Jump to content

Female Redesigns


Greywind
 Share

Recommended Posts

Comic, even by the loosest definitions of censorship, which you seem to be wanting to dredge up, the above initial redesigns are not censorship. The producer of the drawings, nor most anyone else, is PREVENTING anyone from producing anything. DC and Marvel are more than capable of producing what ever material they desire. 

Let me repeat that, DC and Marvel CAN still PRODUCE the material they WANT. No ifs, no buts, or other equivocations. 

The above by even the LOOSEST of definitions is NOT censorship. 

And might I add, trying to utilize the loose definitions of censorship is extremely problematic because it imparts a strict definition but scape-goats to a pointless sense of the word. Self-Censorship being a prime example. "Self-Censorship" is definitionally an oxymoron. If I "self-censor" myself into not saying f**k and utilizing its more socially acceptable fudge alternative, am I really being censored? I have complete control over my actions and I am more than allowed to express myself using f**k but I am choosing not to.

Telling DC and Marvel they CAN NOT produce spandex wearing, cleavage boasting, sex symbol heroines lest they face legal repercussions is Censorship. Me telling Anita S., Westburo Baptist Church, Black Panthers, and the KKK that I do not like their opinions and will not promote them and will actively disparage them is not censorship. They are all still more than allowed to keep touting the BS that comes from their mouths. They are not being censored. And this desire to call everything censorship is not productive. It is like saying McDonald's is violating your 2nd amendment rights by refusing to let guns into their stores. Or saying the Myth Busters are violating your 1st amendment rights by not letting you on their show to discuss how 911 was an inside job. Or saying your parents violated your 8th amendment rights by sending you to bed without dessert because you said fuck at the dinner table. Each and every case is ludicrous. To claim any of them true is to open the definition of each up so far as to become pointless. 

 

Foreign Orchid. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 198
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Censorship

 

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.[1]

Governments, private organizations and individuals may engage in censorship. When an individual such as an author or other creator engages in censorship of their own works or speech, it is called self-censorship. Censorship may be direct or it may be indirect, in which case it is called soft censorship. It occurs in a variety of different media, including speech, books, music, films, and other arts, the press, radio, television, and the Internet for a variety of claimed reasons includingnational security, to control obscenity, child pornography, and hate speech, to protect children or other vulnerable groups, to promote or restrict political or religious views, and to prevent slander and libel.

 

Censorship has many broad and specific definitions, and this fits the mold. We may disagree how close the fit, but in my experience the start of every censorship movement is the same thin edge of the wedge: it's people, persuaded by some innocent-seeming comment or observation, to gang up on diversity and seek to lessen it.

 

That this example is aimed in particular at traditional objects of censorship, achieving in particular the habitual ends of censorship is bad enough.

 

That the artist further alters the actual bodies of his targets to force conformity, however, goes a step further.

 

See also http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Shaming

 

 

But now aren't you censoring that guy's crappy art?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/29/2015 at 11:44 AM, Foreign Orchid said:

Comic, even by the looses definitions of censorship, which you seem to be wanting to dredge up, the above initial redesigns are not censorship. The producer of the drawings, nor most anyone else, is PREVENTING anyone from producing anything. DC and Marvel are more than capable of producing what ever material they desire. 

 

Let me repeat that, DC and Marvel CAN still PRODUCE the material they WANT. No ifs, no buts, or other equivocations. 

 

The above by even the LOOSEST of definitions is NOT censorship. 

 

And might I add, trying to utilize the loose definitions of censorship is extremely problematic because it imparts a strict definition but scape-goats to a pointless sense of the word. Self-Censorship being a prime example. "Self-Censorship" is definitionally an oxymoron. If I "self-censor" myself into not saying f**k and utilizing its more socially acceptable fudge alternative, am I really being censored? I have complete control over my actions and I am more than allowed to express myself using f**k but I am choosing not to.

 

Telling DC and Marvel they CAN NOT produce spandex wearing, cleavage boasting, sex symbol heroines lest they face legal repercussions is Censorship. Me telling Anita S., Westburo Baptist Church, Black Panthers, and the KKK that I do not like their opinions and will not promote them and will actively disparage them is not censorship. They are all still more than allowed to keep touting the BS that comes from their mouths. They are not being censored. And this desire to call everything censorship is not productive. It is like saying McDonald's is violating your 2nd amendment rights by refusing to let guns into their stores. Or saying the Myth Busters are violating your 1st amendment rights by not letting you on their show to discuss how 911 was an inside job. Or saying your parents violated your 8th amendment rights by sending you to bed without dessert because you said fuck at the dinner table. Each and every case is ludicrous. To claim any of them true is to open the definition of each up so far as to become pointless. 

 

Foreign Orchid. 

Nicely said. Now go to your room young man, we don't use language like that in our house. 

 

"McDonald's" indeed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Honestly, I don’t know why women haven’t been a lot more angry and vocal about this kind of thing over the years. Like “Ferguson riot” angry. "

 

Explain to me again, how is calling for riots against Marvel and DC over spandex not censorship.

 

Use small words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Honestly, I don’t know why women haven’t been a lot more angry and vocal about this kind of thing over the years. Like “Ferguson riot” angry. "

 

Explain to me again, how is calling for riots against Marvel and DC over spandex not censorship.

 

Use small words.

He. Has. No. Power. 

He. Has. Made. No. Effort. To. Force. DC. Or. Marvel. To. Change. The. Character. Designs. 

He. Posted. An. Opinion. 

 

I know some of those words weren't small. Sorry. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tight lips eh enforcer? Maybe a little forehead vein poppin' action... :-D

 

Yeah this forum is a bit like that.

You're new here, welcome. 

But Not sure what you're proposing has to do with costume revision. 

Perhaps you could start a new thread to discuss the merits of gender based stats splits. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More importantly, when will we get lower strength maxima for females baked into the Hero rules? 

I can't tell if you are trying to be funny or serious.  Your statement makes so little sense in this context that I can't even tell if you are for or against trying implement sexism directly into the system.  Your response to Enforcer didn't make much more sense. 

 

Why don't you just come out and say whatever it is you are trying to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He. Has. No. Power. 

He. Has. Made. No. Effort. To. Force. DC. Or. Marvel. To. Change. The. Character. Designs. 

He. Posted. An. Opinion. 

 

I know some of those words weren't small. Sorry. 

 

An. Opinion. Calling. For. A. Riot. Against. DC. For. Drawing. A. Picture. Of. A. Woman.

 

That has all sorts of power, historically.

 

I get that you're substituting small sentences for small words. It's a fair try.

 

Who calls for the act of call for mob rule does not change the act.

 

Who calls for threat of mob rule does not make it less a threat, it just makes it less a risk.

 

Take a close look at the art you praise. What's the weight of each of the slim girls -- and they are all girl's shapes, not full grown strong she-shapes -- would you say? Less than 100 lbs?

 

Go back and read what Lord Echh wrote, not what you wish Lord Echh wrote.

 

Think of how small it would make you feel, if it were aimed at your shape, the way you dress, who you are, and your right to choose how to dress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He. Has. No. Power. 

He. Has. Made. No. Effort. To. Force. DC. Or. Marvel. To. Change. The. Character. Designs. 

He. Posted. An. Opinion. 

 

I know some of those words weren't small. Sorry.

 

No need to be quite so snarky, E84.

 

 

"Honestly, I don’t know why women haven’t been a lot more angry and vocal about this kind of thing over the years. Like “Ferguson riot” angry. "

 

Explain to me again, how is calling for riots against Marvel and DC over spandex not censorship.

 

Use small words.

 

First, hyperbole should be taken with a grain of salt - as it is meant to be. Unless there is strong reason to believe he is not actually being hyperbolic with the "riot" comment, we should not be taking his statement as a strong statement of desire. Next up, the fact that he used scare-quote for his Ferguson comment, it causes me pause and leads me to think he is probably using the word "riot" in an ironic sense. The media trumped up a lot the riot angle why ignoring the "protest" part. This guy calling for a protest is perfectly okay and not censorship. So, not unless you can show me a case where is actually inciting real violence am I going to pay this issue much attention.

 

If one group is actively using violence against another group, then I could see the case for calling it an act of censorship. I still prefer to consider censorship an act by governmental authorities. Calling for violence or engaging in violence is more a case of attempting to "silence through terrorism". If those acts are not discouraged by the government or are enabled by the government, then it would seem to be censorship. If the acts are discouraged and the governments actively attempts to protect the victims, then I see that as a case of "silence through terrorism" and NOT "censorship".

 

Foreign Orchid.

 

 

Edit: There is also a distinction between calling for censorship and censoring. I could say that animated child porn should be illegal in Japan but just because I call for that it does not impose that status quo. Hentai artists in Japan, despite my personal wishes for them to not be allowed to, are more than allowed to depict underage individuals engaging in sexual acts with other underage individuals, older individuals, and a whole litany of "only in Japan" scenarios.

 

Foreign Orchid, 2.0.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take a close look at the art you praise. What's the weight of each of the slim girls -- and they are all girl's shapes, not full grown strong she-shapes -- would you say? Less than 100 lbs?

I would have to go back and re-read E84's comments to confirm but I don't think he went about praising the redesigns. I would even wager he thought of them much the same way many others here thought of them: Bad. They were rather monotonous and uninspired. But he has every right to produce low quality work all he wants.

 

Foreign Orchid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But now aren't you censoring that guy's crappy art?

 

You've confused CENSURE with CENSOR. No shame in that. A lot of people see things in black-and-white logical extremes.

 

The crappy art is just art. I've already said, and repeatedly, I have no issue with it as representational figures. It may not even be all that crappy, in other contexts.

 

It's that I'm clarifying what the artist is representing by those figures: that women with curves are inherently shameful and wrong, and must have their proportions altered to fit that particular artist's ideas of what is right, and that representing women is itself best done in dull colors and full coveralls, preferably with prison hairstyles.

 

Lord HatesCurvyLasses isn't being threatened with mob violence for body shaming women; the things written attacking free expression of art and diversity of the human figure in particular of females are being called out for how odious they are. I'm not saying Lord OhNoShe'sGotThingsIDon't should be censored -- I'm all for giving a fool enough rope to hang themselves. (By the way, that would be hyperbole; take with a grain of salt.)

 

I'm just pointing out what a call for censorship looks like, and what body-shaming looks like, and asking people to judge for themselves if they're comfortable with those views, stripped of hypocrisy and persiflage.

 

Lord Doesn'tLikeGirlsWithPower is none of my business, nor is the directed attack on DC; I'm not DC's lawyer, nor really a big DC reader or fan. However, it takes very little knowledge of the topics to spot that almost everything alleged simply wasn't true. There's a complaint that all the hairstyles are too similar and impractically long.. and then Black Canary is given Power Girl's haircut.. which has pretty much always been short, as was Robin's in Dark Knight Returns, Mary Marvel's, sometimes Ororo's or Kitty Pryde's, usually Rogue's. Mantis was bald. Medusa's hair filled the better part of a room. Barbara Gordon wore a wig as Batgirl. Peter Parker's female friends have always had as varied hairstyles as any of the women's magazines the comic is compared to. Go to Champions Online and look at the hairstyles available for females in the character generator, and claim there's too little diversity. And on, and on, and on it goes with claim after claim by Lord LikesLadiesBlushingAndBurka'd, straw man generalizations about a comicbook world that is not representative of the real whole thing, but mostly about the most fan-referenced few panels.

 

And if comic publishers and artists have to answer for fan choices and fanfic, then JK Rowling and Arthur Conan Doyle have a lot of explaining to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No need to be quite so snarky, E84.

 

 

 

First, hyperbole should be taken with a grain of salt - as it is meant to be. Unless there is strong reason to believe he is not actually being hyperbolic with the "riot" comment, we should not be taking his statement as a strong statement of desire. Next up, the fact that he used scare-quote for his Ferguson comment, it causes me pause and leads me to think he is probably using the word "riot" in an ironic sense. The media trumped up a lot the riot angle why ignoring the "protest" part. This guy calling for a protest is perfectly okay and not censorship. So, not unless you can show me a case where is actually inciting real violence am I going to pay this issue much attention.

 

If one group is actively using violence against another group, then I could see the case for calling it an act of censorship. I still prefer to consider censorship an act by governmental authorities. Calling for violence or engaging in violence is more a case of attempting to "silence through terrorism". If those acts are not discouraged by the government or are enabled by the government, then it would seem to be censorship. If the acts are discouraged and the governments actively attempts to protect the victims, then I see that as a case of "silence through terrorism" and NOT "censorship".

 

Foreign Orchid.

 

 

Edit: There is also a distinction between calling for censorship and censoring. I could say that animated child porn should be illegal in Japan but just because I call for that it does not impose that status quo. Hentai artists in Japan, despite my personal wishes for them to not be allowed to, are more than allowed to depict underage individuals engaging in sexual acts with other underage individuals, older individuals, and a whole litany of "only in Japan" scenarios.

 

Foreign Orchid, 2.0.

 

Excusing an online call for mob violence as mere hyperbole or irony is a cop out, frankly when that call for mob violence is accompanied by pages and pages of inked, colored, lettered artwork carrying the point of the message over, and over, and over again.

 

We can't accept that what Lord FergusonStyleRiot said was just kidding around. It piled invective on criticism on complaint with zero ambiguity. You can pause all you want to process that. A lot of people in denial take time to figure out an alternate explanation to plain facts as written on the page, while the Internet is full of people all too eager to charge ahead with no sense of irony at all.

 

The most goodwill interpretation in the world still leads to the conclusion of open call for censorship of comics, and still is plainly body-shaming aimed against women. Which second part I note remains undisputed.

 

Censorship doesn't just come from government authorities. Most of the time, it starts outside government with incidents just like this one seeding shame and outrage until some government authority jumps on the bandwagon. Waiting until the government is in on the action is waiting too long.

 

Saying "silence through terrorism" is just another way of saying censorship; further, it's just one of the forms of censorship Lord Draws'EmScrawny engaged in through the very long and varied effort you can go to yourself and check out in detail before you defend it as innocent or harmless.

 

I get that it's hard to look at someone who's using some parts of some plausibly sensible arguments that you can agree with and see that they've integrated them with a message of hate and intolerance. That's what propagandists do, it's how hypocrites thrive, it's how good people are manipulated into backing bad acts.

 

Lord OhNoesNaughtyBits may have even been doing all this innocently out of good motives, striving to protect some values most of us can agree with.. But then, pretending that Wonder Woman's shoulders and Black Canary's haircut are worth going after for their sexism compared to the much, much, much more extreme commonplaces seen in actual pr0n and real exploitation smacks of hypocrisy.

 

Depictions of strong women making personal choices are not exploitation. Attacking them is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have to go back and re-read E84's comments to confirm but I don't think he went about praising the redesigns. I would even wager he thought of them much the same way many others here thought of them: Bad. They were rather monotonous and uninspired. But he has every right to produce low quality work all he wants.

 

Foreign Orchid.

Exactly, one or two made sense, Black Canary in particular. But the colors are too washed out for superheroes (not that movies and the comics themselves haven't taken a swerve towards black as a great look (it is, but not for everything))

And I know the whole point of this thread is to slam the artist as a gelded abomination but I don't care for pile ons. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree its not censorship, but he's right: forcing women to cover up is as offensive and wrong as forcing them to strip down, no matter how noble your intentions or well- meaning you might be.  Maybe Power Girl likes dressing really sexy, she's invulnerable, after all.

I agree 100% with your first sentence. But...

No, she doesn't like anything. She's a fictional character. 

She'll like whatever the writer says she likes.

If the writer wants her to engage in beastiality, she'll like that. 

If the writer wants to move the boob window south and make it a crotch window, she'll be fine with it if that's how she's written. 

If the writers decide what Power Girl really wants to do is have incestuous relationships with her cousin Clark, guess what? She'll really find him attractive. 

 

No one forces fictional characters to do anything save their writers. 

 

Now that we've established that, we can say, this guy's designs are unflattering and I don't like them. The make-believe women who wear them look less attractive to me than they do currently (unless drawn by John Romata Jr or Frank Quietly in which case no uniform will save them (IMMO)) I don't like this unaffiliated artist's renditions of characters I enjoy at least tangentially, even if I don't read the comics. 

 

Gosh, it really chafes my hide when the made up people I expect to look one way do not look that way! (Insert self-directed jab at my own distaste for certain artists' work here).

 

See? It can be done with civility. I don't mean to disparage anyone's opinion of this guys clearly angry and colorless renderings of Superheroines, the designs are mostly bad in my opinion as well. But it is not censorship, and the sheer hatred dumped on this guy by some people is more than a little sad. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...