Green Arrow In Comics

[statsgirl]

9 hours ago, tv echo said:

“With women superheroes, it tends to be a team of 5 dudes and one woman, and she then has to be everything, and no woman can ever be everything." Bennett told ComicBook.com last year. "With a large cast, a large number of women, they don’t have to be icons and idols, they can just be themselves," she explained. "It’s so refreshing to create the women as characters, and not as liabilities or ticking time bombs."

It's too bad it's ending. With the successes of Wonder Woman and Black Panther, there's definitely an interest in under-represented groups in superheroes.

[tv echo]

'Batgirl and the Birds of Prey' To End in May
By RUSS BURLINGAME - February 20, 2018
http://comicbook.com/dc/2018/02/20/batgirl-and-the-birds-of-prey-to-end-in-may/

Quote

Batgirl and the Birds of Prey, DC's all-female team book written by The 100 scribes Julie and Shawna Benson, will end with #22 in May, the company announced today via its solicitations.

The Bensons will write the No Justice tie-in Green Arrow Annual #2, featuring the love interest of Black Canary, a longtime member of the Birds of Prey.
*  *  *
BATGIRL AND THE BIRDS OF PREY #22
Written by JULIE BENSON and SHAWNA BENSON • Art by ROGE ANTONIO • Cover by TERRY DODSON and RACHEL DODSON
Variant cover by KAMONE SHIRAHAMA 
Retailers: This issue will ship with two covers. Please see the order form for details.
“WHO IS ORACLE?” revisited! Batgirl and Black Canary must find Huntress and save her from Calculator and Blackbird’s nefarious plan. But everything comes full circle when the answer to Calculator’s question—“Who is Oracle?”—is at last revealed. The Birds of Prey have always been a tight-knit team, but here, in what could be their final hours, they truly become a family. 
On sale MAY 9 • 32 pg, FC, $3.99 US • RATED T • FINAL ISSUE

GREEN ARROW ANNUAL #2
Written by JULIE BENSON and SHAWNA BENSON
Art by CARMEN CARNERO
Cover by DAVID LOPEZ
Retailers: Includes a code for a free digital download of this issue.
Entitled rich boy Oliver Queen grew up a member of elite society. But after a drunken escapade left him stranded on a deserted island, Oliver learned to survive and become more than a man—he became a hunter. He became a survivor. He became a hero. But when Green Arrow comes face-to-face with a challenge he never saw coming, his entire worldview—his reason for being a hero—comes into question. Because that challenge has a name: Amanda Waller!
On sale MAY 30 • 48 pg, FC, $4.99 US • RATED T+

Edited February 22, 2018 by tv echo

[tv echo]

From digital release of Bombshells United #27 (just out yesterday) - pages 8, 9, 10, 14 and 15...

(source )

ETA: I've noticed that in this Bombshells series, depending upon the artist, sometimes the Batgirls (including tween Felicity) look a little older and sometimes they look a little younger. For this issue, the artist is David Hahn.

Edited February 24, 2018 by tv echo

[tv echo]

Around the time DC Comics Bombshells #37 was released, when its AU year was 1941, Marguerite Bennett tweeted that this AU version of Felicity was 11 years old.

In this latest Bombshells United #27, the AU year is 1944, so this Felicity should be around 14 years old now.

Edited February 24, 2018 by tv echo

[bijoux]

Why is BC’s skirt basically shaped like a loin cloth?

[lemotomato]

To show off the fishnet stockings better, I'm guessing.

[Primal Slayer]

That and so she can fight better. 

[BkWurm1]

8 hours ago, tv echo said:

Around the time DC Comics Bombshells #37 was released, when its AU year was 1941, Marguerite Bennett tweeted that this AU version of Felicity was 11 years old.

In this latest Bombshells United #27, the AU year is 1944, so this Felicity should be around 14 years old now.

But looks more like 18 plus, especially in that last panel.  I guess this artist likes his teen girls looking busty and sturdy. 

[statsgirl]

I'm looking at that outfit the Black Canary is wearing, and it's very low-cut, with thigh high fishnets stockings and slits so you can see alllllll the way up. She looks like she's about to start her stripper act.

They're not marketing this to girls, right?  Although they shouldn't been marketing it to boys either, it definitely gives them the wrong idea about how their dates should look.

[Primal Slayer]

Comics have had worse outfits for the last 50 years. Especially when the comic is about women who don't need men and are leading a resistance. 

[Mary0360]

Black Canary looks so trashy, tacky and cheap. How is that outfit suppose to help represent a good role model for young girls?

Artist thought pattern: 'Sure have her act heroically but meanwhile we are going to sexualise the hell out of her because seeing her boobs and practically her underwear is far more necessary for all those old men reading who expect women to look like this'.

[Primal Slayer]

Is Wonder Woman not considered a good role model? 

[statsgirl]

45 minutes ago, Primal Slayer said:

 Especially when the comic is about women who don't need men and are leading a resistance. 

Clever.  Give the female characters a strong storyline so they can say "see how strong our female characters are" and then sexualize the hell out of them in the drawings so that's what everyone thinks about when they think women in comics, their sexuality not their strength.

Edited February 24, 2018 by statsgirl

[WindofChange]

2 hours ago, statsgirl said:

I'm looking at that outfit the Black Canary is wearing, and it's very low-cut, with thigh high fishnets stockings and slits so you can see alllllll the way up. She looks like she's about to start her stripper act.

 

IDK, I think women can wear whatever they want to feel empowered. I mean we all defend Felicity wearing dresses with short skirts because she likely feels empowered by it...

My issue arises because from what I've seen, almost every woman in the comics is drawn to have ample breasts, skin tight clothes, tiny hips etc. It's unrealistic and sexist. If it's geared towards boys then it's giving them unrealistic expectations on what women should look like. It's terrible.

[statsgirl]

I'm curious what outfits make the women here feel empowered.  Are those clothes that would or are they a male writers fantasy?

For me, I feel empowered in smart business attire at work and a pretty dress in the evening like Felicity wears to the occasion parties on the show. Skimpy skin tight clothes that draw attention to my sexual attributes and shoes I can't walk in make me feel even less powerful.

[apinknightmare]

I'm not a street fighter, so I doubt what makes me feel powerful is the same thing that would make someone who is feel powerful. I imagine something skin-tight would absolutely fit the bill. Skimpy? Probably not so much, just given the sheer amount of skin you're showing - it'd make you vulnerable to a lot of injury. 

Like @WindofChange wrote, most of the female characters in these comics are written for the male gaze - no denying it. I wish the outfits were just more logistically sound - someone can still look sexy without leaving swaths of skin open for cuts/bruises. But I also hate the assertion that what a woman chooses to wear somehow makes her a bad role model, or trashy. 

[lemotomato]

I think there's a difference between criticizing an illustrated character for the way she's dressed versus criticizing the illustrator. As Jessica Rabbit said, "I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way."

I like Marguerite Bennett, and I think she did a good job writing about female empowerment and inclusion the Bombshell Series. But I doubt she has any say on how the (male) illustrators portray the characters, especially since the Bombshell grown up character designs (modeled in the style of 1940's pinup girls) pre-dated her involvement with the comics series.

[Primal Slayer]

She's said that she liked their designs (could be professional or truthful). And she would have a certain amount of control, maybe not change the outfits completely but "cover up them a little bit more".  

Just like Patty Jenkins liked the Amazons wearing heels. Everyone has their own view of things.

[WindofChange]

4 hours ago, statsgirl said:

I'm curious what outfits make the women here feel empowered.  Are those clothes that would or are they a male writers fantasy?

Honestly? I'm 32 and what I feel empowered in is mostly stuff that I feel I look good in and that varies. I don't have 1 power outfit. But I have been friends with girls who are comfortable wearing skimpy outfits when they go out and that makes them feel confident and empowered. 

I guess it varies from person to person depending on their body type as well as their personalities. 

[Midnight Lullaby]

I think one thing is sexy clothes that a woman can realistically wear and move in (for example Sara’s BC outfit had a sexy top but it wasn’t ridiculous, she could fight in it) and the clothes women are often made to wear in the comics that in real life you couldn’t wear without flashing anyone or tripping on them and you know are chosen just to make the woman appealing to the male gaze. Here I don’t find BC’s outfit empowering..I find it ridiculous because I can imagine what it would be like to try to kick someone in that skirt and heels. Something completely different is women wearing sexy clothes in real life since behind them there isn’t a marketing strategy and they can think for themselves..

[bijoux]

To be honest, when I commented, I didn't think of empowerment or lack thereof. I just found the skirt with two visible fishnet tops ugly. It's not that I can't get the basic idea behind it - BC's signature fishnets and era appropriate pencil skirt which also makes her look more grown up than other characters who are supposed to be teenagers. I just think the execution leaves something to be desired. 

[Hiveminder]

I think it’s worth mentioning that this situation isn’t women wearing what makes them feel empowered. They’re drawings. BC didn’t choose that outfit. A man did. 

I would not feel empowered in that if I were trying to fight in it. I would feel exposed and unsafe. Heels are dangerous enough just to walk in. Can you imagine if she had to fight someone while standing on a grate in a sidewalk? What about on a soft, damp lawn? They’re in Hawaii. There must be sandy ground all over the place. She should have constantly twisted ankles. Fishnets don’t even provide protection from the cold much less bullets, knives, and people’s fists and feet. That’s not even half of what’s wrong with that outfit. 

I have problems with the teen girls’ outfits too. Sure, they’re mostly decent up top, although I see some cleavage hints, but those skirts are still too short. They may not actually be showing anything, but they are hinting at far more than I am comfortable seeing on female characters at that stage in their lives. Particularly, because they are right around that time when most girls are still little girls but in the process of becoming women. Those skirts are right one the edge of showing some ass. The one with the wings? She is definitely flashing everyone around her. 

Comics can play lip service to female characters being empowered all they want, and some of those characters are in their actions. Hell, maybe comics are a hundred times better than they used to be in this regard, but they are far from shedding the overwhelmingly prevalent elements of male sexual fantasy. As evidenced by the male superheroes running around showing off their incredible abs and bulging packages and the women fighting for the fate of the world in jumped up lingerie. 

A thousand people can say these characters are empowered women, but I won’t truly believe until they feel empowered enough to wear something sensible to fight in, and that’s not me trying to slut shame or ascribe my views of acceptably modest clothing on fictional characters. If BC wants to wear that outfit to a nightclub, then go for it. But fighting in it is just impractical and dangerous. That’s an objective fact. 

[statsgirl]

@Hiveminder if I could give that comment a 100 likes I would. That's what I wanted toconvey but stumbled.

39 minutes ago, Hiveminder said:

I have problems with the teen girls’ outfits too. Sure, they’re mostly decent up top, although I see some cleavage hints, but those skirts are still too short. They may not actually be showing anything, but they are hinting at far more than I am comfortable seeing on female characters at that stage in their lives.

Skirts for schoolgirls in the forties were always below knee and I think for women were midcalf. So while one can argue that the short skirts empower the adult women who choose to wear them, the artist is sexualizing adolescent girls.

[Hiveminder]

1 hour ago, statsgirl said:

@Hiveminder if I could give that comment a 100 likes I would. That's what I wanted toconvey but stumbled.

Skirts for schoolgirls in the forties were always below knee and I think for women were midcalf. So while one can argue that the short skirts empower the adult women who choose to wear them, the artist is sexualizing adolescent girls.

I especially question the one with the wings (I haven't read the comic, so don't know everyone's name.) not only because it's the outfit with the shortest skirt, but because it's a cheerleader outfit complete with pom poms. I question the choice of having an adolescent girl fighting in a skimpy version of a classic sexual fantasy. 

To add to your point about how long skirts were back then, I've seen high school cheerleaders today who don't have uniform skirts that short, and the ones I see often wear something extra underneath their skirts.

I'm actually not even saying any of this is deliberate. Like, whoever chose these outfits and the questionable details were sitting there thinking about how hot they could make little girls and get away with it. It could be entirely subconscious, but whatever it is, it's gross. 

Edited February 25, 2018 by Hiveminder

[tv echo]

[Mary0360]

6 hours ago, Hiveminder said:

I think it’s worth mentioning that this situation isn’t women wearing what makes them feel empowered. They’re drawings. BC didn’t choose that outfit. A man did. 

I would not feel empowered in that if I were trying to fight in it. I would feel exposed and unsafe. Heels are dangerous enough just to walk in. Can you imagine if she had to fight someone while standing on a grate in a sidewalk? What about on a soft, damp lawn? They’re in Hawaii. There must be sandy ground all over the place. She should have constantly twisted ankles. Fishnets don’t even provide protection from the cold much less bullets, knives, and people’s fists and feet. That’s not even half of what’s wrong with that outfit. 

I have problems with the teen girls’ outfits too. Sure, they’re mostly decent up top, although I see some cleavage hints, but those skirts are still too short. They may not actually be showing anything, but they are hinting at far more than I am comfortable seeing on female characters at that stage in their lives. Particularly, because they are right around that time when most girls are still little girls but in the process of becoming women. Those skirts are right one the edge of showing some ass. The one with the wings? She is definitely flashing everyone around her. 

Comics can play lip service to female characters being empowered all they want, and some of those characters are in their actions. Hell, maybe comics are a hundred times better than they used to be in this regard, but they are far from shedding the overwhelmingly prevalent elements of male sexual fantasy. As evidenced by the male superheroes running around showing off their incredible abs and bulging packages and the women fighting for the fate of the world in jumped up lingerie. 

A thousand people can say these characters are empowered women, but I won’t truly believe until they feel empowered enough to wear something sensible to fight in, and that’s not me trying to slut shame or ascribe my views of acceptably modest clothing on fictional characters. If BC wants to wear that outfit to a nightclub, then go for it. But fighting in it is just impractical and dangerous. That’s an objective fact. 

Yes this exactly.

 

Male  superheroes are almost always given, for the most part, practical superhero outfits, but female superheroes are consistently given skimpy,   impractical and avertly sexual outfits. They're not given them for some feminist reason of feeling empowered while sexy- though I'm sure the artist would like people to think that- they are given those outfits because male artists treat female characters like lust objects.

 

That Black Canary outfit is probably the worst and in your face example of that. Not one part of that outfit is remotely practical. Not one part of that outfit is drawn without the intention being to sexualise the character. Not one part of that outfit was drawn with a respect for the character or with a respect of her being female. And the fact that this is in a female driven comic that presumably they are hoping women and young girls will read is disgusting and Im quite comfortable saying, trashy. 

 

Because for all the young girls reading, and young boys who may pick up this comic, it gives them unrealistic and frankly unhealthy expectations of what women should look like and should wear. I'm sure for all the writing that maybe  went in to the comic to create strong identifiable female characters, the male artist probably didn't spend a single thought creating artwork that accompanies that message.

 

To me they are not characters who are drawn with the intention being to be good role models for young girls. To me they are characters, and teen ones to, who some probably middle aged male artist has turned into sexual fantasies for his own and presumably other young adult or middle aged men's pleasure.  

[apinknightmare]

How the characters are drawn and whether are not they are role models shouldn't be part of the same conversation. Arguing that they look trashy and that young girls shouldn't look up to them as role models indicates that their choice in clothing is more important than the content of their character and what they're actually doing and fighting for in this story. It is possible to find their actions admirable and worthy of looking up to and dislike that they're drawn in a sexualized way. 

[Mary0360]

3 minutes ago, apinknightmare said:

How the characters are drawn and whether are not they are role models shouldn't be part of the same conversation. Arguing that they look trashy and that young girls shouldn't look up to them as role models indicates that their choice in clothing is more important than the content of their character and what they're actually doing and fighting for in this story. It is possible to find their actions admirable and worthy of looking up to and dislike that they're drawn in a sexualized way. 

Yes but how they are drawn, takes away from and undermines the content of their actions. Because they are not drawn with respect for what they are doing. They are drawn to be sexually objectified. 

 

How smart, talented, brave or heroic they might be is made less important then skin tight outfits, seeing their boobs or having splits in their outfits that go up to their who-ha and tantalising shots of their skirts flying up. 

[apinknightmare]

1 minute ago, Mary0360 said:

Yes but how they are drawn, takes away from and undermines the content of their actions. Because they are not drawn with respect for what they are doing. They are drawn to be sexually objectified. 

How smart, talented, brave or heroic they might be is made less important then skin tight outfits, seeing their boobs or having splits in their outfits that go up to their who-ha and tantalising shots of their skirts flying up. 

If how smart, talented, brave or heroic these women and girls might be is less important than what they're wearing, then it's because the reader is making it that way. I'm not arguing that there aren't people out there who read these books specifically because the women are sexualized. Of course there are, or else they wouldn't be drawn that way! But you're arguing that the actual story and their actions are irrelevant and invaluable because of what they're wearing. Do you think the same thing when Felicity saves the city wearing a dress with a short skirt and a boob window? 

[Mary0360]

2 minutes ago, apinknightmare said:

Do you think the same thing when Felicity saves the city wearing a dress with a short skirt and a boob window? 

No, because I don't believe that Felicity is dressed or directed to act in a way that is meant to avertly sexualise her or have the viewer consider her as a sexual object first, and as a talented heroic hacker second. She wears fashionable office attire when she's in the bunker which only requires sitting at a desk. And when put on the field she generally wears practical outfits. 

 

Im not looking to start a fight. I just think that a female driven comic about brave heoric girl should be illustrated with respect to the characters and their actions and content of their character, not by illustrating them as sex objects first, heroes second. Because then all that represents to those reading is that they themselves are sex objects first.  

[apinknightmare]

6 minutes ago, Mary0360 said:

No, because I don't believe that Felicity is dressed or directed to act in a way that is meant to avertly sexualise her or have the viewer consider her as a sexual object first, and as a talented heroic hacker second. She wears fashionable office attire when she's in the bunker which only requires sitting at a desk. And when put on the field she generally wears practical outfits. 

She was definitely CW-sexualized beginning in the second season, when her wardrobe went from bulky sweaters and panda flats to short, tight dresses with various cutouts in them. She's meant to be seen as attractive AND capable and smart and brave.  

But yeah, I don't want to fight. I'm going to bow out now, because I think that the argument being made here is a really slippery and potentially sexist slope. 

[Hiveminder]

54 minutes ago, apinknightmare said:

How the characters are drawn and whether are not they are role models shouldn't be part of the same conversation. Arguing that they look trashy and that young girls shouldn't look up to them as role models indicates that their choice in clothing is more important than the content of their character and what they're actually doing and fighting for in this story. It is possible to find their actions admirable and worthy of looking up to and dislike that they're drawn in a sexualized way. 

The thing is, they're not choosing to dress this way. We should always remember that comic characters, particularly DC and Marvel characters, are not real women making their own choices. This isn't the same thing as invalidating a woman's choices by, say, saying a woman who wears a short skirt to the club is asking for some guy to creep on her. The great majority of people writing, drawing, and making storyline decisions for these characters are men. 

No, their appearance does not invalidate their actions, and it shouldn't. But it does undermine them, or, perhaps, it undermines the intentions of the writers and illustrators.   I'm just not comfortable separating the two completely and disregarding the message their appearance sends because young girls and boys who read these comics are not going to be aware or knowledgeable enough to do that. Making female characters strong and capable in their actions is great, but having them constantly dressed in a manner specifically and almost solely designed to be exciting to the male gaze sends the message that, sure, you can be a strong, badass women, but you better look hot doing it. Only half the message is not good enough for me. 

31 minutes ago, apinknightmare said:

Do you think the same thing when Felicity saves the city wearing a dress with a short skirt and a boob window? 

Personally, I don't. Felicity sits at a desk, and in those occasions when she's in the field she generally dressed sensibly unless caught off guard or the mission requires a fancy dress, such as the casino scene is season one. And people do mention it when the characters in the show dress inappropriately. Wasn't BS wearing some dumb shoes last season that people rightly mocked, and weren't there comments about Oliver's sleeveless season four suit?  Part of the problem for me is the sheer impracticality of these outfits. Nine out of ten female superheroes run around dressed like strippers. It's more than just overly sexualized.  It's unsafe. 

Yes, Felicity was She's All That'ed in season two, but I don't have much of a problem with that because it's on the same level as Oliver. Felicity went from being a guest star to being a main character and eventually leading lady. Oliver didn't get to walk around looking like a schlub with flabby abbs, and Felicity didn't get to walk around in slacks and a sensible blouse. 

[apinknightmare]

34 minutes ago, Hiveminder said:

The thing is, they're not choosing to dress this way. We should always remember that comic characters, particularly DC and Marvel characters, are not real women making their own choices. This isn't the same thing as invalidating a woman's choices by, say, saying a woman who wears a short skirt to the club is asking for some guy to creep on her. The great majority of people writing, drawing, and making storyline decisions for these characters are men. 

Yes, I'm aware of this. I don't need it explained to me (not sure if you're intending to be condescending or not). I have zero issues with the discussion about the way that female comic characters are sexualized (although given that this particular comic is based off of a line of figurines modeled after pin-ups, it's probably not the best comic to have the discussion over) - I agree with the arguments here regarding the female characters being drawn and marketed to the male gaze. I don't particularly like it either.

I dislike the way this particular argument is evolving (that the women depicted here are trashy and not good role models), because even though these particular characters are drawn by and sexualized by men, there are real women who choose to dress this way, and that doesn't automatically make them trashy and/or bad role models. Not sure if it's intentional or not, but I felt like I should say something, so I did. 

And I agree with you that the comics outfits aren't practical - it is unsafe I said so in an earlier comment. And I merely brought it up Felicity's wardrobe to prove my point - she is also being sexualized (not to the extent that the comics characters are, given that T&A like that is probably not in CW's business model) to appeal to the audience, but it seems to me that everyone here is able to see past that and value her smarts and her skill.  

[Hiveminder]

11 minutes ago, apinknightmare said:

Yes, I'm aware of this. I don't need it explained to me (not sure if you're intending to be condescending or not). I have zero issues with the discussion about the way that female comic characters are sexualized (although given that this particular comic is based off of a line of figurines modeled after pin-ups, it's probably not the best comic to have the discussion over) - I agree with the arguments here regarding the female characters being drawn and marketed to the male gaze. I don't particularly like it either.

I dislike the way this particular argument is evolving (that the women depicted here are trashy and not good role models), because even though these particular characters are drawn by and sexualized by men, there are real women who choose to dress this way, and that doesn't automatically make them trashy and/or bad role models. Not sure if it's intentional or not, but I felt like I should say something, so I did. 

And I agree with you that the comics outfits aren't practical - it is unsafe I said so in an earlier comment. And I merely brought it up Felicity's wardrobe to prove my point - she is also being sexualized (not to the extent that the comics characters are, given that T&A like that is probably not in CW's business model) to appeal to the audience, but it seems to me that everyone here is able to see past that and value her smarts and her skill.  

Oh, if I was trying to be condescending, you'd know for sure. I'm not subtle. I may come across as condescending sometimes because I can over-explain in an effort to be as clear as possible. 

I disagree that the conversation has been developing in that direction. I think, with the exception of one comment that maybe didn't come across as intended, everyone's been pretty clear that the problem is with the drawing for the characters, not the characters.

For myself, I think I've been pretty clear on that, and I've said that i don't have a problem with BC wearing that outfit to a club. I have no problem with her outfit in the right context. I have no problem if a real live woman wants to wear that outfit. I don't think anyone here really intended to imply otherwise. 

[quarks]

2 hours ago, Mary0360 said:

No, because I don't believe that Felicity is dressed or directed to act in a way that is meant to avertly sexualise her or have the viewer consider her as a sexual object first, and as a talented heroic hacker second. She wears fashionable office attire when she's in the bunker which only requires sitting at a desk. And when put on the field she generally wears practical outfits. 

Answering over in Felicity's thread.

[apinknightmare]

3 minutes ago, Hiveminder said:

I disagree that the conversation has been developing in that direction. I think, with the exception of one comment that maybe didn't come across as intended, everyone's been pretty clear that the problem is with the drawing for the characters, not the characters.

For myself, I think I've been pretty clear on that, and I've said that i don't have a problem with BC wearing that outfit to a club. I have no problem with her outfit in the right context. I have no problem if a real live woman wants to wear that outfit. I don't think anyone here really intended to imply otherwise. 

I'm pretty sure the comment came across exactly as intended considering the sentiment was reiterated after I took issue with it. It was not at all clear to me that it extended only to these particular characters and not women who dress like that in general, which was why I was responding specifically to the person who made said comment.

And I'm glad you didn't intend to imply that you don't have a problem with a real live woman wearing that outfit. I still think conflating the arguments of how women are drawn in comics with whether they can be seen as heroic or good role models while being drawn that way is a slippery argument that can have unintended implications, so...don't think I can or should add more here. 

Bowing out for real now!

[statsgirl]

Does anyone know when Felicity got her breast reduction surgery?  It must have happened sometime between Bombshells and when she appears on my screen in her MIT flashback episode. [/sarcasm]

Here's a practical reason for drawing the female characters in a less sexualized: last year's Wonder Woman and this year's Black Panther have shown that there is a huge market for under-represented groups.  But  they want to see themselves the way they feel they are: strong Black characters who are no one's sidekick, and Amazons who can fight comfortably.  Zach Snyder got hold of the Amazons for Justice League and suddenly they're in metal bikinis and ridiculously high heels. Every female reviewer I read or heard thought the change demeaning, and so did any of the men who commented on it.

I'd buy the Bombgirls comics but not when they look like a man's fantasy.  There probably is an  untapped market out there but not when the comics are drawn and/or written just repeating the tired old White man's fantasy

Edited February 26, 2018 by statsgirl

[WindofChange]

If you want a better comparison between the comics and Arrow then Felicity isn't it, Donna is probably a better example. She is a 45+ year old woman who wears incredibly skimpy outfits with low cuts, short skirts, and are skin tight. 

This doesn't mean that she's trashy, has zero class, and shouldn't be looked up to. Even though Donna has been shown to be embarrassing at times, even Felicity acknowledges how much her mother had been through, how much her mother worked in order to put Felicity through school. If that's not admirable or if she's not someone you can look up to because of her sense of style then I think that''s wrong.

Also...

3 hours ago, Mary0360 said:

No, because I don't believe that Felicity is dressed or directed to act in a way that is meant to avertly sexualise her or have the viewer consider her as a sexual object first

This is pretty much a direct quote from Stephen from the 2013 Fan Expo in Canada: 

“All the characters are in a different spot in season 2. Felicity… Felicity is a lot sexier. No, really, I’m looking at her wardrobe this year and I went ‘they sexified your wardrobe, didn’t they?’ Yes, they did.”

[Mary0360]

42 minutes ago, apinknightmare said:

I'm pretty sure the comment came across exactly as intended considering the sentiment was reiterated after I took issue with it. It was not at all clear to me that it extended only to these particular characters and not women who dress like that in general, which was why I was responding specifically to the person who made said comment.

And I'm glad you didn't intend to imply that you don't have a problem with a real live woman wearing that outfit. I still think conflating the arguments of how women are drawn in comics with whether they can be seen as heroic or good role models while being drawn that way is a slippery argument that can have unintended implications, so...don't think I can or should add more here. 

Bowing out for real now!

I feel this is directed at me and Im being accused of something I'm not doing, which is a little upsetting.  I don't feel I'm stating anything hasn't been the basis of discussion by media commentators before. All I was discussing was the fact that female superheroes are often depicted impractically, overtly sexually, with emphasis being on their attributes over the essence of their character (And most times female comic characters are fairly weak and basic in characterisation) and Black Canarys outfit was the most crass, unattractive and obvious example of that. 

 

To clarify, even though it goes without saying, if real women choose to dress like that that's totally their prerogative. I can't say that every woman who dresses like that though is a good role model unless they've done something that makes them worthy of being a role model. However, since Black Canary is intended or designed to be a role model, I would just wish that they'd draw her in a manner that is practical for her superheroics and doesn't focus largely on her attributes or make her come off like a sexual object. I don't think it's wrong for young girls to have a role model who is treated with respect young girls and females in general deserve, and unfortunately I personally don't get the sense from those illustrations that the artist particularly respects the essence of the character first and foremost based on that illustration. 

[statsgirl]

1 hour ago, WindofChange said:

Donna is probably a better example. She is a 45+ year old woman who wears incredibly skimpy outfits with low cuts, short skirts, and are skin tight. 

This doesn't mean that she's trashy, has zero class, and shouldn't be looked up to.

It's freely acknowledged in the show that while Donna is a good person, her wardrobe is wildly inappropriate. Even Quentin got embarrassed by it at times, Felicity almost always is.  Oliver just thinks it's funny.

[WindofChange]

25 minutes ago, statsgirl said:

It's freely acknowledged in the show that while Donna is a good person, her wardrobe is wildly inappropriate. Even Quentin got embarrassed by it at times, Felicity almost always is.  Oliver just thinks it's funny.

I don't really see how this invalidates the point tbh. Characters comment on how she dresses yet she continues to do so and even then this shouldn't make her less of a role model or have her achievements put down just because she dresses in incredibly risque clothing.

Edited February 26, 2018 by WindofChange

[Mellowyellow]

On 2/25/2018 at 1:22 PM, statsgirl said:

I'm curious what outfits make the women here feel empowered.  Are those clothes that would or are they a male writers fantasy?

For me, I feel empowered in smart business attire at work and a pretty dress in the evening like Felicity wears to the occasion parties on the show. Skimpy skin tight clothes that draw attention to my sexual attributes and shoes I can't walk in make me feel even less powerful.

Jewels! Lots of them! I feel naked without a ring and the bigger and well coordinated the bling the better I feel. Oddly enough I do not feel secure in necklaces (can be grabbed). Still wear it for the sake of pretty but don't feel as empowered. 

Some days I enjoy looking hippy dippy as well. There is a freedom and comfort to that but usually I like a pretty dress and lots of jewels. 

I also like shoes I can run in in case I need to flee from someone shady! 

[statsgirl]

15 minutes ago, WindofChange said:

Characters comment on how she dresses yet she continues to do so and even then this shouldn't make her less of a role model or have her achievements put down just because she dresses in incredibly risque clothing.

By definition  a role model is someone you aspire to be like. They are your model for the role you want to take on.

No one is suggesting that Donna is a bad person. But the show is pretty clear that to dress like Donna Smoak is not something young women should be trying to do.

[Mary0360]

11 minutes ago, WindofChange said:

I don't really see how this invalidates the point tbh. Characters comment on how she dresses yet she continues to do so and even then this shouldn't make her less of a role model or have her achievements put down just because she dresses in incredibly risque clothing.

Donna is a cocktail waitress from Las Vegas who presumably chooses to dress that way because she gets more tips from male customers who probably aren't tipping based on how much they like the cocktails. And that's fine. She looks good and the outfits work for her and she's confident enough in them. But she is also wearing outfits appropriate to her line of work, that don't overly expose her flesh, boobs or ass in an in your face manner and she's not being marketed to young girls. 

 

There is an character reason for Donna to dress the way she dresses that makes sense. The same can not be said for Black Canarys outfit which is not sensible, logical or appropriate to her character or even the time era the comic takes place in. There does not seem to be some justifiable in character reason for Black Canary to be dressed like that that has been brought up other then that the artist wants to make her look like a sex object. And in a comic designed for presumably young girls to read. 

[Starfish35]

2 minutes ago, Mary0360 said:

There does not seem to be some justifiable in character reason for Black Canary to be dressed like that that has been brought up other then that the artist wants to make her look like a sex object.

Probably displaying my ignorance here, but isn't Black Canary a lounge singer in the Bombshells series?  That would be an in-character reason for her to be dressed that way, similar to Donna being a cocktail waitress.

[WindofChange]

9 minutes ago, Mary0360 said:

Donna is a cocktail waitress from Las Vegas who presumably chooses to dress that way because she gets more tips from male customers who probably aren't tipping based on how much they like the cocktails.

Donna is a cocktail waitress but she isn't on the job 24/7. Simple fact of the matter is that she wears tight risque dresses because she likes how she feels in them. It almost has nothing to do with her job. 

I just don't really understand how the way someone dresses defines their achievements and their status as role models... 

If the argument was that how the comic industry in general draw women is sexist and should change, then I'd agree. But that's not the argument here. It's that somehow women who wear skimpy clothes (regardless of how sensible/logical it is) can't possibly be role models no matter what they achieve and I think that's a really crummy message to give to girls who sometimes like to express their sexuality in how they dress themselves.

Edited February 26, 2018 by WindofChange

[Mary0360]

1 minute ago, WindofChange said:

 

If the argument was that how the comic industry in general draw women is sexist and should change, then I'd agree. But that's not the argument here. The argument is somehow that women who wear skimpy clothes (regardless of how sensible/logical it is) can't possibly be role models no matter what they achieve and I think that's a really crummy message to give to girls who sometimes like to express their sexuality in how they dress themselves.

I find this slightly upsetting but the argument was that the way Black Canary was illustrated was meant to be sexually suggestive to please male  audiences in a comic that's suppose to be highlighting heroic females to girls. The artist in my opinion was not thinking about what kind of role model Black Canary is or sexual liberation or even the essence of her character or what's appropriate for her to fight in. The artist in my opinion was thinking about big boobs and lots of legs. If you think differently that's fine but nobody was questioning real women's fashion choices.

 

9 minutes ago, Starfish35 said:

Probably displaying my ignorance here, but isn't Black Canary a lounge singer in the Bombshells series?  That would be an in-character reason for her to be dressed that way, similar to Donna being a cocktail waitress.

Well then they get a slight pass. But just slightly because again it's not appropriate to fight in, and accentuates her attributes in a glaring way that lounge singers in the era would not have worn and would have still been consider desirable an attractive.

[statsgirl]

11 minutes ago, Starfish35 said:

Probably displaying my ignorance here, but isn't Black Canary a lounge singer in the Bombshells series?  That would be an in-character reason for her to be dressed that way, similar to Donna being a cocktail waitress.

As far as I know, lounge singers are paid a salary. Cocktail waitresses, like other servers, as paid below minimum wage because it is assumed that they'll make it up in tips. The sexier you dress, the more you touch the man you're waiting on, the higher the tip.  There's research on this.

Many of us have a work uniform/outfit and casual clothes for when we're not working.  Donna wears her work clothes casually and the show pokes fun at how she dresses. That's the difference between the show and the comic books, that what's SOP in comic books is pointed out to be inappropriate on the TV show.

12 minutes ago, WindofChange said:

It's that somehow women who wear skimpy clothes (regardless of how sensible/logical it is) can't possibly be role models no matter what they achieve and I think that's a really crummy message to give to girls who sometimes like to express their sexuality in how they dress themselves.

Donna is a great role model for girls who want to be loving.  She's a terrible role model for girls who are looking for a model on how to be professional.

We're conflating at least two different things here.  One is whether one can dress in a sexy manner vs whether one is supposed to dress in a sexy manner. In comics, the women and girls who are considered role models are all over-sexualized (really, don't they get back pain with such large breasts?) and dress like there was a shortage of fabric in the country.  Where are the role models for girls who don't want to have to look like a sex goddess to do a good job? What about the girls who have normal bodies? Or bodies like the figure skaters -- they would feel that physically they're all wrong if they compared themselves to comic book women.

The other thing is whether it's appropriate to express your sexuality in the work place by dressing in a sexualized manner.  The answer is 'No', not unless you want to get dismissed as not being a serious employee. I've worked in TV, advertising, and hospital settings. In all of them, dressing like Donna would probably not even have got you hired in the first place.

I think it's a really crummy message to tell girls that it's when they're dressing sexy that they're work empowered because the exact opposite is true.

[Starfish35]

7 minutes ago, statsgirl said:

As far as I know, lounge singers are paid a salary. Cocktail waitresses, like other servers, as paid below minimum wage because it is assumed that they'll make it up in tips.

I was more thinking of a lounge singer in the '40s, not currently.

[statsgirl]

I don't know. But looking at here and here and here, it seems like the singers were hired by and paid by the band they sang with.