Woman as Object, Woman as Subject: The Male Gaze and the DC Comics Relaunch
Shawn Daughhetee;)
DC Comics recently relaunched their entire line of comics in hopes of revitalizing their brand and attracting new readers. With The New 52 came a lot of controversy surrounding female creators and characters. The loudest public outcry has been over the perceived objectification of women in Red Hood and the Outlaws (by Scott Lobdell and Kenneth Rocafort) and Catwoman (by Judd Winick and Guillem March). Here, I intend to prove that the protests are justified and that the depictions of Starfire and Catwoman are indeed objectifying.
Historically speaking, the typical viewer of a work of art was a male, just like the typical comic reader is a male (heterosexual with disposable income). It wasn’t until fairly recently that the term “male gaze” was coined to give voice to these assumed eyes that were viewing works of art. It not only describes the perceived viewer but it also comments on how the work of art was, and still is, constructed in order to please this assumed male patron. A female is thus turned into an object when she is there solely to give pleasure to this male gaze. Conversely a female is treated as a subject when she is a fully-formed, three-dimensional character that is an active and vital participant in the story or image. In a single image a female can be turned into an object or treated as a subject. Women throughout art history have been objects meant to be looked at. Just like the Barbara Kruger piece on the right states: “Your gaze hits the side of my face.”
Art has a long history of images that cater to the male gaze. One of the best examples of this is Titian’s Venus of Urbino. It is little more than 16th century porn. Everything about her panders to the male gaze from her inviting smile to her soft features. Her anatomy is exaggerated to better please the viewer. Follow her arm as it lays across her belly. There isn’t bone underneath that flesh. An arm can’t bend like that. Follow her arm down to her hand. Is she covering herself up? Or, is she getting things started? She is like the Classical Greek sculptures of Venus who are surprised that you caught them, but aren’t upset in the slightest. They have inviting smiles and cover up to draw attention to the fact that they are nude.
Here is a classic example of woman as subject. Edouard Manet’s Olympia is directly commenting on the Venus of Urbino and subverting it. She is a confident and defiant female. She is not a passive object but an aggressive subject. She is angular and rigid not soft and round. The position of Venus of Urbino’s hand over her crotch signified her nakedness and her willingness, however with Olympia it signifies her control over the situation. Her hand isn’t resting or nestling, it is clamped down. The viewer will not participate in anything unless she permits.
;)
In Laura Mulvey’s groundbreaking essay Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema she uses Sigmund Freud and psychoanalysis to explain and criticize female objectification in film. Women are on display for the pleasure of the male viewer and thereby turned into objects of desire. The female may drive the male lead to act, or drive the plot forward, but the man is the one doing the acting. He advances the plot and continues the story. The female figure represents castration. There are two ways to escape from this anxiety: voyeurism (asserting control over the anxiety) or fetishism (turning the anxiety into a harmless object). In order to break females free from subjugation we must break free from conventional film making and depictions of women. Even if you do not buy into the castration part of the argument, it is clear how women in film are objectified using voyeurism and fetishism.
;)
The female objectification in film described by Mulvey directly parallels that of female objectification in comics. Women are fetishized in much the same way. Comics are written and drawn for the pleasure of the male gaze. Typically, women are little more than window dressing. They are usually secondary characters who may help advance the plot but usually don’t actively drive the story. Women are treated as sexualized objects presented for the pleasure of men. They are not subjects or the focus of the plot.
Cindy Sherman brilliantly comments on females in film through her photography series Untitled Film Stills. She comments on both women as objects and women as subjects. Upon first glance the female in the image appears to be an object for the pleasure of men. However, Sherman is using the idea of the gaze and the tropes of objectification in order to comment on how we as a society turn women into objects. The female in Untitled Film Still #6, the image to the right, is layered with meanings through her pose and facial expression and thereby transcends objectification. She is the subject of the image and not the object of desire, especially as seen in her.
;)
Red Hood and the Outlaws begins with Jason Todd (Red Hood) breaking Roy Harper (Arsenal) out of jail. We aren’t introduced to Kori (Starfire) right away but when we are we aren’t introduced to her as a person or as a character, instead we are introduced to her as a pair of breasts, or “pair of 38s” to be exact. The first image we get of Starfire is with her face directed downward in a pose of submission. She allows the male gaze, the assumed heterosexual male reader, to wash over her. She has just destroyed three tanks yet the focus is on her looks and her body. Her first words are: “Is there anything else I can do, Jason?” She is there for the pleasure of the males around her. As the comic continues we are presented with her in a bikini sexually posing in the water. There is a little boy taking pictures of her, letting us know that it is ok to be a voyeur. Starfire’s bodily postures are forced and unnatural, especially in the image towards the beginning of this post. Her back is contorted into an anatomically impossible angle. Just like the Venus of Urbino her body is unnaturally posed for the pleasure of the viewer. Throughout the comic we view her not as a person but as a fetish. Her objectification continues as she moves from an object to desire from afar to an object to possess through sex as she propositions Roy. In this comic sex isn’t about love or empowerment it is about enacting the fantasies of the reader. Roy poses a question to Starfire, “So, is there anything I need to know about making love to a Tamarean?” Her response is, “Just that love has nothing to do with it.” Earth men to her are boring and interchangeable. It is unclear whether or not she actually derives any pleasure from the physical act of having sex. The only thing that is clear is that she is there for the pleasure of those around her. Starfire’s storyline does little to affect the plot in this issue. If you remove her completely it does little to change the plot of the comic. All of the real action centers on the two males.
Catwoman is introduced similarly with the focus being on her body not on her as a person or a character. In fact, it is several pages before we even see Catwoman’s face. Instead of viewing her as a whole person we view her as a sum of her body parts: a breast, a mouth, a butt. Throughout the comic we are focused on her body and how she uses it. We are compelled to think about what she will do with those lips or those hands. Usually this is not in terms of her fighting skills but rather her sexual skills. She is made into an object meant for the pleasure of the male gaze even when she should be seen as a subject. When she is crashing out of the window of her apartment, when she is landing hard on a rooftop, when she is jumping off of a rooftop and when she is fighting her way through the party we should be viewing her as an action star but instead we view her as a fetish. In all of these instances she is posing for the male viewer. Her poses are forced and unnatural. She is basically winking at the viewer as she flies through the air. We notice her breasts and her hips, not her skills as a thief or as a fighter. She uses her sexuality to overcome the Russian mobster and then at the end of the comic she uses her sexuality again to overcome Batman. Instead of just beating up the mobster she attempts to seduce him which really serves little purpose other than to show her without a shirt on. She could have just as easily slipped into her costume and then approached him while he was alone in the bathroom rather than drawing him near with her breasts while he was alone in the bathroom. The final scene in this issue is of Catwoman getting Batman to submit to her desires. She is not being empowered as a woman she is merely acting out the fantasies of the heterosexual male reader, or possibly that of the male writer. The reader is a voyeur who is welcomed into the room during a supposed intimate moment.
The quintessential image of Catwoman in action in this issue is this panel:
Wonder Woman (by Brian Azzarello and Cliff Chiang) is a perfect counterpoint to the female objectification in Red Hood and the Outlaws and Catwoman. She is shown as sexual and yet she isn’t objectified. We are introduced to the other characters in this issue before we even catch a glimpse of Diana (Wonder Woman). When she finally arrives in the story she is naked, asleep in bed. She could have been portrayed as weak and vulnerable yet we see her as strong and assertive. From the moment she is introduced she confidently takes charge of the situation defining herself as a subject, as a three-dimensional character and active participant in the story. She is not there only as pleasure for the male gaze.
We saw Catwoman in action. Well, this is Wonder Woman in action:
The difference is clear. Catwoman is made to be a sex object. She uses her sexuality, not her fighting skills, to get out of a dangerous situation. She is not sexually free and liberated, she is a sex object. There has been a shift in this society (as described in Ariel Levy’s book Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture) to view sluts as empowered women, however this is not a true example of empowerment. This is merely a push for women to act like men in order to be viewed as equal. Wonder Woman is in charge of the situation and uses her fighting skills to protect and defend. We do not question Wonder Woman’s femininity and sexuality. She uses it when she protects and cares for Zola much like a mother would care for a child. Laura Hudson does an excellent job of voicing her opinions on this matter in The Big Sexy Problem with Superheroines and Their ‘Liberated Sexuality.’
Sources:
[Azzarello, Brian (w), Chiang, Cliff (a).] Wonder Woman #1. New York: DC Comics, 2011.
Cruz, Amada et.al. Cindy Sherman: Retrospective. Chicago: Museum of Contemporary Art, 2006.
Hudson, Laura. The Big Sexy Problem with Superheroines and Their ‘Liberated Sexuality.’ Comics Alliance. 22 Sep. 2011. Web. 08 Oct. 2011. <http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/09/22/starfire-catwoman-sex-superheroine/>
Levy, Ariel. Female Chauvinst Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture. New York: Free Press, 2006.
[Lobdell, Scott (w), Rocafort, Kenneth (a).] Red Hood and the Outlaws #1. New York: DC Comics, 2011.
Mulvey, Laura. “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.” Art After Modernism: Rethinking Representation. Ed. Brian Wallis. New York: The New Museum of Contemporary Art, 1999. 361-373.
Stokstad, Marilyn. Art History. 2nd ed. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 2002.
[Winick, Judd (w), March, Guillem (a).] Catwoman #1. New York: DC Comics, 2011.
Reader Comments (13)
In my probably excessive bouts of complaining about Red Hood and The Outlaws since its release the most frequent response I received was; "Wasn't Starfire like that before?" and my smart-assed answer was always; “Did you actually read any of those comics?”. George Perez drew her fantastically and often scantly dressed but to me he and Marv Wolfman never treated her as anymore of an object of desire than her boyfriend Dick Grayson.
The argument men give to defend how women look (not how they are portrayed) is that men are also unrealistic in their appearance in comics and for the most part yes everyone has unrealistically pleasant features. For me the Wolfman/Perez era of the Titans seemed a good case of a creative team trying to both draw and write the entire team on the same level. I could give dozens of examples of this but for the moment I'll just say that for at least the first 39 issues Robin is in his underwear both casually and as his actual costume more than any female character. Granted a lot of time and comics have gone since that great series and I'd never claim to have read or understand them all. But fan fiction on the internet aside, how she was portrayed in RHATO was nothing like the character I remember other than skin color and bodily dimensions. I am a dude who likes looking at pretty ladies scantly clad both in comics and other mediums and this trashy re-imagining of Starfire pissed me off.
Catwoman is a little different because she has been used for straight misogynistic T&A in various forms of media over the years. I'm not jumping up to defend all of it, just that it happened and I can understand her being seen as just a sexual character by a section of people not wanting to read good comics. But this issue also really pissed me off because I thought Selina had sort of overcome those limitations. I thought with her fantastic solo series which ran from 2002-2008, solid appearances in the Bat-titles, strong treatment in DC's animated projects and upcoming appearance in The Dark Knight Rises that who Catwoman was had been redefined. Not that her attractiveness was diminished, artists were still drawing her as sexy as ever, but writers were now keeping her character as full-formed as the artist her cat-suit. I really liked what I considered the new Selina Kyle and I recommended the hell out of that great series. I don't have any interest in her taking this stupid demeaning step backwards in the “new DC”.
Very well thought-out and researched piece Shawn. Even as a life-long DC fan with comics like these I am left thinking that this “new DC” might not be for me either. At least Batman Arkham City and the Batman: Year One animated movie both come out next week...
Well I read Catwoman #1 & Wonder Woman #1 it is the yin & yang of comics. What will appeal to one fan may not appeal to another. I read Wonder Woman for 5 years starting at the end of the Rucka run to this NEW "new" #1 and it turned me off by the writers name gave me a bad feeling from the days of Superman For Tomorrow storyline. So I dropped Wonder Woman after reading the #1 issue without regret. As for Catwoman #1, the artwork provided by March was not offensive but provocative within the story written by Winick. So where Wonder Woman failed Catwoman succeeded in getting me to pick up the next issue. And just in case you are curious, I also bought Batgirl, Batwoman, Power Girl, Supergirl & the Gail Simone's Bird's of Prey plus Marvel's She-Hulk when it was being published.
I look forward to more columns & podcasts in the future.
I applaud you, Shawn for this well thought article and for the strength of your comics criticism. I'm not so sure I agree with your points totally concerning art history and the Venus of Urbino but that is an aside and really my squabble is over your label of "16th Century porn". (That rather rankles me as an art lover.) However, I can't disagree with your larger point concerning The Male Gaze. Certainly it is evident and certainly it serves as an attractant to a specific audience base, heterosexual men, whether the product be a painting or a Carl's Jr. Thickburger. The phenomena of female objectification is a product of biology, cultural symbolization, psychology and history. It is, for better or worse, ingrained in the modern human being on a very basic animal level. Probably there is no doing away with it. In the Titian painting you cited, the woman is an object but also a symbol. The painter could have just as easily have painted a rose blossom and conveyed the same information. It's true she is stripped of her personhood and this, perhaps, downgrades the effectiveness of the painting however, I don't feel that it discounts it as a work of art.
Art is, of course, subjective and it makes it a tricky subject to nail down. But, in this instance, let's ask ourselves, if a piece of art objectifies a female subject, then what is it in service of and is it appropriate. Thinking of a person, an individual, as an object can seem wrong, especially if the person is made a sexual object. However, we are sexual beings and live with a sexual symbolism that pervades our society. To deny that is naive. Sexual objectification has it's place in society. In the Titian painting, the female is a sexual object but she is also a symbol. Look at the rest of the painting. Most all the objects are symbols. The column is phallic, beside it a bush in a triangular base mirroring the shape of the pubis. The two female figures in the back look in a trunk, the sleeping dog suggest docility. In my opinion, this painting works as Art with a big A. It is symbolic rather than demeaning and prurient. The message of the painting is sensuality, but is that wrong? Or does it have it's place? What is the painting in service of? It's a conveyance of sexual beauty, an idealization, but I certainly don't think that is porn. While I'll agree that the subject is objectified, I also feel that it is appropriate for the medium in which it is presented.
I quit reading superhero comic books a long time ago because, at their base, they are primarily sex and power fantasies and, moreover, boring in way they use those themes. There are always exceptions, of course, and, very rarely, superhero comics have sometimes approached a higher consciousness. However, most are base drivel created to excite and titillate on an animal level of "massive display of power" or "look at them titties" or "look at the massive display of power from them titties." In an endless loop. Not very frequently is there anything truly human to be found in the pages of a superhero comic book, at least to my thinking. A great number of people (yep, primarily straight males) will never want anything more than this so far as entertainment is concerned, they will return to this well over and over again. However, I tired of this formula in my late teens and so I quit reading the garbage. That the Catwoman and Starfire characters are treated as they are and that DC's overarching editorial processes seem to be along the lines of disrespecting woman shouldn't be all that surprising. However, it is up to the readers to decide if these representations are appropriate. And, if they find they are not, I heartily encourage people to stop reading the garbage as well.
I think I'm getting a touch off track and this comment is gonna be as long as Shawn's essay in a damn minute or two. But, what I wanted to say is that, yes, The Male Gaze is existent in all representational art forms. It is a human response and, while in instances it can contribute to degradation, it is not in itself an evil. The issue is more one of appropriateness to me. A nearly gynecological photo in a Hustler magazine I think is perfectly alright, I believe, so long as it is in that Hustler magazine. That's where it belongs. Paste it in a Highlights for Children and I think that's problematic. So, does sexual objectification of women belong in superhero comic books? Readers must decide. However, given the trajectory of superheroes since the 1990's, I'm tempted to think the answer is more and more affirmative. Sadly so.
Henry: Yes! Objectification is not always a negative thing especially when used properly or used to make a point.
I know I was harsh with my assessment of Venus of Urbino. But it was commisioned to go in a man's study. Even though the artist used symbolism and made it lofty, at the end of the day it is a pretty picture of a naked lady.
Well reasoned and thought out Shawn. It is definitely hard to make the argument to noncomic readers that comics have grown up when the book read like fanfic off the internet and the panels look like Maxim photoshoots.
...................but I still like boobies.
Thanks Jo-el! I like boobies too. You can have cheesecake that doesn't objectify women (Betty from Rocketeer for example). I might do an article about that, eventually.
Thanks everyone who has read or commented (especially Brian and Matthew since I didn't thank you in my earlier comments).
I read the following: Red Hood, WonderWoman, Catwoman, Voodoo. Of the four, I found Red Hood stood out as offensive. Offensive as in Starfire not only objectified visually but as a character not to mention the story and characters. As soon as I saw her appear, I immediately stepped out of the story. My first question was who was the target audience? Even if this book takes off, the reader who likes this material will soon get tired of it unless there's more and gets increasingly graphic from one book to next. If there was a reason Starfire had to dress this way then maybe I would not have a problem with it but clearly that's not that case. If we're supposed to see a progression in the character then you would think there would be another character voicing his/her concerns out to Starfire's objectification. It didn't help when Starfire's scorched hand prints appear in suggested places after sex. The only other character I felt being objectified was Wonder Woman. We're so accostomed to seeing her in skin tight clothing we've been programmed to accept it. She's a warrior, why not dress like one? She's wearing 1-2" heels, really? We don't say that much since the art and story are great. I did not feel the other two characters, Catwoman and Voodoo objectified as much. Catwoman is a sensual woman and very cat like. Look at the panels, very cat like. Yes we're seeing cleavage but that's all that it is. Her breast don't seem unusually large, and they appear proportional. When she's in disguise with the Russians in the bar, SHE WAS IN DISGUISE. I thought she looked hot. If anyone was questioned after the attack all they could probably say is they saw a hot looking woman?. I think that was the point of the disguise? Now Voodoo does boarder on objectification but this looks like a case of distraction. Voodoo is a shape shifter so she's copying what a beautiful woman would look like? Also, she's in a strip bar so you'd probably think she was getting paid to be objectified? Yes there are scenes where she's on all fours but that's what you would see in a strip club?
I'd just like to point out that in the Russian bar after attacking the dude she changes into her Cat Woman clothes and then flies across the ceiling, so then the response would actually have been "they saw a hot looking woman and then Cat Woman came flying by."
not to comment on the rest since everyone else has already stated the main points, i would just like to say something brian touched on, about males also being unrealistically portrayed. for every female superhero shown in their underwear, there's 50x that many shot of extremely muscled men in skintight clothes, or half-naked after a big battle or explosion that destroyed their costume, or even further, two or more of these locked in struggle. the percentage of unrealistic men to unrealistic women is staggering, but you will never see an article about the objectifying of men or the unfairness of portrayal.
take the twilight movies/books/comics: the vast majority of the material shows a moody, undecisive, average-looking, unconfident girl in normal clothing being fiercely fought, cried, and died over by wealthy, immortal, strong, animalistic, well-built men who's only wish is to love and protect her. not just one or two, but whole groups fight over her. there's no way it's not a female fantasy, but the audience is 99.9% female so no one is going to complain about the inequality. the male vampire-entertainment fan is probably more rare than the female comic reader, so who is going to question the twilight author's work to the extent that people are questioning scott lobdell and company? obviously, i dont give two shits about twilight, but the point must be made that fair is fair.
i've seen just as many men complaining about catwoman's treatment as women, but i've never heard or read a woman complaining about the portrayal of men in comics, which if you think about it, is a WAY worse degree of objectification. even if comic's audience was 99% women and 99% of comic heroes were women, and a new mostly-female reboot was done by DC with 2 comics showing odd, non-sensical sexual situations with men, i highly doubt i would be reading an essay about it.
I don't think a lot of you understand the argument of Object vs Subject. However, Though I have never seen any of them I will not deny you that the men in the Twilight Sage are often treated as objects instead of subjects.
I really enjoyed this post, Shawn, and I enjoyed the comments as well. Like Henry, I feel that the original version of Mulvey's male gaze argument (in "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema") is a little too puritanical; sexual gazing can be fun and life-affirming, and I find Mulvey's hostility towards pleasure (or at least the pleasures that she finds ideologically suspect) too rigid. Luckily, there's been work on the male gaze since "Visual Pleasure," with folks like Carol Clover, Gaylyn Studlar and Mulvey herself (in an article that's a direct sequel to "Visual Pleasure") taking her arguments into places that are more pleasure-positive. Viva la third-wave feminism!
One of Mulvey's arguments in "Visual Pleasure" is that women-as-spectacle is always a threat to the momentum of a film's narrative. When the straight male spectator indulges in gazing--and when the film locks in on the female form to allow gazing to happen--the story stops, and the film shifts into a description of the female form. Commentators have noted that the DC Reboot is using a lot of personnel from the 1990s Image comics...could it be that the poster aesthetic of those Image comics is a perfect fit with the gaze's tendency to favor spectacle over story?
This is an excellent article.