|
|
Post by electricmastro on Mar 11, 2020 13:37:08 GMT -5
I think a lot of girls did read Mary Marvel in the '40s-'50s, her 'replacement' Supergirl in the '50s-'70s, and they would read male heroes too, and of course their brothers' comics (though maybe not vice-versa so much, Millie The Model and Katy Keene are acquired tastes I think). I can balance things right now with a cover from the company of Ruth Roche, Lily Renee, Marcia Snyder and Fran Hopper... Woohoo!   Speaking of which, in retrospect, it’s disappointing that a character with a long history like the Linda Turner Black Cat has pretty much been left in the past. She was probably the most successful superheroine after Wonder Woman and Mary Marvel.  |
|
|
|
Post by junkmonkey on Mar 11, 2020 14:24:39 GMT -5
Wow! Wildfire can light other people's farts!  Now THAT'S a superpower! |
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Mar 11, 2020 15:01:20 GMT -5
I don't think so, not systematically. There was a recent kickstarter I supported that put out one collection each of Davis and Severin Cracked work, though these only scratched the service, esp for Severin. Do you have a link to that completed Kickstarter? I'm curious how they got the rights to those works. |
|
|
|
Post by electricmastro on Mar 11, 2020 17:31:26 GMT -5
Possibly the first fight between two superheroines (Police Comics #21, August 1943):  |
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Mar 11, 2020 22:33:03 GMT -5
Possibly the first fight between two superheroines (Police Comics #21, August 1943): No "possibly" about it. Also the only time prior to Justice League #106 that two Quality characters teamed up.
Cei-U! I summon the girlpower!
|
|
|
|
Post by electricmastro on Mar 12, 2020 0:31:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by electricmastro on Mar 15, 2020 21:46:41 GMT -5
Visual list from 1939-1941: 1939: Crimson Rider:  Magician from Mars:  1940: Alice of the Winged People:  Black Widow (Timely Comics):  Fantomah:  Headless Horseman:  Invisible Scarlet O'Neil:  Lady Luck:  Mighty Woman:  Miss X:  Red Tornado:  Woman in Red:  1941: Black Cat:  Black Widow (Holyoke Publishing):  Blue Lady:  Bulletgirl:  Flame Girl:  Hawkgirl:  Kitten:  Lady Fairplay:  Lady Satan (Harry 'A' Chesler):  Madame Strange:  Margo the Magician:  Miss America (Quality Comics):  Miss Fury:  Miss Owl:  Miss Victory:  Mother Hubbard:  Nelvana of the Northern Lights:  Pat Patriot:  Phantom Lady:  Ranger Girl:  Rocketgirl:  Silver Scorpion:  Spider Queen:  Super Ann:  USA the Spirit of Old Glory:  War Nurse:  Wildfire:  Wonder Woman:  |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Mar 16, 2020 5:15:57 GMT -5
Fantomah is often cited as being the first superheroine in comics....she had some legs... A key superpower of female characters in any decade. Agreed. At the same time I'm reminded of a Guardian article from the last few days that discussed the commodification of women athlete's bodies in a new ad campaign for some lingerie company: I think that male readers like myself always question our enjoyment - aesthetic, sexual, however you characterise it - of images of the female body like the above, taken from the linked article: for example, just by phrasing it that way, by speaking of the person in the photograph as an image I enjoy looking at, it could be said that I am basically reducing this female human being to a mere form, a physical object that's just there for me to enjoy - and therefore that I might be at risk of seeing and thinking of female human beings this way in general.
Myself, I think it's possible to appreciate the person as a person (or, in comics, the character as a character, etc) while still admiring (or otherwise) their physical form - but it's always an interesting question as to how successful one is at distinguishing the two.
BTW, the woman in the photo is Queen Harrison, an American hurdler, according to the article. I hadn't heard of her before now, but I'm not up on track and field that much, though I always enjoy watching it when the Olympics are on.
|
|
|
|
Post by nerdygirl905 on Mar 16, 2020 6:16:16 GMT -5
Possibly the first fight between two superheroines (Police Comics #21, August 1943): Ah, yes, good old Spider Widow. Who forgot her witch mask in this issue. |
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,222 
|
Post by Confessor on Mar 16, 2020 6:30:48 GMT -5
I think that male readers like myself always question our enjoyment - aesthetic, sexual, however you characterise it - of images of the female body like the above... Speak for yourself! I don't question my enjoyment of the female body at all. If you're a heterosexual man (which I assume you are, berkley, judging by your above post), enjoying looking at attractive women is nature/biology at its purest. ...for example, just by phrasing it that way, by speaking of the person in the photograph as an image I enjoy looking at, it could be said that I am basically reducing this female human being to a mere form, a physical object that's just there for me to enjoy - and therefore that I might be at risk of seeing and thinking of female human beings this way in general. I really wouldn't worry about it. On some level, we are all just "mere form". And believe me, women objectify men that they find attractive just as much as men do women. After all, the human body can be a very aesthetically pleasing object to look at: it's why classical artists painted naked women, or sculptors created statues of naked males. There is a biological imperative at work for both sexes that makes us want to look at attractive humans. In very simplistic terms, it goes like this: Humans are hard-wired to want to mate with attractive humans. The coupling of humans, where one or more partner is of above average attractiveness, is biologically likely to produce attractive looking offspring. Attractive looking offspring are likely to find it easier to mate when they reach the appropriate age because humans are hard-wired to want to mate with attractive humans, and so on and so on. Now, obviously sexual attraction goes much deeper than just looks, but if you don't know the individual and are just looking at them in a photograph, or from afar in the real world (say, on a passing bus or something), then their physical appearance is all that you have to go on. So you shouldn't feel uncomfortable about looking at a woman and appreciating her attractiveness/aesthetics/sexuality etc. On some level, you're just one half of a baby making machine. If you're heterosexual, nature compels you to look at attractive women, just as it compells heterosexual women to look at attractive men. It only becomes a problem when you start to view women (or men) as simply something to have sexual relations with and nothing more. Not that there's anything wrong with having sex just for fun, that's not what I'm talking about here. I'm saying that if you are a heterosexual man and you view women as nothing but sex objects, then clearly there's a problem. But that's a whole other kettle of fish and definitely off-topic for this thread. Myself, I think it's possible to appreciate the person as a person (or, in comics, the character as a character, etc) while still admiring (or otherwise) their physical form - but it's always an interesting question as to how successful one is at distinguishing the two. I absolutely agree with the above. But I think that at their core, humans will always respond to visual stimuli in a way that makes them biased one way or the other towards other people. It's why villains are usually drawn ugly in comics, and heroes are either dashingly handsome men or gorgeous women. We humans just like looking at pretty things. There's nothing wrong with that. |
|
|
|
Post by junkmonkey on Mar 16, 2020 9:06:42 GMT -5
Totally agree with 99% of Confessor there but would want to expand 'heterosexual' 'to 'heterosexual, bi, and lesbian'.
Hetero men don't have a monopoly in the fields of admiring and/or objectifying.
And as someone who regularly goes to life drawing classes with naked models I can tell you there are times when you HAVE to objectify a human being. Almost dissect them. Work out how each part relates to another. You stop looking at the model as a person - until something silly happens like their tummy rumbles and they giggle - and they become this vastly interesting complex thing to try and capture in a different medium. It's amazing how you think you know what the human body looks like and how it all hangs together until you start really LOOKING at one... and boy are we made weird!
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Mar 16, 2020 15:02:21 GMT -5
I think that male readers like myself always question our enjoyment - aesthetic, sexual, however you characterise it - of images of the female body like the above... Speak for yourself! I don't question my enjoyment of the female body at all. If you're a heterosexual man (which I assume you are, berkley, judging by your above post), enjoying looking at attractive women is nature/biology at its purest. ...for example, just by phrasing it that way, by speaking of the person in the photograph as an image I enjoy looking at, it could be said that I am basically reducing this female human being to a mere form, a physical object that's just there for me to enjoy - and therefore that I might be at risk of seeing and thinking of female human beings this way in general. I really wouldn't worry about it. On some level, we are all just "mere form". And believe me, women objectify men that they find attractive just as much as men do women. After all, the human body can be a very aesthetically pleasing object to look at: it's why classical artists painted naked women, or sculptors created statues of naked males. There is a biological imperative at work for both sexes that makes us want to look at attractive humans. In very simplistic terms, it goes like this: Humans are hard-wired to want to mate with attractive humans. The coupling of humans, where one or more partner is of above average attractiveness, is biologically likely to produce attractive looking offspring. Attractive looking offspring are likely to find it easier to mate when they reach the appropriate age because humans are hard-wired to want to mate with attractive humans, and so on and so on. Now, obviously sexual attraction goes much deeper than just looks, but if you don't know the individual and are just looking at them in a photograph, or from afar in the real world (say, on a passing bus or something), then their physical appearance is all that you have to go on. So you shouldn't feel uncomfortable about looking at a woman and appreciating her attractiveness/aesthetics/sexuality etc. On some level, you're just one half of a baby making machine. If you're heterosexual, nature compels you to look at attractive women, just as it compells heterosexual women to look at attractive men. It only becomes a problem when you start to view women (or men) as simply something to have sexual relations with and nothing more. Not that there's anything wrong with having sex just for fun, that's not what I'm talking about here. I'm saying that if you are a heterosexual man and you view women as nothing but sex objects, then clearly there's a problem. But that's a whole other kettle of fish and definitely off-topic for this thread. Myself, I think it's possible to appreciate the person as a person (or, in comics, the character as a character, etc) while still admiring (or otherwise) their physical form - but it's always an interesting question as to how successful one is at distinguishing the two. I absolutely agree with the above. But I think that at their core, humans will always respond to visual stimuli in a way that makes them biased one way or the other towards other people. It's why villains are usually drawn ugly in comics, and heroes are either dashingly handsome men or gorgeous women. We humans just like looking at pretty things. There's nothing wrong with that.
I think I speak for all of us when I say that I never claim to speak for anyone other than myself - no, wait, that's not what I meant!
All kidding aside, yeah, I'm basically in agreement with you and Junkmonkey on all points. I was just bringing up the issue more as a point of discussion. And also as an excuse to post that picture of the hurdler because it displays the kind of athletic aesthetic that I think should be referenced more by superhero artists as opposed to the bodybuilder or model types that tend to be preferred. But this probably isn't the right thread for that conversation.
|
|
|
|
Post by beccabear67 on Mar 16, 2020 22:12:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by electricmastro on Mar 16, 2020 23:07:39 GMT -5
Yeah, there were several spider-themed characters before the 60s, a trend likely popularized by the Richard Wentworth Spider from 1933, including Tarantula, Spider Queen, Spider Widow, Green Spider, Black Spider, Black Tarantula, Leonore Black, the Web, and Black Widow. The Linda Masters Black Widow from Cat-Man Comics #6 (May, 1941) in particular only appeared once actually, despite a next appearance being advertised:       |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Mar 16, 2020 23:50:38 GMT -5
Yes, I meant to add that some of the old Golden Age comics in this thread actually do a much better job of drawing athletic looking heroines than a lot of modern day superhero comics.
|
|
