Why Wonder Woman Deserves More

realms-master:

Help me out here guys….

Okay, I may not be a huge comic book buff (yet still a huge fan!), but I’m willing to learn if there’s something I’m missing. I’ve always loved the idea of Wonder Woman – a powerful female warrioress from Ancient Greece/Amazonian culture (iirc), a Xena-like character who fights for virtue, honor, truth, all those good things. She plays with the big boys, and not only keeps up, but shows them how it’s done.

If that’s so, then…whywhyWHY is she most always shown in a skintight, strapless, pantsless, thong/swimming suit/flimsy piece of spandex???? I know she’s pretty indestructible, but do you know how HARD it is to fight in a leather corset, where there’s no straps to keep that gigantic chest in place?

It makes me VERY sad that such a famous, prominent figure of feminine power is mostly seen as a sex icon, mostly featured in sexy/escher-esque poses, wearing “clothing” that looks like it was sprayed on or hanging on with a wing and a prayer (and maybe ample amounts of superglue?), or any variation thereof? I say ‘mostly’, because I have seen some versions where she’s more practical, with pants, real armor, heck I’ll even settle for the Greek/Xena-style skirt in some versions. Bravo to those people for giving our poor warrioress some semblance of dignity.

If I understand correctly, like in the Xena universe, that is the ‘style’ of the era, the leather skirt with the bodice and shoulder armor, reminiscent of Romans and Greeks from Sparta, etc. Well okay then, give WW an outfit that actually looks/works like real armor from that period, instead of the spandex thong/corset she’s most often depicted in. Also, iirc, maybe she doesn’t wear full armor because that’s the ‘Amazon way’, IE: she’s so OP that she doesn’t need full covering. But give her SOMETHING that isn’t so obviously designed to sell sex first, and practicality last!

Spandex may be all the rage for comic books (and it’s probably easier to draw), but I’d like to direct your attention to some of these wonderful blogs for many, many more reasons why our beloved Wonder Woman deserves more than a minimal-coverage, maximum-bust corset (and why practical armor can be even more BA and gorgeous):

Unless there is a practical, logical reason why WW is nearly always shown in the aforementioned ILLOGICAL ways, let’s face it: Sex sells, and too many people are buying. And that is no excuse, because women like myself want to see our gender treated with more dignity, respect, and understanding than what is given. You know what, I’ll bet Superman is chivalrous. And so is Wonder Woman.

I challenge any WW artist to design her with something more akin to Lady Sif (from the movie version), instead of just going with the flow.

TL;DR – Wonder Woman is too freaking amazing to be treated as a sex icon. She deserves a whole heck of a lot more from us, her fans. She deserves something befitting who she is, and what she represents.

My post isn’t intended to insult anyone, I know we all have different ideas and viewpoints. I’m just expressing my own views and frustrations with society :/

/end rant (btw, I have no problem with the comic book world; check my blogs, I’m a huge nerd! But I do have a problem with how prevalent the sex industry is, especially in my fandoms! Move over boys, girls are nerds too!)

Bolding mine. I share this sentiment.

We had posts regarding both on how questionable Wonder Woman’s strapless cleavage cut is and the rare (official!) alternative designs that are more practical and/or pay tribute to ancient Greek aesthetic, unlike the iconic outfit everyone remembers most.

~Ozzie

I really find it baffling that after sixty-four years and countless re-boots, re-designs, re-imaginings for different mediums, etc.  DC Comics keeps coming back to basically her original costume but with no skirt:

image

Epic creativity.

– wincenworks

ohgodhesloose:

feminismandpugsarelife:

dragondicks:

how to “pander to sjws / feminists”: in depth characters and storytelling, non objectified female characters, characters of all manners of races, identities and backgrounds

how to pander to gamer boys: make titty wobble

Wow no wonder they don’t want to make games more accessible to women, they’d have to reveal their lack of actual talent.

image

What a nice response to the “sex sells” and “creative freedom” rhetoric which we’re well too familiar with.

~Ozzie

The saddest part about this is – the games industry is full of talented people and they frequently have to throw away their best work because someone who is overpaid believes in a magic formula.

Then they end up promoting the wrong people and we end up with this guy.

– wincenworks

Starfire, solar-powered skin and why (sexual) context may or may not matter

So the arguments suggesting that skimpy female warrior outfits make sense in the context of a character have been around almost as long as the outfits themselves… Not surprisingly, usually the reasoning behind the costume seems to get invented after the costume is already established.

Today I decided to take a look at one of characters famous for supposedly having a ‘reason’ to be half-naked on not one, but at least two levels – Starfire.

image

The costume(s):

First let’s look at her costume out of context… The original one looks pretty awful, right? Impractically skimpy and, depending on the artist, the torso part ranges from somehow plausible (with a help of double-sided tape, at least), to outright damn impossible.
Still, reflective of what superheroes looked like back in the 80s. It’s not like her male colleagues didn’t have their share of silly-by-today’s-standards costumes.

Needless to say, a character that’s been around since 1980 had a few at least minor costume changes and redesigns throughout years, including the (much beloved) child-friendly version from the 2003 cartoon.

Then… the New 52 ’s turn came.

image

Uh… Ah… Um… Bingo?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m quite sure the old version would also score some major bingo points, but this is just beyond any possible level of defying physics and common sense. BABD has nothing but utter respect for the cosplayers that somehow make this costume actually work (especially the nipple-pieces).

Oh, and the way she was written upon her first appearance after the DC reboot (the infamous Red Hood & the Outlaws #1) does not help the case. AT ALL.

Which brings us to…

The “context”

As mentioned earlier, Star supposedly has good reasons to dress the way she does. There may be more, but the two most frequently brought up are:

  1. Her alien powers are fueled by exposure to sunlight
  2. Big part of her character is having an agency over her sexuality

We poked the first one a few times already, so let’s get it out of the way quick: SAME FOR SUPERMANAnd if I’m not mistaken, unlike Supes, Starfire is not 100% invincible on top of her strength.
I challenge anyone to find us canon evidence that Kryptonians somehow don’t have to be half-naked to absorb sunlight through skin, but Tamaraneans do. Bonus points if you prove that it’s so totally not because the major character from Krypton is a man, while the major character from Tamaran is a woman.

The second one is a ride, as I have a very basic familiarity with the old Titans comics, let alone post-reboot ones, but fortunately I’m not the first person to talk about the subject of Kory’s depiction, so I had some broader frame of reference. I’ll link the sources in the last section of this post.

Let’s start with the basics: skimpy clothes and sexual liberation are not mutually inclusive. In case anyone forgot, it’s all an arbitrary standard that the Western culture made us assume to be “natural”.
Sadly, yes, I did feel the need to spell this out, as apparently some parties consider it a slight against all women’s sexuality if Star so much as covers her skin with spandex bodypaint.

That said, even if we agree that the revealing costume is expression of Kory being in charge of how sexual she is, the post-reboot comics failed spectacularly at conveying it in a sensible way the old comics did.
The batshit redesign, the art that contorts her spine and shoves her boobs and butt in every scene possible, the writing that turned her basically into a living sex doll (an idea so bad that it got subsequently retconned); all of those things were carefully crafted NOT to put some interesting spin on the established character, but to suit the tastes of DC’s supposed target audience: unimaginative, perpetually horny straight boys.

There’s nothing wrong about Starfire being sexy and openly sexual.
But how does one turn a character like this:

image

Into someone who joylessly asks people she barely likes for a hookup out of boredom?:

image

And again, why would any of the above mean she, a superpowered alien warrior princess, should fight crime and villainy in “clothes” that are the superhero equivalent of Scarlet Blade armor? How is her sex life the “context” for her superhero looks?
With the old costume at least it can be argued she’s showing off her body, which she’s very comfortable with (canon in comics), with the new one… she only gets cold in her shoulders and feet? And alien fashion defies physics? IDK

Shortpacked! (itswalky) sums up the problem with New 52 depiction of this character (and DC’s bizarre confidence in it) perfectly in this comic strip (rebloggable version here).

Now, to clear you minds, I recommend you guys to check out theliberationofmanfire, a blog dedicated to showing us what Starfire and other comic superheroines would be like if they were redone as equally scantily-clad and sexualized male characters (and yes, that tumblr does precede thehawkeyeinitiative).

Further on the matter:

~Ozzie

PS: Funny that Starfire’s official bio seems to not have been updated with anything since the start of New 52 in 2011.
Probably because of neglect, but I like to think that official Teen Titans site just prefers to ignore post-reboot Starfire’s design and personality.

edit: Updated link to Linkara’s review, due to Blip being dead and the last link, due to Chez Apocalypse site remaining in the limbo.

justjasper:

male gamers like to pretend that male characters designed, draw/rendered and written by men, made hulkishly muscular and hypermasculine by men for a deliberate target audience of men is objectification and hypersexualisation rather than actively appealing to male power fantasy

and it’s somehow women’s fault of course

My favorite example of this is when people try to invoke this guy as their ultimate trump card of “Men are objectified in video games too!”

image

The ultimate steroid rager who converses primarily by screaming and murdering.  A completely selfish man who, since murdering his wife and daughter, seems to only one emotion (anger) and prone to random acts of violence.  A man so terrible that he goes out of his way to incorporate murdering random women* into “puzzle solving”.**

People actually point to this character, created by a man (David Jaffe) and try to tell us this is objectification of men in order to pander to women.  

Then, presumably, after throwing a tantrum and destroying random objects in their home, then wonder why women aren’t impressed by this and find them undateable.

* The fact that almost the entire female population, including the monsters, goes to great pains to show off their breasts to the player also never seems to factor into their assessment.

** This sequence featured in Tropes vs Women in Video Games – however please be advised that this sequence along with other parts in the video contain extreme depictions of violence against women. (x)

– wincenworks

‘Sex’ doesn’t sell. Erosion of female self esteem does. The feeling of superiority over women does. Turning women into ‘things’ to be studied, scrutinized & judged and then calling it ‘sex’ does.

Sex doesn’t sell. Objectification does

Sadiqa Thornton (via female-only)

Amen.

~Ozzie

Ultimately, most things that are offensive are also lazy and unoriginal; because you can’t reach that point of view by looking at the world honestly…You reach that point of view by taking short cuts and by just sort of repeating what someone else told you.

Joseph Fink
Writer from Welcome To Night Vale discussing writing on Citizen Radio 865  (via podquotes)

From now on, this is our universal answer to the supposed “creativity” of skin-revealing armor.

~Ozzie

adjectiveverb:

marshmallowknight:

bunrobot:

marshmallowknight:

“weaponized femininity” more like “how to cater to the male gaze and Western beauty ideals while acting like it’s Totally Subversive”

image

bASICALLy

[Comic source: Kate Beaton]

Apparently, according to all the people who were upset that we dared to call out Hideo Kojima and implied that his use of Quiet in promotional materials was objectification and pandering, you can also act like it’s totally subversive by writing a long back story for the character.

It doesn’t have to be, or really their own back story, or one that the majority of players will even experience – just so long as there’s something there to claim that you “totally humanized and made worthwhile” the character who’s boobs appear in every promo post.

Then it becomes a deep commentary of the “reality of women in these situations”… there being so many women who run around in bikinis on battlefields in reality.

– wincenworks

rambleonamazon:

Gamer culture has pushed the argument about women’s roles so far to one side that most of them honestly believe the status quo of default objectification and women-as-rewards is the “neutral,” “nonpolitical” starting position.

What we’re reminded of every time someone defends a ridiculous outfit.  Doesn’t matter what excuse they bring – it’s always one that supports this notion that it’s all how it should be.

And if it doesn’t look like how it should be, there must be a special reason that people just don’t understand (frequently this reason is so special it cannot be explained, only experienced!)

– wincenworks

And don’t forget: if we don’t like how it’s ‘supposed’ to be, then it should be totally up to us to create more diverse games!

~Ozzie

Hi, I looked through the tags to see if there was anything about clothing but there wasn’t, so I hope this hasn’t been addressed before and that it’s fine to direct my question to this blog: I would like to know how realistic it is to fight in heels, stilettos and such? A lot of stories, movies, etc. have been doing it for ages, but imo it just doesn’t sound like a good idea. There seems to be a lot of challenge and danger to it

howtofightwrite:

High heels are like bikini battle armor. In the realm of fashion, they are helpful because of the way they draw the eye and shape the visual impression of the leg. High heels lengthen the leg, draw the eye up, and highlight the shape of the butt (and more). However, with long term use, they are very hard on the joints (ankles, knees, and hips) and can lead to long term damage.

I know there are people out there who will argue that catsuits, spandex, bikinis, and high heels are practical combat gear for women. Some of them are very well-meaning, some of them are women who buy into it. You’ve probably seen some of them on this site. They’re the ones who take the stock photographs of female martial artists doing (slightly awkward looking) high kicks in high heels as “YES GIRLY GIRLS CAN FIGHT TOO!”. Well, they certainly can but not in high heels. (I applaud the women who can do full extension sidekicks in high heels though! What flexibility! Much balance! Incredible skill! A woman who can do a high kick in high heels is a badass. It’s a testament to their mastery of their body though, not high heel combat viability.)

High heels tip the body forward, putting all the weight on the balls of the feet. If you’ve ever walked around in high heels, then you know finding your balance can be tricky (especially on slick surfaces) and running is mostly out. (You can, it’s just awkward.) The original design for high heels was 14th/15th riding boots when they were a men’s fashion choice. They were never designed for walking on land.

My personal problem with the emphasis on high heels and women’s fashion for female combat oriented characters is the emphasis on visual beauty over practicality and professionalism or any respect for the problems created by reality whatsoever

When it comes to clothing, how you dress your character does actually matter. If a creator or artist approaches their female character with the belief that women don’t fight anyway, so further sexualization of them through their clothing doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things then they are actively contributing to the dehumanization of that character and upholding that ideal that women fighting at all (much less on an even plane with men) is a fantasy. (The reality is women all over the world do fight, do take on dangerous jobs in various shapes, sizes, and personalities.)

Why? Because it prioritizes emphasis on their appearance to the outside observer over the concerns of the reality they are facing. Whoever put together their outfit was thinking primarily about how they’d be perceived not on practical choices of what they’d choose to wear for traipsing through a sewer. When I think about sewers, peep toe shoes, skinny jeans, and spaghetti straps don’t exactly come to mind first as preferred spelunking wear. Galoshes, raincoats, and pants that repel moisture, yeah. Clothes from the $5 bin I don’t mind throwing out after, sure. My Coach bag and (if I owned any) $400 Jimmy Choos? Hell, no.

A character doesn’t become more badass by ignoring the physical constraints and dangers of the world around them. They just look more stupid. The required level of suspension of disbelief is higher for these characters than their male counterparts.

Now, male artists do this for male characters too. The problem is, of course, that you can actually make a case for fighting in biker boots, a loose leather jacket, and jeans. That’s actually practical street combat wear. Leather jackets work as makeshift armor, they can absorb a fair amount of impact. Biker boots are thick, made of leather, protect the shins, and they’re designed to take impact. They armor the foot. Loose men’s jeans are practical, provide freedom of movement, and they’re durable against friction burns. They survive longer and they’re thicker than other kinds of pants. So, when Steven Stallone turns to the camera in a goofy 80s action movie and says “You don’t need to get fancy, lady.” He’s actually right. You don’t.

However, if you have Black Widow do the same in a catsuit, high heels, or even just skinny jeans, a tight fitting leather jacket, a very nice red satin shirt that exposes her breasts, and heavy makeup, it’s not exactly comparable in impact. (One of the nice things about The Winter Soldier was how practically they had her dressed when wearing civvies.) 1) Because she already is dressed fancy and 2) her clothing isn’t any more practical to the situation than the person she’s bitching out.

Plenty of Urban Fantasy protagonists, super heroines, and movie characters do this. I’m not picking on Black Widow, but she’s getting passed around a lot. Buffy did this all the time and it’s part of why I couldn’t take her seriously (especially in the early seasons). Going down into the sewers in a satin pink spaghetti strap, a mini skirt, and matching sandals. Why? Because she likes sacrificing $100 to $200 in clothing every day. Single parent home, pushing minimal income, constantly complaining about her allowance, while burning a metric shit ton on clothing every single week. How is she affording that? The answer is she’s not. The clothing just pops out of the snow, like daisies. The same can be said of the female protagonists on The Vampire Diaries.

On the other hand, I give Charmed a pass because they constantly acknowledge how hard demon fighting is on their clothing. They try to fix their clothes with magic, they have to come up with money to repair the manor, they have to buy new clothes, they think about trading in their old styles for more practical ones and decide against it. The daily rigor, the stress on their wallets, the general mundane realities of every day life are expressed in the choices and habits the characters make and maintain. If they have time before facing a given crisis, you’ll even see them go run to change. Their clothing isn’t practical, but the show at least acknowledges that and uses it to humanize their struggles with being women and demon hunting witches.

The big problem with style and fashion is they help contribute to the idea that women primarily exist in fiction (and in real life) to be looked at. They’re decorative first, even when they’re dangerous. If you remove that aspect, men and women will in fact complain.

Yes, both of them.

Women are presented with a cultural idealization of beauty day in and day out, the stereotypes we’re presented with become a part of what we expect to see and may even idealize in ourselves. Recognition of beauty, being admired, is presented as a goal all women (whether or not they can even achieve the standard)  should aspire to. Not appearing beautiful is presented as bad by media, unworthy, unable to be loved. Conform to be worthy. For many people, they want both. To fit the cultural ideal of female sexualization while simultaneously rejecting it. It’s wish fulfillment and there’s no shame in it, media has told you you’re entire life that this is what you should want to be.

It doesn’t exist, but you’ll see plenty of people try to make it so anyway like the girls I knew in gym who’d cake on makeup before going out to play basketball or run the mile.

Looks first.

To challenge the stereotypes, you have to recognize them and that may require changing how you see women in media. It’s insidious and, more importantly, not necessarily evil. There’s nothing wrong with wanting to be wanted, to be beautiful, to be recognized. But how a character looks and what they wear should always, always come second to what they need to get their job done.

I try to beat this by thinking about the situation first, instead of character. I construct a character to deal with a situation. With this set up, practicality usually prevails.

I challenge you followers. When you think of a powerful woman, or a dangerous female, what do you think of first?

-Michi

Super comprehensive and informative (if lengthy) post regarding fighting in high heels. A MUST-READ FOR EVERYONE!

Let me just quote the most important paragraph of it (that relates to female hero costume design in general, not just the footwear):

“A character doesn’t become more badass by ignoring the physical constraints and dangers of the world around them. They just look more stupid. The required level of suspension of disbelief is higher for these characters than their male counterparts.”

Finally someone found perfect words for the point that is my answer to all of Female Armor Rhetoric Bingo. Thank you so much, howtofightwrite!

~Ozzie