I think you’re right about women being objectified as sexual objects, and I think that there needs to be a change in the way that women are depicted and thought of in society. Nevertheless, I don’t think it’s true that women can’t escape being objectified as sexual objects. In fact, I think there are female characters who are powerful and who are attractive, but whose sexuality is not exploited the way it’s been exploited by other people. To prove that, I want to give you two examples; both of which come from the movie “Willow.” The first is Queen Bavmorda, the second (to a lesser extent) is Princess Sorsha. I think if you take a look at these two characters, you will see that women can be depicted without necessarily objectifying their sexuality.

The first character, Queen Bavmorda, is one that I think is a perfect example of a character that is attractive, and powerful, but whose sexuality is never exploited or objectified (and if I did this right, you should see an image of her below).

[img]http://www.lepconnie.com/willow/pictures/pics/vid208.jpg[/img]

Note that, in this image, Bavmorda has an expression very similar to the one that Power Girl has in the image shown above. However, unlike Power Girl, Bavmorda is in a pose that commands attention, shows that she has great power, and does so without drawing attention to her sexuality. I think this is an excellent example of how women could be depicted without resorting to poses that draw attention their physical attributes and I think it would be neat to see more women characters portrayed this way.

Princess Sorha is another character from this movie who is shown as powerful without necessarily objectifying her sexuality.

[img]http://www.lepconnie.com/willow/pictures/pics/vid238.jpg[/img]

Granted, her character isn’t always handled deftly (I’m referring to her relationship with Madmartigan, where she is often depicted as an object of lust). Nevertheless, I think there are some things that they did well with her character in this movie. The first is that she’s not wearing a chainmail bikini or thong, like the one worn by the githyanki character from Neverwinter Nights. Instead, she’s wearing a full suit of metal armor that is nearly identical to the armor worn by other male characters throughout the movie. There are also a number of scenes where she is depicted as fully capable of standing toe-to-toe with male characters of equal strength, and even where she is shown as being more powerful than they are. So while I don’t think you could say that her character’s sexuality isn’t objectified at all, I think you can say that her character’s depiction is better than most and is certainly a step in the right direction.

So in conclusion, while I do think you’re right about women being objectified, don’t think these two characters show that women can be depicted as powerful and attractive, without necessarily objectifying their sexuality. I think it’s important to remember these two characters too, because maybe they’ll prove to be inspirations to others who want to see depicted in a more realistic and politically correct manner.

She’s decked out in macho attributes – symbols of agency – but a little too much of the focus is on her butt.

“Wonder Woman’s breasts do not make her, nor do they make any woman; but they are representative of womanhood (exactly like how the penis represents manhood). What I meant to state earlier is that I believe that in Hughes’ depictions, he smartly uses Wonder Woman’s breasts not necessarily as means of titillation, but to denote her strength, both physically and of character.”

I’m not very familiar with Wonder Woman, but is her sex an important aspect of her character? So many images in fiction scream “this is a WOMAN” or “this is a MAN”, and speaking for myself, I’d prefer it if they’d say, “This is THAT CHARACTER and s/he is strong” instead. It wouldn’t encourage the “Mars/Venus” mythology.

That’s my pet peeve with Hughes covers. It’s all about the boobs with him.

I already agree with the argument you’re trying to make in the above post so you’re preaching to the pre-converted in my case but I don’t think the images you’ve chosen here provide sufficient evidence to support your case because only the last image seems, to me, to be suitably illustrative (although in each instance I can see what you describe) for two reasons:

1. Mainstream superhero comics art is SO exaggerated in its depiction of women’s physical sexual characteristics that the images you’ve chosen don’t seem remarkable to me. In fact, I’d say they’re not remarkable by the standards of western media in general and that some of the supposed examples depict those women as less than averagely sexualised. Which leads me on to my second point…

2. Most westerners in general are desensitised to sexualised depictions of women to the extent that they’ve ceased to register even obvious sexualisation, even when it’s overtly explained to them, unless they’re simultaneously presented with a similar non-sexualised picture so they can compare the two literally point by point.

I’ll use an example which involves an angry face rather than a pose because I don’t have to look for it. I’ve shown the last cover in this post ( http://spiralsheep.livejournal.com/84657.html ) to reasonable people and had them reject my claim that the angry expression on Dani’s face (last cover, face at lower left) has been sexualised for consumption by the beholder until I simultaneously show them another image of Dani’s face which doesn’t sexualise her anger (third cover, face central, for example).

I have two Wonder Woman covers with her in comparable, supposedly strong, poses where one shows her looking like an Olympic weightlifter and the other shows her as T&A-In-Peril but the second cover isn’t obviously sexualised unless the viewer knows what women weightlifters actually look like. I’ve never posted them anywhere to make that point but I could or I could email you copies if you might want to use them because I think they’d illustrate the point you’re trying to make as well as most sets of two comparable images. At the very least, you might find them interesting.

So, in that way, using the “breast = woman” symbolism sends the message to women with small breasts that they aren’t real women, as well as telling men who do have visible breasts that they aren’t real men.

It’s not the size that matters — I won’t argue otherwise — it’s the function. And in that, women are unquestionably unique from men.

“I also don’t think that PG’s breasts are “powerful” — some women have larger chests than others, it shouldn’t be a big deal.”

The thing about Power Girl, though, is that her design has always struck me, out of all the thousands and thousands of mainstream super heroes, as one of the best. And, quite honestly, her outfit wouldn’t be nearly as striking as it is if it weren’t for her noticeably large bustline.

I don’t consider “existing while large chested” as “drawing attention to one’s breasts”

Neither do I – but PG does a lot more than just “exist.” Rather, doesn’t PG’s costume draw attention to her breasts by design? She’s a buxom woman in a tight white outfit with a peek-a-boo window in her top: is there any way to draw her so as not to draw attention to her breasts? [You seem to have ignored that I said her "physique and costume" the first time.]

For that matter, isn’t that a part of Power Girl’s nature? She likes both attention and respect. She’s always struck me as the kind of brassy gal who wants people to notice her physique; she also wants them to notice she can punch them through brick walls.

[I'm also coming from the perpective that "drawing attention != blatantly sexualized," so we may have to agree to disagree...]