The Four Color Media Monitor

Another propagandist at feminist website Book Riot's taking issue with superheroines being drawn attractively, even though in the past decade, it was certainly put to ruin by wokeness. The article, curiously enough, makes no actual mention of Wonder Woman, if it matters, since she's one of the earliest who could be called leggy:

Endless words have been written on the unrealistic, damaging body standards promoted by superhero comics, especially in relation to the sexualized shape, proportions, and posing of women’s bodies. But a few more can’t hurt, can they?

In December 2022, the journal Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences published an article called “She’s Got Legs: Longer Legs in Female Comic Book Characters Correspond to Global Preferences” by Rebecca L. Burch and David Widman. The key points are as follows:

1. In real life, women, by and large, do not have longer legs than men.

Ahem. Women who aren't that tall obviously don't usually have long legs in a literal sense. Women who're taller - say, 5'9, could have legs as long if not longer than most men, and for many years, Wonder Woman was depicted as a lady who's medium height (Golden Age rendition was 5'8 according to past Who's Who in the DCU profilings, and later renditions were depicted as 5'11). Even the Marvel universe has some notable ladies, both superheroines and civilian co-stars who're at least medium height, and the tallest would surely be She-Hulk and Sif, so there's some long legs for you, ma'am. What's your boring point anyway? Again, we have some hypocrite lecturing everybody about "unrealistic" storytelling in a science fiction world, insulting the legacies of famous artists and writers like Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, et al, and not willing to appreciate the wish fulfilment concept behind these ideas.

2. Men typically find women with longer-than-average legs more attractive, possibly because longer legs are correlated with better health and “reproductive capabilities.”

3. Since Marvel and DC superhero comics cater to the interests of men, their heroes are designed in ways that men prefer, meaning giant bulging muscles for men and long legs and hourglass figures for women.

I guess Stan Lee was inherently wrong to build up the MCU as a boys' leisurely pastime enterprise, huh? And what's this balderdash about "reproductive capabilities"? Some crude way of implying it's wrong for men to want to have sex, and women the same? Or, that it's wrong to give birth to children? That 2nd line sounds awfully forced. The columnist must also believe women by and large would rather be ugly ducklings with faces like the Wicked Witch of the West, and maybe even hook noses. Embarrassingly bad. No consideration for how New Teen Titans had quite a few women in its readership back in the day either.

4. The female characters with the longest legs tend to be heroes. The shorter a woman’s legs, the more likely it is that she is a villain and therefore depicted as “unattractive” on purpose.

Umm, I'm not sure you can say that when Lorelei the Enchantress appears in that article, and was often depicted as a villainess. Regardless, is there something wrong with depicting heroines with long legs? Or villainesses with short ones? Not sure what the point here is, but it's definitely very poor. Why should we want to fall in love with a villainess? I think Titania, the villainess who first appeared in the 3rd issue of Secret Wars, was considerably tall at well over 6 feet (and some of her costume designs were revealing), so I must conclude this shoddy rant is the work of somebody who deliberately refused to do any proper research.

5. Female characters, like women in real life, often wear heels to make their legs appear longer and, therefore, more attractive. In comics, this translates into not only wearing heels but also standing on tiptoe for absolutely no reason.

6. Both DC and Marvel were guilty of exaggerating female leg length to interest male readers, but in different ways: DC’s women wear heels more often than Marvel’s, while Marvel’s women, on average, had a longer leg length than DC’s.

Hmm, something fishy here. She must really hate high heels, and prefer sneakers instead. Or just plain dull shoes, is all. I'm not impressed with this very petty rant. And lest we forget, given the chance, the columnist will also accuse the Big 2 of exaggerating boob size for the sake of male readers, and no female readers of any kind. This is just plain stupid and trivial compared to far more crucial issues around the globe.

I know this sounds a lot like a “water is wet” study, where researchers put a lot of time and effort into proving something that is supposedly obvious to everyone, but these studies really are important. They give people a scientific basis from which to discuss the unrealistic, potentially harmful beauty standards perpetuated by superhero comics, and to identify areas where the industry still embraces gender stereotypes while demonizing realistic physical features that readers are more likely to have.

Exaggerating leg length is hardly the only example of how superhero comics continue to prioritize men and their preferences while kicking everyone else to the curb. As Jess Plummer has written, DC has stunningly few women working on their comics, while Marvel’s movies are still a boys’ club.

I guess she's lacking the courage to announce how disappointed she is with many women for staying away in droves from The Marvels, sequel to one of the sloppiest recent entries in the whole overblown live action Marvel film franchise. Again, why is it wrong to make entertainment for boys, especially when entertainment for women is always permitted too? All it takes is some talented writing development, and you could have some winners on hand. Alas, this is an era where merit no longer counts, and if the Marvel/DC movies cater more to LGBT ideology than they actually have so far, you can be sure there won't be any complaints coming from such a fool over how transsexuality is demeaning to women. She might also want to consider that, with the draconian editorial mandates at DC/Marvel, or the lack of creative freedom, selective or otherwise, why would most women want to work for them in the first place?

To be clear, Burch and Widman’s work does not speak at all about the in-house machinations that may lead to such depictions of women, nor do they talk about superhero films. But all of these issues — unrealistic portrayals of the human body, the lack of women working behind the scenes, and the lack of female protagonists in comics-based films — have the same cause: the deeply rooted conviction that male dollars are more important than female dollars, and that it is okay to do absolutely anything — including depict women in the same old, unhealthy ridiculous ways — to keep those male dollars flowing.

Another finding the study discusses is that women are depicted in a very uniform way. Even more than male characters, there is little variety: they all share an extremely similar body type. While this may make it easy for them to share clothes, it also makes any legs that fall outside the “norm” stand out all the more.

Ahem. Donna Troy's most significant costume designs, in example, are more like trousers, to differentiate in some ways from Wonder Woman's bustier. And there are various other ladies in superhero fare who've worn pants too, including Hawkgirl, and Invisible Woman of the Fantastic Four. Oh, and what's this about lacking female protagonists in comic movies? That's so hilarious, suggesting she hasn't seen many herself, or she'd notice Scarlett Johansson playing Black Widow in the Avengers film series. Or how about the 2 Wonder Woman films, which aren't aging well as it is? Predictably missing in the puff piece is discussion of merit, proving this is all a lot of unintentional comedy for pushing for a hag-like vision in comicdom and movies at all costs. The article even highlights a Superman story where Lois Lane's legs were made to look like a hairy/furry alien's, and implies that's the image they prefer for women in general. In other words, women shouldn't shave their legs, or even armpits is what it sounds like, which is severely insulting to women. Lest we forget, she also insults people's intelligence, acting like nobody can distinguish between fantasy and reality.

And of course, it's all coming at a time when the Big 2 have long plunged into the artistic/financial abyss. No doubt, when their doors close, it won't make an iota of difference to a SJW who clearly feels entitled to creations she never authored herself.

Labels: bad editors, dc comics, history, marvel comics, misogyny and racism, msm propaganda, women of dc, women of marvel