🔥 | Latest

Anaconda, Arguing, and Books: SENSATIONA $1.50 US SOMETHING WOT FRivOLOUS ITS NOT FAIR TO ACCUSE ME OF VANITY! BECAVSE IAM A MAN JUST THRIVE 3OTw siryouarebeingmocked: darkado: mornington-the-crescent: mightyoctopus: siryouarebeingmocked: cisnowflake: anti-capitalistlesbianwitch: 100 Women: The artist redrawing ‘sexist’ comic book covers An artist in India is challenging sexist drawings of women in comic books by parodying them using male heroes in poses typically associated with women. She-Hulk has superhuman strength and speed and is one of the most formidable hand-to-hand combatants in the Marvel world. Like Hulk, not only does she have physical power, she’s also completely green. Yet, on a 1991 comic book cover, she is shown in a seductive pose, wearing a G-string bikini, with her curves sharply accentuated. Indian artist Shreya Arora was shocked when she saw the image. “For Hulk, the visual representation focuses on his strength. For She-Hulk, all we see is an emphasis on sexuality,” says Arora, who grew up reading comic books. The 21-year-old graphic designer decided she wanted to flip the narrative. Why is depicting women as sexy considered sexist? The irony, of course, is that there already was a Spider-Man cover like that second one. Also, this is literally judging a book by its cover. Heck, you’re even ignoring the self-aware speech bubble. The book actually starts with She-Hulk on a beach, so the cover is actually appropriate to the contents. And can I just- LOOK AT SPIDEY’S CROTCH. LOOK AT IT. LOOK AT IT. Yes, clearly we needed a view of Tony’s skintight bodysuit. This is doing the same thing as the Hawkeye Initiative. It’s not clever or original. There are blogs I’d expect to caption a Spiderman picture with “LOOK AT SPIDEY’S CROTCH. LOOK AT IT. LOOK AT IT.” and then there is this blog. Guess I was wrong. The artist also completely failed to get the joke: August, 1991, Demi Moore appears on the cover of “Vanity Fair” magazine, nude and pregnant. It caused quite an outrage, but the controversy lead to increased sales. In December of the same year, Marvel decided to riff on that idea, showing She-Hulk in the same pose, with a beach ball instead of a pregnant belly. She even says, “It’s not FAIR to accuse me of VANITY“, a not-so-subtle nod to the famous magazine cover. tl;dr: Artist is offended by someone else’s work, not understanding anything about the history or concept behind the artwork. I’m usually here for pointing out that men can be sexualized like women but wow you guys really chose the wrong thing to argue with. Sure, Spidey has a nice crotch and Tony is in a bodysuit, but I do really need to point out that not all of these comics are even from the same era? Using Civil War II is ridiculous considering it came out only two years when others are over two decades older. Also, trying to say that the She-Hulk cover is a simple nod could be acceptable if they didn’t do this for every single issue of The Sensational She-Hulk. Even a quick Google search will show that they tried to sell the the comics with sex appeal and She-Hulk admitting that doesn’t make it any better. Comepltely unrelated to the story Entirely nude Completely unnecessary (as stated by She-Hulk) I don’t think I need to explain why these are much more gratuitous than Spidey or Tony. Sure, Spidey has a nice crotch and Tony is in a bodysuit, but I do really need to point out that not all of these comics are even from the same era?OP didn’t make distinctions about era.Using Civil War II is ridiculous considering it came out only two years when others are over two decades older.The Spider-Woman cover is from 2014. That Spidey web-ball cover is from 2000 or so. She-hulk is from 1991.So, even if I give you the whopping two years between the Spider-Woman cover and Civil War 2, OP’s range still covers the time period of that Spidey cover.But in the interests of fairness, lets take a gander at 90s Iron Man.Look at that cyber-bulge and those cyber-abs.Also, trying to say that the She-Hulk cover is a simple nod could be acceptable if they didn’t do this for every single issue of The Sensational She-Hulk. You mean the light-hearted, self-aware comic where the fanservice is clearly a joke, and the character still has choice and agency? How does that represent all female-led comics? At least if they had used a few Catwoman Jim Balent covers, they might’ve had some ground, seeing as he actually seems to have a thing for leather, latex, and lace. Of course, these days Shulk has more conventional covers, which explains why the artist had to go back 25+ years to find them.Also, are you absolutely sure it’s every issue?Every single one?Wow, Electro is ripped here. I don’t need to explain the Bugs Bunny ref, do I?This isn’t even an actual comic cover, it’s Frank Cho fanart. If there’s so much actual examples, why is she using a non-cover? The parody artist even admits she’s focusing on the visuals. People who get bent out of shape because of comic book covers really have too much time on their hands.
Anaconda, Arguing, and Books: SENSATIONA
 $1.50 US
 SOMETHING
 WOT FRivOLOUS
 ITS NOT FAIR
 TO ACCUSE ME
 OF VANITY!
 BECAVSE
 IAM A MAN
 JUST THRIVE
 3OTw
siryouarebeingmocked:

darkado:

mornington-the-crescent:

mightyoctopus:

siryouarebeingmocked:

cisnowflake:

anti-capitalistlesbianwitch:




100 Women: The artist redrawing ‘sexist’ comic book covers



An artist in India is challenging sexist drawings of women in comic books by parodying them using male heroes in poses typically associated with women.
She-Hulk has superhuman strength and speed and is one of the most formidable hand-to-hand combatants in the Marvel world.
Like Hulk, not only does she have physical power, she’s also completely green.
Yet, on a 1991 comic book cover, she is shown in a seductive pose, wearing a G-string bikini, with her curves sharply accentuated.
Indian artist Shreya Arora was shocked when she saw the image.
“For Hulk, the visual representation focuses on his strength. For She-Hulk, all we see is an emphasis on sexuality,” says Arora, who grew up reading comic books.
The 21-year-old graphic designer decided she wanted to flip the narrative.



Why is depicting women as sexy considered sexist? 

The irony, of course, is that there already was a Spider-Man cover like that second one.
Also, this is literally judging a book by its cover. Heck, you’re even ignoring the 

self-aware speech bubble. The book actually starts with She-Hulk on a beach, so the cover is actually appropriate to the contents. And can I just-

LOOK AT SPIDEY’S CROTCH. LOOK AT IT. LOOK AT IT.
Yes, clearly we needed a view of Tony’s skintight bodysuit.
This is doing the same thing as the Hawkeye Initiative. It’s not clever or original.

There are blogs I’d expect to caption a Spiderman picture with “LOOK AT SPIDEY’S CROTCH. LOOK AT IT. LOOK AT IT.” and then there is this blog. Guess I was wrong.

The artist also completely failed to get the joke: 
August, 1991, Demi Moore appears on the cover of “Vanity Fair” magazine, nude and pregnant. It caused quite an outrage, but the controversy lead to increased sales.
In December of the same year, Marvel decided to riff on that idea, showing She-Hulk in the same pose, with a beach ball instead of a pregnant belly. She even says, “It’s not FAIR to accuse me of VANITY“, a not-so-subtle nod to the famous magazine cover.
tl;dr: Artist is offended by someone else’s work, not understanding anything about the history or concept behind the artwork.


I’m usually here for pointing out that men can be sexualized like women but wow you guys really chose the wrong thing to argue with. Sure, Spidey has a nice crotch and Tony is in a bodysuit, but I do really need to point out that not all of these comics are even from the same era? Using Civil War II is ridiculous considering it came out only two years when others are over two decades older. Also, trying to say that the She-Hulk cover is a simple nod could be acceptable if they didn’t do this for every single  issue of The Sensational She-Hulk. Even a quick Google search will show that they tried to sell the the comics with sex appeal and She-Hulk admitting that doesn’t make it any better.
Comepltely unrelated to the story
Entirely nude
Completely unnecessary (as stated by She-Hulk)
I don’t think I need to explain why these are much more gratuitous than Spidey or Tony.

Sure, Spidey has a nice crotch and Tony is in a bodysuit, but I do really need to point out that not all of these comics are even from the same era?OP didn’t make distinctions about era.Using Civil War II is ridiculous considering it came out only two years when others are over two decades older.The Spider-Woman cover is from 2014. That Spidey web-ball cover is from 2000 or so. She-hulk is from 1991.So, even if I give you the whopping two years between the Spider-Woman cover and Civil War 2, OP’s range still covers the time period of that Spidey cover.But in the interests of fairness, lets take a gander at 90s Iron Man.Look at that cyber-bulge and those cyber-abs.Also, trying to say that the She-Hulk cover is a simple nod could be acceptable if they didn’t do this for every single issue of The Sensational She-Hulk. You mean the light-hearted, self-aware comic where the fanservice is clearly a joke, and the character still has choice and agency? How does that represent all female-led comics? At least if they had used a few Catwoman Jim Balent covers, they might’ve had some ground, seeing as he actually seems to have a thing for leather, latex, and lace. Of course, these days Shulk has more conventional covers, which explains why the artist had to go back 25+ years to find them.Also, are you absolutely sure it’s every issue?Every single one?Wow, Electro is ripped here. I don’t need to explain the Bugs Bunny ref, do I?This isn’t even an actual comic cover, it’s Frank Cho fanart. If there’s so much actual examples, why is she using a non-cover? The parody artist even admits she’s focusing on the visuals. 

People who get bent out of shape because of comic book covers really have too much time on their hands.

siryouarebeingmocked: darkado: mornington-the-crescent: mightyoctopus: siryouarebeingmocked: cisnowflake: anti-capitalistlesbianwitch:...

Bailey Jay, Children, and Dumb: Jesuswhat's she weign in at buck 90, 200? Renaissance women weren't forced to starve themselves into an anorexic fashion na uStry marketing version of female sexuality celticpyro: fandomsandfeminism: sofiama: cr1mson5thestranger: rosietheamazon: deadhoneybadger: Yeah that’s why they all died at 30 because they were so unhealthy but cool Pretty sure it was the plague not heart disease. Pretty sure it was the Plague, childbirth, food spoiling, maltreated infections, smallpox, pneumonia, and/or generally unsanitary living conditions (such as dumping sewage and waste in the streets) and not health conditions caused by excess body fat. Not to mention that the Renaissance standard of female beauty being plumpness and full-figured forms came from the fact that it was a status symbol. Plump, pale, full-figured women were wealthy women who didn’t have to spend their days in hard labor or raising children (or both) and stood a better chance of bearing healthy babies than commoner women did. Cultural “Oh Snap” I hate it so much when people pull out the “unhealthy” excuse for having a reason to body shame a person. “Women died young in the 1700s because they were fat” is an amazingly ignorant statement Okay that one response was dumb but first of all there’s absolutely no way the woman in that painting is 190-200 lbs unless she’s on the taller side. Yeah Renaissance women were full-figured but they weren’t obese.Secondly, it was a beauty standard because it was a sign you were rich enough to eat a lot and not have to work off the extra calories. So it wasn’t that women typically looked like that, it was an equally unrealistic standard back then as it is today because most women didn’t have the means to put on extra weight unless they were filthy rich. But hey let’s glorify beauty standards when it personally benefits you, right?Third, you’re really gonna put someone down for body-shaming when the woman painting is also body-shaming? Anorexia is a mental disorder not a body type and if you conflate the two you’re body-shaming. Using “anorexic” as a synonym for “skinny” is basically the same as using “diabetic” as a synonym for “fat.”So in conclusion, this whole post is garbage. It’s like when they try to label Marilyn Monroe and other of her contemporaries as “plus size”. Just stop. She was curvy yes, but she was absolutely not anything approaching the modern concept of “plus sized“ or obese.One of these things is not like the other
Bailey Jay, Children, and Dumb: Jesuswhat's she weign in at
 buck 90, 200?

 Renaissance women weren't
 forced to starve themselves

 into an anorexic fashion
 na uStry marketing version

 of female sexuality
celticpyro:

fandomsandfeminism:

sofiama:

cr1mson5thestranger:

rosietheamazon:

deadhoneybadger:

Yeah that’s why they all died at 30 because they were so unhealthy but cool

Pretty sure it was the plague not heart disease.

Pretty sure it was the Plague, childbirth, food spoiling, maltreated infections, smallpox, pneumonia, and/or generally unsanitary living conditions (such as dumping sewage and waste in the streets) and not health conditions caused by excess body fat.
Not to mention that the Renaissance standard of female beauty being plumpness and full-figured forms came from the fact that it was a status symbol. Plump, pale, full-figured women were wealthy women who didn’t have to spend their days in hard labor or raising children (or both) and stood a better chance of bearing healthy babies than commoner women did.

Cultural “Oh Snap” I hate it so much when people pull out the “unhealthy” excuse for having a reason to body shame a person.

“Women died young in the 1700s because they were fat” is an amazingly ignorant statement

Okay that one response was dumb but first of all there’s absolutely no way the woman in that painting is 190-200 lbs unless she’s on the taller side. Yeah Renaissance women were full-figured but they weren’t obese.Secondly, it was a beauty standard because it was a sign you were rich enough to eat a lot and not have to work off the extra calories. So it wasn’t that women typically looked like that, it was an equally unrealistic standard back then as it is today because most women didn’t have the means to put on extra weight unless they were filthy rich. But hey let’s glorify beauty standards when it personally benefits you, right?Third, you’re really gonna put someone down for body-shaming when the woman painting is also body-shaming? Anorexia is a mental disorder not a body type and if you conflate the two you’re body-shaming. Using “anorexic” as a synonym for “skinny” is basically the same as using “diabetic” as a synonym for “fat.”So in conclusion, this whole post is garbage.

It’s like when they try to label Marilyn Monroe and other of her contemporaries as “plus size”. Just stop. She was curvy yes, but she was absolutely not anything approaching the modern concept of “plus sized“ or obese.One of these things is not like the other

celticpyro: fandomsandfeminism: sofiama: cr1mson5thestranger: rosietheamazon: deadhoneybadger: Yeah that’s why they all died at 30 bec...