Thursday, 15 November 2012

Tony Harris depicts women is sexist ways.

Tony Harris, you might be familiar with his recent attack on attractive women cosplayers in the comics community, he labelled them fakes, apparently being attractive makes one not a geek and all geek girls are ugly.

During it, he claims not to draw women in sexist ways, this is total f'ing bollocks. Let's take a look at some of his work and the very few women in it.

First we have this:

Because hey, nothing says cool character who happens to be a woman like getting groped while pseudo masturbating on a cover. Not to mention the outfit or lack thereof; the man gets full coverage, she gets boob windows, multiple cut outs, short shorts, and pony tails, because you can't be a woman without having long hair and showing it, never mind that it would make an excellent handle in a fight.

Then we have this: There are two women here, decent dressed, but they're right in the background and largely covered up by men.

Tony likes to shove women into the background a lot, most of his females are overshadowed by male characters.

Here's another example of women in the background: this time wearing very little and "posing" "sexily".

How about: Even when it's a headshot, women are required to pose "sexily", because hey, I totally go around pointing to my mouth for no reason whatsoever because men find it attractive.

Or: The men again get swords and something to do, the women gets to be naked and passive.

Or:  All the men get weapons or action poses, while Leia who is kick ass just sits there looking like she's having a massive sulk fit.

Or: Cos hey, nobody would ever pose a man in chains with his legs spread like that, and he'd probably be wearing pants!

Or: When was the last time you saw a male character in a comic book or on the cover wearing see thorough clothing? I'd be guessing -never-.

Or: Tony says boobs and butt is a pox, but breaks the spines of women anyway, this is one of the few images in which a woman is doing something in this gallery, and yet she's still required to pose absurdly.

Or: A woman with a weapon, but what the fuck is up with that pose?

Or: and because fog is a practical clothing choice for women. The second has an especially fucking ridiculous pose, apparently she decided to hold a gun fight while posing for playboy!

Or: Batman looks competent, the woman looks like she's posing for playboy again and has no fucking idea how to use that sword.

Or: Here she is again, yet another boobs and butt pose, what happened to those are a pox? Again, he makes her look incompetent by the random grasp on the pole, any competent fighter would be rolling with Batman's strike, not grabbing random bits of scenery to pose "sexily".

Or: Two strips of fabric are enough to hold up boobies right?

Or: Conan gets a dramatic pose, the women gets a "post orgasmic half naked flopping" pose.

Or: This is a bit better, but she might as well be posing for a catalog company for all the dynamicism she shows. She's a wooden prop.

Or: Chick with guns check, lack of proper fighting clothing check, stupid way of holding said guns, check. If she was a guy, she'd probably be striking a dramatic pose, perhaps aiming her guns at the viewer, instead she's slouching off balance, peering over her specs at you and impotently waving them in a manner that is supposed to be "sexy" but just looks silly.

Or: The men get full outfits, she gets mesh boobtube top and two pasties, cos hey, I'd totally go into a gun fight with most of my upper half exposed entirely. Fuck armour, boobs clearly repel bullets.

Or: Cos it's not like there's a problematic history of basically making Sue Storm, someone with awesome powers into a male accessory, oh wait, there is.

Or: Impractical and stupid pose go! Seriously, nobody jumps like this, the only reason for this stupid pose is to show her boobs and butt at the same time. Again, what happened to "it's a pox".

Or: One woman and she's shoved into the background and covered up by the sausage fest, not to mention naked. I mean seriously, you'd think wearing clothing got in the way of super powers given the amount of naked to near naked women in comics.

Or: Oh look, it's pseudo masturbation and groping again. I know vampirella is supposed to be sexy, but sexy doesn't mean stupidly posed. Not to mention the random boobies  in the background, cos clearly those are the only important bits.

Or: see thorough top, check, bland "demure" uninteresting pose? Check. A man wouldn't be drawn like this? Check.

Or: Don't forget women are background decoration at best.

Or: Everyone else gets to be moving, Sue storm gets to stand off balance and stare moodily into nothing in the name of the sexy.

Or: Porn face? Check, ridiculous boob and butt pose, check.

And these are just a few of the worst offenders. Fact is Tony Harris does depict women in sexist ways, his claim not to is a lie. He's also pretty fucking crappy at drawing women, the anatomy is often poorly done, freakishly so in some cases, especially when it comes to anything that isn't tits, pelvis/vag or their head ( and sometimes even the head isn't spared from the fact that Tony Harris doesn't look at women as people but as cartoon blow up dolls).


  1. I think many of these you are waay off base with. Some of them seem to support you argument and I htink you would do better to have just some strong examples rather than ones such as, ohh let's say the next to last one with the FF (Sue Storm and her husband have essentially the same moody stare) or the Star wars one (she is the only female, unless Chewie is female, but the poses of other characters are just as static). I am a fan on Tony's but not blind to this issue as a father of two girls and wanted to see what examples you use and I think some of them support your position very well. But the overload from so many images coupled with the stretches you take to make some fit detracts from the power of your point. Hit them with the big ones and let that stand would be my advice. Having ones where you can argue against your point detracts could lessen perceived validity of the good ones. I mean, some times I was able to tell it would be an image of Conan before I opened it and ANY women in those comics, especially the covers as Tony drew, are meant to be sexy women. If the image calls for a sexy woman Tony will draw it. Emphasize the ones where the woman need not be sexualized (like Ex Machina finger in her mouth woman) and you make a good point.

    1. Or perhaps because you're a man living in a society steeped in misogyny, you just don't recognise most misogyny when you see it because you are so used to it that unless it's face slapping obvious it doesn't stand out for you. Unlike us women who are hyper aware of it because it's all around us.

      I don't think you understand the concept of a static pose, versus what the men are doing, they are not static.

      Here's the thing fedres? Where does it say Sexy for women requires us to be passive pseudo orgasmic objects like on the Conan cover? Where does it say a woman cannot be active, engaging and sexy? Nowhere, that's where. Why can a woman not be sexy as an active dynamic character? In fact I'd argue an active dynamic woman is more sexy than a draped passive object pretending to be a woman is.

  2. Next time I will proofread, Ugh!