I don't see that one lasting very long. It will be hard to keep that one relevant for more than a few years. Well, since I'm here: from my local paper...
By the way, Gyno-Star is updating again. http://www.gynostar.com/archives/2187 http://www.gynostar.com/archives/2189
Point taken in general, but only the Hulk and Thor are posed any different from Black Widow in the first in the first image. This meme needed a better example. Young girls are taught from birth that sex is a Bad Thing, which is why we're not sexualizing each other in equal measures. Rear them like we rear our sons and the difference vanishes.
Nope. They're all posed differently from her. No man is ever placed in the pose Black Widow's in there. I've never seen it.
Huh? Cap (and especially the guy with the bow) is posed as she is. Forward knee is slightly bent, forward arm is straight, rear arm is bent. In fact, she looks like she's drawing a bow, except she has none. The only difference is that she's on the right and the guy with the bow is on the left, meaning her rear end is showing. If that's the difference the meme refers to, then yes, she should have been put on the left to alleviate any concerns. Please note that I never said it wasn't happening, and it probably happens a lot. But I'm just not seeing Vampirella/Druuna/Debbie Sass/various Saudelli footmodels in that image.
It's not about being on the right or the left. If she'd been on the left her butt would still be facing the camera. No male character is ever posed with his butt facing the camera, unless he's actually facing away. The idea here is that it doesn't have to be as bad as Vampirella. It's an omni-present practice so common we don't even notice it. There's no reason for her ass to be facing us in that picture. No dude would ever be posed that way.
Sorry. I meant move her in the frozen position to the left, not just flip her part of the image. The idea is that she'd be facing us just as the guy with the bow currently is. On Vampirella and the others... I don't think of them as "bad". I simply accept that they're intended to be provocative, and meant for an adult "reader" (lol). Comic books are not, and I agree that they're not an acceptable format for titillation, even if both genders' wants are covered.
I simply meant "bad" in the sense of "extreme." Comic books can be for adult readers; I have no problem with that. But (1) there's a difference between titillation and images which are objectifying/demeaning and (2) women heroes in mainstream superhero comics, who are supposedly powerful and strong, are too often depicted in poses that emphasize sexiness over strength (and that's sexiness defined in a narrow, male-gaze oriented sense).
There's a wonderful bit of meta-commentary about this in a Wonder Woman comic from a couple of years ago, where Diana visits the set of a Wonder Woman movie. Here is a review of that issue: http://nevermore999.livejournal.com/33296.html
Whoops. I posted the entirely wrong link there. Was trying to link to my latest comic, which happens to build upon Belgian Guy's post: http://www.gynostar.com/archives/2192
http://saladinahmed.tumblr.com/post/83713666686/1940s-comics-heroines-knocking-dudes-unconscious This kinda made me think of Gynostar, which probably says more about me than anything else...
i can only agree if by we you mean the "village" we. most people i know do raise boys and girls, if not absolutely identically, at least in a way that is non-sexist, even anti-sexist. but families aren't raised in a vacuum. though i'm sure my views on the issue in globo are not much different than yours, i'd say that the two genders are posed in precisely the same way in this picture, only the attributes that sexualize them aren't the same: biceps, pectorals and strained crotches are the XY T&A. it's true however that the drawings of the male characters are less... anatomically correct. whether that is because they are men (sexism) or because the missing attributes are primary (general prudishness howver relative) i can't say. what i will say however is that the most important difference is not how much men and women are sexualized but the level on which they are considered "sexy". when sex sells with a man in the picture the accent is on attitude, style, facial expression... something other than the purely superficial. whereas women sell with their plastique. the difference in approach might be due to the audience being targeted, and what might reinforce this theory is that when women are portrayed in that deeper, more psychological manner (chanel perfume ads for example) it's because they're trying to sell to women. the moral of the story? men are pigs.
The men are not sexualized in that picture. There's nothing equivalent to T&A there. There are plenty of movie posters, pinup posters and magazines devoted to sexualizing men for the benefit of people who are sexually attracted to men, and in those sources you won't find anything like what's in that poster.