Amazing spidergirl cover art double standard

[HaroldBalls]

Hello everyone! this is my first post here:) glad to join you all!

 

**slight language warning**

 

this video talks about some extreme double standards when the feminist community saw a new cover for a spidergirl comic. the guy in the video does a great job in pointing out the hypocricy

[prolix]

This just in, "Feminists are not exactly consistent"...

[hannahbanana]

What a great first post.

[prolix]

 the guy in the video does a great job in pointing out the hypocricy

It is a pretty good channel. Thanks for posting this...

[Wuzzums]

Below are just a few examples of DC covers rank with objectification which do nothing but alienate the male readership:

[DaVinci]

A lot of women just don't like the idea of a man drawing "sexualized" images of a woman. I think they feel like they are being violated by proxy.

[Pepin]

This has me thinking that the sexualized version of a male is somewhat different than that of a female. Large muscles for instance is a trait which is primarily sexualized in context to men. Torso placement seems to have quite a role in it, which can be demonstrated by men who thrust their crotch into full view when approaching women. Wealth and status also seem to be very sexualized in context to men, as can be seen in: ads, most popular music, and television.

 

This may be something I have to do to more thinking, but at the moment, it seems to me that the sexualization in western media manifests itself in different manners. Trying to take the sexual characterizations of one gender and apply them to the other gender is likely to appear strange as muscles on a woman tends not to be seen as attractive.

 

I don't mean to say that "this or that ought to be sexual in regards to gender x", rather that "a large population finds x sexual in regard to this gender". Though sexual traits do not need be mutually exclusive, they may trend towards this to provide differentiation. Also, the population need not appeal sexually to the population, rather the population just needs to label a trait as sexually attractive. This is the difference between a man who believes that large muscles are attractive to women, vs a man who finds muscular men attractive. It is the difference between a woman who believes that makeup is attractive to men, vs a woman who finds women with makeup sexually appealing.

[Mr. Binary]

Wow, Maddox is still around? I used to read his website in ye olden days when the internet was still mostly based on flag signals and carrier pigeons.

[Psychophant]

This has me thinking that the sexualized version of a male is somewhat different than that of a female. Large muscles for instance is a trait which is primarily sexualized in context to men. Torso placement seems to have quite a role in it, which can be demonstrated by men who thrust their crotch into full view when approaching women.

 

Ach, feminists ain't hypocrits, they are just selective about the part of reality they accept.

[MysterionMuffles]

yes because the way men are drawn in comic books has nothing to do with lowering the self esteem of the pencil necked geeks who read them. I've seen this phenomenon. Very interesting. Where they redraw female like poses for male characters, but look at the way males are built in comic book heroes. C'mon!

[nathanm]

I know I want MY body to look like a pile of uncooked chicken breasts.  Unfortunately this means working out.  Instead I was hoping for something more supernatural, or perhaps an industrial accident of some kind.

[Soren]

I know I want MY body to look like a pile of uncooked chicken breasts.  Unfortunately this means working out.  Instead I was hoping for something more supernatural, or perhaps an industrial accident of some kind.

I love that "pile of uncooked chicken breasts" comment, feeling the burn.