![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
There’s been talk about the DC New 52 reboot, much of it about Catwoman and Starfire putting blatant sexism back into comics at a time when part of the rationale behind DC 52 is to build up a new reader base, particularly among females.
I think a case can be made – and in fact, bloggers at Comics Alliance, Bleeding Cool and io9 have already done that to good effect, so I don't want to retread old ground. In essence: the problem isn't so much scantily clad heroes in control of their sexuality (which is fine) as the fact they’re still clearly aimed at the same fanboy demographic.
Or, as Andrew Wheeler sums up succinctly: “Like two straight girls making out in a bar, it’s all about pandering to male hormones. Catwoman is not trying to please the man in the comic, but she is trying to please the man holding the comic.”
Which would be fine, if it was intentional. If, however, the whole point was to build up a bigger female readership, then not so much – unless they thought their target female demo was straight women who make out in bars, maybe. Or the women who show up at Comic-Con dressed as Power Girl and Metal Bikini Leia. Or something.
I could go off on 20 different tangents here, any of which would turn this post into a 3,000 word epic. And no one here wants that.
But based on the above posts, it seems like DC blew a major opportunity to do something amazing to expand the appeal of comics past its traditional readership base.
( And this is the part where I talk yr ear off ... )
BONUS TRACK: For more on the problems of male writers coming up with good female characters in traditionally male-dominated genres, see this piece from John Scalzi about why Ellen Ripley is the best-written female character in sci-fi movies, and why no one else (apart from Sarah Conner in Terminator 2) has come even close.
Yr doing it wrong,
This is dF
I think a case can be made – and in fact, bloggers at Comics Alliance, Bleeding Cool and io9 have already done that to good effect, so I don't want to retread old ground. In essence: the problem isn't so much scantily clad heroes in control of their sexuality (which is fine) as the fact they’re still clearly aimed at the same fanboy demographic.
Or, as Andrew Wheeler sums up succinctly: “Like two straight girls making out in a bar, it’s all about pandering to male hormones. Catwoman is not trying to please the man in the comic, but she is trying to please the man holding the comic.”
Which would be fine, if it was intentional. If, however, the whole point was to build up a bigger female readership, then not so much – unless they thought their target female demo was straight women who make out in bars, maybe. Or the women who show up at Comic-Con dressed as Power Girl and Metal Bikini Leia. Or something.
I could go off on 20 different tangents here, any of which would turn this post into a 3,000 word epic. And no one here wants that.
But based on the above posts, it seems like DC blew a major opportunity to do something amazing to expand the appeal of comics past its traditional readership base.
( And this is the part where I talk yr ear off ... )
BONUS TRACK: For more on the problems of male writers coming up with good female characters in traditionally male-dominated genres, see this piece from John Scalzi about why Ellen Ripley is the best-written female character in sci-fi movies, and why no one else (apart from Sarah Conner in Terminator 2) has come even close.
Yr doing it wrong,
This is dF
