Op/Ed: The Catwoman #0 Cover

Dear The Internet:

Grow the f–k up.

The latest comic-related hootenanny to break out on the world wide web came about yesterday as bile spilled from the easily offended everywhere over Guillem March’s cover to the upcoming Catwoman #0. Like much of his work, and comics in general, it’s “too sexy” and being torn apart by men, women, and sheep with nothing better to do. Hash tag, NerdWorldProblems.

Seriously, people, there are any number of reasons that you’re insane for bitching about this, so let’s just start with a few of them, shall we? Hopefully, when all is said and done, we can all look back on this, have a laugh, and think rationally about things going forward. Yeah… probably not. Still, food for thought:

  • First and foremost? It’s ART! March isn’t drawing illustrations for an anatomy textbook. He’s being paid, handsomely I’d assume, to make appealing imagery. And unlike Greg “Xerox” Land, he’s putting his own creative stamp on that task. Y’know who else exaggerated anatomy? Picasso.
  • Second, more than just art, it’s comic art. Exaggeration happens. Many artists draw male figures with anatomies that would put most Mr. Universe’s to shame. Why can’t Selina here have a big ‘ole bubble butt and the boobs to match?
  • Because it’s unrealistic!? No. Sorry. Invalid argument. Maybe it doesn’t look like YOU or your significant other, but that doesn’t mean people can’t look like this.
  • Because it’s an impossible pose? Wrong again. So much of the argument against this image has come from people – such as “artist” Kate Beaton – claiming that this pose is physically impossible and websites – like ComicsAlliance – sensationalizing the story by suggesting Ms. Kyle’s back would have to be broken for this pose to be a reality.  I guess it’s a good thing, then, that the misses Stratus and Cabrera know Dr. Shondra Kinsolving, then. Just because not everyone can get into this position doesn’t mean it’s unattainable, and considering Selina is – y’know – a CAT BURGLAR, I’d imagine she’s capable of some fairly contortionistic maneuvers, such as… oh, let’s say… THIS ONE, right here.

    Baby got back.

It’s simply revolting to me how readily people will jump on this witch hunt bandwagon as soon as someone says something is “over-sexualized” or “unrealistic.” It presents a bad image and makes Catwoman a poor role model? For one, she’s a catburglar. For two, have some personal accountability! I don’t know HOW I managed to grow up without transforming into a car or getting hooked on steroids, because I sure did watch a lot of Transformers and He-Man as a kid.

Stop drinking the Kool-Aid and have a real thought for once in your lives. When someone tells you something is bad and wrong, don’t just nod your head and post a blog about it. THINK first. Look at Beaton’s drawings and ask yourself if her keen artistic eye has correctly divined the nature of the pose in question, because I can tell you right now, it hasn’t. She’s drawn Selina’s breasts much higher than March did, and when you make that course correction and adjust the spine accordingly, you can see that it is an entirely reasonable if somewhat extreme pose.

Or you can go on bitching about it to be one of the cool kids. Just keep it off my damned Facebook page.

Here’s the thing – is Catwoman sexy? Yes. Is it just physical? No. It’s her confidence and attitude. It’s the fact that she WOULD be leaping straight at you to either claw your eyes out or claw your clothes off. She’s powerful, impulsive, and in control of herself and her life. THAT is what makes her sexy, and like it or hate it, this cover conveys that.


Filed Under: Op/Ed

Tags: , , , , ,

Who ARE these people!?

Jason Kerouac is a co-founder of Panelsonpages.com. He spends roughly half of his waking life in servitude to the Giraffe. Raised in a town in New Hampshire you've never heard of, he now lives in Indianapolis, IN and is pretty sure that's a step in the right direction.

Comments (237)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Jacob says:

    In neither of the pictures you provided are the breasts coming out of what seems to be the top half of the models head.

    Male characters that are exaggerated are exaggerated in relation to their power, not their sexuality. Its rare a comic superhero will be drawn with a bulge at all, much less a grotesquely out of proportion bulge.

    Seriously though, the poses you provided are similar but still very different from the pose that is drawn. Her butt and breasts sort of make a straight clean line, but the head is placed somewhere near the middle of her back.

    It’s not being sheep to want comic art to be mildly sensible. Kirby extended human proportions all of the time to outrageous extremes, but always with specific purpose for the context of the image.

    There’s nothing explicitly wrong with titillation for the sake of titillation, but the broken anatomy here works against the sexiness of the image rather than for it. I don’t think anyone is attacking the cover for being too sexy (as far as I’ve seen), but rather for focusing on tits and ass to the detriment of the sexiness and the character illustration as a whole. It’s more an attack on execution rather than concept.

    I’m also not sure why you feel the need to defend this kind of art. Comics Alliance piece wasn’t in an uproar, they’re simply mocking art that they feel is substandard (the piece is even tagged as ‘Humor’). They’re not crusading, they’re having fun with it.

    Also, it’s pretty rude to put artist in quotes when referring to Kate Beaton. Her work is expressive and often thoughtful, and her output is admirable.

    And seriously, Grow the fuck up? There’s a piece of art that’s pretty bad, and people think it’s funny. Do you get mad when people mock Rob Liefeld for his anatomy?

    Sorry for the long and hopefully not too confrontational comment, I’d love to hear from you and engage with you more.

    There’s no reason for anger towards people who think this cover is terrible. They’re expressing their opinion as are you. That’s no reason to grow the fuck up.

    • Jason Knize says:

      Jacob does have a point. Laughing at Rob Liefeld is the best.

    • Wade says:

      “Male characters that are exaggerated are exaggerated in relation to their power, not their sexuality.”

      Except male characters are drawn in a sexually appealing way (google “nightwing butt” for one example among many others). I have never understood how drawing and showing a male hero’s ass in tights plays into a power fantasy. It certainly does play into a fantasy of seeming sexually attractive to the opposite gender but following your logic, this would be a bad thing, right? In any case…

      “Its rare a comic superhero will be drawn with a bulge at all, much less a grotesquely out of proportion bulge. ”

      I’m assuming this was an attempt at a joke but if not, bulges are equivalent to breasts? Really? Interesting, considering whenever this does occur, such an attempt is usually ridiculed (like the time Jason Todd was drawn with one on the cover of the “title that shall not be named”). I’m fairly certain if a poll was done on what women wanted to see as far as sexual characteristics go ripped abs/nice body, nice-looking face, a nice butt and a friendly smile would fare better than a bulge.

      I understand that people have a right to an opinion. I think in the end though, K-Whack is commenting the level off vitriol these type of issues seem to bring about along with the hyperbole and misconstruing off comics and such that these things bring about.

      Sorry about any errors in this post. I’ve been on call for two days and my grammar suffer without sleep.


      • bones says:

        Sexually attractive =/= designed as a sexual object, dig?

      • Wade wrote: “I’m assuming this was an attempt at a joke but if not, bulges are equivalent to breasts? Really?”

        The problem is that NOTHING on a man is equivalent to breasts on a woman. No part of a man’s body has been oversexualized and fetishized to that degree, and no man can be reduced to a single part of his body in the way that women can be and have been reduced to one part of theirs. No comparison works because the power imbalance is, well, an imbalance. (In no small part because the creators and readers of superhero comics remain something like 90% male and largely straight.)

      • Alex says:

        “I have never understood how drawing and showing a male hero’s ass in tights plays into a power fantasy.”

        Two things:

        1. Find me an example of Nightwing’s Butt being the prominently displayed focus of a front cover of a comic, and I’ll give you a nickle.

        2. You’ll notice male character’s assets (pun definitely intended) are always firm and muscular. Like the rest of them. It shows how strong they are. That’s why it plays into the power fantasy. Their butts are never hugely, comically enormous, like the appendages poor, poor Catwoman has been saddled with (again, pun terribly intended) who as a cat burglar should have an ass as toned as Nightwing’s, and some sort of sports bra or something to give her some additional support.

        “I’m assuming this was an attempt at a joke but if not, bulges are equivalent to breasts? Really?”

        As a gay man, I can answer this with a resounding “rawr, hubba hubba.” Uh, YEAH we like a bit of a bulge. But it’s virtually never there. Because that would sexualize the character, instead of making them look powerful. It’s the same reason you never see shots of male characters with their chest and their butt in the same frame.

        “I’m fairly certain if a poll was done on what women wanted to see as far as sexual characteristics go ripped abs/nice body, nice-looking face, a nice butt and a friendly smile…”

        Aww, how quaint! Honey, I think you’d best leave that sort of pondering to the ladies (and the gay men), who have as diverse tastes when it comes to physical appearance as men do.

        Anyway. The cover picture of Catwoman is so absurdly stupid in its posing that I’m surprised people are even defending it as “titillation.” Lord, it looks like her head is coming out of the middle of her back! Poor thing.

        • Jason Knize says:

          So, what’s the argument, here? Are you for equal over-sexualization, or no sexualization whatsoever?

          From the looks of things, females (and gay men) are just as shallow as these imaginary male comic buyers who get their rocks off to a $2.99 DC book.

          • Alex says:

            My primary argument was that none of the comments Wade made were valid. He basically rebutted the claim of oversexualization of female characters by saying “it happens to men too!” My point was that no, it doesn’t, not in the same way.

            Objectifying people, regardless of their gender, and making them into sexual objects is kind of disgusting. You’re reducing a person, a complex being with feelings and emotions, into a thing that can be _had_, that exists only for the benefit of another person.

            Yes, people do this to other people. It happens. Whether or not it’s “right” is a separate issue. The problem we’re talking about here is that this happens very, very, VERY frequently to female characters in comic books. No matter how interesting, amazing, or powerful a female character has the potential to be, major comic books seem content to turn them ALL into sexual objects. Comic books don’t treat their men this way. It’s a staggering inequality.

            Last I checked, comic books weren’t about “getting your rocks off” to a $2.99 DC book. They’re about telling amazing, fantastic, interesting stories. So the answer isn’t for comics to oversexualize ALL of their characters, men and women, equally. The answer is to stop making all their female characters into sexual objects, and make them into _real people_ again, people with character and dimension that goes beyond how enormous their boobs and their butt are.

            That’s not to say comic books can’t have characters who are sexy, or who wield their sexuality. There’s a difference between a character being sexy or wielding their sexuality as a weapon or having control over it or expressing it, and making a character into a sexual object. It’s the difference between smart sexual drama and pornography, and comic books as a medium most definitely have the ability to make that distinction.

            They just need to, in your own words, “grow the fuck up.”

            (Also I will reiterate how terribly stupid the pose on that cover is. Note, in both the pictures of real women you posted, the distance between the model’s head and her butt. Now, look at Catwoman’s. It’s like they took her neck and placed it squarely behind her shoulder-blades. It’s stupid looking.)

            • Wade says:

              “I have never understood how drawing and showing a male hero’s ass in tights plays into a power fantasy.”

              Two things:

              1. Find me an example of Nightwing’s Butt being the prominently displayed focus of a front cover of a comic, and I’ll give you a nickle.”

              How about Baron Zemo:

              My point is, this happens to male characters but is generally ignored. Do I still get a nickle?

              “2. You’ll notice male character’s assets (pun definitely intended) are always firm and muscular. Like the rest of them. It shows how strong they are. That’s why it plays into the power fantasy. Their butts are never hugely, comically enormous, like the appendages poor, poor Catwoman has been saddled with (again, pun terribly intended)”

              Women find men with large asses appealing? Okay. That’s a first. And Catwoman can look like that and be athletic. I’m not sure why this is a far cry.

              “who as a cat burglar should have an ass as toned as Nightwing’s, and some sort of sports bra or something to give her some additional support.”

              It’s a comic. Talking about realism is kind of silly.

              “As a gay man, I can answer this with a resounding “rawr, hubba hubba.” Uh, YEAH we like a bit of a bulge. But it’s virtually never there. Because that would sexualize the character, instead of making them look powerful. ”

              Kind of like that scene where Jason Todd was in a prison shower with barely a towel covering him. That scene was all about power, right? Or this scene:


              Spider-man is all about power here. My word, all that power. There’s more of that in even older comics.

              “It’s the same reason you never see shots of male characters with their chest and their butt in the same frame.”

              Because that would hurt. Breast and butt in the same frame is a bit more understandable since breasts actually shoot out more from the body while chest does not (unless you’re wearing Rob Liefield glasses).

              “Aww, how quaint! Honey, I think you’d best leave that sort of pondering to the ladies (and the gay men), who have as diverse tastes when it comes to physical appearance as men do.”

              Or I could ask my female or gay male friends, which I have done before. This is what I tend to hear from them.

              “Anyway. The cover picture of Catwoman is so absurdly stupid in its posing that I’m surprised people are even defending it as “titillation.” Lord, it looks like her head is coming out of the middle of her back! Poor thing.”

              It’s stylized art. People can hate on this because I hate on Humberto Ramos’s art for the same reason and tend to here the same things so it’s whatever. I do think though, that people get carried away. I recall someone (somewhere on tumblr) complaining about a Land drawn comic. They complained about how unrealistic the poses were. I did not have the heart or care enough to tell them that it was a traced image from some photo but it made me wonder about how quickly people will jump on such things.

              I think about how much Scott Lobdell has done as a writer (he’s contributed a lot to comics) yet this kind of fiasco is what he will be associated with and is often slammed for (as opposed to his wonderful willingness to include gay and minority characters in comics). I see all the real life victims in all of this and feel kind of disturbed. Oh well, it’s just comics.

              • Alex says:

                I was going to respond to your points, but these two sentences:

                “It’s a comic. Talking about realism is kind of silly.”


                “Breast and butt in the same frame is a bit more understandable since breasts actually shoot out more from the body while chest does not.”

                I simply cannot. I am laughing so much at how silly that statement is, I just can’t.

                Yes, OK. You will continue to justify your position by throwing out all sorts of little tiny edge cases (Baron Zemo? Really? That’s the best you can do? No, that’s OK. I wanted Nightwing Butt, I’m not going to settle. 😛 I can’t even figure out what issue that is! Are you sure it was even a real cover?) and saying it’s stylized and it’s totally plausible that Catwoman COULD have big huge boobs spilling out of her shiny leather skinsuit and a nice big plush butt and could constantly just HAPPEN be contorting them into view for you in big dramatic scenes and on the cover of the first issue of her origin story retelling because she’s just so gosh darn SEXY all the time, that’s her primary weapon you know!

                And I’m going to continue saying this comic cover with it’s shitty pose and awkward brest-and-ass contortion is indicative, just one example, of a big problem comics have objectifying women far MORE than they objectify men. Yes, comics occasionally objectify men. I have seen Northstar sunbathing once or twice. But it’s nowhere near as bad, never on the cover of their seminal issues, and virtually always used as an occasional plot device.

                And big comics will continue to hemorrhage smart readers who don’t want to read weird borderline contortion smut.

                Nothing to be done, I suppose.

                • Wade says:

                  Likewise I find your comments to be considerably amusing as well (and part of the reason I won’t put any effort into this little spat because you don’t know how to read something else when something bothers you – and yes, that is a real cover – if you actually read comics you’d recognize it). You’re free to think what you want, but slapping serious labels like “sexist” and so forth on things you don’t like is when it truly becomes an issue and doing so to things you can ignore and slamming actual people when fictional characters are concerned is ridiculous. At the end of the day, this stuff is the comic’s industry’s smallest issue yet, between the noise and fervor, it may be the thing that truly hurts it. Quite amazing really. It must fill an aspiring writer’s heart with glee at the things he will have to endure if he will want to write a comic.

                • Junkle says:

                  Wade wins. Give up.

      • Wade’s got it in a nutshell.

        People get SO enraged over the “unrealistic” portrayal of women in comics. Guess what… They’re comics. Everyone’s portrayed unrealisticly.

        • Jacob says:

          People are portrayed unrealistically with different intents and results though. When you have an industry that is largely made up of it’s own consumers and both the market and the industry are largely straight-white-men, certain depictions become ingrained and unquestioned.

          There’s no reason to become defensive when things you like are questioned. Everyone here just wants comics to be better. One of the ways that’s going to happen is by supporting a diversity in both creators and depictions.

          There is a place for sexuality, and again, this piece is not being mocked (and it truly is being mocked instead of being torn apart) for its sexuality. It’s being mocked because (at face value for a lot of people) it looks pretty goofy. I’m not a believer in ‘if public opinion says its right, it’s right’ because the Transformers movies are pretty awful. But there is something to be said that if a large number of people look at a completely fictional image and think it looks wonky, it’s not a bad thing to listen to what they have to say.

          Comics are going to be fine, there’s no reason to be upset.

        • You seem to be having trouble recognizing the difference between rage and mocking.

      • Audrey says:

        You’re fairly certain you know what straight women (and gay men because don’t forget not every MAN out there wants to see what you want to see) want to see when they look at a man?

        Really? You are fairly certain that you, as a straight man, can speak for that demographic?

        That’s extremely arrogant.

        • Wade says:

          As opposed to the common detractors who claim this or that is not what women want or that men only care about this and that and so forth?

          In any case I think it is a reasonable assumption to assume that women and gay men are attracted to more things than a mere bulge, that they are not one-note creatures and all are slaves to the mighty bulge but rather care about a variety of things when it comes to physical attractiveness. It was rather arrogant of me to assume people care about other things than only bulge.

          Shame on me.

    • 1) Artist was put in quotes because Beaton either intentionally misrepresented what was going on in March’s picture or was unable to discern it for herself.

      2) The writers at Comics Alliance know that taking a stab at a DC cover that features t&a is going to get them a bajillion hits from people who want a cause.

      3) You speak of exaggeration with purpose. Again… She’s a cat burglar, aerialist, contortionist vigilante villainess who use her sexuality as a weapon (particularly against Batman when need me). Showing her in an exaggerated pose, then, plays in to every one of those characteristics. I’d put her up as likely the most lithe female super heroine in existence.

      My anger comes not from people having a different opinion than mine, but rather the fact that I doubt it’s ACTUALLY their opinion. I’m willing to bet most posters are jumping on the bandwagon to think this through, because the picture is nowhere NEAR as exaggerated as most are making it out to be.

      Let me say this, too: I’m no great March apologist. His work has a certain sex appeal but I find it too inconsistent and I think the rates he charges at cons are ridiculous for his mid-level celebrity. This piece, in particular, however, is a fun take on the character and my mind boggles at how so many people can react so strongly.

      • Liana says:

        Let me guess this straight: if a person agrees with an argument made, that means she doesn’t think for herself? Seriously? So, if a person does agree with you, it should also mean they are just following you blindly, right?

        Person do have their opinions. I won’t deny there are people out there that follows blindly whatever is said, but it doesn’t apply to every single person that looked at the cover and thought: “What in heaven’s name is that aberration?”

        I can say I got that feeling even before reading what people were saying about it. It felt ugly, bad and weird, even before I could put in words why it felt that way to me. Of course that was 20 seconds before I have my own words. Mine, not words someone put in my mind.

        • Jason Kerouac says:

          And for the people who really and truly ARE put off by this picture, sufficiently so to complain about it on line, that’s fine. I don’t begrudge anyone their actual opinion.

          There are, however, a LOT of people who have made this their cause du jour, running to the message boards anytime an image or issue like this pops up. They don’t care, they’re just joining the gang mentality.

          That said, Liana… what is it about the picture that seems so wrong to you?

          • Jacob says:

            Do you really believe people are just jumping on a bandwagon instead of forming their own opinions? When I saw this image last night, I had a little chuckle, flipped my laptop over to a friend of mine who knows nothing about comics and is wary of the term feminism (despite my best efforts). Within three seconds of looking at the cover, she says, “Dang, there’s something wrong with her.”

            I feel like you’ve bent what the reaction has been to support your hypothesis, rather than forming an opinion based out of how people are actually feeling.

            I guess the main question you have to confront is, are you defending this image because of your feelings about the people who are criticizing it, or are you defending the image because you legitimately feel it is a quality drawing?

            Because if it’s the latter, I honestly do not understand the amount of anger in this post.

            Like most discussions on the internet, there’s a lot of overstatements on both sides, and I think it’s important to try and do our part to make sure comics and the comics community feels inclusive for all people.

            Thanks for engaging so many of your commenters, I respect that.

            • Jason Knize says:

              I’d have to echo Kerouac’s claims of band-wagon jumping…because, in all honesty, this article has received almost 100 comments in less than a day…a record for PanelsOnPages…followed closely by another article….surprisingly enough…about the negative reaction towards Catwoman #1’s oversexualization.

              Feels to me like there were at least a couple anti-Catwoman #0 people who went to the internet with the link to this article and cried “GET HIM!”

              • Jacob says:

                I think it’s more that he posted a link to his own article in the Comics Alliance comments with the phrase ‘Nuff Said, promising a discussion ending argument. When I found something that was less thought out, I wanted to engage him in a conversation about this.

          • Liana says:

            Honestly? It seemed grotesque to me. Her pose is weird, and it doesn’t seems remotely sexy to me, just bizarre. You see, I don’t read Catwoman. So, when the solicit came out for Catwoman #0, I didn’t even look at the cover.

            My husband, though, who doesn’t read Comics, received a link to the cover sent by a friend of his, who thought the cover was “hilarious”. My husband saw it, called me and said “Do you want to see something really weird that will make you laugh?” Noticed that he didn’t find anything sexy or sensual about that pose, just bizarre.

            I looked at it, and my first reaction was that it felt wrong. Naturally, my reaction why does it feel wrong besides being ugly? Then I realized it felt wrong because of her pose being unhuman.

            You see, my problem with it is not even the over sexualized display of her but and breast. I noticed it, of course, because everyone who has eyes would notice it, and of course, everyone knows what it means. But you know what? It didn’t bother me because I’ve got used to it. I know women are going to be over sexualized. They often are. It makes me shake my head, and think whoever does it is pathetic, and move on. I don’t rant about it, and you are not going to see me rank over it. I didn’t even rant about how grotesque I thought it was.

            However, I was looking at my twitter account, and someone posted you said there was nothing anatomically wrong with that pose, and I was ‘seriously’? Curiosity made me come here, and read what you had to say. I only commented because you said people were following blindy what was said, and that is simply not true. A person can see an argument and agree with it, without it meaning they don’t think for themselves.

          • Minmi says:

            I’m an illustrator, and I have to have a knowledge of anatomy for what I do. The body could look fine with the back and the bum and the head, the problem is that you can see her clavicle bones underneath her chin (which shouldn’t be showing if her head is in that position, as it makes her head look too far back). Therefore the whole of her chest looks like it was taken from a different viewing angle. You could still get her boobs in if you draw them big enough, but you shouldn’t see where they join her chest- you shouldn’t be able to see that much chest (I’m referring to chest, not boobs) and back. If you can mentally remove her boobs as though she were flat chested you’ll see what I mean.

            Also her far arm looks dislocated- the shoulder is further away from her neck than on the other side (and this is also allowing for perspective).

            People have said her bum is a little uneven, which it does look like, however that is not something I’d be so concerned with.

      • R.L. Stine says:

        Huh? That still doesn’t explain why you put quotes around “artist”. It would make just as much sense to put quotes around “Kate”. She is an actual artist, which has nothing to do with whatever slight you think she made against another’s art.

        • Jason Kerouac says:

          She felt fit to attack March’s art based on it being an inaccurate representation of the female form, through her own art, which in turn was an inaccurate representation of March’s original piece. Considering this was my first exposure to anything she’d ever created, I’m fairly dubious of her claims to the title of artist.

    • J. says:

      If you want to prove that this art is more than just wank material, you might want to supplement your views with something other than images of … wank material.

      • Jason Kerouac says:

        Let’s go over this again:

        I was attempting to prove this pose can exist in real life. I did a Google Image search for “arched back” or “back bend” or some such. I forget which it was that brought these pictures up, but there they are – pictures of human beings posed almost exactly as Selina is. Thus, they serve as the evidence I needed. Sorry I couldn’t find a picture of a woman ACTUALLY leaping through midair to tackle an enemy. I went with what I found.

        • J. says:

          I just did the same search. I found a lot of pictures that weren’t of Miss August trying to hump random beaches/pieces of wood.

          But, I guess none of them would have worked with your thoughtful “Baby got back” caption.

          • Jason Kerouac says:

            The two pictures I chose were the two that most closely resembled the pose on the cover. Since it was my intention to provide evidence it was possible, those were the two I went with. You’re right, there were other pictures of people with arched backs. Maybe those are the pictures YOU would have chosen. But, considering they didn’t resemble the cover pose at all, they didn’t seem like very logical choices to me.

            I get it. You’re trying to be a smart ass. The thing is, you’re not very good at it.

        • “I was attempting to prove this pose can exist in real life.”

          You failed.

      • Jason Knize says:

        New PoP! column: Wank Material.

        Actually, kinda sounds like a Mad Men character.

  2. Jason Knize says:

    But…now you’re mad about people being mad. It’s a vicious cycle.

    Instead of responding to a controversy with either support or vitriol, the answer is obvious: we need to start our own controversies. This Catwoman argument is at the forefront of comics journalism right now, and it’s garnering hits for everyone. It dominated the twitter cycle today.

    So, we get the jump on others and manufacture our own controversies which will pull in hits. We’ve just gotta be on the cutting edge of shit-starting.

  3. Jason Knize says:

    Also, if the right people catch wind of this article, you are going to catch hell for that picture caption.


  4. Jason Knize says:

    Oh sh–…that’s Black from Flavor of Love 3.

  5. Troz says:

    Sadly, you didnt get the point.

    When I saw it all i thought was. Ok we know Selina’s fucking hot, but really?, really? and then proceeded to laugh so hard because it is ridiculously contrived, watch all the ragers buy the edition to spite feminists and wank off at gravity defying tits.

    Dont give a shit that its unrealistic, do give a shit that it looks ridiculous. I wish I was given respect as a reader of comics instead of being pandered to for my dick.

  6. Declan says:

    Why the quotes around the word artist when describing Kate Beaton? Seems a bit rude.

  7. People are not laughing at that cover because it’s sexy. People are laughing at that cover because it’s RIDICULOUS.

  8. Waaaaah says:

    A bloo bloo bloo

  9. Mark says:

    People are growing the f–k up, that’s why they’re getting sick of seeing comics marketed just to horny schoolboys. I’m a grown man, and if I want to see pictures of women in erotic poses I can easily find that elsewhere.
    I would never let my 13 year-old son read a lot of the comics coming out now. What a shame, imagine a young boy picking up an issue of Catwoman and being blown away that she’s actually an awesome character, not just that she has her tits out.
    People ARE thinking Jason, maybe that’s why you seem so afraid that the drawings of sexy ladies you clearly need to see are going to disappear one day soon. I can practically smell the AXE body spray on you from here.

  10. Jason Marcy says:

    You kinda lost me when you wrote “artist” Kate Beaton. When the hack who did the Catwoman drawing is long forgotten, Beaton will still be doing VALUABLE things for the comics medium, not the regressive crap you seem to be hard on defending.
    This type of nerd porn gives comics a bad name.

  11. I don’t understand how it’s not obvious that “Men are sexualized too!” equals “Two wrongs make a right!”

  12. Evan Waters says:

    It’s not that it’s a sexy picture. It’s that she looks like some kind of Lovecraftian monstrosity oozing out of a hole in the ground to devour your soul, which I’m fairly sure is NOT the effect the artist was going for. When an attempt to make a sexy picture ends up looking like the after-effect of a teleportation experiment a la The Fly, you done fucked up.

    Seriously, it’s just bad art. Don’t defend bad art.

  13. Kat says:

    Sure, it’s (just barely) possible to get into a pose like that, and sure, there are women with boobs and butts that look like that. I think the objection–or at least, my objection to the cover (besides the fact that it does look pretty silly)–is not on the grounds of anatomy but on the grounds of how it supports the sad tradition in comics of making women into hypersexualized objects.

    I am a woman and I like comics, but I don’t like reading a comic book where it seems like all the female characters are just there for teenage boys to jerk off to. It grosses me out and emphasizes the impression I get that women and their opinions and desires are pretty unwelcome in the comics world.

    Why is it so much to ask for a female character to simply be cool without having cleavage spilling out all over the page?

    • And here, again, I’d argue that this is Catwoman’s MO. Is it her MO because that’s how men have written her for decades? Perhaps. but that IS her character. She uses her sexuality. Not all female characters do, but Selina CERTAINLY does. Now… What’s so wrong and unrealistic about a woman using her sexuality to cloud men’s minds? That NEVER happens in reality.

    • Jason Knize says:

      I find it kind of offensive that a lot of the implications are that boys (or men) jerk off to super-hero comics, and that’s why (over) sexualization like this occurs. There is a vast wealth of free pornography on the internet. I might’ve tugged one out to Catwoman #0 back in 1993, but any self-respecting teenage boy these days would surely rather log on to Brazzers or Hentai Foundry to get their rocks off.

      Just as women don’t like to be pigeon-holed as sex objects, men aren’t too keen on being stereo-typed as violently sex-hungry to the point that they would purchase a comic book just to keep the demons at bay.

      • Jason Kerouac says:

        This is so true… when I first started reading comics, a big draw was the pulchritude, sure. But for the current teenage, the internet offers a thousand better options than paying 2.99 for a “fully clothed” drawing.

  14. Roshan says:

    “such as “artist” Kate Beaton”

    -“writer” Jason Kerouac

    • Wade says:

      Ah hell. The chair has been thrown.

    • Jason Kerouac says:

      I’ll take it. Y’know what, Beaton clearly has a number of folks in her camp and she’s – one would assume – made a living or something like it through her craft.

      If at some point in the future, I’m living off of what I make for writing, watching people I’ve never met defend my honor to a total stranger? Well then, I’d say being a “writer” would be a good gig.

  15. Lucy says:

    Catwoman is fucking sexy. Probably, much more than any of the girls who commented on the cover.
    Get over it, bitches.

    • Audrey says:

      Right. Because that’s one of the tried and true stereotyped insults designed to shame women from ever speaking up, am I right?

      All women who dare to speak up about degrading images and men who seem to think it’s ok for women to be treated as objects rather than people just MUST be sexless, fat losers, right?

      All women want sex the EXACT same way. Right? And we all know there is only ONE way to be sexy, am I right? I mean…come on…you can’t have sex appeal unless you have big tits and a skin tight outfit designed for the pleasure of men, am I right?

      You’re a sad person.

      • Here’s the thing – is Catwoman sexy? Yes. Is it just physical? No. It’s her confidence and attitude. It’s the fact that she WOULD be leaping straight at you to either claw your eyes out or claw your clothes off. She’s powerful, impulsive, and in control of herself and her life. THAT is what makes her sexy, and this cover conveys that.

        Are there other ways to be sexy? Oh, absolutely. But they aren’t Selina.

    • treatsmenlikewomen says:

      Easy there, chief. If you can’t be rational about this there’s no point in even having this discussion.

  16. Av says:

    I thought the desperate defensiveness of the fanboy (complete with illustrations from his wank stash) would be the height of the hilarity, but I was wrong! We get another guy insisting girls don’t care about a “bulge”. Sorry, honey, but we do! You actually should feel inadequate!

  17. comicgeekelly says:

    I really see no difference in mocking this than the relentless mocking that goes with the release of a new Rob Liefeld cover.

    • R.L. Stine says:

      This is worse because Uppity Women are doing it.

      • Jason Kerouac says:

        Ah, yes. Thank you for putting words in my mouth. Classy.

        This is worse because no one, anywhere, will look at Liefeld drawings and suggest they are even CLOSE to “correct” or “possible.”

        Liefeld leaves feet off as a matter of practice because, as an artist, he can’t draw them. March didn’t exclude Selina’s midsection because he didn’t know how to draw one.

        Liefeld has drawn five fingered characters with six fingers. ON A COVER. You can’t pose in such a way that makes it appear you have an extra finger. That’s just poor attention to detail from someone getting paid serious money to draw for a living.

        No one can, honestly, look at Liefeld Cap and say “That is a totally possible way for the human body to be formed.”

        Now, however many people may disagree with me, at least a few can look at March’s picture and imagine it in real life. Therefore, it is simply NOT as bad as much of Liefeld’s work. I won’t go so far as to say it’s like comparing apples and oranges, but it’s very much like comparing apples and apples with pouches on them.

        • D-Rock says:

          “Comparing apples and apples with pouches on them.”


        • R.L. Stine says:

          Nobody said it was as bad as Liefeld’s work, but the reaction to it wasn’t anywhere near as widespread, either. Liefeld-bashing is a very popular meme that’s been around for years. This joke over March is just a blip on a blog. It seems appropriately proportional to me, so what’s your problem? Are you afraid anyone’s going to still be talking about it in a week? Because they’re not.

        • Gojiratoho says:

          Ah, but would you say it’s like comparing apples to Nazi-oranges?

  18. Aaron says:

    At least Kate Beaton can express her opinion with good-natured humor. Inversely, I can vividly picture the flecks of spit spraying your monitor during the fit of foaming rage in which you fist-pounded this missive out on your keyboard.

    Perhaps take a break from telling people who disagree with you to “grow the f—k up” (ooh! swearing!), take a few calming breaths, and lighten up yourself.

  19. Grapey says:

    For being a “writer”, you certainly seem to lack basic comprehension.

    The issue here is sexualisation to the detriment of character integrity. It isn’t a difficult concept to wrap ones head around.

    Nobody is really bothered by Catwoman being a curvaceous character. What is bothersome is how the cover exploits that aspect of her for such suspect purposes.
    Adam Hughes’ covers for Catwoman were also unequivocally sexual, but without ever forsaking basic anatomical principle in the process.

    So it might not be entirely impossible to strike a pose such as Catwoman’s in the #0 cover (emphasis on might, since I believe you are sorely understating just how exaggerated a pose it is.)
    Does that mean it’s automatically relieved of critique? Does that mean it is by any means reasonable? Does that mean it serves any purpose beyond the most base and unnecessary kind of titillation?

    It is this kind of unthinking, sheep-like acceptance of incongruous creative decisions and unwillingness to engage in honest critical discourse which still renders comics such a nebulous and often inaccessible medium to new readers. It is mired in an excess of patronising and adolescent pandering.

    But please, continue to misconstrue the issue and address it with the textbook “it’s a style!” riposte. You’re simply providing the necessary context to explain from whence this kind of rubbish stems.

    • Look at March’s art. Even a single figure standing still has a more exaggerated presence and pose than Hughes. They’re two different artists. As is Clayton Crain, as is Joe Madureira, as is J. Scott Campbell, and so forth. They all bring THEIR style to THEIR art, so yes, I’ll stand by that argument, because it’s… Y’know… A VALID one.

      • Kit says:

        Ohmygod, that was hilarious how you totally y’know… failed to reply to any of Grapey’s well-argumented and truthful comments.

        • Jason Knize says:

          Grapey sounds like rapey. Just sayin’.

        • Jason Kerouac says:

          Grapey held up Adam Hughes as an example of someone sexualizing Catwoman without “distorting” her physical form, and somehow feels that “It’s a style” isn’t an acceptable response to this argument.

          Yes, it is. Different artists draw different characters in different ways. Every single one of March’s panels is at least a bit distorted. If you don’t like his style in general, that’s fine. But then you KNOW you’re not going to like his work. Accept it and move on. Don’t beat a dead horse every time one of his figures graces a page, and don’t claim that this is anything other than it is: “comic book art”

  20. Tito says:

    I hate this. I guess I have to grow the fuck up and stop my insane bitching.

    • 1) I’ve been telling you to quit your bitching for a while now. =P

      2) not everyone who hates it is just following the trend, but I can’t believe it isn’t the lion’s share of detractors.

      3) Can you explain to me why? Do you really feel the anatomy is incorrect, or that the pose is impossible? Or is the overall image THAT tasteless? I just don’t see it, so please, help to enlighten me.

      • Mahoney says:

        I think the reasons it’s a bad cover are pretty well covered in your article. I mean, there are people in the world who don’t have feet, but we still give Liefeld shit for that.

  21. VaultsOfExtoth says:

    I honestly couldn’t care less about the cover. This article wins purely for the mental image of Kerouac transforming into a car.

  22. Comics Geek Guy says:

    Jason, love the “insane reasons people object to this” argument of yours. Immediately followed by the insane reasons it’s perfectly alright. The Catwoman drawing has absolutely NO torso. None. I object to that drawing for the same reason I object to Rob Liefield. It has absolutely nothing to do with the human anatomy, over sexualized or not. Even the pictures you posted as “proof” show some torso on the models. Now, if you show me a picture of that exact pose, with no torso shown at all, I may reconsider.

    And, no, I haven’t been bitching over the internet over it. I’m not overly offended by it, other than the artist got paid for a crappily drawn piece of crap. The same gripe I have with anything Liefield’s done. Funny thing is, I’ve met Liefield and he’s a hell of a nice guy, so I don’t have a gripe with him personally. Just his “art”.

    Maybe you need to grow up and stop taking people griping on the internet so personally. It’s not like they took a swipe at you. Or are you just jumping on the bandwagon to get some attention?

    • The model’s pictures are both taken from the side. Not full on. Between the arch of the back and the perspective of the piece, the torso is masked by the shoulders/upper body.

      The angle of the head IS a bit awkward, but again… It’s minor exaggeration.

      That people are comparing this to Liefeld is laughable. This is a minor exaggeration of a very possible pose, not a complete disregard for anatomy.

      • Look at that bottom picture, of Miss Cabrera. Rotate, n your mind, the picture about 15-20 degrees to the left (her right). Her shoulder would now be blocking her back from view, and her breasts would still be the only part of her “torso” visible up front. You’d still see the swell of her ass past her shoulders. #facts

  23. I think it’s a pretty lousy cover, but the outrage is a bit tiresome.

  24. Boston says:

    Usually when you back up something with “proof” it’s supposed to actually prove your point, not undermine it. The “models” aren’t in Selina’s pose. And it’s the anatomy shattering aspects of it that get mocked, not her T & A.

    Again, it’s Robe Liefeld syndrome. The art is shitty. It’s not the T & A.

    Maybe you, as a “columnist” might want to actually review the basis behind what you’re arguing.

    Or not. Arguing from ignorance is best argued against from equal ignorance, right?

    • Are they in the EXACT same pose? No.

      Are they in fundamentally similar poses showing the very real possibility of the pose in the picture, especially in a fictionalized world? Yes.

  25. Joshua says:

    Reading this op/ed makes me wonder if you actually read the Comics Alliance Catwoman piece Chris Sims put up.

    Casually assuming (with zero evidence I should add) that most people who doesn’t like this cover are simply bandwagon-jumping on some sort of theoretical fad of bashing exploitative art is lazy, insulting, and intellectually dishonest. Especially since, as far as I have seen, most of the criticism this cover has gotten has nothing to do with over-sexualization, but rather, improbable anatomy. I see it as no different from humorous Liefeld-bashing, which you yourself have been a part of on more than one occasion.

    You decry Comics Alliance for “taking a stab at DC” solely to get hits, but the same could be said of this article. You’re painting a picture of a torch and pitchfork mob when there is none, I can only assume to stir up controversy to troll for website hits.

    There is far more vitriol in your op/ed than I have yet to see coming from anyone poking fun at the Catwoman cover. Perhaps that was not your intent, but that’s how it’s coming across; petulant, bitter, and irrationally angry.

    However, between this and Jared’s Mass Effect article, maybe you guys should add a “Grow the F@#$%! Up” column to the site 😀

    • Joshua says:

      “You’re painting a picture of a torch and pitchfork mob when there is none, I can only assume to stir up controversy to troll for website hits.”

      Actually, the more I think about it, I think that’s exactly what this is: a surgically planted controversial topic to garner views. Well played!

      • I’ve seen plenty of Facebok comments on the Comics Alliance article that spurred me on to write this article, and it’s the same mentality I feel has dogged this book/artist in the past – sometimes more deservedly so than others.

        I STILL maintain that the anatomy of this picture is not so ridiculous as some would have us believe.

        I felt passionately and thought the article was due. That said, did I act as quickly as possible in hopes of getti hits? Yes. I’m guilty of that, at least.

  26. Michael says:

    The breasts are positioned a little high, I’ll give it that. If, however, none of you think that position is something a normal woman in reasonable shape can attain, I guess my experience with the opposite sex has been a bit more extensive (and probably fun) than yours.

    Would I let my ten year old read this? Absolutely. Why the lack of hesitation, you may ask? Because, as a father, it is MY job to help my sons determine what is and is not realistic when it comes to expectations of the opposite sex and, most importantly, how to access and respect those they interact with. If people are truly furious about this hypersexualization of women because of its possible effect on young men, I think they’d better turn the occulus of their rage inward on their lack of sufficient parenting before they go casting stones at people who draw pictures for a medium that’s supported hyperbolic sexuality for as long as it’s existed.

    If you’re in your 30’s or 40’s and you’re bitching because the comics you read aren’t portraying women who can jump over buildings, life cars, shoot lasers from their eyes and otherwise control the forces of nature in the same light you portray your wife to your mother, well, perhaps it’s not the comics that need to change. Maybe you should stop reading a medium that’s marketed to young men before your blood pressure spikes and you find yourself unable to masturbate to the chunky secretary in your boss’s office who won’t give you the time of day.

    Seriously. Do you people have nothing better to do than get upset? Maybe instead of dicking around posting bile-soaked reviews of comic book covers on the iNtArW3Bz, you could spend ten minutes with the kids you’re so worried about and make sure they’re understanding comics for what they are – amusement, fun and graphic artwork.

    • Jason Knize says:

      All this talk about masturbation…seriously, everyone, let’s just get into a naked dogpile and see who comes out on the other end.

      No butt stuff.

      Okay…butt stuff.

  27. I don’t know you, Michael, but I think I love you.

    “Won’t somebody PLEASE think of the children!?”

  28. RavioliGlue says:

    Feminists hate whenever something is too sexy? Noted. The Right Said Fred protests begin NOW!

    And may I say, it’s so helpful when people who use “feminist” as an insult alongside the word “sheep” tell us crazy ladies what it is that we stand for. I thought feminism was about equality. Thanks for clearing up for me that it is about the WAR ON SEXY!!!

    • Jason Kerouac says:

      You’re absolutely right; my use of “feminist” in this regard was wholly incorrect and I will be adjusting it accordingly. I apologize.

      • Jason Kerouac says:

        By the way, though… I was specifically deliniating feminists and sheep as two separate groups. I don’t doubt that there’s bleedover, as sheep tend to find their way into any and every group, but it was not my intention for feminist to be used offensively.

        • RavioliGlue says:

          It still strikes me as weird to conclude that anyone anywhere is angry about anything being “too sexy.” I haven’t read the facebook comments you have referred to so maybe there was quite a lot of “yuck, too sexy!” Just seems unlikely.
          It also bothers me that so much anger was aimed at Kate Beaton here. I’m not even going to compare her work with this cover, because eye of the beholder and all that. What she draws is completely different in nature. But I was following along yesterday as she posted her own drawings about this, and I had a good laugh. They were silly. Not hateful at all. If you like this cover, fine. Is it such a terrible offense that someone made a joke about it, though?

          • Jason Kerouac says:

            In my mind, when you operate in the public eye, you have a certain amount of social responsibility on your shoulders.

            Have women, across the world, and across America, been given an unfair shake? Have they been treated like property and sex toys and worse? Yes. Should we shine light on this and “fight the good fight?” Yes.


            Is there a point where we’re crying wolf? Does making too big of a deal out of the little things undermine the argument of the people fighting the big fights? Sometimes, with some people, yes.

            This is the current trend with the sexuality of women in comics. So many people want to bang their drum and throw a fit about every little perceived slight that I feel it undermines the overall argument.

            Was Beaton, perhaps, just having a laugh? Sure. I don’t know her. But here’s the thing… her drawing directly implies an impossibility in this picture which further directly implies an intentional disregard for anatomy in favor of T&A. The ComicsAlliance further perpetuated that position. Now, as a result, people are convinced that this couldn’t possibly come close to happening, despite proof to the contrary.

            I’ve specifically noted that I found Cameron Stewart’s take on the drawing funny. Why? The artist didn’t imply that March’s art was wrong, or impossible, or whatever, but rather gave us simply a different angle on the original piece. Clever without in any way being disingenuous.

            We’ve all seen the legal ploy: “Is it true you’ve been a suspect in seven unsolved murder cases?” where no matter what the judge now says, that idea is in the jury’s mind. No matter what comes after the fact, anyone who’s seen Beaton’s cartoons of Catwoman now has that distorted mental image in their head when looking at March’s piece. It becomes almost impossible to be truly unbiased.

            THAT is the problem I have here.

            • R.L. Stine says:

              You know the phrase “straw that broke the camel’s back”? There’s so many straws out there, and for each one there’s at least a few camels who are reaching their breaking point.
              The comic cover itself is irrelevant. Read between the lines, women are just sick of how they’re portrayed in comics and this cover only serves as another REMINDER of it. It doesn’t matter if you can weasel some justification for it, or prove that it’s technically physically possible… Feminism is flaring up. Why put yourself even *near* the flame?

              • Jason Kerouac says:

                Wow… so your argument is that feminism doesn’t need to be rational?

                “It doesn’t matter if you can weasel some justification for it, or prove that it’s technically physically possible” = “If we want to bitch about something, even if we’re wrong, it’s okay, because we said so.”

                I love how you throw the “weasel” and “technically” in there in an attempt to somehow diminish the fact that there IS justification and the pose IS possible. Which is what others were arguing against. Which is why I took up my stance in the first place.

                I’m sorry if other events at other times and places perpetrated by other people “done you wrong;” because I know they have. But lambasting this artist and this cover for imagined sleights because of past transgressions comes from the same place as racism/jingoism/ and the sexism itself that you’re opposed to.

                And I’m not suggesting that you yourself attacked this piece of art; please don’t misconstrue. But if your opinion is that the comic cover itself is irrelevant, then for every person who made a stink about how wrong and bad and awful it is, there’s a little less credibility to be lent to the same argument the next time it’s being made in the right. WOLF! WOLF!

                • R.L. Stine says:

                  Forgive me if I’m missing some greater outrage over the cover. My exposure to it is purely from a series of joke cartoons that Kate Beaton and some of her colleagues drew in response to it. The tone of those comics was best summed up as “lol, more of this crap.”

                  I don’t see why it’s necessary to analyze the picture’s conceivability. If people look at it and their simple, immediate gut reaction is “wow that looks silly and contrived in the name of selling sex” then isn’t that a problem? Comics art, especially front cover art, banks on immediate impression, not scrutiny.
                  The larger issue is the bombardment of sexualized images of women in comics. When “bombardment” is the problem, intuition-based critique is understandable, and there’s no harm done in simply jesting about it.

            • RavioliGlue says:

              I suppose I should have been most informed by the fact that you start this article out by calling people “sheep”. That should have clued me in.
              I don’t think that seeing a couple of Kate Beaton drawings has turned the brainwashed masses against this cover artist, Catwoman, and hero comics as a whole.
              But then, I don’t believe in calling people brainwashed masses. Or sheep, for that matter.
              I also think it’s important, when arguing against art you dislike, that you address the art and not the individual. Because if you tell a person “here is how I interpret your art, and this is why it bothers me”, that’s fair. As you note, it’s in the public eye, and that invites commentary. What is unfair is when you say “here is how I interpret your art, and therefore you are not an artist.” Which is what you are saying when you call her an “artist”. It’s just disrespectful – and this is while you are calling out for more respect for this comic cover artist.
              Respect is a two way street. And overall – whether you are guessing what motivates feminists, or guessing what motivates Kate Beaton, or guessing at what motivates the “sheep” and Kool-Aid drinkers who post on Facebook and blog about women in comics, it strikes me that you want respect from people that you do not respect enough to imagine that they are individuals with thoughts of their own.

              • Jason Kerouac says:

                You’ve got it backwards, RavioliGlue.

                If I see someone be disrespectful to a third party, it’s not incumbent upon me to now show that someone respect, and hope they learn their lesson.

                My course of action was to pay Beaton back in kind, showing her the same respect I’d seen her show a contemporary. If that’s how she feels other people and their art should be treated, then let her reap what she sows.

  29. Elle says:

    You seem to be the one who needs to grow up a bit.

    I don’t think the problem is that Catwoman is “too sexy,” or even “unrealistic” (although it certainly is that: the pictures you use as support for your argument actually refute it, as both models are laying on the ground–vs Catwoman’s apparent jumping in air–and their chests do not face the audience in an even remotely similar way), the problem is that this image is an insult the comics readers, both male and female. The fact that, despite clothing many of their most sexualized characters (Black Canary and Power Girl come to mind), DC still feels the need to pander to men with overtly sexual imagery on their covers.

    With Catwoman featuring in the upcoming Batman movie, people will go to comic shops saying “I liked the movie, I want to read the comics.” Then, when they see this cover, whether man, woman, or child, they are more likely to say “well, that looks nothing like Catwoman in the movie. That’s gross/sexual/painful. I will not buy it for myself/my son/my daughters/etc. It’s an editorially stupid decision.

    Selina is a sexy character, but the post is not sexy. The pose is over sexualized, regardless of what you imply. There is a difference between “sexy” and “sexualized.”

    Also, way to vilify feminists. That’s a unique, unheard of perspective. No comic fans ever do that.

    Calling Kate Beaton an “artist”? Very astute and mature. And the way you pick apart her “art”? It certainly wasn’t a parody in any way. It wasn’t utilizing the same tactics as March, but with the purpose of pointing out the sexualization of the original image.

    You say that people are insane for speaking out about this, i.e. voicing their opinions. Take a look at what you are doing.

    • Elle says:

      I will give you this, though: your last statement is absolutely correct. Catwoman is sexy because of her attitude, not just her looks. I simply disagree that the pose is sexy.

  30. Junkle says:

    I don’t understand the problem with this at all. Everyone crying that this position is “improbable” and throws anatomy out the window doesn’t understand the magic of perspective. Why does it look like her head is coming out of her shoulders? Because it’s a shot where the “camera” and her body started in a straight line, almost kinda like she was jumping at you (art is neat). And I’m gonna call bullshit on Joshua. I got on the internet once yesterday, and all I saw was people giving this hell for anything they could think of. It’s ridiculous. And I love how the internet leaps to defend themselves from the “Grow the fuck up” comment by telling Jason to grow the fuck up. Seriously, people, grow the fuck up.

    • Joshua says:

      You can call bullshit all you want, but that doesn’t change the reality of my experience.

      “There is far more vitriol in your op/ed than I have yet to see coming from anyone poking fun at the Catwoman cover.”

      Granted, I don’t go seeking out nerd rage, but my typical day of web surfing and reading about comics saw nothing more than people poking fun at that laughingstock of a cover. Feel free to continue to call me a liar, though, it makes for a strong argument.

  31. D says:

    Are you serious with the Picasso comment? Okey, so you’re comparing March to Picasso, let’s get over that for a second… But firstly, Picasso actually knows female anatomy quite well (if you even bothered to google more than just Guernica you would know this) and secondly, to be able to succesfully exaggarate anatomy, you should know it’s basics in the first place. Because March clearly doesn’t, he fails. (Just google Picasso’s barefoot girl or portrait d’olga.)

    • Jason Kerouac says:

      I was comparing the two in that they are artists with styles all their own. Both exaggerated the human form. I’m not saying they’re on the same level; I was using hyperbole to illustrate a point.

  32. Chuck says:

    If you have such a hard time believing that people are actually frustrated with this, maybe you need to re-examine your views on the subject. And your entire worldview, for that matter.

    This is not something sheep just follow after. It’s a real problem and people are very offended by it.

    It’s simply childish to assume that everyone who is up in arms about the subject (specifically, and in general) is just doing it… what, to be cool? To be offended by something for the sake of being offended? I’m not saying there aren’t types like that out there, but there’s always some root in their offense. There are probably a few. But, you can’t jump on a bandwagon if you literally don’t care otherwise.

    I realize i’m using some vague language, but it’s because this issue isn’t just about a silly cover, it goes much deeper than that. It has to do with society’s views as a whole, not just comic culture.

    • Jason Knize says:

      I absolutely believe people are offended just to be offended. And that’s the underlying thesis of this article. Not “shut up bitches”, but “shut up internet”.

      Every single comic cover does not need to pass some sort of feminist litmus test. The more we let little things like this send the comics internet into a blind uproar, we’re taking time away from REAL stories and books, artists, and writers that would KILL to have the kind of publicity generated by Catwoman #0.

      The most deliciously ironic thing about all of this? Those screaming sexism and inequality are doing so in response to, quite literally, judging a book by its cover.

      • Joshua says:

        I agree that in the grand scheme of things this shouldn’t really be a major news story (aside from maybe a quick humor column), which begs the question, why are y’all continuing to devote more attention to it? Isn’t that just continuing to feed into the cycle?

        • Jason Knize says:

          Exactly why I proposed we create our own controversies instead of piggy-backing off of Comics Alliance. We can be on the cutting edge of fanboy rage if we try harder.

          Then, on the other hand, there’s the “If you can’t beat’em, join’em” argument, and considering that our two highest commented articles are about Catwoman’s sweet tits, it’s hard (pun intended) not to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

          Kerouac took it upon himself to publish this article. This wasn’t planned by committee. However, now that the commenters have come out to play, no reason to not engage them on our home court.

      • No, they’re judging the cover by the cover.

        • Jason Knize says:

          Seems to me like most won’t be picking up the book based on the cover. Most probably weren’t even reading Catwoman in the first place…so, it’s kinda much ado, amirite?

  33. Kate Kotler says:

    Oh man, I love it when straight white guys tell the little women what feminism should mean and what we should/should not be offended over.

    Frankly, you’re the one who needs to grow up. Anyone who doesn’t understand the difference between idealized anatomy (the way that artists portray male supes) and sexualized anatomy (the way March drew Catwoman) shouldn’t be allowed to write commentary on this topic.

    The day I see a male superhero wearing something like this ===> http://www.outrageous-apparel.com/wp-content/flagallery/stripper-pouch/96314-999-close-front.jpg

    Or this (NSFW)===> http://www.outrageous-apparel.com/wp-content/flagallery/stripper-pouch/96314-999-close-front.jpg

    …then perhaps your argument will make SOME sense.

    And, as far as attempting to demean Kate Beaton by using quotes around the word artist?

    Honey… Girlfriend Kate won a Harvey Award for Hark: A Vagrant in 2011. WTF have you won lately?

    Chin, chin!
    Kate Kotler
    Geek Girl on the Street Reports

  34. donteatbugs says:

    Ok, here’s the thing about the anatomy: In that cover drawing, Catwoman isn’t posed like the women in the photos you posted, she’s posed like this: http://blog.30dollardatenight.com/wp-content/uploads/yogastick.jpg *Except* that if you moved the camera so you could see as much of that acrobat’s chest as you can Catwoman’s, her head would cover her butt. In order to pose like that and get both her butt and cleavage in the shot, Catwoman would need a torso that’s either twice as long as a real person’s, or that can bend at a 90-degree angle on a hinge at the point where her spine meets her ribcage.

    If you want to write that off as “artistic license” or “just Catwoman bein’ Catwoman,” you’re free to do so, but for a lot of people it’s just one more thing in the neverending parade of comic book art doing absurd things to the female body in order to shove as much “sexy” in your face at once as possible. (Not to mention depictions of women in the media at large, where models and actresses are routinely photoshopped in ways that are just as anatomically ridiculous – because even comic book art doesn’t exist in a vacuum.) And for some of us, it gets old after a while.

    But don’t worry, I don’t actually *believe* any of this, I’m just saying it so the cool kids will like me. 😉

    • Junkle says:

      You realize people in comics fly, and explode and shit, right? Yeah, Catwoman being really flexible is absolutely absurd.

      • donteatbugs says:

        Yes. Of course. I forgot that it isn’t possible to be annoyed with one type of distortion without also demanding that nothing in fiction ever deviate in any way from absolute realism.

    • Jason Kerouac says:

      I can’t disagree more, because you have to not only rotate the model but tilt the camera off to the side. This allows for the buttocks to still be visible. And then, yes, you SHOULD be able to see torso, except that the side of her bosom and positioning of her arm are in the way.

      I’m not saying it would look 100% exactly like the cover. I’m saying it would be close enough that any exaggeration at that point WOULD fall under artistic license, and I’m saying this in the face of an army of internet commenters who are insistent that this sort of pose is nowhere NEAR anatomically possible.

      • donteatbugs says:

        Ok, well, this is where we get into subjective territory. In order to fully replicate that pose, you would still have to stretch her torso significantly, and bend her spine sharply just below the shoulder blades. (And twist her head in a way that would probably snap her neck, and bend her thigh in a place where thighs don’t bend. And possibly give her 2 different necks, although that’s a little more ambiguous.) If bending the anatomy and exaggerating the pose to that degree doesn’t bother you, that’s fine, you’re allowed to feel that way. But to me, and clearly to a lot of other people, this sort of thing looks stupid, and it annoys us. It’s not because we’ve been brainwashed to get angry every time we see a picture of a “sexy” lady, it’s because we’re tired of seeing stupid things like this being done to female characters in order to maximize the “sexiness” of the image.

  35. Ghastly Gil says:

    1. None of these are quite exactly what Catwoman’s doing.

    2. It’s an okay pose for a swimsuit model, a stupid one for a superhero character.

    3. Making fun of it is a lot funnier and more fun than defending it.

    • Ghastly Gil says:

      All of the most impassioned defenses being made for the image are definitely from longtime superhero comic readers, people thoroughly entrenched therein. This kind of approach to anatomy is something they take for granted, as silly as it looks to outsiders. It’s just another example of what DC and Marvel are doing to appeal to their ever shrinking niche while alienating outsiders further and further.

      If that’s their business plan, then it’s no worse than the thousand-issue crossover stories and the four dollar cover prices that turn outsiders away. If your readers find this more sexy than weird, and if you’re not interested in finding new readers, then this is the cover you run.

      • Big Poppa Nick says:

        I take offense to you calling the comic market a shrinking niche when it is actually growing.

        Facts. Just read the sales figures.

      • Jason Kerouac says:

        Here’s what confounds me…

        If the internet didn’t exist, I’d have seen this book when it came out and thought “I love the way her fingers/claws are drawn!” and that would have been it. I wouldn’t have found it “sexy” OR “absurd.” It wasn’t until I’d looked it over numerous times to try to figure out what people were so up in arms about that I thought “Nice ass.”

        My point is simply this – I’d have considered this cover mostly unremarkable until the naysayers had voiced their opinions.

  36. ZombieNightingale says:

    I only have two problems with the picture.

    1: It WOULD be a realistic picture if her head was forward a bit, but where it’s at is no where close to how the models are that were provided for the article. If you notice there is a large gap of empty space between their heads and asses. But for Catwoman her head is almost on her ass.

    2: I think butts are awesome, but hers puts me off because in this picture it’s as if the butt cheeks aren’t even part of one complete as, almost like she had a messed up butt implant surgery.

    • ZombieNightingale says:

      But I still like the article. I never thought one comic book cover would generate so much. LOL I’ve seen covers in the past that I was like, “really! Why?” But I just ignored the covers and bought them any ways.

      In a year or two the cover will be gone from everyone’s memories but the story within the pages is what will remain. Or at least that’s how I’ve seen things in the past when ever people want to get all outraged.

      But right now I don’t give two shits about the cover. Yea, when I first saw it I was confused as to how she would be in that position. But guess what, you look at the cover for one to five seconds. Then you just flip the page and get to the real part of the comic.

    • Jason Kerouac says:

      ZN – I think the head-to-ass effect is all from perspective. If you turn those girls just enough, I think their heads and asses would look just as close as Selina’s. Maybe not. Shrugs.

  37. Sam Henderson says:

    I wonder if this is a put-on like Sidney Mellon (remember him?) I don’t think anyone’s saying, “I read superhero comics until this Catwoman cover came along objectifying women and having weird anatomy.”, they’re saying “Isn’t it funny how this comic, typical of comics for 13-year-old boys, have drawings like this?”

    I also think someone on the Times bestseller list will continue to sell books and this comic will be in quarter bins next year.

    • Sam Henderson says:

      And mentioning the Times bestseller list, I was referring to Miss Beaton’s presence on it, something more reflective of the world outside The Android’s Dungeon. And I don’t think it’s wrong for men to defend women. It was a predominately white male congress that passed the Civil Rights bill and the 19th Amendment. But those aren’t superhero comics so some people might not have heard of them.

      • Jason Kerouac says:

        1) I don’t know that ANYONE has said it’s wrong for men to defend women. I don’t know where that came from. Though I’d argue that in this day and age, most women ARE perfectly capable of defending themselves. Still, nothing wrong with offering.

        2) Actually, I’ve never been to The Android’s Dungeon. I prefer Super-Fly Comics and Games.

        • Sam Henderson says:

          “I don’t know that ANYONE has said it’s wrong for men to defend women.” It’s okay, I can see what a chore it is slogging through all the comments on this column.

    • Jason Knize says:

      Quarter bins maybe, but be sure that Guillem March will continue to get mainstream comics work.

      Why is it cool to make fun on one artist but not another “artist”?

    • Jason Knize says:

      Also, if you think 13-year-old boys are any kind of reliable demographic as comic book buyers, you have not been a comic book shop lately.

      • Sam Henderson says:

        They may not be the typical demographic, but they SHOULD be. And I’m not talking about all comics. I mean comics like this. That’s not just my opinion. Ask the random person on the street if they’d prefer the un-anatomically correct “Hark a Vagrant” or “Catwoman #0”, and 99 times out of 100 they’d pick the former. Guillem March could probably run circles around the typical indy artist in anatomy and probably makes more money. He delivers for anyone who reads comics like this. Nothing wrong with it being anyone’s cup of tea. People who don’t read things like this (we are the 99 percent) can see how ridiculous drawings like this are, though, no matter who draws them.

        • Jason Knize says:

          All of your statistics seem solid and thoroughly vetted.

        • Junkle says:

          99 out of 100 random pedestrians couldn’t tell you what “Hark A Vagrant” was.

          • Sam Henderson says:

            Of course not. Again, I didn’t say “most familiar with”, I said “would prefer” if they were shown both and had to choose. If someone chooses the heroic fantasy (I hate the term ‘mainstream’), more power to them. They’re not inferior if they do, but the general public generally thinks outside the pullbox.

            • Jason Knize says:

              99 out of 100 will choose a book they have never heard of over a solo book of a character with 50+ years of history in comics, TV, and films, including one of the biggest movies of the summmer?


              • Jason Kerouac says:

                Yeah… Sam. Here’s the thing. I’ve never read “Hawk: A Variant” so I won’t even begin to speak to its quality. If it’s amazing, it’s amazing. I truly don’t know.


                Saying that 99% of people would randomly choose something they know nothing about as opposed to picking the thing they’re most familiar with would mean a lot more small town restaurants would have booming business, and a lot fewer McDonald’s chains would be in business.

                People will gladly sacrifice quality for familiarity. It’s a time-tested rule of marketing.

                And that’s going by the assumption that these people WOULD think “Hank: A Valiant” was better on its own merits, which I’m not even sure would be the case. How many members of the general public would pick Oscar winners over MTV Movie Award winners?

                PoP! rocks. It’s just the way it is.

                • Sam Henderson says:

                  When most people think of Catwoman they think of Julie Newmar making puns and would be shocked by the van art that is superhero comics today. It’s not exactly what they’re familiar with. They also would know that “99 out of 100” is a figure of speech like “literally”. I don’t really think you have Down’s Syndrome when I say you’re retarded.

                  • Jason Knize says:

                    Fractions: They’re a figure of speech.

                    –The Math Council

                  • Joshua says:

                    Not to nitpick, but “literally” is not a figure of speech. It’s an identifier used to denote that one is NOT using a figure of speech.

                  • Jason Kerouac says:

                    “99 out of 100” is NOT a figure of speech, but that’s beside the point. Even if the argument was “most people would prefer” – which could mean 51 out of 100 – I STILL think it would be inaccurate. Again, McDonalds. MOST people wouldn’t bother to get more than a page into the thing they’re completely unfamiliar with before shrugging it off.

                    Again, this isn’t saying that popular = better, but the argument was put out there that Hark: A Vagrant would be the more popular choice, and that just doesn’t seem likely at all.

                    • Sam Henderson says:

                      People go to McDonalds because it’s cheaper, it’s all there is, and it’s right by them. They don’t go because they like the food better. If someone were to ask them if they wanted McNuggets or a homecooked meal, for free, they wouldn’t prefer the McNuggets.

                      But I only mention Hark a Vagrant and Catwoman because that’s what this article is about. It could be Green Lantern or X-Men or Spider-Man. Let’s lower the bar (a lot) for the other example with something like Garfield. Before seeing the superhero comic they’ll think “I like some of the movies and have a superhero on my T-shirt but I haven’t seen one of the comics.” Then they’ll see the comic that doesn’t look anything like they think it is and not be able to figure out what’s going on. A comic that isn’t aimed towards anyone except the few thousand who read them already. They’ll think “I’d rather read this thing that isn’t heroic fantasy.” The point wasn’t high-brow versus low-brow, my own condescension aside. Think of it like blind taste test commercials. If an independent restaurant were as cheap and convenient, that would be the choice over McDonalds. ‘American Idol’ trumps anything on PBS not because of quality, but because of accessibility. If (keyword IF) the only things they saw were genre and non-genre and they could only pick A or B, the non-genre would usually win. That’s what I meant in the first place, and people who can read should get that. And notice I didn’t use numbers I never expected anyone to take as fact so there’d be no nitpicking.

  38. Denim says:

    I think people should stay on topic here instead of attacking the writer of this article.

  39. Gem says:

    Oh yeah, sure, I mean it’s okay for you because you get to slobber over her ridiculous boobs and her butt, and it’s not your gender, you aren’t on the receiving end of what this causes. You’re an entitled nerd and a male. You don’t have to put up with any of the shit that this kind of thing perpetuates for women. You are privileged. And like any privileged person, you are utterly convinced that no unfairness exists since everything is fine for you, right? Why shouldn’t it be for everybody else? and then you scream bloody murder when it’s brought up because it threatens your power/wank bank.
    You need to think about what this means for other people before you start screaming and swearing and childishly attempting to refute every valid complaint people have with this and what it represents (with ridiculous reasons. This is not Picasso, buddy). YOU need to do what you yourself suggested and think rationally about it then post a calm but well thought out opinion, rather than being a bitch about it.

    • Jason Knize says:

      Way to make sweeping assumptions and generalizations.

      Male comic book fans are nothing more than rapey Tex Avery cariacatures.

    • comicgeekelly says:

      Made me think of this

    • Jason Kerouac says:

      Okay, so…

      1) As I said above (though after you posted this comment), if no one had ever said anything about this cover, I probably wouldn’t even have noticed the boobs and butt, let alone bothered to slobber over them.

      2) I just the other day argued on my Facebook page that I’d be willing to give up dating in favor of saving the money to buy Minimates. Soooo… you’ve probably entirely misconstrued my priorities in life.

      3) I’m “entitled?” I’m “privileged?” I’m “convinced that no unfairness exists?”

      Lady, these accusations are outrageous. Truly, truly, TRULY outrageous.

  40. Ariel says:

    i like the piece not just the fact that its a finished/published artwork but also the artist’s interpretation of it is obviously defined. now as for the skill set – no one is perfect. at the end of the day he got paid for doing the piece. liefeld is a millionaire – and his anatomy is far worse. sometimes money talks louder than pictures 😉

    its a 50/50 piece – either u love or u don’t – does it need 100 comments?

    ok let me add more to it – TITS!!! TATAS! MUGOMBOS! GINATOS….

    also keep in mind – double Ds > doube As 😉
    try being aroused on some double As

    • Jason Knize says:

      I don’t know if it’s so 50/50, Ariel. I think either you hate it…or you really couldn’t give a sh–. A cover is just that…protection for the narrative on the inside. If DC sells more copies because of the cover, good on them. If they lose subscribers of Catwoman because of the cover…I’d say it’s the readers loss, because you’re going to miss out on the New 52 origin of the character. SHRUGS ALL DAY.

      • Joshua says:

        “If DC sells more copies because of the cover, good on them. If they lose subscribers of Catwoman because of the cover…I’d say it’s the readers loss”

        How is losing readership not a loss for DC?

        • Jason Knize says:

          I didn’t say it wasn’t a loss for DC. Point being, if you’ve been reading Catwoman and enjoying it, but you boycott #0 because of the cover, you’re missing out on an origin story which you might enjoy.

          The actual sales impact of new readers who buy the book just based on the cover as opposed to current readers who will drop the book is probably comparable.

  41. Big Poppa Nick says:

    I don’t feel the pose is realistic. The photos to me don’t help the argument.

    I also don’t think this is an overly sexy pic. There’s a lot worse out there, even of Catwoman.

    I don’t understand why when these posts come out it’s always about a DC character, and more often than not, it’s Catwoman. I think it’s a lot of fake outrage, and there are certain sites that love to ferment this fake rebellion. Some of these websites even have talking points and counter arguments for the drones that peruse them and can’t form their own arguments.

    Telling someone that he is a man, and therefore can have no opinion on these matters does not foster discussion about the issue at hand rather than shuts down any opinion contrary to what the arguer wants to align themselves with.

    The breasts in this image are what I like to call “comic small.” They aren’t the huge fun bags that we see in more exploitive art. The ass looks really weird. So why is bad art a “feminist” issue? Go back to Comics Alliance or whatever site you came from, find out what you’re supposed to say and holla back.

    • Wade says:

      I’ll agree with this. There doesn’t seem to be a lot of fairness when it comes to these issues. Marvel never gets any flack when they do plenty of wrong. And to take this one step further, *brings out the race card and throws it down with authority* why is it that we don’t hear black women brought into this? Consider: When the new run on Uncanny X-Men rolled out, I heard people complaining about Emma Frost’s missing pants. They were right. Her pants went missing and that was silly. They should be brought back. But how about Storm’s pants? I never hear people comment on this. When I do bring it up, the excuse is “she’s a nudist”. …Okay. During that one issue where Scott and Logan were wearing loinclothes and fighting in some symbolic whatever for who would go to what team, Storm was the only one topless. In symbolic-land, there is no need for “she’s a nudist” to persist but it did (this was the same excuse thrown at me when I commented on that). …..Okay. There was no uproar or anything of the like. I know I’m skipping over a lot of other examples like the FF cover that has Storm in loinclothes hunting in the jungle while Invisible Woman is wearing normal clothes (why someone who can command weather need to run around in loinclothes and brandish a knife is beyond me, but in short, there is not a lot of equality in the claim Marvel gets and when it does, it’s rather subdued and amazingly selective.

      Or maybe “she’s a nudist” is just enough and I’m over-reacting? Or maybe a more undesirable truth is at hand here. Who knows? But it does make one wonder about making assumptions of other people in many ways.

  42. Comic books, people. It’s funny what unreality we let walk and what gets our panties in a knot.

  43. D-Rock says:

    Like Jason, I did a quick Google search for “arched backs” or something thereof, and found this..


    Now, the irony is not lost on me, but I post this because of claim that March is a bad artist for even conceiving this pose. Well, if you put the camera over the girls head in the picture, you’d have almost the exact same pose. Is it a pose everyone can do? Absolutely not. But also as Jason has said, that flexibility is also part of what makes her Catwoman.

    With that said, I’m not going to say people can’t think it looks funny, or be offended for whatever reason. Art is perceived differently by everyone. What does bother me is the vilification of March for creating the piece. If the man wants to draw what he thinks is a sexy pose for a sexy character, he shouldn’t have to clear it first with the moral standing of the community.

    If you like his art, buy his comics. If you don’t like his art, don’t buy the comic. But trolling messageboards isn’t going to solve equality issues.

  44. John-Michael (Batman25JM) says:

    I’d like to thank both members of the Hallucina-Jasons for being awesome. You’re comments have been great.

    I’m really apathetic towards the cover. I’m neither titillated nor outraged by it. I just plainly don’t care. I think the extent of what I thought when I first saw it was “oh, the cover to Catwoman #0”. The end!

    I do really hate the assumption that if people don’t have a problem with this it’s because they either support oversexualizing women or they just want to jerk off to it. I feel like if guys were really clamoring to jerk off to comic books that sales would be doing a hell of a lot better. If people have a right to be outraged by something like this then people should also have a right not to be outraged without it meaning anything more than them being apathetic.

  45. comicgeekelly says:

    1. The “If you’re not upset about this you must be too busy furiously masturbating” motif in some of the comments amuses me to no end.

    2. The fact that this got so many comments really says something about the current state of the comic reading community. I’ve said time and time again that people will spend hours talking about something they hate, but wont say anything what is it that they like? We’re at a place right now where our fandom is driven by negativity and that’s bullshit. Instead of complaining about something shitty, talk about something awesome. Devote as little time as possible to harping on things you don’t like. Spend that time trying to get something that you love into the hands of somebody that hasn’t seen it yet. Promote the good and forget the bad.

    • Jason Kerouac says:

      And that’s exactly what this Op/Ed was about. It’s not so much meant as a defense of the cover as it is my distaste for the constant complaining.

      To your last point – Stuff of Legend is getting a movie and Finding Gossamyr comes out soon. Do enjoy, everyone. Neither, thus far, has had any t&a of note.

    • Junkle says:

      Kelly is tied for my favorite commentor on this right now. Along with Wade and Michael.

  46. SexyToaster says:

    Stand up and take a bow K-whack! I agree with all those points made about the art. Its comic art rarely is it realistic, and those poses are often unobtainable by its readers 😉

  47. Jason Kerouac says:

    I THINK I finally get it…

    Some people are imagining Selina’s body bent along the lines of what Beaton’s drawn.

    Others are visualizing something more like the models above.

    Because perspective, with only the one image, we have no way to know which is correct.

    Therefore, we can only come to our own conclusions, and to that end, it is up to each of us to decide:

    Is she in the physically impossible pose with her ass close to her head, and this cover is therefore due its bile and ridicule?

    Or is she in the physically possible pose, her ass is further from her head than might otherwise be assumed, and this was all just a big misunderstanding?

    I automatically assumed the latter, because it seemed to make the most sense. Maybe I’m just an optimist.

    • Wade says:

      The fact that it is an action shot as opposed to a static pose I think plays into things as well. Often times, a lot of things that seem odd in comics make sense when the action and movement of the body is taken into consideration, especially when the movement may be one that normally does not occur in normal real life (flight or something similar). Something like this is rather interesting since it’s not every day we come across people jumping out of covers (made of what and propelled by what as well—-Egads! All these questions! They must the answered!).

    • Are you arguing that the pose is realistic or that it is exaggerated (you know, like Picasso)?

      • A little from column a and a little from column b. My argument, all along, has been that the image isn’t glaringly unrealistic and that any liberties taken with proper anatomy fall well within the purview of “artistic license”

  48. Gojiratoho says:

    Holy hell, why has this issue garnered nearly 200 comments?

    “it’s an impossible pose for the human body to achieve!”
    No, it’s technically not. Any contortionist worth their salt could pull this pose off. I say “technically” because they’d need to brace themselves against a floor or a wall to do so. Pulling that pose off in mid leap is most likely impossible, and the anatomy in the drawing was exaggerated, but then again, this is a comic book where this character lives in a world where a 9′ tall human has mutated to resemble a crocodile and another has to live at sub zero temperatures just to survive day to day….who also has a gun that shoots ice beams.

    “It objectifies and hyper sexualizes women!”
    Really? A*insert popular media of your choice* is using sex for marketing purposes and objectifying a gender in the process? Maybe instead of bitching about it on the Internet, you should speak with your wallet and say “No DC, I’ve seen what you did there with Catwoman #0 and I don’t care for it. I’m going to spend my money on X, which doesn’t stoop to hypersexualization of the female form to grab attention and instead relies on the merits of its story and art.”

    That being said, I really don’t see the point of this op/Ed other than to instigate an argument with the people complaining about the cover. I agree with a few of the commentors here that the ribbing this cover received was no worse than Liefield-bashing and it really didn’t merit a rebuttal. Except, you know, this artist included a foot.

    • Heh… Re-butt-al.

      An Op/Ed is exactly that: opinion and editorial musing. It’s me, as a founder of the site, venting my frustration over more “over sexualization” hysteria. That’s the point. I still believe the pose is possible, or close enough to work in comic book land. I still feel that a large chunk of the people reacting ARE just doing it to jump on the bandwagon. So here I am, on my soapbox. And I’m enjoying AT LEAST half of the discussion taking place here.

  49. Denim says:

    I have never heard of Kate Beaton until yesterday, seeing her art for the 1st time on that comics alliance page completly turned me off. Even if she was just joking around, as my 1st exposure to her work, that was worse than this cover.

    • Denim says:

      I footless some of art. She really has no place in mocking this image. Her art leaves a lot to be desired in my eyes

      • Denim says:

        Googled not footless. Darn autocorrect

      • Jason Kerouac says:

        On the one hand, a person’s style is their style.

        On the other hand, I’d agree that, since her figures are far from anatomically correct, it’s poor form for her to sit in judgment of March’s work as she has.

        Neither of these people are tracing photos of porn stars. They’re both exaggerating the physical form. One is doing it for more dynamic action/seuxalized purpose, the other for comical purposes. It’s the fact that the latter feels she has some right to scold the former for doing much the same thing she does that bothers me.

Leave a Reply