[D'iversify]

Silencer, on 06 September 2013 - 12:25 PM, said:

Personally I'm on the fence here. While it falls into a similar category to me as violence in video games *causing* people to go postal in real life (i.e. correlation does not equal causation, what the fuck are you smoking?), as with video game violence I do admit that there is a certain amount of seep into the social unconscious, and probably more significant and insidious one, as the message reinforces existing social perspectives rather than going against them, and is on the whole pushing a far more subtle agenda than "go kill everyone naow"; the consequences are a lot less obviously negative and, er, illegal.
I think that it's a pretty complicated issue; you don't see men wearing underpants on the outside of their clothes just because Superman and Batman, arguably the most iconic and influential "super heroes" of all time, were doing it. Unfortunately that doesn't entirely hold water, as again the sexualisation thing is more a reinforcement and drive of existing social stereotypes. The fashion dictated here is building on what people already expect rather than being something entirely new or different or weird (though, all those kids wearing their pants low enough to show their underwear...hmmm...).

This is the crux of the matter. Too many people on either side argue as if either social influences are all pervasive and individuals have no agency in accepting or rejecting them and the opposing view that whatever is out there has no real effect as people are all rational moral actors. In my view, we should treat any being we consider a moral person (i.e. as somewhat reasonable and responsible for their actions, and as someone capable of being benefited or harmed by the actions of others) as having a significant degree of agency. But this agency is never absolute, there being a sliding scale between those individuals who are hyper-competent to those who are incompetent. For those at the lower end of the scale, we can suggest there to be greater susceptibility to uncritical acceptance of social influences. For the those at the higher end, we can assume that such influence is limited though still very mch extant The trouble is that whilst the vast majority of people are somewhere in the middle of these two extreme positions, the opposing sides in these debates will often act as if the majority lie at one end or other of the scale. Now in the case of young children, I think it is reasonable to assume a more limited agency than typical of the rest of the population, and this belief is quite prevalent, being reflected in laws on consent and age appropriateness (though I think the agency of children is unfortunately often under or overestimated by adults with an agenda, ie. on one hand the 'think of the children' brigade and on the other sexual predators and other such people who would blame the child for what happened to them). Now when it comes women, I think we find that there is still a strong residual view that they have less agency than men (especially when social attitudes to teenage girls vs. boys are compared [the agency of the latter group is arguably frequently overestimated in criminal cases]). I would, of course, argue that women have the same overall agency as men, at least in terms of their 'innate' capacities as moral and social actors (I acknowledge that female agency can be damaged in many places in the world by lack of access to education, jobs and poltical representation, but this is a secondary sort of agency). The fact is that women typically choose to dress the way they do because of how they desire to appear based on a set of known cultural archetypes. The same is true of men. And if we are going to argue that women are being controlled by these social influences into dressing in a sexual manner for male delectation, well, I don't think men are exactly immune from the influence of cultural archetypes. A lot of men have died because they had the impression that a soldier's life would be a lark. Men and women are equally susceptible in this aspect of moral/social action and to suggest otherwise, as some of the arguments on this subject seem to suggest, is dangerous nonsense.

[Dolmen 2.0]

Silencer, on 06 September 2013 - 12:25 PM, said:

Puck, on 06 September 2013 - 11:49 AM, said:

Dolmen+, on 06 September 2013 - 06:21 AM, said:

Also back on topic: I think women are just as empowered by getting the option to wear either highly funtional and respectable clothing or highly alluring lack there of. It makes sense to demand functionality where life and limb is at risk. If you are hyper resillient physicaly i think you get to wear a boob window largely just because you can.

Agreed. I mean, which is more preferable? A character that may look like she means to be alluring but that acts like she knows what she's doing and is generally a well-built character? Or one that dresses functionally but is the typical damsel in distress that can't do anything herself? Of course, the middle way is probably the most sane one, but if I had to pick I'd go with the first option. Empowerment includes behaviour as much looks and I'm no fan of telling anyone how to dress because, duh, you're supposed to be empowered and stuff. Fictional characters are treading rather thin ice there sometimes, because they cannot act for themselves, so it depends on writers and artists to find the right balance between exploitation and empowerment. Removing the boob window does not change Power Girl's character, it just shows that some of those blogs about 'meh, boobs windows are evil' are starting to make an impact. The question for me is, how far will this go? We're talking about fictional icons here, most of whom are pretty much invincible, and I'm not sure that slapping more cloth on them will make things radically better. Again, I think empowerment lies more in behaviour and how a character is presented to the audience [like.. poses, speach, etc.]. But as usual, I seem to be rather alon with that.

I don't think you're alone there, though I do imagine it sometimes seems that way.

It probably sprawls out into a broader argument of how much fiction reflects, or affects, reality and empowerment, when fictional characters are inherently at the mercy of their writer, and therefore have no true empowerment no matter what it looks like; though obviously writers can also very much be at the mercy of their fans, or their imagination, or their publishers, etc. It really comes down to whether or not you think the character design, from body type to facial features to outfit, to personality, has a viable impact on social mores; the argument goes that portraying famous characters in a limited range of attire that overtly focuses on their sexualisation is detrimental to the overall public perception of women and therefore needs to be rectified to give more respect to the subject.

Personally I'm on the fence here. While it falls into a similar category to me as violence in video games *causing* people to go postal in real life (i.e. correlation does not equal causation, what the fuck are you smoking?), as with video game violence I do admit that there is a certain amount of seep into the social unconscious, and probably more significant and insidious one, as the message reinforces existing social perspectives rather than going against them, and is on the whole pushing a far more subtle agenda than "go kill everyone naow"; the consequences are a lot less obviously negative and, er, illegal.
I think that it's a pretty complicated issue; you don't see men wearing underpants on the outside of their clothes just because Superman and Batman, arguably the most iconic and influential "super heroes" of all time, were doing it. Unfortunately that doesn't entirely hold water, as again the sexualisation thing is more a reinforcement and drive of existing social stereotypes. The fashion dictated here is building on what people already expect rather than being something entirely new or different or weird (though, all those kids wearing their pants low enough to show their underwear...hmmm...).

However, I certainly agree that empowerment involves choosing what to wear - the issue is more with how what you wear is *seen* as by other people, and the vast majority of comics, or so I'm told, tend to associate the traditional super-heroine garb with less-than-empowered personalities and behaviour traits. Which means negative image reinforcement coupled with supposedly portraying what "society" finds attractive and...well, problems. But it's quite correct to say that the stupidity of the old, or current, superhero costumes (yes, superhero spellchecks as one word, super-heroine necessitates a hyphen, apparently) is moot next to the empowerment expressed in those character's personalities and behaviours, so the same would be true for empowered female characters. The desire to remove those aspects which promote sexualisation stem from a need to 'reboot' the psyche associated with all this sexism; the outfits are forever tainted by what has gone before, and therefore need to be altered to allow 1) the changed personality and behaviour to be taken seriously, untainted, and eventually replace the old tropes, and 2) to establish a new social outlook on women in general, by removing another source of sexualization. Eventually, then, in theory, you can return to some of the old costume elements once the underlying social associations have gone away, which is where the eventual equality/equal empowerment thing ends; with women being able to wear whatever the hell they want without being objectified. But for the moment, that won't work due to the history attached to them, the same as calling someone or something 'gay' can still be a slur.

...I think. XD

Holy wall of text batma-oh wait thats grimmys thing...

I appreciated the read though and yes very important points laid out there Silencer. To summarize:

1) Empowerment is an independent state of mind regardless of attire but...

2) Reinvention in costumes gives maturing characters more credibility and prevents a carry on of historical stereotypes and Tropes etc.

To this end I agree with both you and Puck. Sexy is empowering in its own right but the driving force is the characters attitude. Does this mean to empower women we need to close up boob windows, fasten up bras and throw in bullet proof vests? I think its a given that our female antagonists need an image lift to suit the new wave of plausible mettle carried these days by heroic female roles. There shouldn't be a complete shut out campaign of sexy attire though. That gives it a lot of power, I think it just needs to be played down, allowed to die a natural death if you will?

Already you see plenty of sites making fun of female character designs and this hits character designers hard in the ego. Sexy outfits shouldn't be ostracized. I think they just need to be knocked down to the B-team and allowed to live a more mundane fate of satire, comedy and overdone porno. Topflight characters may need a redesign but if they really want to re-imagine the genre and play a positive role in the development of society they need to introduce new, powerful female characters that come in dressed for business with the option of dressing down for a little pander to the teenage boy lamenting the death of the one-piece bikini.

I have yet to see any truly powerful new female leads in fiction. I mean world changing characters that can carry a comic on their own. Perhaps this a good place to ask if they exist? the most promising I found was Twitch

This post has been edited by Dolmen+: 06 September 2013 - 04:39 PM

[Dolmen 2.0]

D, on 06 September 2013 - 01:19 PM, said:

Silencer, on 06 September 2013 - 12:25 PM, said:

Personally I'm on the fence here. While it falls into a similar category to me as violence in video games *causing* people to go postal in real life (i.e. correlation does not equal causation, what the fuck are you smoking?), as with video game violence I do admit that there is a certain amount of seep into the social unconscious, and probably more significant and insidious one, as the message reinforces existing social perspectives rather than going against them, and is on the whole pushing a far more subtle agenda than "go kill everyone naow"; the consequences are a lot less obviously negative and, er, illegal.
I think that it's a pretty complicated issue; you don't see men wearing underpants on the outside of their clothes just because Superman and Batman, arguably the most iconic and influential "super heroes" of all time, were doing it. Unfortunately that doesn't entirely hold water, as again the sexualisation thing is more a reinforcement and drive of existing social stereotypes. The fashion dictated here is building on what people already expect rather than being something entirely new or different or weird (though, all those kids wearing their pants low enough to show their underwear...hmmm...).

This is the crux of the matter. Too many people on either side argue as if either social influences are all pervasive and individuals have no agency in accepting or rejecting them and the opposing view that whatever is out there has no real effect as people are all rational moral actors. In my view, we should treat any being we consider a moral person (i.e. as somewhat reasonable and responsible for their actions, and as someone capable of being benefited or harmed by the actions of others) as having a significant degree of agency. But this agency is never absolute, there being a sliding scale between those individuals who are hyper-competent to those who are incompetent. For those at the lower end of the scale, we can suggest there to be greater susceptibility to uncritical acceptance of social influences. For the those at the higher end, we can assume that such influence is limited though still very mch extant The trouble is that whilst the vast majority of people are somewhere in the middle of these two extreme positions, the opposing sides in these debates will often act as if the majority lie at one end or other of the scale. Now in the case of young children, I think it is reasonable to assume a more limited agency than typical of the rest of the population, and this belief is quite prevalent, being reflected in laws on consent and age appropriateness (though I think the agency of children is unfortunately often under or overestimated by adults with an agenda, ie. on one hand the 'think of the children' brigade and on the other sexual predators and other such people who would blame the child for what happened to them). Now when it comes women, I think we find that there is still a strong residual view that they have less agency than men (especially when social attitudes to teenage girls vs. boys are compared [the agency of the latter group is arguably frequently overestimated in criminal cases]). I would, of course, argue that women have the same overall agency as men, at least in terms of their 'innate' capacities as moral and social actors (I acknowledge that female agency can be damaged in many places in the world by lack of access to education, jobs and poltical representation, but this is a secondary sort of agency). The fact is that women typically choose to dress the way they do because of how they desire to appear based on a set of known cultural archetypes. The same is true of men. And if we are going to argue that women are being controlled by these social influences into dressing in a sexual manner for male delectation, well, I don't think men are exactly immune from the influence of cultural archetypes. A lot of men have died because they had the impression that a soldier's life would be a lark. Men and women are equally susceptible in this aspect of moral/social action and to suggest otherwise, as some of the arguments on this subject seem to suggest, is dangerous nonsense.

Sorry for double post, I missed this.

Not 100% sure if you are saying when put down simply that "Women and men can make their own damn choice regardless of media structures", but I got that impression? please correct me if I misunderstoond...

I don't think anyone is arguing that women are in anyway less or more prone to the issues around agency. we are all susceptible to flawed media. Factions on either end protecting free expression or advocating female empowerment are both offering valid points to rationalize and motivate the improvements of character portrayal. Ontop of this though there is a repercussion to both male and female psychology by altering the stereotypical...or perhaps even in leaving it exactly as it is. Brainwashing is not the term I'm looking for but if you see something enough times you will learn to tolerate it and eventually accept it, its important to be responsible with that. Free thinking is exactly that. we are ideally all "free" to "think", but everyone is coloured by the thinking of others, their creations and generally all we observe from it. While we can't and shouldn't restrict or overtly control free agency, I think everyone is in line with thinking we should reinforce positive options.

Just because you introduce a subject (i.e. a comic/movie/Ad) that demeans or empowers one sex over the other does not mean you have altered the masses entire. It just allows for an accommodation of the current social state in relation to the subject in question. People subconsciously water down any message anyway, its what we do. All creative media is a commentary after all, we take it as an opinion and move on. Popularity and trends affect our perspective quite a bit though and while women are free to subscribe to whatever they wish to, (atleast that is the general case) there is more merit in making things they'd avoid due to rampant sexism such as the fantasy and sci-fi genre more accessible.

[Macros]

I may be misinterpreting mega post, but I'm reading it to say, people can look at the comic and decide its ridiculous and file it under the 'disregard' section of their brain.

I disagree with that entirely, I find people have no idea the extent they are unknowingly influenced by media and cultural surroundings. So yes boob windows are nice, if entirely implausible and pointless as a heroines attire, but if every super lady is dressed to the nines and showing every inch of flesh possible it will deep into the brain that this is how powerful women should look. The is a slow shift towards more practical and logical attire whilst maintaining decent characters which I approve of. (I don't read many comics, but I though Johansson's black widow or whatever her name was was relatively well done in that snorefest Avengers, she didn't require gaping holes in her clothes and played an understandable and strong hero type). I have no idea if her outfit was always a total cover in comics because I haven't read any with her in them.

[polishgenius]

Dolmen+, on 06 September 2013 - 01:20 PM, said:

I have yet to see any truly powerful new female leads in fiction. I mean world changing characters that can carry a comic on their own. Perhaps this a good place to ask if they exist?

I always found Jenny Sparks of Stormwatch/The Authority to be that, and (when in the right hands, so not Mark Millar - though she was a baby in his run anyway) her successor Jenny Quantum too. She didn't carry a solo comic, but Sparks was certainly the centerpiece of Warren Ellis' run in Wildstorm.


Sadly DC apparently decided to fuck with that when merging Wildstorm with the New 52, and after an okay run in which Jenny Quantum was rather sidelined, Jim Starlin rebooted the team in a guise which didn't include her at all, but instead had some English stranger called Jenny Soul. I've not read anything with her in yet but I was not impressed- Jenny Quantum in the way Ed Brubaker wrote her would, with a proper defining of her powers, have been a fucking perfect addition to the DCU proper.


Both are also notable for not wearing crappy oversexed superhero costumes, since that's the conversation - not that that would be appropriate for Jenny Quantum, since the oldest she ever got in the comics was, iirc, 14. In fact the closest either Jenny got to a costume at all was usually having the flag of their country somewhere on their getup - a Union Jack for Sparks, Singapore for Quantum.

[Illuyankas]

Man, Amanda Waller was the best. Sadly, past tense.

[amphibian]

Jakita Wagner from Planetary was the best.

It's basically the same look that Whedon pulled Black Widow's overall look from (but added heels because ????/profit).

[Spoilsport Stonny]

Dolmen+, on 06 September 2013 - 06:21 AM, said:

Abyss, on 06 September 2013 - 05:18 AM, said:

amphibian, on 06 September 2013 - 01:34 AM, said:

worry, on 05 September 2013 - 08:49 PM, said:

Are gods mammals?

Dick Cheney is a lizard person, so I'd assume there's at least a little reptilian in there somewhere.

John Lennon was the walrus.

Do Walruses have Nipples?

Yes. And they are very proud of them.

Spoiler

This post has been edited by Spoilsport Stonny: 06 September 2013 - 06:58 PM

[D'iversify]

Dolmen+, on 06 September 2013 - 02:02 PM, said:

Not 100% sure if you are saying when put down simply that "Women and men can make their own damn choice regardless of media structures", but I got that impression? please correct me if I misunderstoond...

Not exactly what I meant. Rather I meant to say that, yes, people are influenced by the cultural archetypes out there, very influenced often, and a little social engineering isn't always objectionable and can be effective. My point was more about the fact that women are often treated in these kind of arguments as if they are more susceptible to said social influences, or else it is argued that they need more protection from them. A lot of which has to do with the view that was still prevalent in the 19th century in the West and still is in some parts of the world that women are basically big-chested children. Arguments for female 'purity' similarly, whilst not necessarily making the argument that women are childlike, are based on the view that it is better that they are kept in a state of ignorance, usually connected to the belief that they will otherwise become promiscuous and shame their family or social group. My argument is that men and women are equally susceptible to cultural influences and that they can both be harmed by them, though in different ways. You can argue women suffer disproportionately due to patriarchal domination of much of cultural discourse, but as I suggested in my previous post, the fact is that men too can be pretty severely screwed over by the expectations common in our society over the last few hundred years, e.g. belief in a duty to serve the nation in war.

[Puck]

Dolmen+, on 06 September 2013 - 01:20 PM, said:

I have yet to see any truly powerful new female leads in fiction. I mean world changing characters that can carry a comic on their own. Perhaps this a good place to ask if they exist? the most promising I found was Twitch

David Mack's KABUKI comes to mind. Sexy AND practical.. Not exactly new, though, since the series started in 1994. I particularly like the direction the series went, but it's admittedly not for everyone, especially if one wants typical heroic stories.



Or Scarab, from Kabuki's spin off series.. I'm personally very fond of those shoes. Actually, all of the female agents in Kabuki have practical shoes (if they are wearing any, that is).




There's also Alan Moore's PROMETHEA..




Granted, those are only two, so one could argue that we need more of strong female leads.. But I'm naming those because they fit the 'somewhat' superhero theme and having attire that's rather revealing and/or impractical (in the case of Promethea, what with the metal bra thing).. but that does not stop them from being awesome lead characters. I also like how none of them is shown in a pose that is meant to be alluring; they are always presented as in control of themselves.

This post has been edited by Puck: 06 September 2013 - 11:00 PM

[Studlock]

My problem with the 'violence in media causes violence in real' vs. 'objectification of women' argument is there two utterly different things. Violence is an action an individual has to make, a conscience decision to hurt another individual. It's a jump few people are willing to take unless they already have violent tendencies or are a sociopath. Objectification of women is usually a quick unconscious assumption that is constantly built upon via media. So yes the constant objectification of women can and does have more effect on a audience than violence in videogames because the former is not even an action it's just a state of being, one not need actually do anything to objectify a women. It has nothing to do with agency. Women are free to act as they will but that won't change the overwhelming theme of objectification in popular culture which does heavily affect our views on topics. Propaganda is effect just because of that very reason.

@ D'iversify...it's a simply social fact, even taking in war into account, which I will remind you the majority of casualties in war are civilians which including women (who might of been abused before death), that women get the raw end of the deal when it comes to gender inequality. The way gender inequality affects (often straight white, because intersectionality) men rarely takes away agency but rather forces a mode of living. It doesn't restrict their ability to earn money or basically move about within a society. And when it does, it does so by not attacking the men themselves but rather the femininity of their actions. It's the reason women mostly win children-custody cases, because they are thought as more nurturing. The men are rarely attacked directly. That cannot be said for women, who are raped because their skirt is too short or gets paid less because they might end up pregnant sometime in the vague future or they simply don't understand what they're talking about.

I agree with you that men can be heavily affected by gender inequality but it's nowhere as near as invasion and large spread as effects against women.

On topic: as I said Power Girl, if accepted by women fans, is a-ok. If not, they should really take a look at the characters. (sidenote, I think a lot of these conversations would be laid to rest if the big two simply hired and promoted writers and artists from more diverse backgrounds, rather than the straight white male bullpen they got going right now.)

Extra sidenote: Dolemen+ Captain Marvel is amazing, it stars a woman, shows positive relationships between powerful women of different races and ages, and as a bonus is written by a women. It's kind of amazing. She recently saved New York at great expense to herself which is a traditional male narrative.

[Illuyankas]

Just don't ask about the time she was mind-controlled, raped and impregnated by her son. That was a very bad storyline indeed.

[Dolmen 2.0]

Studlock, on 07 September 2013 - 01:22 AM, said:

My problem with the 'violence in media causes violence in real' vs. 'objectification of women' argument is there two utterly different things. Violence is an action an individual has to make, a conscience decision to hurt another individual. It's a jump few people are willing to take unless they already have violent tendencies or are a sociopath. Objectification of women is usually a quick unconscious assumption that is constantly built upon via media. So yes the constant objectification of women can and does have more effect on a audience than violence in videogames because the former is not even an action it's just a state of being, one not need actually do anything to objectify a women. It has nothing to do with agency. Women are free to act as they will but that won't change the overwhelming theme of objectification in popular culture which does heavily affect our views on topics. Propaganda is effect just because of that very reason.

@ D'iversify...it's a simply social fact, even taking in war into account, which I will remind you the majority of casualties in war are civilians which including women (who might of been abused before death), that women get the raw end of the deal when it comes to gender inequality. The way gender inequality affects (often straight white, because intersectionality) men rarely takes away agency but rather forces a mode of living. It doesn't restrict their ability to earn money or basically move about within a society. And when it does, it does so by not attacking the men themselves but rather the femininity of their actions. It's the reason women mostly win children-custody cases, because they are thought as more nurturing. The men are rarely attacked directly. That cannot be said for women, who are raped because their skirt is too short or gets paid less because they might end up pregnant sometime in the vague future or they simply don't understand what they're talking about.

I agree with you that men can be heavily affected by gender inequality but it's nowhere as near as invasion and large spread as effects against women.

On topic: as I said Power Girl, if accepted by women fans, is a-ok. If not, they should really take a look at the characters. (sidenote, I think a lot of these conversations would be laid to rest if the big two simply hired and promoted writers and artists from more diverse backgrounds, rather than the straight white male bullpen they got going right now.)

Extra sidenote: Dolemen+ Captain Marvel is amazing, it stars a woman, shows positive relationships between powerful women of different races and ages, and as a bonus is written by a women. It's kind of amazing. She recently saved New York at great expense to herself which is a traditional male narrative.

Ms Marvel is a pretty old school character isn't she? If I recall correctly she is Magics equivalent to Phoenix? (edit: rather Captain atom and phoenix) Will look into it. Have heard about her new turn in development...is there a limit to her thats explored? I keep reading about the Kree having a connection to these new heroes and I don't fully understand it.


A sister discussion on the subject over on DA with an artist called Devon Caddy-Lee suggesting some other alternatives...:

http://www.deviantar...signs-378427323

I actually prefer this one myself, but I am heavily Biased towards this style:

This post has been edited by Dolmen+: 07 September 2013 - 07:36 AM

[Shiara]

Dolmen Weeks, on 07 September 2013 - 07:34 AM, said:

A sister discussion on the subject over on DA with an artist called Devon Caddy-Lee suggesting some other alternatives...:

http://www.deviantar...signs-378427323

I actually prefer this one myself, but I am heavily Biased towards this style:

Tit-window tit-window tit-window, hmmm...

Now, tit windows as a fashion choice I understand - they're playing with a mix of demure and risqué that quite appeals to me - however, the practicality of one in a superhero outfit is questionable simply because 1) nice handle for baddies to grab onto, and 2) no matter how tight and fitted the costume, boobs have a tendency to Houdini their way to FREEDOM given a moderate amount of physical exertion, PARTICULARLY when they are improbably (though not impossibly) large. I quite like the above picture, Dolmen; the window is still there but it's higher on her chest and not exposing nearly as much flesh while still flashing a moderate amount of cleavage, enough to look sexy without risking a self-superboob-inflicted black eye mid-combat.

Also, hi gaiz, howzit goin?

[Shiara]

Also, also, things:

[Kaamos]

I want to rep the comic above to infinity and beyond. XD XD
Ah, the rigors of being a female superhero...
Will we ever behold male superheroes with oversized crotches directed to pander to the female audiences? ;-)

This post has been edited by Kaamos: 16 January 2014 - 12:09 PM

[Dolmen 2.0]

Welcome back Shiara! You disappeared for a bit. Glad to hear from you again.

As for the posts above I fell out my seat laughing at the flight plan issues.

If you think about it though DC female heroes were designed with the hope of wardrobe failure. I always highlight how only the most modest scraps of coverage survive a serious super hero bout defying the laws of physics. Clothing Trope

still the redesigns for New 52 seem to have addressed this well.

[Tapper]

Dolmen Weeks, on 06 September 2013 - 01:20 PM, said:

I appreciated the read though and yes very important points laid out there Silencer. To summarize:

1) Empowerment is an independent state of mind regardless of attire but...

2) Reinvention in costumes gives maturing characters more credibility and prevents a carry on of historical stereotypes and Tropes etc.

To this end I agree with both you and Puck. Sexy is empowering in its own right but the driving force is the characters attitude. Does this mean to empower women we need to close up boob windows, fasten up bras and throw in bullet proof vests? I think its a given that our female antagonists need an image lift to suit the new wave of plausible mettle carried these days by heroic female roles. There shouldn't be a complete shut out campaign of sexy attire though. That gives it a lot of power, I think it just needs to be played down, allowed to die a natural death if you will?

Already you see plenty of sites making fun of female character designs and this hits character designers hard in the ego. Sexy outfits shouldn't be ostracized. I think they just need to be knocked down to the B-team and allowed to live a more mundane fate of satire, comedy and overdone porno. Topflight characters may need a redesign but if they really want to re-imagine the genre and play a positive role in the development of society they need to introduce new, powerful female characters that come in dressed for business with the option of dressing down for a little pander to the teenage boy lamenting the death of the one-piece bikini.

I have yet to see any truly powerful new female leads in fiction. I mean world changing characters that can carry a comic on their own. Perhaps this a good place to ask if they exist? the most promising I found was Twitch

Funny that you put the Teen Witchblade picture up there. I read Witchblade about a decade back (up until issue 80 or so) and as much as Sarah Pezzini might have been 'empowered-ish', every single summoning of the Witchblade basically reduced her clothing to 'armored bikini' and for no good reason, really: Ian Nottingham was allowed to keep his hakama pants on while wearing the Witchblade during the Family Ties storyline AND HE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE TORN APART BY THE THING. It might have done hideous things to his mind and body but it kept his clothing from the waist down intact. The Angelus did the same to its wearer, but not The Darkness to Jacky Estacado - the only one of that particular trinity to have a default male bearer. Co-incidence much?

In other words: fan service is often deemed more important than a) consistency logic c) empowerment.

[Dolmen 2.0]

Well thats why teen witchblade has been so popular. Coming from a fan service happy genre Twitch tends to keep the incarnations of the witchblade really Noble, and historically accurate ancestors, clothing intact. I find the original witchblade transformations really impressive from an artistic point of view but yes, a bit over the top.