There is a lot of bad writing, and it tends to follow predictable patterns of sexism (mainly), homophobia (less often) and racism (also less often)....mainly because one of the hallmarks of bad writing is the dependence on stereotype and trope to tell a story.
And most of these stereotypes and tropes tend to be sexist/racist/homophobic/etc in nature, or at least have become just sore points for many demographics.
Like, my favorite, is the "Mario" plot- A man has to save a woman from a Bad Thing. In its initial story? Maybe not so bad.
Enshrined in stereotype and depicted over and over again? Now we might have a problem.
But that's ... what people are expecting. That's what people want.
Well yeah. People as a whole are sexist.
0
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
Jeep, I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that we draw everyone in baggy clothes. Please don't strawman.
And to your second point- if, for example, the writers behind Lollipop Chainsaw's dialogue researched anything beyond "Tits and Ass" then I will eat my hat.
(I hope they didn't, I don't have a hat)
As I said, bad writing is bad writing.
Using the prevalence of bad writing to try to gauge the difficulty of writing something decent is hardly an exact science.
The argument tends to be "Hey, it is bad writing/drawing/storytelling when it is sexist/racist/homophobic, so can we get some better writing/art design/plots"
Do you agree or disagree that this is what is being presented
Because this is basically my argument.
There is a lot of bad writing, and it tends to follow predictable patterns of sexism (mainly), homophobia (less often) and racism (also less often)....mainly because one of the hallmarks of bad writing is the dependence on stereotype and trope to tell a story.
And most of these stereotypes and tropes tend to be sexist/racist/homophobic/etc in nature, or at least have become just sore points for many demographics.
Like, my favorite, is the "Mario" plot- A man has to save a woman from a Bad Thing. In its initial story? Maybe not so bad.
Enshrined in stereotype and depicted over and over again? Now we might have a problem.
Jeep, I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that we draw everyone in baggy clothes. Please don't strawman.
And to your second point- if, for example, the writers behind Lollipop Chainsaw's dialogue researched anything beyond "Tits and Ass" then I will eat my hat.
(I hope they didn't, I don't have a hat)
As I said, bad writing is bad writing.
Using the prevalence of bad writing to try to gauge the difficulty of writing something decent is hardly an exact science.
The argument tends to be "Hey, it is bad writing/drawing/storytelling when it is sexist/racist/homophobic, so can we get some better writing/art design/plots"
Do you agree or disagree that this is what is being presented
Because this is basically my argument.
There is a lot of bad writing, and it tends to follow predictable patterns of sexism (mainly), homophobia (less often) and racism (also less often)....mainly because one of the hallmarks of bad writing is the dependence on stereotype and trope to tell a story.
And most of these stereotypes and tropes tend to be sexist/racist/homophobic/etc in nature, or at least have become just sore points for many demographics.
Like, my favorite, is the "Mario" plot- A man has to save a woman from a Bad Thing. In its initial story? Maybe not so bad.
Enshrined in stereotype and depicted over and over again? Now we might have a problem.
Well it's important to draw a line between stereotypes (which only bad writers rely on) and tropes (which all writers must utilize). How adroitly a writer utilizes tropes, whether it is straight-forward or subversion of a trope, goes to skill.
Everyone wants better writing. Not everyone agrees on what constitutes "better" and many people are satisfied with levels of quality that you and I would no doubt consider marginal or poor.
Since consumer media is market driven, there will always be products that cater to the most easily satisfied audiences.
Ok. I now understand that you care about puerile works that are only popular because the world is a whited sepulchre. That has been eluding me all this time because I don't care about the content of trash. They can all burn or flourish as far as I'm concerned as long as my treasured trophies remain intact.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
"Purge sexist tropes from your writing", to me, is like saying, "Use a spell checker on your writing."
So I don't get the censorship allegation. You can still misspell everything if you want. You'd just be kind of dumb to insist on doing so.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
I'm really not sure what this thread is about anymore. It doesn't seem to have a whole lot to do with objectification and sexualization in media though.
Star Wars and Star Trek are from the 60s and 70s. While they're certainly a part of 'geek' culture they don't seem all that relevant in terms of a discussion on modern media.
The Star Trek movie is a reboot of the franchise, which keeps hold of the same white male characters that were the heros before. The one female character has now become the girlfriend.
What would be the alternative? To change the story such that some other characters are the heroes, and not Kirk and Spock? Can you see any problems with doing it that way?
Or do you think they shouldn't be rebooting old franchises unless they feature lots of women and minority characters? So Sherlock Holmes, LoTR, Star Wars, Star Trek, Doctor Who, comic books movies...should all of that be off-limits?
I guess I don't see the point you're making. I said we should be talking about new franchises because new franchises show what kinds of things modern artists want to create when they have more freedom. Obviously when you're rebooting an old franchise you have a limited amount of freedom in terms of what you can do with the characters. What's the alternative to that?
Criticism of something like the Star Trek movie doesn't mean that it shouldn't have been made or that people shouldn't watch it or enjoy it. The point is to note that it contributes to the trend that in most media, the heroes are usually white dudes. On an individual level it might not be a problem, but it does contribute to the overall trend which most certainly is a problem.
Just because it's a reboot of a franchise that was made during a more sexist time doesn't mean it's immune from criticism.
At the time of this writing, 5 out of ten movies in the "top box office" section of rotten tomatoes have female protagonists. One of those is a fantasy movie (Snow White and the Huntsman) and one is a sci-fi movie (Prometheus.) This isn't an unusual state of affairs at all. Lots and lots of movies come out with female leads every month, it's incredibly common. So if you contend that there is a lack of female protagonists in modern movie-making, I'd have to ask you to support that claim.
And yes, it does seem odd to criticize a franchise for character choices that were made two generations ago. Society has evolved a great deal since then. It makes a great deal more sense to criticize trends in modern franchises.
Out of curiousity, I went and looked up the top 10 films.
Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted - a group of dudes and one female
Prometheus - two female characters, four male characters
Rock of Ages - girlfriend and boyfriend
That's My Boy - two guys
Snow White and the Huntsman - girlfriend and boyfriend
Men in Black III - a group of dudes and the girlfriend
Marvel's The Avengers - a group of dudes and one female
The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel - cast is equally men and women
Moonrise Kingdom - girlfriend and boyfriend
Battleship - a group of dudes and the girlfriend
So to clarify - your issue isn't a lack of female protagonists, but that so many of those female protagonists are involved in romances throughout the story? Or that there aren't enough movies about groups of women?
Would it affect your opinion at all if you discovered that most female movie-goers enjoy romance in films more than guys, and they they often want their female protagonists to be involved in romances during the movie?
At the time of this writing, 5 out of ten movies in the "top box office" section of rotten tomatoes have female protagonists. One of those is a fantasy movie (Snow White and the Huntsman) and one is a sci-fi movie (Prometheus.) This isn't an unusual state of affairs at all. Lots and lots of movies come out with female leads every month, it's incredibly common. So if you contend that there is a lack of female protagonists in modern movie-making, I'd have to ask you to support that claim.
And yes, it does seem odd to criticize a franchise for character choices that were made two generations ago. Society has evolved a great deal since then. It makes a great deal more sense to criticize trends in modern franchises.
Out of curiousity, I went and looked up the top 10 films.
Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted - a group of dudes and one female
Prometheus - two female characters, four male characters
Rock of Ages - girlfriend and boyfriend
That's My Boy - two guys
Snow White and the Huntsman - girlfriend and boyfriend
Men in Black III - a group of dudes and the girlfriend
Marvel's The Avengers - a group of dudes and one female
The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel - cast is equally men and women
Moonrise Kingdom - girlfriend and boyfriend
Battleship - a group of dudes and the girlfriend
Specifics matter. Prometheus's main protagonists are the two females, and the most plot centric man isn't an actual man. I cannot speak to the others though.
Ok. I now understand that you care about puerile works that are only popular because the world is a whited sepulchre. That has been eluding me all this time because I don't care about the content of trash. They can all burn or flourish as far as I'm concerned as long as my treasured trophies remain intact.
Wait, what? Which things are trophies and which trash? What argument are you making?
"Hey, do you want another 40 albums of the Black Eyed Peas?"
"No! God no. I wish they would break up."
"I'm going to be charitable and assume you're not suggesting all music be policed by a fascist censorship board under your control. You monster."
That is such a vivid interpretation of the exchange.
Have you considered a career in creative writing?
I'm going to be charitable and assume you're not suggesting that all creative writers are hacks.
Edit: And honestly, "Title IX for films" would be kind of neat. It would be cooler if it were genre-based somehow. Though they'd just cheat and use the same scripts and switch up casts.
I don't think anyone is remotely suggesting it, though.
Ah yes we are back to the "market research" argument again
This thread moves in predictable circles, unless Emnmnme was being jocular
Why can't people ever tell?
Anyways, yeah, it's been mentioned at least once before in this thread. Our electronic entertainment is like comfort food. A company like, say, Rockstar could either do what's right and make a step towards gender equality and risk alienating fans by casting a female lead for Grand Theft Auto V or they can rake in the moolah from their loyal customer base, giving them yet another male psychopath as an avatar who blows up police helicopters with RPGs.
All we can do is reward developers with sales when they don't use a completely embarrassing female character in their stories. Did you buy Mirror's Edge? Castlevania: Order of Ecclesia? Alice: Madness Returns? Tomb Raider: Legend? Beyond Good and Evil HD?
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
I'm really not sure what this thread is about anymore. It doesn't seem to have a whole lot to do with objectification and sexualization in media though.
Star Wars and Star Trek are from the 60s and 70s. While they're certainly a part of 'geek' culture they don't seem all that relevant in terms of a discussion on modern media.
The Star Trek movie is a reboot of the franchise, which keeps hold of the same white male characters that were the heros before. The one female character has now become the girlfriend.
What would be the alternative? To change the story such that some other characters are the heroes, and not Kirk and Spock? Can you see any problems with doing it that way?
Or do you think they shouldn't be rebooting old franchises unless they feature lots of women and minority characters? So Sherlock Holmes, LoTR, Star Wars, Star Trek, Doctor Who, comic books movies...should all of that be off-limits?
I guess I don't see the point you're making. I said we should be talking about new franchises because new franchises show what kinds of things modern artists want to create when they have more freedom. Obviously when you're rebooting an old franchise you have a limited amount of freedom in terms of what you can do with the characters. What's the alternative to that?
Criticism of something like the Star Trek movie doesn't mean that it shouldn't have been made or that people shouldn't watch it or enjoy it. The point is to note that it contributes to the trend that in most media, the heroes are usually white dudes. On an individual level it might not be a problem, but it does contribute to the overall trend which most certainly is a problem.
Just because it's a reboot of a franchise that was made during a more sexist time doesn't mean it's immune from criticism.
At the time of this writing, 5 out of ten movies in the "top box office" section of rotten tomatoes have female protagonists. One of those is a fantasy movie (Snow White and the Huntsman) and one is a sci-fi movie (Prometheus.) This isn't an unusual state of affairs at all. Lots and lots of movies come out with female leads every month, it's incredibly common. So if you contend that there is a lack of female protagonists in modern movie-making, I'd have to ask you to support that claim.
And yes, it does seem odd to criticize a franchise for character choices that were made two generations ago. Society has evolved a great deal since then. It makes a great deal more sense to criticize trends in modern franchises.
Out of curiousity, I went and looked up the top 10 films.
Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted - a group of dudes and one female
Prometheus - two female characters, four male characters
Rock of Ages - girlfriend and boyfriend
That's My Boy - two guys
Snow White and the Huntsman - girlfriend and boyfriend
Men in Black III - a group of dudes and the girlfriend
Marvel's The Avengers - a group of dudes and one female
The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel - cast is equally men and women
Moonrise Kingdom - girlfriend and boyfriend
Battleship - a group of dudes and the girlfriend
So to clarify - your issue isn't a lack of female protagonists, but that so many of those female protagonists are involved in romances throughout the story? Or that there aren't enough movies about groups of women?
In most of the films where there is a female protagonist, the marketing at least makes it appear as if there is a male character who is equally important.
In most of the films where there is a male protagonist, there may be no female character at all. If there is one, she tends to be a sidekick.
Prometheus would be a notable exception.
Also it is unclear as to whether that Marigold Hotel movie actually has a female protagonist, or if it has several protagonists, at least one male and one female. Which makes it kind of interesting that it's immediately assumed that it's a female film; if there is an equal gender split, then it's a concession to feminisim, instead of just a reflection of the world as it is.
Would it affect your opinion at all if you discovered that most female movie-goers enjoy romance in films more than guys, and they they often want their female protagonists to be involved in romances during the movie?
I like romance. I don't see how this affects what we are talking about.
Some films that have romance in them:
Die Hard
Indiana Jones
Inception
Brick
Twelve Monkies
All human beings get involved in relationships from time to time. It's kinda universal. Acting like romance is only for sissies and cootie carriers is weird.
Cambiata on
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
"Hey, do you want another 40 albums of the Black Eyed Peas?"
"No! God no. I wish they would break up."
"I'm going to be charitable and assume you're not suggesting all music be policed by a fascist censorship board under your control. You monster."
That is such a vivid interpretation of the exchange.
Have you considered a career in creative writing?
I'm going to be charitable and assume you're not suggesting that all creative writers are hacks.
Edit: And honestly, "Title IX for films" would be kind of neat. It would be cooler if it were genre-based somehow. Though they'd just cheat and use the same scripts and switch up casts.
I don't think anyone is remotely suggesting it, though.
No one is suggesting it, but I think people's reactions to it is illuminating.
You think it would be kind of neat, whereas I have a strong aversion to the thought; visions of the 1st amendment being put through a blender running through my mind.
"Hey, do you want another 40 albums of the Black Eyed Peas?"
"No! God no. I wish they would break up."
"I'm going to be charitable and assume you're not suggesting all music be policed by a fascist censorship board under your control. You monster."
That is such a vivid interpretation of the exchange.
Have you considered a career in creative writing?
I'm going to be charitable and assume you're not suggesting that all creative writers are hacks.
Edit: And honestly, "Title IX for films" would be kind of neat. It would be cooler if it were genre-based somehow. Though they'd just cheat and use the same scripts and switch up casts.
I don't think anyone is remotely suggesting it, though.
No one is suggesting it, but I think people's reactions to it is illuminating.
You think it would be kind of neat, whereas I have a strong aversion to the thought; visions of the 1st amendment being put through a blender running through my mind.
Eh, it'd be another unfortunate constraint, but constraints produce interesting art on occasion.
I mean, it would be a horrendous trampling of free speech rights, but obviously. I don't see the need to wail and gnash my teeth at the very thought to prove I'm not a monster.
I also think it would be neat to see the sort of art produced in a country ruled by a madman who demands that all productions feature apes as primary cast members. The sort of things produced by people trying very hard with a capricious hand determining the initial start conditions are frequently interesting.
Does anyone know of any team-style media (Avengers, Power Rangers, Recess kids, etc) that have a team that's majority female but includes males as a significant part of the group?
I can think of only a few, and they're mostly all-girl teams with male animal/other-species sidekicks, or magical girl shows where the guy shows up to save the girls most of the time.
Does anyone know of any team-style media (Avengers, Power Rangers, Recess kids, etc) that are majority female but include males as a significant part of the group?
I can think of only a few, and they're mostly all-girl teams with male animal/other-species sidekicks, or magical girl shows where the guy shows up to save the girls most of the time.
Ok. I now understand that you care about puerile works that are only popular because the world is a whited sepulchre. That has been eluding me all this time because I don't care about the content of trash. They can all burn or flourish as far as I'm concerned as long as my treasured trophies remain intact.
Wait, what? Which things are trophies and which trash? What argument are you making?
I'm not arguing, I'm simply stating that I don't care about whether dumb, generally badly made movies are sexist or not. Movies that are incompetent also happen to be sexist as Arch said because that's lazy. If they have nothing to offer anybody except for the perpetuation of stereotypes then I totally do not care if they bomb or earn millions or something horrible happens to everyone involved, though if they get more laud and recognition than generally good movies I may cut my wrists just to be safe.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Does anyone know of any team-style media (Avengers, Power Rangers, Recess kids, etc) that are majority female but include males as a significant part of the group?
I can think of only a few, and they're mostly all-girl teams with male animal/other-species sidekicks, or magical girl shows where the guy shows up to save the girls most of the time.
Does anyone know of any team-style media (Avengers, Power Rangers, Recess kids, etc) that have a team that's majority female but includes males as a significant part of the group?
I can think of only a few, and they're mostly all-girl teams with male animal/other-species sidekicks, or magical girl shows where the guy shows up to save the girls most of the time.
The Birds of Prey comic book. Batgirl, the Huntress, and Black Canary teamed up for adventures for several years.
Jeep, I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that we draw everyone in baggy clothes. Please don't strawman.
And to your second point- if, for example, the writers behind Lollipop Chainsaw's dialogue researched anything beyond "Tits and Ass" then I will eat my hat.
(I hope they didn't, I don't have a hat)
I think I can argue that Suda at least knows a thing or two about it based on his previous works, but since most hats are made of petroleum derivative components you probably shouldn't think of eating them for any reason
Did he research anything beyond T&A? I don't know if I would agree with that, as the shit the zombies shout at you is pretty much textbook sexism, and that can be sussed out in like two seconds of googling.
So either they didn't research that these things were really offensive slurs that could alienate consumers, or they didn't care.
Yes, it couldn't possibly be that Suda wanted to reinforce the dystopia by making every character morally deficient.
I'm really not sure what this thread is about anymore. It doesn't seem to have a whole lot to do with objectification and sexualization in media though.
Star Wars and Star Trek are from the 60s and 70s. While they're certainly a part of 'geek' culture they don't seem all that relevant in terms of a discussion on modern media.
The Star Trek movie is a reboot of the franchise, which keeps hold of the same white male characters that were the heros before. The one female character has now become the girlfriend.
What would be the alternative? To change the story such that some other characters are the heroes, and not Kirk and Spock? Can you see any problems with doing it that way?
Or do you think they shouldn't be rebooting old franchises unless they feature lots of women and minority characters? So Sherlock Holmes, LoTR, Star Wars, Star Trek, Doctor Who, comic books movies...should all of that be off-limits?
I guess I don't see the point you're making. I said we should be talking about new franchises because new franchises show what kinds of things modern artists want to create when they have more freedom. Obviously when you're rebooting an old franchise you have a limited amount of freedom in terms of what you can do with the characters. What's the alternative to that?
Criticism of something like the Star Trek movie doesn't mean that it shouldn't have been made or that people shouldn't watch it or enjoy it. The point is to note that it contributes to the trend that in most media, the heroes are usually white dudes. On an individual level it might not be a problem, but it does contribute to the overall trend which most certainly is a problem.
Just because it's a reboot of a franchise that was made during a more sexist time doesn't mean it's immune from criticism.
At the time of this writing, 5 out of ten movies in the "top box office" section of rotten tomatoes have female protagonists. One of those is a fantasy movie (Snow White and the Huntsman) and one is a sci-fi movie (Prometheus.) This isn't an unusual state of affairs at all. Lots and lots of movies come out with female leads every month, it's incredibly common. So if you contend that there is a lack of female protagonists in modern movie-making, I'd have to ask you to support that claim.
And yes, it does seem odd to criticize a franchise for character choices that were made two generations ago. Society has evolved a great deal since then. It makes a great deal more sense to criticize trends in modern franchises.
Out of curiousity, I went and looked up the top 10 films.
Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted - a group of dudes and one female
Prometheus - two female characters, four male characters
Rock of Ages - girlfriend and boyfriend
That's My Boy - two guys
Snow White and the Huntsman - girlfriend and boyfriend
Men in Black III - a group of dudes and the girlfriend
Marvel's The Avengers - a group of dudes and one female
The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel - cast is equally men and women
Moonrise Kingdom - girlfriend and boyfriend
Battleship - a group of dudes and the girlfriend
So to clarify - your issue isn't a lack of female protagonists, but that so many of those female protagonists are involved in romances throughout the story? Or that there aren't enough movies about groups of women?
In most of the films where there is a female protagonist, the marketing at least makes it appear as if there is a male character who is equally important.
In most of the films where there is a male protagonist, there may be no female character at all. If there is one, she tends to be a sidekick.
Prometheus would be a notable exception.
Also it is unclear as to whether that Marigold Hotel movie actually has a female protagonist, or if it has several protagonists, at least one male and one female. Which makes it kind of interesting that it's immediately assumed that it's a female film; if there is an equal gender split, then it's a concession to feminisim, instead of just a reflection of the world as it is.
Would it affect your opinion at all if you discovered that most female movie-goers enjoy romance in films more than guys, and they they often want their female protagonists to be involved in romances during the movie?
I like romance. I don't see how this affects what we are talking about.
Some films that have romance in them:
Die Hard
Indiana Jones
Inception
Brick
Twelve Monkies
All human beings get involved in relationships from time to time. It's kinda universal. Acting like romance is only for sissies and cootie carriers is weird.
There's a bit of a difference there, which is somewhat explained by this Groucho quote:
[Thalberg] said the trouble with Duck Soup is you've got funny gags in it, but there's no story and there's nothing to root for. You can't root for the Marx Brothers because they're a bunch of zany kooks. [Thalberg] says, "You gotta put a love story in your movie so there'll be something to root for, and you have to help the lovers get together."
In those films, the romance is there to give the plot some structure and demarcate the protagonists, but none of them are about romance. In the west, women have been trained to prioritize finding a mate as the highest pursuit, so they tend to peruse media that puts romance first, thereby ensuring that the types of films most likely to star women (films aimed at women) are all about men (and the search thereof).
Ok. I now understand that you care about puerile works that are only popular because the world is a whited sepulchre. That has been eluding me all this time because I don't care about the content of trash. They can all burn or flourish as far as I'm concerned as long as my treasured trophies remain intact.
Wait, what? Which things are trophies and which trash? What argument are you making?
I'm not arguing, I'm simply stating that I don't care about whether dumb, generally badly made movies are sexist or not. Movies that are incompetent also happen to be sexist as Arch said because that's lazy. If they have nothing to offer anybody except for the perpetuation of stereotypes then I totally do not care if they bomb or earn millions or something horrible happens to everyone involved, though if they get more laud and recognition than generally good movies I may cut my wrists just to be safe.
Plenty of legitimate works of art are sexist, though. Like, most of human literature.
If something is sexist, you're not obligated to hate it.
Frankly, putting female superhero characters all in jumpsuits would be a huge step up for a large number of said characters at this point in time. Even better if those jumpsuits weren't unzipped past the cleavage. A jumpsuit makes practical sense for a superhero. It's a costume you can justify, even if relative amounts of skintightness can be debated. Boob tissues and the barest of monokinis makes no sense for a superhero and are not practically justifiable in any way.
Does anyone know of any team-style media (Avengers, Power Rangers, Recess kids, etc) that have a team that's majority female but includes males as a significant part of the group?
I can think of only a few, and they're mostly all-girl teams with male animal/other-species sidekicks, or magical girl shows where the guy shows up to save the girls most of the time.
This kind of thing shows up a fair amount on TV (lots of TV shows have an ensemble cast featuring either an even gender ratio or more women than men - even action shows like Buffy.) Why aren't there more team-oriented movies with teams consisting primarily of women? You see it in TV shows like Buffy with an ensemble cast, but you don't see it in movies at all. Why? Obviously we know how to write those sorts of team-ups or we wouldn't see them on TV either.
See, this is the kind of thing I find it easier to get behind than castigating media for having too female characters with the wrong amount of skin showing. It's something we obviously know how to write and are willing to watch (TV does it), so why don't we see more female team-ups in movies?
I feel like a lot of it comes down to the fact that team-based movies aren't done very often, and when they are done they tend to be franchise-based. This is probably because team-based movies are hard to do right unless the audience is already familiar with the characters, as it takes a skillful film-maker to introduce several central characters while still leaving time for the plot. Since so many of the franchises people are nostalgic for are older, it makes sense that the gender ratio would be worse. That's the only good reason I can think of, but there may be others.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
@durandal4532, that's fair, though I think you'd run into similar problems training artists to not draw the female cast with huge boobs. Baggy clothing wouldn't have to be really detailed, just not as titillating. Then again, I can't draw worth a shit. Who knows.
I draw.
Drawing nudes is easier because it's the most basic forms of the human body and there's no accounting for textures and the shapes that draped material make.
Narratively, it makes no sense, since wearing skin-tight clothing is a terrible choice for combat and flexibility. It's a trope that doesn't carry over when live-action seeks to foist hero fantasies on the public; guys like Indiana Jones wear regular clothes.
Don't forget that skintight clothing is the choice for the kinds of people we see performing near-superhuman feats: athletes.
True, but that's typically limited to scenarios when they're trying to limit wind resistance to increase speed. So that automatically disqualifies footballers and basketballers, and also any hero with a cape. And, really, any superhero that doesn't have a speed-based skill set. Oh, and anyone whose job and scenario precludes them from such things, like the Green Lanterns. The Lanterns should be able to be a bunch of comfy guys in green sweatpants and hoodies.
Frankly, putting female superhero characters all in jumpsuits would be a huge step up for a large number of said characters at this point in time. Even better if those jumpsuits weren't unzipped past the cleavage. A jumpsuit makes practical sense for a superhero. It's a costume you can justify, even if relative amounts of skintightness can be debated. Boob tissues and the barest of monokinis makes no sense for a superhero and are not practically justifiable in any way.
I'm fairly sure I've said this before, but when you're criticizing super hero comics for being unrealistic or impractical.... It is--how is it said?--all too easy.
@durandal4532, that's fair, though I think you'd run into similar problems training artists to not draw the female cast with huge boobs. Baggy clothing wouldn't have to be really detailed, just not as titillating. Then again, I can't draw worth a shit. Who knows.
I draw.
Drawing nudes is easier because it's the most basic forms of the human body and there's no accounting for textures and the shapes that draped material make.
Narratively, it makes no sense, since wearing skin-tight clothing is a terrible choice for combat and flexibility. It's a trope that doesn't carry over when live-action seeks to foist hero fantasies on the public; guys like Indiana Jones wear regular clothes.
Don't forget that skintight clothing is the choice for the kinds of people we see performing near-superhuman feats: athletes.
True, but that's typically limited to scenarios when they're trying to limit wind resistance to increase speed. So that automatically disqualifies footballers and basketballers, and also any hero with a cape. And, really, any superhero that doesn't have a speed-based skill set. Oh, and anyone whose job and scenario precludes them from such things, like the Green Lanterns. The Lanterns should be able to be a bunch of comfy guys in green sweatpants and hoodies.
The Lantern Corps has a non-sexist uniform, I don't understand. Are we angry about sexism and inequality, or are we just hating on spandex?
Ok. I now understand that you care about puerile works that are only popular because the world is a whited sepulchre. That has been eluding me all this time because I don't care about the content of trash. They can all burn or flourish as far as I'm concerned as long as my treasured trophies remain intact.
Wait, what? Which things are trophies and which trash? What argument are you making?
I'm not arguing, I'm simply stating that I don't care about whether dumb, generally badly made movies are sexist or not. Movies that are incompetent also happen to be sexist as Arch said because that's lazy. If they have nothing to offer anybody except for the perpetuation of stereotypes then I totally do not care if they bomb or earn millions or something horrible happens to everyone involved, though if they get more laud and recognition than generally good movies I may cut my wrists just to be safe.
Plenty of legitimate works of art are sexist, though. Like, most of human literature.
If something is sexist, you're not obligated to hate it.
You're not obligated to like it if it isn't as well. I don't hate or like the presence or absence of sexism in amateur media.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
@durandal4532, that's fair, though I think you'd run into similar problems training artists to not draw the female cast with huge boobs. Baggy clothing wouldn't have to be really detailed, just not as titillating. Then again, I can't draw worth a shit. Who knows.
I draw.
Drawing nudes is easier because it's the most basic forms of the human body and there's no accounting for textures and the shapes that draped material make.
Narratively, it makes no sense, since wearing skin-tight clothing is a terrible choice for combat and flexibility. It's a trope that doesn't carry over when live-action seeks to foist hero fantasies on the public; guys like Indiana Jones wear regular clothes.
Don't forget that skintight clothing is the choice for the kinds of people we see performing near-superhuman feats: athletes.
True, but that's typically limited to scenarios when they're trying to limit wind resistance to increase speed. So that automatically disqualifies footballers and basketballers, and also any hero with a cape. And, really, any superhero that doesn't have a speed-based skill set. Oh, and anyone whose job and scenario precludes them from such things, like the Green Lanterns. The Lanterns should be able to be a bunch of comfy guys in green sweatpants and hoodies.
The Lantern Corps has a non-sexist uniform, I don't understand. Are we angry about sexism and inequality, or are we just hating on spandex?
I tend to think that heroes would favour the types of lightweight longjohns used by nordic skiers. The material is light, removes sweat without overheating the wearer, is good for a variety of temperatures, doesn't rub against itself (no friction or chafing), and doesn't hinder any movement. They are generally a blend of polyester, lycra, spandex, and the occasional cotton or wool knit.
Actually, googling around at some GL Corps drawings I see that there are indeed some female lanterns who are dressed in alternate slutty uniforms. As well as some who aren't, they just have uniforms that are similar to the mens but cut in a more feminine style.
Flying around in space in a miniskirt is actually really stupid. That could go, and I doubt anyone would be hurt.
Actually, googling around at some GL Corps drawings I see that there are indeed some female lanterns who are dressed in alternate slutty uniforms. As well as some who aren't, they just have uniforms that are similar to the mens but cut in a more feminine style.
Flying around in space in a miniskirt is actually really stupid. That could go, and I doubt anyone would be hurt.
It's a weird uniform, it's basically "uniform" but also anyone can vary it in any manner they want.
So, yeah. Many of the ladies end up in short skirts regardless. But many don't, too. It's a decent uniform.
Now the Star Sapphires...
Guess which Corps doesn't have any men in it?
I mean, the whole super-hero uniforms discussion is pretty silly, but the point stands that while it evolved from a reasonably pragmatic place (idealized nudes are easy to draw, the colorist can just color them in!) it is less about the uniforms per se than about the issue of basically every single one of the women in comics but for a couple of examples I can think of being drawn almost entirely as "sexy" rather than as characters.
Star Sapphire is not out of the ordinary in a comic, and yet in a cop show the female cops having thongs and pasties would be considered a tad odd. It's part of what continues to enshrine comics, and particularly superhero books, as something for the young male compulsive masturbator rather than as a legitimate option for a variety of tastes. Which sucks, because plenty of great stuff is produced in the genre.
As someone mentioned, a step up would be, say, just having uniforms that are the approximate equivalent of male uniforms. Pants, even!
Cloud 9 has the honor of being two types of good examples:
From her first appearance. Sensible! It's cold up there. From an appearance about a year later: sexy! Well, it's zipped at least, it's not really the worst. Pose is kind of ridiculous though
The next step could be having body-types within a reasonable range for human beings engaged in physical activity.
And I mean, comics as a whole are a pretty tiny slice of media. Making female comic characters less sexually objectified isn't going to cure cancer. But it's a small part of a larger media that defends any tiny encroaching of slightly less shitty female characterization as censorship/whining/silly/annoying/dumb.
It is not that hard to give Star Sapphire pants. It is not that hard to draw a muscle-bound She-Hulk. It is pretty unlikely that doing so will have any marked negative consequences and moderately likely that it will have positive consequences.
Edit: And it's a good example of how the line that everyone in media is "just doing what sells" breaks down.
There is a lot of bad writing, and it tends to follow predictable patterns of sexism (mainly), homophobia (less often) and racism (also less often)....mainly because one of the hallmarks of bad writing is the dependence on stereotype and trope to tell a story.
And most of these stereotypes and tropes tend to be sexist/racist/homophobic/etc in nature, or at least have become just sore points for many demographics.
Like, my favorite, is the "Mario" plot- A man has to save a woman from a Bad Thing. In its initial story? Maybe not so bad.
Enshrined in stereotype and depicted over and over again? Now we might have a problem.
But that's ... what people are expecting. That's what people want.
Well yeah. People as a whole are sexist.
I never got how catering to a market was an excuse for socially detrimental stuff.
That's EXACTLY the point. The conversation is revolving around fictional women in fictional shows. Period. When your counter examples are reality/documentary shows you're counterpoint isn't even in the same state, let alone ballpark.
I'm sorry something has to be fictional now to be entertaining?
Fictional women shooting ray guns are entertaining to watch.
Fictional women making cold cream aren't.
You said "Nuh-uh."
You already knew that this was the conversation, though.
WOAH, wait, really? That's the discussion? That's an insane conversation, though.
This is the paragraph:
Images with dichotomous messages like this concern me because I remember my own childhood of despising femininity and seeing it as the weaker, confining, less desirable option, wanting instead to enter the world of masculinity, of fun, and freedom; a form of internalized misogyny and femmephobia I am still recovering from, even now as a proud femme geek who loves expressing myself through traditionally “feminine” interests like crafting, fashion, jewellery, and making my own beauty products. The best part about enjoying those interests is that I am definitely not alone in them. Geek culture is full of people, women, men and gender rebels alike, who are great crafters, seamstresses, bakers, knitters, costume-makers, and creators. I wonder how many of them had a childhood filled with Barbie dolls for whom they designed outfits and hairstyles, and were still capable of having a jolly good time playing with ray-guns as well, rather than thinking of it in a purely either-or context?
Look at that shit one more time.
The author is discussing the uncomfortable feeling that being a dedicated tomboy is accepted by geek culture, but being a reasonably "girly" person is seen as dumber or more "mainstream" and therefore not as worthy.
She's not saying Aeryn Sung should be making jewelry, she's just... that was an example of the things she currently enjoys doing that are feminine. I don't know how that was misread so badly. I ctrl-f'd "jewelry" just to make sure there wasn't some completely different reference.
The idea is that it isn't necessarily a positive that "geek culture" is so obsessed with the tomboy, but thank goodness it appears that things are getting better and more people who grew up with barbie dolls are feeling comfortable as participants in that culture.
I think you need to take it one step further. most the time femininity is acceptable in geek culture is when it exudes sex all over the place for the benefit of a male audience.
By your standards would you say that the only time femininity is acceptable in any culture is when it exudes sex etc etc? Excluding those cultures dominated by women. I think what we need is some kind of idea what you and 'your side' would say is OK.
It's pretty clear where I think 'OK' is. I think that things transition from being bad to being good based entirely on the quality of the writing and creativity contained in them. That it is impossible to look at a piece of of context and say 'that is sexist', since context is what makes something sexist.
Pepper Potts in The Avengers is OK.
But she's not a society, that's an example of a single piece of fiction. I'm talking about something like "The way that the Indy 500 community treats women is OK and isn't related to exuding sexuality in a negative way"
What model would you like society to be built upon. Lets say we're about to throw aside the 'misogynistic ways of the today', where shall we look for inspiration as to how we shall build a new society? Clearly you don't think we should look at geeks, who is the right choice?
My wife? I honestly don't know if there is a perfect choice but I certainly don't think geeks and geek culture are the best voice.
What I'm trying to get at here is that I feel both sides (the 'women are being objectified in the media, they're being used as sex objects all the time and this is bad!' and the 'It's not so bad, really it's to do with quality of media and not sexism' sides) feel that Kim Kardashian is 'bad'. One side because she does nothing but show skin all day and try to fulfill male fantasies, and the other side because she does that without any good reason or interest. She is fundamentally bad to one side, and functionally bad to another. Clearly there is a whole other group who thinks she is awesome, but they don't seem to be here.
I just don't know what the 'objectification' side thinks is good. What should society be? When does objectification and sexualization end and storytelling begin? What level is OK?
I can't understand the question.
Like, how many nails do I want in my oatmeal? Obviously we need at least some nails.
I think maybe you're drawing a strange divide here that does not exist. I would like more stories that are good, and better female characters. These things aren't in opposition.
I'm struggling to figure out what media you're proposing that are just the best stories that would be ruined if women weren't sex objects. Would the Amanda Conner run of Power Girl be less fun if she didn't have the boob window?
Yes, it absolutely would be, because many aspects of the Amanda Connor run dealt with Power Girl dealing with the frustrations she felt at the fact she was being viewed as a sex object by people despite the fact that she was just as competent and powerful as Superman. She wanted to dress like that. It was her costume and she didn't want to change, but there were numerous parts of the plot which used the fact that her physique made her disguise TERRIBLE or that she would be saving someone and get frustrated that the guys buddies would then snap a picture of her boobs.
Is Power Girl a nail? I say that done properly she is a fine addition to our oatmeal. Writers should write the characters they want, and if the women happen to be absurdly hot then thats the way things are. If those women are well written and interesting, and are more than just eye candy then hurrah. If all they are is eye candy then boo to you bad writers.
You cannot, and never will be able to, change what people find attractive and like to see/read/write about.
They never "happen" to be.
Power Girl is a fictional character. Amanda Conner wrote her really well because she was contracted to. She kept her in the costume because she was contracted to. The reason for female superheroes being wet dreams is not that they just keep on happening to document these amazing ladies and they keep happening to be hot, it's that editorial boards believe it will successfully capture a demographic. It's nice that Power Girl exists, and that one of my favorite runs of her exists, but it would be nice to not have every single heroic woman in the medium be designed around physical appeal to men.
It is possible to criticize aspects of a work, or the medium in which is was created, without demanding that it all be burnt down.
If all the writers and artists were as talented as Amanda Connor and her staff on that first run then it wouldnt matter how hot or not hot the girls were. The problem, as I've said many times, is that bad writers fall back on crutches to produce works of interest to people.
It is not that hard to give Star Sapphire pants. It is not that hard to draw a muscle-bound She-Hulk. It is pretty unlikely that doing so will have any marked negative consequences and moderately likely that it will have positive consequences.
This sort of thing is where people tend to feel threatened. "How hard is it to *blank*?" Do that enough and what you end up with is something entirely different. Not even something objectively better, just not what it was. Star Wars Return of the Jedi, for example, would not be a worse or better movie with Princess Leia in her typical gear instead of a Bikini: it would simply be a different movie. Kill Bill would still be a great film without the gore, but it would feel different.
There is a lot of bad writing, and it tends to follow predictable patterns of sexism (mainly), homophobia (less often) and racism (also less often)....mainly because one of the hallmarks of bad writing is the dependence on stereotype and trope to tell a story.
And most of these stereotypes and tropes tend to be sexist/racist/homophobic/etc in nature, or at least have become just sore points for many demographics.
Like, my favorite, is the "Mario" plot- A man has to save a woman from a Bad Thing. In its initial story? Maybe not so bad.
Enshrined in stereotype and depicted over and over again? Now we might have a problem.
But that's ... what people are expecting. That's what people want.
Well yeah. People as a whole are sexist.
I never got how catering to a market was an excuse for socially detrimental stuff.
I can only assume that's because you haven't had your livelihood riding on the success of your product.
Not to mention that as this thread demonstrates, it's actually impossible to make a piece of entertainment that "somebody" won't consider socially detrimental.
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
There is a lot of bad writing, and it tends to follow predictable patterns of sexism (mainly), homophobia (less often) and racism (also less often)....mainly because one of the hallmarks of bad writing is the dependence on stereotype and trope to tell a story.
And most of these stereotypes and tropes tend to be sexist/racist/homophobic/etc in nature, or at least have become just sore points for many demographics.
Like, my favorite, is the "Mario" plot- A man has to save a woman from a Bad Thing. In its initial story? Maybe not so bad.
Enshrined in stereotype and depicted over and over again? Now we might have a problem.
But that's ... what people are expecting. That's what people want.
Well yeah. People as a whole are sexist.
I never got how catering to a market was an excuse for socially detrimental stuff.
I can only assume that's because you haven't had your livelihood riding on the success of your product.
Not to mention that as this thread demonstrates, it's actually impossible to make a piece of entertainment that "somebody" won't consider socially detrimental.
That is the stupidest thing I've ever read.
If your livelihood depended on making and selling racist lawn jockeys, I'd tell you to go fuck yourself. If your livelihood depended on fulfilling the pleasure centers of manchildren then I'd tell you to go fuck yourself.
Posts
Well yeah. People as a whole are sexist.
Man, I feel sorry for her.
You make one awesome post and you have a million fans who want more from you
(That mosaic analogy was amazing)
Well it's important to draw a line between stereotypes (which only bad writers rely on) and tropes (which all writers must utilize). How adroitly a writer utilizes tropes, whether it is straight-forward or subversion of a trope, goes to skill.
Everyone wants better writing. Not everyone agrees on what constitutes "better" and many people are satisfied with levels of quality that you and I would no doubt consider marginal or poor.
Since consumer media is market driven, there will always be products that cater to the most easily satisfied audiences.
Do you believe in freedom of expression?
Don't answer that.
I'm going to assume you're wishing and not suggesting some sort of totalitarian censorship board.
Ok. I now understand that you care about puerile works that are only popular because the world is a whited sepulchre. That has been eluding me all this time because I don't care about the content of trash. They can all burn or flourish as far as I'm concerned as long as my treasured trophies remain intact.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
So I don't get the censorship allegation. You can still misspell everything if you want. You'd just be kind of dumb to insist on doing so.
That wasn't what Paladin said though.
So to clarify - your issue isn't a lack of female protagonists, but that so many of those female protagonists are involved in romances throughout the story? Or that there aren't enough movies about groups of women?
Would it affect your opinion at all if you discovered that most female movie-goers enjoy romance in films more than guys, and they they often want their female protagonists to be involved in romances during the movie?
Specifics matter. Prometheus's main protagonists are the two females, and the most plot centric man isn't an actual man. I cannot speak to the others though.
Mandatory Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants sequels 3 times a year.
Yeah, that would be the sane assumption.
"Hey, do you want another 40 albums of the Black Eyed Peas?"
"No! God no. I wish they would break up."
"I'm going to be charitable and assume you're not suggesting all music be policed by a fascist censorship board under your control. You monster."
Wait, what? Which things are trophies and which trash? What argument are you making?
That is such a vivid interpretation of the exchange.
Have you considered a career in creative writing?
I'm going to be charitable and assume you're not suggesting that all creative writers are hacks.
Edit: And honestly, "Title IX for films" would be kind of neat. It would be cooler if it were genre-based somehow. Though they'd just cheat and use the same scripts and switch up casts.
I don't think anyone is remotely suggesting it, though.
Why can't people ever tell?
Anyways, yeah, it's been mentioned at least once before in this thread. Our electronic entertainment is like comfort food. A company like, say, Rockstar could either do what's right and make a step towards gender equality and risk alienating fans by casting a female lead for Grand Theft Auto V or they can rake in the moolah from their loyal customer base, giving them yet another male psychopath as an avatar who blows up police helicopters with RPGs.
All we can do is reward developers with sales when they don't use a completely embarrassing female character in their stories. Did you buy Mirror's Edge? Castlevania: Order of Ecclesia? Alice: Madness Returns? Tomb Raider: Legend? Beyond Good and Evil HD?
In most of the films where there is a female protagonist, the marketing at least makes it appear as if there is a male character who is equally important.
In most of the films where there is a male protagonist, there may be no female character at all. If there is one, she tends to be a sidekick.
Prometheus would be a notable exception.
Also it is unclear as to whether that Marigold Hotel movie actually has a female protagonist, or if it has several protagonists, at least one male and one female. Which makes it kind of interesting that it's immediately assumed that it's a female film; if there is an equal gender split, then it's a concession to feminisim, instead of just a reflection of the world as it is.
I like romance. I don't see how this affects what we are talking about.
Some films that have romance in them:
Die Hard
Indiana Jones
Inception
Brick
Twelve Monkies
All human beings get involved in relationships from time to time. It's kinda universal. Acting like romance is only for sissies and cootie carriers is weird.
No one is suggesting it, but I think people's reactions to it is illuminating.
You think it would be kind of neat, whereas I have a strong aversion to the thought; visions of the 1st amendment being put through a blender running through my mind.
Eh, it'd be another unfortunate constraint, but constraints produce interesting art on occasion.
I mean, it would be a horrendous trampling of free speech rights, but obviously. I don't see the need to wail and gnash my teeth at the very thought to prove I'm not a monster.
I also think it would be neat to see the sort of art produced in a country ruled by a madman who demands that all productions feature apes as primary cast members. The sort of things produced by people trying very hard with a capricious hand determining the initial start conditions are frequently interesting.
I can think of only a few, and they're mostly all-girl teams with male animal/other-species sidekicks, or magical girl shows where the guy shows up to save the girls most of the time.
Runaways, at various points.
I'm not arguing, I'm simply stating that I don't care about whether dumb, generally badly made movies are sexist or not. Movies that are incompetent also happen to be sexist as Arch said because that's lazy. If they have nothing to offer anybody except for the perpetuation of stereotypes then I totally do not care if they bomb or earn millions or something horrible happens to everyone involved, though if they get more laud and recognition than generally good movies I may cut my wrists just to be safe.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Hm. I think Gen 13 is another?
The Birds of Prey comic book. Batgirl, the Huntress, and Black Canary teamed up for adventures for several years.
Yes, it couldn't possibly be that Suda wanted to reinforce the dystopia by making every character morally deficient.
There's a bit of a difference there, which is somewhat explained by this Groucho quote:
In those films, the romance is there to give the plot some structure and demarcate the protagonists, but none of them are about romance. In the west, women have been trained to prioritize finding a mate as the highest pursuit, so they tend to peruse media that puts romance first, thereby ensuring that the types of films most likely to star women (films aimed at women) are all about men (and the search thereof).
Plenty of legitimate works of art are sexist, though. Like, most of human literature.
If something is sexist, you're not obligated to hate it.
wish list
Steam wishlist
Etsy wishlist
This kind of thing shows up a fair amount on TV (lots of TV shows have an ensemble cast featuring either an even gender ratio or more women than men - even action shows like Buffy.) Why aren't there more team-oriented movies with teams consisting primarily of women? You see it in TV shows like Buffy with an ensemble cast, but you don't see it in movies at all. Why? Obviously we know how to write those sorts of team-ups or we wouldn't see them on TV either.
See, this is the kind of thing I find it easier to get behind than castigating media for having too female characters with the wrong amount of skin showing. It's something we obviously know how to write and are willing to watch (TV does it), so why don't we see more female team-ups in movies?
I feel like a lot of it comes down to the fact that team-based movies aren't done very often, and when they are done they tend to be franchise-based. This is probably because team-based movies are hard to do right unless the audience is already familiar with the characters, as it takes a skillful film-maker to introduce several central characters while still leaving time for the plot. Since so many of the franchises people are nostalgic for are older, it makes sense that the gender ratio would be worse. That's the only good reason I can think of, but there may be others.
True, but that's typically limited to scenarios when they're trying to limit wind resistance to increase speed. So that automatically disqualifies footballers and basketballers, and also any hero with a cape. And, really, any superhero that doesn't have a speed-based skill set. Oh, and anyone whose job and scenario precludes them from such things, like the Green Lanterns. The Lanterns should be able to be a bunch of comfy guys in green sweatpants and hoodies.
I'm fairly sure I've said this before, but when you're criticizing super hero comics for being unrealistic or impractical.... It is--how is it said?--all too easy.
The Lantern Corps has a non-sexist uniform, I don't understand. Are we angry about sexism and inequality, or are we just hating on spandex?
You're not obligated to like it if it isn't as well. I don't hate or like the presence or absence of sexism in amateur media.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I tend to think that heroes would favour the types of lightweight longjohns used by nordic skiers. The material is light, removes sweat without overheating the wearer, is good for a variety of temperatures, doesn't rub against itself (no friction or chafing), and doesn't hinder any movement. They are generally a blend of polyester, lycra, spandex, and the occasional cotton or wool knit.
Flying around in space in a miniskirt is actually really stupid. That could go, and I doubt anyone would be hurt.
So, yeah. Many of the ladies end up in short skirts regardless. But many don't, too. It's a decent uniform.
Now the Star Sapphires...
Guess which Corps doesn't have any men in it?
I mean, the whole super-hero uniforms discussion is pretty silly, but the point stands that while it evolved from a reasonably pragmatic place (idealized nudes are easy to draw, the colorist can just color them in!) it is less about the uniforms per se than about the issue of basically every single one of the women in comics but for a couple of examples I can think of being drawn almost entirely as "sexy" rather than as characters.
Star Sapphire is not out of the ordinary in a comic, and yet in a cop show the female cops having thongs and pasties would be considered a tad odd. It's part of what continues to enshrine comics, and particularly superhero books, as something for the young male compulsive masturbator rather than as a legitimate option for a variety of tastes. Which sucks, because plenty of great stuff is produced in the genre.
As someone mentioned, a step up would be, say, just having uniforms that are the approximate equivalent of male uniforms. Pants, even!
Cloud 9 has the honor of being two types of good examples:
The next step could be having body-types within a reasonable range for human beings engaged in physical activity.
And I mean, comics as a whole are a pretty tiny slice of media. Making female comic characters less sexually objectified isn't going to cure cancer. But it's a small part of a larger media that defends any tiny encroaching of slightly less shitty female characterization as censorship/whining/silly/annoying/dumb.
It is not that hard to give Star Sapphire pants. It is not that hard to draw a muscle-bound She-Hulk. It is pretty unlikely that doing so will have any marked negative consequences and moderately likely that it will have positive consequences.
Edit: And it's a good example of how the line that everyone in media is "just doing what sells" breaks down.
I never got how catering to a market was an excuse for socially detrimental stuff.
If all the writers and artists were as talented as Amanda Connor and her staff on that first run then it wouldnt matter how hot or not hot the girls were. The problem, as I've said many times, is that bad writers fall back on crutches to produce works of interest to people.
This sort of thing is where people tend to feel threatened. "How hard is it to *blank*?" Do that enough and what you end up with is something entirely different. Not even something objectively better, just not what it was. Star Wars Return of the Jedi, for example, would not be a worse or better movie with Princess Leia in her typical gear instead of a Bikini: it would simply be a different movie. Kill Bill would still be a great film without the gore, but it would feel different.
I can only assume that's because you haven't had your livelihood riding on the success of your product.
Not to mention that as this thread demonstrates, it's actually impossible to make a piece of entertainment that "somebody" won't consider socially detrimental.
That is the stupidest thing I've ever read.
If your livelihood depended on making and selling racist lawn jockeys, I'd tell you to go fuck yourself. If your livelihood depended on fulfilling the pleasure centers of manchildren then I'd tell you to go fuck yourself.