Female Redesigns

[Comic]

Has anyone here actually argued that no comic book character should ever have long hair? I think the argument has been that hair kept short or tied up is a reasonable choice for any character. Such characters can make that choice, in character, for practical reasons and it's just as valid (personally I think moreso) as Power Girl basing her costume choice on how much it will distract make opponents.

 

  Do you have any idea how hard it is to dig fingers into eyes, nostrils or grab the ear of an aware and resisting opponent? It's considerably harder than grabbing a handful of moderately long hair because eyes, ears and noses are significantly smaller targets that are easier to defend. Punching someone in the eye or nose can be fairly hard, never mind getting a good grip on one.

 

This entire thread springs from Lord Ingvald's decree that no female comic book character should ever have long hair. That's where hair came into the equation.

 

Lord Ingvald's particular examples were Wonder Woman, Black Canary, Power Girl and Bat Girl -- four of the more ludicrous absurdities to make such a claim about. Go re-read the offending Lord Ingvaldism if you need to be reminded. It's somewhere between the body shaming about how women shouldn't dress that way and the body shaming about how women shouldn't have curves.

 

While it's by no means technically wrong to point out that in the real world there are issues of practicality to do with hair length, plenty of female characters in comics don't wear their hair long so Lord Ingvald is opening a battle on a front that just doesn't reflect the actual state of comics, and it's a straw man to claim that we've somehow inverted Lord Ingvald's straw woman dictates by dictating the idiotic claims you're inferring with no basis that I implied that long hair is not much of a 'detriment' in a real fight: hair is exactly as much of a detriment in a real fight as having eyes, nose, ears, a throat and a mouth, a belt, a waistband, a jacket, a shirt, a jersey, fingers, a groin, and is certainly not as bad as a mask or headwear. Hair is less of as detriment than being outnumbered, on bad footing, injured, weaker, inexperienced, panicked, drugged, sliced up, concussed, partly bound by furniture or squeezed between doors or tables, surprised, or drunk.

 

I have exactly an idea of how hard it is for scumbags to dig their fingers into openings in the skull of an aware and resisting person. Thanks for asking. You don't know what you're talking about, or are sticking to your point of view out of mere stubbornness informed only by watching the sort of organized event that wouldn't get it banned and its promoters arrested, or experiencing nice guy dojo etiquette.

 

Everything about no holds barred fighting in the real world is hard, risky, wrong (usually intoxicated) and extremely stupid; I'd already conceded that hair pulling can and does happen and hair is somewhere (low) on the list of openings in street fights.

 

No one's arguing that it can't or doesn't happen.

 

Why are you still reacting as if anyone did, when we're clear on the point that comic books are not instruction manuals and do not represent the real world?

[Netzilla]

This entire thread springs from Lord Ingvald's decree that no female comic book character should ever have long hair. That's where hair came into the equation.

 

Lord Ingvald's particular examples were Wonder Woman, Black Canary, Power Girl and Bat Girl -- four of the more ludicrous absurdities to make such a claim about. Go re-read the offending Lord Ingvaldism if you need to be reminded. It's somewhere between the body shaming about how women shouldn't dress that way and the body shaming about how women shouldn't have curves.

 

Except that he never made any such claim.  In fact, he even drew a few with long hair (Wonder Woman, Supergirl, Vampirella and Red Sonja; 4 out of 9).  He just portrayed them with their hair pulled back so it didn't get in their faces.  How dare he.  In fact, when he talks about hair, he mentions specifically that they'd probably want to keep it out of their face and mentions that while women in real life have a wide variety of hair styles, the vast majority of women in comics are portrayed with long hair.  He certainly does not say that no female hero should have long hair ever.

 

As to your claims of X-shaming that he's doing, it's nonsense.  First, he's not decrying any actual real human being for dressing a certain way or having a certain build.  He's criticizing certain portrayals of women as primarily cheesecake, something he's neither alone nor the first to do.  There is a distinct difference between body-shaming and arguing that 80-90 percent of female superheroes are portrayed in an overly sexualized fashion.  Does he overstate his case in some areas?  Sure.  Most bloggers do.  You seem to think this guy is somehow unique in this.

 

 

 

I have exactly an idea of how hard it is for scumbags to dig their fingers into openings in the skull of an aware and resisting person. Thanks for asking. You don't know what you're talking about, or are sticking to your point of view out of mere stubbornness informed only by watching the sort of organized event that wouldn't get it banned and its promoters arrested, or experiencing nice guy dojo etiquette.

 

 

 

I'm not trying to get into a pissing contest about who has what experience here.  You have yours and I have mine and mine is not what you think it is.  However, when your claims don't match up with what I and others I know have experienced I have to ask the question.  Eye gouging, fish-hooking, ear tearing and the like are simply not as easy as hair grabbing.  Your equivocation of them is false and I don't know where you're getting the idea that the existence of some weaknesses somehow obviates or trivializes the existence of others.  If you do agree that hair grabbing is easier than these other techniques and a weakness, then what's the point in bringing up these other techniques if it's not to trivialize hair grabbing?  Why give your opponent more advantages in a fight.  Either it's an attempt to trivialize hair grabs or it's a non-sequitur.  If there is a third option, please let me know.

 

 

 

<in regards to hair grabbing>

No one's arguing that it can't or doesn't happen.

 

 

 

Then what was your point in bringing up female mma fighters with long hair?  Doing so does seem to imply that you think hair grabbing is not a big deal in a fight.  If that is not your point, then I really see no reason for you to have brought it up at all.  Sorry, if I misunderstood your point of view, but I really don't think I came out of left field here.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Historically short hair was used by combatants not from fear of being grabbed but other practical reasons.  Long hair is hot, and its hot and sweaty enough in combat without that. Long hair is more of a pain to keep clean, and if you're out in the trenches 18 months, short hair can be kept relatively lice-free much easier.  Long hair will get in your face and be not just a distraction but block off vision which can get you killed, even if you ordinarily have it tied back.  Plus it doesn't fit under armor very well.

 

None of these things are really much of an issue in a comic book world.  If you can fly and shoot eye beams at your enemies... you can plausibly assume your hair will stay out of the way.  I like that writers are trying to craft a more plausible world in comics, but I think they're kind of overdoing it lately by trying to make it "realistic" which is ridiculous. Moving more in this direction is a mistake, not a positive, in my opinion.

 

And given comic book sales... I agree that writers and editors like this direction but I'm not convinced readers do.

[Comic]

Clearly, some of us are reading Lord Ingvald's words and depictions differently than others.

 

I see censorship and body shaming of females in it on slim and easily shown false claims of logic, practicality and respect. Others don't. Fair enough.

 

To me, censorship and body shaming are more important issues than turning comic books into instruction manuals for .. what? Good little girls, made of sugar and spice and all things nice? Jihadists? Inmates? What?

 

The blunt hypocrisy and ignorance of Lord Ingvald's approach, given that the world got very much farther in such milestones as the Hawkeye Project (not all of which I agree with, but all of which I applaud) without censorship or redrawing female bodies to be more androgynous, is what initially rankled me. It's old. It's tired. It's heading off in the wrong direction. It brings down the valid and useful progress that has been made, without recognizing what advances have come, disputing images that in most cases are over a decade old and not relevant to the modern day and its issues.

 

Short hair in the military historically follows headlice in the military, regardless of what lies their drill sargeants have whispered into the ears of draftees while tucking them into their bunks with warm milk and cookies to soothe their bruised vanity. It's hygiene, principally, not a form of self-defense to stop the enemy, whose principal modes of attack on the front lines are not grappling and throwing punches to the head.

 

For every advantage of drawing the hair back or shortening it Lord Ingvald proposes, the restrictive and at the same time easily grabbed coveralls introduce a dozen disadvantages. Far from being more practical for real combatants, what Lord Ingvald proposes is less real-world practical overall.

 

And not a few have commented on how crappy Lord Ingvald's drawings look. Much of this is for the same reason Power Girl's cleavage window exists in the first place: given the direction to remove all Superman-related insignia from the character in order to disambiguate her from Supergirl, and given no clear direction on a new insignia, the artist faced the problem of drawing a comic book character with no easy indication of body facing.

 

Try it. Try drawing a human frame, male or female, with a blank chest, and expressing dynamic movement, power, speed and flight. Flash has a (some say phallic) lightning bolt on his chest to help out. Shazam has a (much larger some say phallic) lightning bolt. Superman has that S on the arrowhead pointing at his groin. Batman has the spiky bat silhouette which in no way resembles the actual bottom of an actual bat, also pointing the same way. Go ahead, plot the vector where those spikes meet. But that's all digression. Absent any image on a chest, absent the abdominal rack, a character is much more difficult to depict expressing POWER, as in Power Girl's first name.

 

Abdominals and pectoral prominences are the historical, tried and true, ancient means artists have used for thousands of years, predating the Classic Smile, to get these points across and convey athleticism and strength, movement and dynamism.

 

That's the practical consideration that is why Lord Ingvald, in avoiding these tropes, draws crappy representations. That's the logic driving artists. That they also deliver scandal and eye candy? Bonus, from their publishers' point of view.

[Burrito Boy]

Regardless of which is better in a fight--short hair or long hair--I personally find short hair more attractive on a girl than long hair. So I'm all for shorter hairstyles in comics.

[薔薇語]

So, Comic, I think we all agree that the drawings aren't amazing. They leave a lot to be desired.

 

I think we all now agree that long hair, at least in the real world, has some major setbacks in combat.

 

 

I think our only real points of contension are on two fronts: Is this artist censoring DC, Marvel, or any other comic producer? And Is this artist body shaming women?

 

I think everyone here, minus you, thinks the claim of censorship in this case requires a real misunderstanding of the artist and his actions and words. The fact that so many fellows, who are native English speakers like yourself, didn't come to the conclusion that this man is actively calling for violence nor engaging in 'censorship' should give you pause. Obviously just because a (vast) majority holds an opinion doesn't make it true, but when only a tiny minority can read into someone's comments and actions such a polar opposite view, the credence given that view is reasonablely low.

 

And the fact that the artist has a general size parameter for the female form does not necessarily mean he views women not fitting that form as somehow unacceptable. There could be a whole gamut of reasons for that, not the least of which is that the artist lacks the skill to vary from that parameter. And given the rather poor reception to his artwork by us, that would seem a likely answer. And it is inappropriate to assume malice or ulterior motives when simplier and fairer options are available. So lest you have extremely strong evidence to cause us to throw out reasonable assumptions of the artist for narrow and extremist ones, the dialog can't reasonablely progress forward.

 

 

Now, given the time and energy put into this by several posters, do you or anyone else believe there is still unexplored ground that might actually alter opinions or are we simply tilting at windmills? I think the latter myself.

 

Foreign Orchid.

[Netzilla]

Foreign Orchid pretty much covered every point I'd have made in my own response, Comic.  The only thing I'd add is that, not only was Lord Invard's article not malicious in intent or execution (to my mind), but his actual intent was simply to promote thought and discussion on the issue of how women are depicted.  Considering that this thread alone has reached 10 pages, I'd say he succeeded in that regard.

 

Also, you may be interested to note that he issued an apology for the overly harsh tone and language he used in his criticisms:

http://lordingvard.tumblr.com/post/122527850438/apologies

 

[Vondy]

I liked the Supergirl, Power Girl, and Ms. Marvel costumes. They are a little muted for my tastes, but they work. On the other hand, removing Power Girl's cleavage window at this point takes a good deal of the self-ribbing humor and meta-commentary out of the character and comic. I would also say that about Vampirella. Putting her in a modest costume is pretty much missing the entire overt sexploitation genre she was born to (the Heavy Metal style comics).. I feel similarly about Red Sonja because she was created in the era of Frazetta-inspired bare-chested barbarian aesthetics. Conan, on most of the novel covers of the time she emerged, wears little more than a loincloth, girdle, and sandals. Its a part and parcel of her beginnings and genre. Putting her in modest-functional clothes instead of Frazetta Barbarian Chic is admitting not just Sonja, but the entire genre, must be shoved aside in order to remain politic. Sonja in armor - as well as SonYa of Ragatino -is different character. Which is fine, just admit it and start writing stories about THAT character. I guess what I'm saying is - GENRE MATTERS.

[Comic]

So, Comic, I think we all agree that the drawings aren't amazing. They leave a lot to be desired.

 

I think we all now agree that long hair, at least in the real world, has some major setbacks in combat.

 

 

I think our only real points of contension are on two fronts: Is this artist censoring DC, Marvel, or any other comic producer? And Is this artist body shaming women?

 

I think everyone here, minus you, thinks the claim of censorship in this case requires a real misunderstanding of the artist and his actions and words. The fact that so many fellows, who are native English speakers like yourself, didn't come to the conclusion that this man is actively calling for violence nor engaging in 'censorship' should give you pause. Obviously just because a (vast) majority holds an opinion doesn't make it true, but when only a tiny minority can read into someone's comments and actions such a polar opposite view, the credence given that view is reasonablely low.

 

And the fact that the artist has a general size parameter for the female form does not necessarily mean he views women not fitting that form as somehow unacceptable. There could be a whole gamut of reasons for that, not the least of which is that the artist lacks the skill to vary from that parameter. And given the rather poor reception to his artwork by us, that would seem a likely answer. And it is inappropriate to assume malice or ulterior motives when simplier and fairer options are available. So lest you have extremely strong evidence to cause us to throw out reasonable assumptions of the artist for narrow and extremist ones, the dialog can't reasonablely progress forward.

 

 

Now, given the time and energy put into this by several posters, do you or anyone else believe there is still unexplored ground that might actually alter opinions or are we simply tilting at windmills? I think the latter myself.

 

Foreign Orchid.

 

Thank you for speaking up on behalf of everyone who isn't me. Great to have  that clarified. Sorry I missed the election where that vote took place.

 

And while it's wonderful to apply goodwill readings to ambiguous writings, the ambiguity in Lord Ingvald's body shaming just is not there. It's body shaming. It's body shaming pointed at females. It may have all sorts of wonderful motivations, but it's delivered in a package more appropriate to the 1980's or earlier, the era of most of the offending images cited by Lord Ingvald, not 2014, by which time we'd already seen strong female voices in the comic book world speak for themselves with far more clarity, wit, and creativity.

 

If you'd like to chat about the Hawkeye Project, and leave aside the by every measure substandard Lord Ingvald, by all means. That's a worthwhile topic, and no one is calling it body shaming or censorship. Because, unlike Ingvald, it isn't.

[Vondy]

Also, in regards to the rules of the Hyborean world, Howard had Conan wearing armor every chance he got (and I don't think you can qualify Conan as either pussy or coward).  The only times Conan was without armor was when it wasn't available.  That held true of Howard's other characters as well. 

 

The comics continuity is very different from Howard's original writings and are the poorer for it, in my opinion.

 

Its more a question of Frazetta-chic than the books. Yes, Conan wears armor at every opportunity in the books, as does Red Sonya with a Y - who is NOT the character people are talking about here - but he's generally depicted in a girdle, loincloth, and sandals to show off his heroic physique, which REH did describe in great, often purple, detail. REH also put Conan in situations where we was walking around basically naked. So, in my opinion, the Frazetta presentation of Conan or Sonja with a J, doesn't really do REH or Hyboria any injustice - and is true to some of REH's 'noble primitivism' vibes.

[薔薇語]

Thank you for speaking up on behalf of everyone who isn't me. Great to have that clarified. Sorry I missed the election where that vote took place

No vote, just a simple reading of this thread would imply the status quo I alluded to. Has anyone actually taken a similar position to you on either of your substantive issues? If someone did, I apologise to them for implying otherwise but I don't think there has been. And whether it be one or two posters holding these rather extreme views, the majority don't. And more than that, the majority hold a rather starkly opposite view.

 

As to your further comment about body shaming, I don't believe you are treading any new ground. Thus stands my comment about tilting at windmills. Perhaps I am doing the same thing with this rather repetitive post.

 

Foreign Orchid

[DShomshak]

Well, I found Lord Ingvard's tone rather commissar-like. IMO, beginning a "discussion" by suggesting that more (right-thinking) people should be mad as hell about something is not a good beginning for free and open inquiry and analysis -- it pretty blatantly pre-judges the topic. But Lord Ingvard says this is not the tone he intended, and I take him at his word.

 

Back to Zatanna and high heels, I hadn't noticed that in the illos I sought out to refresh my memories of the character. The particular illos just didn't show her feet much.

 

But it made me curious, so I took a quick browse through two editions of DC Who's Who (1985 and 1990) in search of female characters. By 1990, heels seemed to be a distinct minority choice for female footwear. Some characters (such as the villain Glorith and the hero Phantom Lady) wore heels as part of a self-consciously "sexpot" image. OTOH, while the Golden Age and Silver Age Catwoman illos both had heels, the 1990 illo did not. Golden Age Wonder Woman wore heels; Silver Age and later WW did not. Supergirl never did.

 

All in all, heels seemed to be a feature more of older illustrations of older characters. Even by 1990, its survival seemed to be a matter of artist caprice for particular characters. If they vanished from comic books altogether, I am not sure how many people would even notice. (If they haven't already.)

 

Dean Shomshak

[DShomshak]

(Addendum: I know the DC Who's Whos are way old, but they're what I have on hand. By the mid-1990s, I found most superhero comics increasingly tiresome even when they weren't full-on Iron Age. Since then, I've had the money and the interest to read only a few idiosyncratic titles such as Astro City, FireBreather and Kirkman's Wolf-Man. So I admit I really don't know where the state of the art is at.)

 

(I also realized just why Wonder Woman's classic costume -- even with the limited updates it received over the decades -- still seems so goofy to me. It isn't just the patriotic motifs for a character who isn't American and whose connection to American ideals is the change them. Her costume looks like a patriotic one-piece bathing suit. With the tiara, she looks like a 1940s beauty pageant contestant. This may have been progressive in the 1940s when she was created, but nowadays it's kind of a mixed message. Memo to Lord Ingvard: It isn't skin exposure, it's semiotics.)

 

Dean Shomshak

[Greywind]

The patriotic motif of Diana's combat gear was explained nicely in Perez' run.

[Clonus]

For those who've watched the Arrow TV series, the 'Wall' isn't a plus-sized lady either...

 

They were following the redesign of Amanda Waller in the comics.  I have no idea why they felt the need to prettify a character like Amanda Waller.  

[Clonus]

(Addendum: I know the DC Who's Whos are way old, but they're what I have on hand. By the mid-1990s, I found most superhero comics increasingly tiresome even when they weren't full-on Iron Age. Since then, I've had the money and the interest to read only a few idiosyncratic titles such as Astro City, FireBreather and Kirkman's Wolf-Man. So I admit I really don't know where the state of the art is at.)

 

(I also realized just why Wonder Woman's classic costume -- even with the limited updates it received over the decades -- still seems so goofy to me. It isn't just the patriotic motifs for a character who isn't American and whose connection to American ideals is the change them. Her costume looks like a patriotic one-piece bathing suit. With the tiara, she looks like a 1940s beauty pageant contestant. This may have been progressive in the 1940s when she was created, but nowadays it's kind of a mixed message. Memo to Lord Ingvard: It isn't skin exposure, it's semiotics.)

 

Dean Shomshak

 

One of these days I'd like to see a take on Wonder Woman that recognises she originally arrived as a foreign spy.  She dressed like an American patriotic symbol (and wore a military uniform in her secret I.D.) as a cover.  

[Christopher R Taylor]

They were following the redesign of Amanda Waller in the comics.  I have no idea why they felt the need to prettify a character like Amanda Waller.  

 

I loved the big mean version of Amanda, she was great.  Not only was she literally a wall but she was physically imposing and a fascinating character.  Disappointing to change her, I agree.

[Greywind]

 

 

...and the model

 

Donna Feldman

 

 

https://www.facebook.com/Feldman.Donna?fref=ts

[dmjalund]

I'll just leave this here

[Comic]

Say wut!?

 

 

That's Earth 11 Superwoman, circa 2005, pretty much a decade before Lord Ingvald complained about all those long haired women.

 

Shorter hair than her 1990's inverse.

 

Different hair from most female comic characters.

 

 

Go ahead. Tell her you don't like the way she wears her hair.

[Burrito Boy]

I don't like the way she wears her hair. Long hair is for men. Short hair is for women.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Did someone call the doctor?

 

[Comic]

I'm staying out of the whole telling people how to wear their hair thing.

 

 

People can wear their hair however they like.

 

Publishers can publish whatever art they like.

 

There are no disadvantages to hair of whatever length or style so major that they amount to excuse for either disrespecting the woman or censoring the artist.

 

Oh, and see what Ronda has to say about the advantages of fighting in ballroom dancing shoes.

[Burrito Boy]

 

 

Now that's what I'm talkin' about!