobby, and we have very little in the ways of a strong female voice (or even a male voice, it seems!) who can shout "HEY, LET'S DO SOMETHING A LITTLE DIFFERENT IN MAINSTREAM COMICS." Sure one comes around every so often, but to me it feels like well, nothing. That's when I (for one) turn to non super hero type comics. "Persepolis" comes to mind. (And like you pointed out, Buffy.)

 

Also, I've been impressed by almost everything you've said thus far. Bravo.

[Hepcat]

Here are scans from my own collection of titles I'd recommend. Some of course you might look for in reprints:

 

 

 

 

 

 

(thumbs u

[Hepcat]

My girls do find it amazing that there was apparently a time when 7-10 year old kids roamed their neighborhoods routinely for hours on end without any adult supervision.

 

And kids are left physically, intellectually and psychologically impoverished these days because their parents don't allow them to roam and play freely. Some of the kids even end up with peanut and other allergies including asthma because their overprotective parents have kept them so squeaky clean that their immune systems aren't stimulated to develop properly.

 

[BaltimoreLauren]

I'm surprised no one mentioned Blonde Phantom yet.

[skypinkblu]

I'm surprised no one mentioned Blonde Phantom yet.

 

I forgot Miss Fury, too! (thumbs u

[CycleGirl]

Has anyone read J. Michael Straczynski's Wonder Woman series? I've been thinking of making a rare trip to the LCS to get a couple issues and see how it is. I'm a fan of Stracynski's writing.

 

 

DC page Wonder Woman 604

 

Smokinghawk,

 

While I agree with some of what you say, I feel like your generalizations are overly broad. I refuse to accept that there is nothing good being written or drawn with regard to portrayals of women. Indeed, you seem to contradict yourself in your mention of Josh Wedon's work.

 

I suggest we go on searching for the stuff we want to see and when we find it, buy it. After all, they are only going to publish what sells.

 

 

 

 

 

[CycleGirl]

 

I agree. Betty was like so many of my girlfriends. Always in love with the guy that treated her like .

 

Veronica at least has a positive self-image. Stuck-up, but positive. I'm sorry to say that I read countless Betty and Veronica issues back then.

 

That's very true.

 

And don't be sorry, there's nothing wrong with reading a few Archie comics here and there.

 

Yes. Something about Archie comics makes them the ultimate guilty pleasure.

 

 

 

[BaltimoreLauren]

 

I agree. Betty was like so many of my girlfriends. Always in love with the guy that treated her like .

 

Veronica at least has a positive self-image. Stuck-up, but positive. I'm sorry to say that I read countless Betty and Veronica issues back then.

 

That's very true.

 

And don't be sorry, there's nothing wrong with reading a few Archie comics here and there.

 

Yes. Something about Archie comics makes them the ultimate guilty pleasure.

 

 

 

When you put it that way, about a third of my golden age collection seems like nothing but a guilty pleasure.

[codfish]

Has anyone read J. Michael Straczynski's Wonder Woman series? I've been thinking of making a rare trip to the LCS to get a couple issues and see how it is. I'm a fan of Stracynski's writing.

 

I haven't got to it yet but I do know the books is hopelessly behind because of him right now. It won't be much longer and he will go down in history as just as big a pain in the butt as Allan Heinberg whose run on this volume of WW took something like a year or two. It made many WW fans furious and it is happening again with JMS. WW is hopelessly slow in coming out. I don't think JMS is even going to be doing many more issues and at this rate it could be next year before what is showing on that linked page even shows up (and there are only three issues that are to ship). DC seriously has to whip the editor on that book into shape ... or just can JMS and let Hester finish the run.

[CycleGirl]

Has anyone read J. Michael Straczynski's Wonder Woman series? I've been thinking of making a rare trip to the LCS to get a couple issues and see how it is. I'm a fan of Stracynski's writing.

 

I haven't got to it yet but I do know the books is hopelessly behind because of him right now. It won't be much longer and he will go down in history as just as big a pain in the butt as Allan Heinberg whose run on this volume of WW took something like a year or two. It made many WW fans furious and it is happening again with JMS. WW is hopelessly slow in coming out. I don't think JMS is even going to be doing many more issues and at this rate it could be next year before what is showing on that linked page even shows up (and there are only three issues that are to ship). DC seriously has to whip the editor on that book into shape ... or just can JMS and let Hester finish the run.

 

Thanks. That's really disappointing. I've also read that he's left WW to do volume 2 of Superman Earth One.

 

It appears that WW 601-605 are at least out from his run and possibly 606. I found a preview of issue 605 and it left me wanting to read more. Here it is for others to see if interested.

 

Wonder Woman 605 preview

 

[Cat-Man_America]

While finding myself in agreement with some of your observations, I think that it would be wise to step back and look at the bigger picture, because there has always been some element of sexism in every aspect of human endeavor.

 

Exploitation is nothing new nor is it arguably more prevalent today than in decades past. In fact, I've yet to see it demonstrated that harassment is an escalating pattern of behavior occurring at most conventions. This may be an over-reaction to a few isolated incidents or be some sort of legal *spoon* covering, but I'll reserve judgment.

 

The danger from focusing too much attention on comics as role models for girls (or boys for that matter) is that the slippery slope of PC activism starts creeping into the discussion.

 

First of all, one should consider comics as an entertainment medium. While I'm sure that many examples of positive behaviors can be found in both male and female comic book characters, the foremost goal of any written or illustrated entertainment is service to story.

 

For better or worse, modern comic book storytelling is less B&W, with more reality based character development. That means the characters are more relativistic in their attitudes or behavior and prone to personal foibles as well as heroics or evil machinations. Hey, even evil doers can be rehabilitated, right?

 

So, where does that leave us?

 

We live in a society that emphasizes sexual attractiveness (in theory, if not in practice), hence tight fitting attire ...for arts sake, lets call it minimalism... and physically alluring female characters, especially in super hero comics.

 

We live in a society where teen girls compete for the attention of boys and exploration of their identities, hence teen romance comics and all the angst that goes along with each generation's growing pains.

 

I'm not quite sure where funny animal comics takes us, so I won't go there.

 

Yes, there are stereotypes and most characters lack believable depth, but after all, we're talking about comic books here, aren't we? First and foremost it's about entertainment told through illustrated panels.

 

Parents should provide guidance and be role models, not comics, as comics provide entertainment for mass consumption and one size never fits all. The alternative is imposing societal norms or community standards to everything marketed to kids, on library shelves or taught in our public schools. We've been down that road before, and isn't pretty.

 

But I digress...

 

There are lots of comics out there with strong female characters; they fight the good fight against evil doers, right along with their male counterparts or solo. Some are even dressed as nuns ...or even a burka (OK, maybe not), but what fun would that be (except for a fetishist)? Tight fitting attire has always been standard fare for both genders since the dawn of costumed characters.

 

Exploitation? Sure, in some cases; I know it when I see it, but I'd respectfully urge critics to consider how female characters handle the circumstances they're given before passing judgment based solely upon appearance.

 

Society exploits, there is no getting around it or away from it; it's futile to try. Is an evocatively clad female heroine freeing herself from bondage to overcome an evil adversary any more exploitive than a Stepfordized Suzy Homemaker waiting patiently at the door for hubby? Which message is the more exploitive for girls to assimilate? I wouldn't want to be the arbiter.

 

Were those examples too extreme?

 

Perhaps, so lets tone it down a notch. How exciting would a comic be which focused on a day at the office or the factory?

 

Not exciting enough? OK, how about a thrilling comic examining the stress of studying for tests, starting a business or planning a family? Would those be better role models for girls?

 

In a perfect world one would hope that children have solid parental support for whatever they do and good peer influence, but entertainment should be a respite from reality. There are many choices after all. The general admonition of comics for societal misgivings or the inevitable urbanization of culture only serves to invite calls for censorship and that leads to a dark place indeed.

 

I seem to recall reading somewhere that late in life, Frederick Wertham admitted he'd been hasty in his scathing assessment of pre-code comic books. Crime and horror comics of the era were certainly exploitive of sex and violence, but they were also reflective of the more sensational aspects of an otherwise repressed society. Most here would probably agree that Wertham's Seduction of The Innocent and the Senate hearings that followed it's publication had a devastating impact on the comics industry.

 

In a manner of speaking, your post reminded me that misdirected public outrage can have consequences; no offense is intended and apologies for the length of this response.

 

 

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Here's mine, and although we have different points of view on some topics, I appreciate your giving us the opportunity for thoughtful conversation:

 

First, while it's true that there is a streak of sexism somewhere in nearly any aspect of human life, this particular topic was about females in comic books, specifically, so that's why I answered on that basis. I didn't give an essay on sociology because it's not what the thread was about. I wrote on the limited topic of women in comics just to stay on-topic. But the problem, and point I'm trying to make, is that the sexism streak isn't just somewhere present if one but seeks for it. Rather, it is the mainstream of comic material itself. So rather than magnifying the inevitable sexism of any art genre to make a point, I'd hope to demonstrate that the entire genre has a problem on its hands. I think on balance the state of things is so blatant that we find ourselves hard-pressed to find exceptions to comic sexism.

 

I disagree that taking issue with rampant sexism is in any sense a "danger" leading to "PC police." The problem we have comes from the opposite danger: too LITTLE critical conversation about the problem. Objecting to misogyny ought not to be a controversial stand, nor be greeted with "careful there, buddy, you might start being too PC." I propose this: let's dispense with the typical go-to terminology of "political correctness" and address comic sexism for what it is: a problematic and rampant (and undeniable, I think) pornification of women as characters in comics. If it seems I'm dramatizing my case with the term, I have to say that I think the mountains of printed matter offer me the vast advantage of evidence; I've already mentioned that "Comic Book Women" results in porn-mistakable Google image returns.

 

The fallback that "it's only entertainment" is, unfortunately, a very standard way that we with privilege defend the status quo and minimize the authentic concerns of those who are harmed by the preponderance of T&A, misogyny, and pornification. By reducing the real issue of offensive images (and characterizations) of women to one of mere amusement issues, we deny the concerns of real-life women (and we male partners) over how they are portrayed to have any substance or legitimacy in the conversation. But it's especially critical that those concerns NOT be denigrated, and here's why: first, these images have real-life consequences. As the father to two sons, I am VERY concerned with what "normal media entertainment" offers as valid images of women. The more commonplace an image is, the more it can be assumed to be both normal and valid. When comics offer ONLY a particular image of women, my point becomes harder to deny.

 

And second, the "it's just entertainment" argument would work better if the T&A issue were only some slim edge of the genre; when it's 99.9% prevalent in EVERY comic title, we've gone beyond as aspect of entertainment into routine propaganda. Imagine if EVERY magazine were "Maxim"! It'd be a lot harder to shrug it off; we'd have to face the fact that something very serious has been going on. I have no problem with Maxim or images of hot women--I'm not urging Pollyanna/Fred Wertham hysteria here--but I want so badly to say "they have their place" and I can't. With comics, I can't say that. They don't just have a "place" within the genre, they ARE the genre. Saying that "it's only entertainment" will only work if other alternatives are also offered to those who are entertained by something different. That alternative isn't offered. Therefore, the comic book publishers have chosen for us that only one style of female character will entertain us.

 

I'm afraid that the "it's only entertainment" line is a sibling to the "in a perfect world, parents would..." line. It's the kind of thing we say to prop up the moral option, rhetorically, while in reality giving the corrupt status-quo consent to continue without critique. Let me try an alternative: In a perfect world, men would influence widespread cultural changes that raise the standard of respect for ALL humans, rather than waiting for women to do it themselves while we remain passive (or worse, obstructionist) spectators. Sadly, the image of women in any media is regarded as purely a women's issue (at best), or not an issue at all. The notion that we men ought to, I dunno, take a stand against sexism is wacky to us, because we're told it's all just entertainment.

 

We do indeed live in a society that emphasizes physical attractiveness. I'm not sure if that's a point for the defense of the genre status quo, or a point I ought to be making to critique it! See, that point works well for MY case: comics actually go further than merely emphasizing physical attractiveness, which is normal. It propagandizes it (*I'm using the word deliberately, and correctly) by making it EVERY representation. ONLY physical attractiveness (to a hyper-real level) is permitted. As I said in my first post, every female character has an interchangeable body in a different costume. There are no other body types shown, whatsoever. Consequently, comics aren't merely emphasizing attractiveness, they're making physical perfection the single most important standard for female characters to portray--hence the goofy pantheon of grown-women parading through public with thongs, BDSM outfits, bra-less chests, and spandex! Is there anyone seeing this who seriously does not think it makes my point?

 

When "normal" body types are excluded in every single issue of every single comic every single month, we've gone beyond mere appreciation of attractiveness; we've agreed without objection that not one single alternate body type is acceptable. Show me the full-figured female protagonist/hero. There might be one, I don't know, but admit it: it'd be easier to be tasked with finding a thousand giant-chested size 0 hotties in thongs who fight with their cleavage or crotches widely exposed than to find a SINGLE example to the contrary. This isn't mere "appreciation." This is pathological obsession. It makes Howard Wolowitz look chaste. I take a different approach, I'm afraid, and have to conclude that critique, perhaps even outrage, are morally warranted, and passivity in the face of misogyny can have consequences--not the least of which are some god-awful comics.

 

I think it's a false dichotomy to suggest that the only options are "exploitative excitement" versus "dull storyline of life in a factory." Perhaps that kind of bipolar thinking is what guides the male writers of most comics? "I can either show a chick with perky boobs fighting in karate-style poses with her thong wide open between her thighs, or my comic will be dull." That's practically an admission of a defeated imagination. Joss Whedon has shown time and again that a heroine CAN be sexy, attractive, even HOT, while also being intelligent, confident, studious, and empowered without having to constantly lead with predictable sexual innuendo.

 

To sum: I'm not calling for censorship. The problem is that there's too much censorship on this issue already. When every single image of women, storyline about women, and fate of women in comics fits into the narrow range of "sex object," there is censorship. What's been excluded is any other possible portrayal! Women of various body types? Absent. Women heroes who aren't sexualized? Absent. Women who aren't subjected to violence? Rare. I'm asking for broader, more imaginative, more intelligent examinations of women in comics, which is the opposite of censorship or political correctness. That ought not to be a threatening or objectionable request. I'm not asking that all sexual images of women in comics be banned. I'm not asking that women not be shown attractively--sexuality and erotic beauty are real and thrilling parts of life. I'm not asking that any comic, or comic reader, have anything in comics taken away or prohibited. I'm asking that in addition to those options, there be some other imaginative, diverse, and just plain smart portrayals be available, too.

 

Why should we broaden our minds when it comes to women in comics?

 

Because it's entertainment. And that matters.

 

 

 

Excellent comments, but I fear we may be putting some folks to sleep with this highfalutin discourse.

 

While not converted by your POV in regards to the extent of misogyny in comics, I will say that your argument is persuasive. I do agree that there seems to be a growing problem in the comics industry, dare I say desperation, which needs addressing by the marketplace of new or at least revisited ideas.

 

When inspired writing/art falls short comic publishers will take more risks to get an audiences attention. Sometimes those risks can take a comic in creative directions, but envelope pushing only works until there is no envelope left and no place to go but down.

 

As a GA comic collector I must confess that I'm not as current on the subject of contemporary comics as you seem to be, at least not enough to pose a more substantive counterpoint to your arguments. That doesn't mean that I'm ignorant of contemporary trends in comics, but I'm probably not as focused on what's popular in the comics arena today as others here.

 

It was never my intention to employ the argument that entertainment excuses all excesses. But I'd urge caution in making hasty generalizations about current comic trends being of an overtly sexual nature, purely misogynistic or "pornification" without harder evidence (no pun intended).

 

As I pointed out in my earlier posting, for better or worse nearly every aspect of our culture displays a greater emphasis on sexuality and an abstracted, stereotypical view of both feminine and masculine perfection.

 

If sexuality already dominates clothing ads, television programs, films, etc., then why not comics? And while an exaggerated vision of youthful sexuality may increase some prurient interests, describing free artistic expression as either misogyny or outright porn, seems a stretch; there is no conspiracy here.

 

Your argument that my comments about physical attractiveness works in your favor isn't quite true. Idealized perfection may be propaganda in the abstract sense, but most folks would see it as positive reinforcement. Only negative stereotypes victimize through propaganda.

 

In a PC world everything is homogenized to it's most idealized Barbie & Ken perfection. Those who struggle to achieve idealized perfection probably won't make the grade, but that's how we're supposed to perceive ourselves if we only consume the right drinks, buy the right cars and wear the right clothes.

 

We look to ancient Rome for many of our own democratic and philosophical ideals, but any research done on the open sexuality that infused Roman society, adorned their public bath houses and statuary would embarrass our culture. Were Romans purveyors of a pornographic culture?

 

The worship of the female form has long been established as an art form. How that ideal is portrayed by comic illustrators may seem exaggerated or sexually evocative, but is the manner of embellishment pornographic or misogynistic, ...really? That seems a stretch even for those covers of Emma Frost that shrewd Scrooge was shilling (just kidding).

 

From my perspective, limited though it may be in some regards, there is still a lot of variety in comics, trends notwithstanding. In any event, popular trends change over time as markets become crowded with one thing or another and sales decline from overexposure (alas, pun not intended). Economic pressures also have an impact in respect to discretionary spending, and demographics change as buyers mature in age and taste.

 

The biggest influence toward the kind of cultural change you'd like to see may result from the homogenization I described earlier; that is, when the kind of comics which you find repugnant reach the point of looking so similar stylistically and thematically that sales fall off naturally from their own self-indulgent sameness.

 

I've always held the optimistic view that patience is a virtue. I'd rather consider the cup half full than half empty, and everything is cyclical.

 

 

 

[CycleGirl]

Someone already mentioned Kitty Pride. She is a great role-model and drawn as a teenager.

 

Here's a sample from X-Men #143

 

[Comicopolis]

Tesla Strong

 

[TheShadowKnows]

Has anyone read J. Michael Straczynski's Wonder Woman series? I've been thinking of making a rare trip to the LCS to get a couple issues and see how it is. I'm a fan of Stracynski's writing.

 

I haven't got to it yet but I do know the books is hopelessly behind because of him right now. It won't be much longer and he will go down in history as just as big a pain in the butt as Allan Heinberg whose run on this volume of WW took something like a year or two. It made many WW fans furious and it is happening again with JMS. WW is hopelessly slow in coming out. I don't think JMS is even going to be doing many more issues and at this rate it could be next year before what is showing on that linked page even shows up (and there are only three issues that are to ship). DC seriously has to whip the editor on that book into shape ... or just can JMS and let Hester finish the run.

 

Thanks. That's really disappointing. I've also read that he's left WW to do volume 2 of Superman Earth One.

 

It appears that WW 601-605 are at least out from his run and possibly 606. I found a preview of issue 605 and it left me wanting to read more. Here it is for others to see if interested.

 

Wonder Woman 605 preview

Rhonda!

[Jeffro.]

Katy Keene. Betty and Veronica just aren't my idea of "role models" as they both have underlying issues, but Katy is pretty independent and does what she loves to do.

 

Batgirl. Barbara Gordon or Stephanie Brown.

 

 

I don't think I knew that...

 

Betty doesn't have enough self esteem to realize there is more to life then Archie. Veronica is pretty much worthless since she's an heiress, but I prefer her more to Betty.

 

That's just from a decades worth of observation, though.

 

Say it ain't so! Betty is loyal, she loves unconditionally. Veronica, is just spoiled and manipulative. Just my

 

Archie constantly ditches her for Veronica. Betty, while she has dated others, still just wants Archie despite how crummy he treats her. Both girls can do better, IMO.

 

Archie, is still just your average 50+ year old teenager. He doesn't know what he wants, Betty does. Sadly Archie can't see that Betty is the one for him.

 

I still think both girls can do better. I also think Jughead and Betty would be a cute couple.

 

Yeah, but Forsythe just want to eat.

 

 

ummm.........yeah