Case Study 4: Defending Danger Girl: The definitive sexist comic?

Is Danger Girl sexist?

In short, yes.

Its blatant from the art of the voluptuous female forms, that exaggerate features related to the attractive parts of the female body, (bum, boobs, legs, small waist), to how these buxom heroines are sexualized in the story, for example when an Alligator bites a hole in protagonists Abbey Chase’s tight trousers to reveal her right buttock, to which she exclaims “This never happened to Roger Moore!”, or when a boat is about to sink a male character says to Abbey “Your natural buoyancy should save us!” looking at
her breasts. Even when Abbey’s waitress ‘disguise’ is too short so her bum can be seen, and the villainous Peach slaps it. I could go on to mention when she wears a see-through dress, or when Sydney Savage uses her body to distract a guard to escape a prison cell, or when Abbey strips down naked to seduce the Peach in a hot tub only to knock him out, (something she didn’t need to strip down to do,) the list of these examples is endless in Danger Girl: The Ultimate Collection. 

So, in attempt to defend Danger Girl, lets start with the art. Its unrealistic, yes. Its very stylized, but if you look beyond their curvaceous anatomy, look at, for example, Abbey’s forearm in the bottom left corner of this image below. This forearm isn’t realistic. Its exaggerated, and I would think its safe to say the forearm isn’t something typically associated with sexy. So why draw it in such a way? Its because the whole body is stylized and exaggerated, not just the parts to draw male attention. Hair doesn't naturally have right angles, so why does the characters sat up have this? Again, these characters aren't meant to exist in our world, and if they were their anatomy would change to be more realistic. In the Introduction by Bruce Campbell he writes "Anatomically speaking, they’re genetically impossible, but it’s a comic, right?" 'Its a comic' isn't an excuse to be sexist. 'It's a comic' is however, a statement that art doesn't have to be realistic. Wouldn't that defeat the very notion of art? OxfordDictionary.com defines art as:
 

"The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power: the art of the Renaissance, great art is concerned with moral imperfections, she studied art in Paris"

Do these images of women not evoke beauty? Maybe controversially, but from the perspective of the target audience this comic is aimed at, it certainly does. And as for "great art is concerned with moral imperfections" surely the criticism that the work is sexist defines it at being done with moral imperfections, and therefore in context of the Oxford dictionary, is great art. It does create discussion, thought provoking in terms of if it is ethical to portray women this way, if art should truly be limitless, and produced and created to by viewed and discussed. Or maybe its simply drawn to bring the viewer pleasure, bringing in Freud's theory of scopophilia.

Freud is not oftenly used as a credible source in modern analysis, as in 1996, Psychological Science reached the conclusion that “There is literally nothing to be said, scientifically or therapeutically, to the advantage of the entire Freudian system or any of its component dogmas." But to take his theory, (a theory, after all, is something not proven, or it would be fact), on scopophilia, that is 'the pleasure in/of looking.' And art is exactly that, and with J. Scott Campbells imagery having a pleasure of looking due to the sexual undertones in his illustrations, I would say Frued's Scopophilia and Laura Mulvey's gaze theory (that women are objectified in film when men are directing) when applied to Danger Girl, I would certainly say both theories can be understood in this work. To go further Mulvey states "The male gaze occurs when the camera puts the audience into the perspective of a heterosexual man. It may linger over the curves of a woman's body, for instance.The woman is usually displayed on two different levels: as an erotic object for both the characters within the film, as well as for the spectator who is watching the film. The man emerges as the dominant power within the created film fantasy. The woman is passive to the active gaze from the man." Although the Danger Girls don't submit to the advances of all the men, there is one male character 'The Barracuda' a womanizer with a huge ego, who three of four Danger Girls, nearly kiss, do kiss, or want to kiss. And as 'for lingering over the curves of a woman's body', the image above couldn't be more accurate.

So we can solidly say, Danger Girl is a sexist comic, written and drawn for a male audience. Does this make it bad? Or offensive? Danger Girl was knows what it is, and it doesn't take itself seriously. Here's a quote from the introduction by Bruce Campbell:

“The women all seem to have upturned noses – cute, but not snobby. They also have either mole or freckles – depending on weather they are sexy or studious. Bad girls, it appears get to wear fishnets and plenty of makeup, Anatomically speaking, they’re genetically impossible, but it’s a comic, right? Men, if they’re good guys, have straight, pointed noses and chin dimples. The bad ones get bigger, bumpier noses and chin dimples, but all of them sport physiques a WWF (now WWE) wrestler would envy.

In general, there is very good use of/and water – those are the wettest heroine T-shirts on this side of FT. Lauderdale! I’d say the dental work is excellent all round. But let’s not forget Danger Girl herself – or should I say  Abbey Chase? Let me just go on record by saying that I love her hips. Last time I checked, real women have curves everywhere – that’s what makes Abbey dangerous. I’m bored with the engineered, sticks with boobs parading around today – thanks for the alternative. It’s nice to know that if I ever cancel my subscription to Playboy, I can count on DANGER GIRL to bail me out on long business trips."

Obviously, between sexy sidekicks, outrageous action sequences and a bagful of eye candy, there are many other reasons to check out DANGER GIRL – I just can’t think of any right now. I’m too busy watching Abbey tighten the strap on her bikini....”

From the Introduction by Bruce Campbell, September 2001 p4

Theres almost too much sexism in this introduction to count. So lets start from the top. We've already discussed the 'its a comic right?' which while referring to a medium notorious for sexism doesn't mean you're allowed you to be. This was poorly put, as if this was a different kind of sexism such as mistreating or being hostile towards women this wouldn't flyby so easily. But in the terms of how a figure is drawn, I don't feel there should be a need to try and defend it. Art should be free to be drawn however desired. Stylized, photo realistic, abstract, however. 

Next: He also states how the men are drawn in equally well physical condition '"any wrestler would envy." But the men aren't drawn sexually, just in good shape. And only one is conventionally attractive. There is a good mention to how the female figure is drawn to amplify the whole form rather than just boobs, but ruined by a reference to how Danger Girl can replace his Playboy Collection.. and later make a joke of how he can't currently think of other good things about the comic because he's perving over the cartoon character.  

I don't think there is an issue with sexy characters in comics, its visually interesting, beautiful, and fun. I do think its weird though to use it as masturbation material, although I'm sure this was a joke, it does still lower the tone and ignore all the good elements of the comic; the typography, panel layout, corny jokes, use of colour, exciting script, and incredible illustrations not just concerning the women but vehicles, landscape and characterful expressions. In my opinion, this introduction to the comic focus' far too much on the sexy women and not enough on the comic. 

Andy Hartnell writes a better introduction in my opinion, when referring to sex appeal in comics. “One day a friend showed my a comic book that changed the direction of my career forever. Now don’t get me wrong, I had seen comic books before and enjoyed them, but not like this. No, this was friggin’ comic felt like a movie to me! The angles he was using, the pacing, the detail, and for the young pubescent teenager, the girls this guy was drawing were actually HOT!” The comic he refers to is an X-men annual by Arthur Adams, and appreciates more than just attractive women in comics, he appreciates the "angles, pacing, detail" which are more important than the portrayal and drawings of women. 

Andy Hartnell, September 2001 p5

So yes, I would conclude Danger Girl is or could be viewed as sexist, especially more so through a feminist view. But this isn't who it was meant for. Its meant to be a fun, exciting, corny and sexy comic with homage to films like James Bond (one character looking like a caricature of Sean Connery and mentioning he was in the British Secret Service) Indiana Jones, (with a scene where a character jumps from a car onto a moving army truck much like Harrison Ford did but from a horse in Indiana Jones: Raiders of the Lot Arc) and taking lots of elements from Tomb Raider. 

I feel that while comics aimed at all audiences should not be sexist, and it should be frowned upon, comics like Danger Girl mean no offence to women. They are meant to be degrading, or disrespectful, they are just meant to be entertaining for their target audience. And it is, as a heterosexual man in the target audience I do enjoy to comic hugely. But as I am in the target audience and like it, perhaps its unfair for me to write my personal opinion on it, even having analysed the comic and understanding why people may see it as sexist I still like it, and the art. But maybe women criticising this comic outside its target audience would be like me taking offence at Magic Mike, the 2012 film about male strippers. I could say its offensively sexist for its portrayal of muscular sexualized men, with a sequel sub-title of XXL (a enthusiasm presumably relating to penis size). But I wouldn't criticize Magic Mike. I understand this film wasn't meant for me and therefore shouldn't criticize it when I don't enjoy it. 

Though I believe comics have a reputation for being sexist, and perhaps this is due to the unrealistic body shapes seen in comics like Danger Girl, I would also argue that the sexism in the comic book industry today, is not as bad as other industry's, for example, the music industry. Male artists (and some female) are constantly seen surrounded by attractive female dancers, in little clothing and essentially shaking their bodies for the pleasure of the man. Even female artists like Nicki Minaj and Iggy Azalea are constantly scantly clad with their bodies shown all over MTV. But this isn't new, ever since Maddonna and Britney Spears 'Hit me baby one more time' female artists have begun to be appreciated more for their bodies than talent. Audience seem to care more about how a star looks over the sound of their voice. I would say in this day and age of the music industry video did kill the radio star. But this isn't critized nearly as much, and it is beyond me to as

why. Even an artist like Pink (whom I am a big fan of) and I would consider a strong female role-model having songs relating to a teenage female audience, can be seen half naked on the cover of her CD's. No one need to reminded of Miley Cyrus twerking with Robin Thicke, or his song 'Blurred Lines' with its lyrics defending rape and naked women dancing around him. It seems, sexism is still rampant in society, and I would not consider comics a big issue in this.
  

With comics gaining a female audience larger and larger I believe those publishers, like Marvel and DC, should take into account this, and it seems DC have with their New 52 Batgirl and Marvel with their new Ms Marvel run. I do believe comics are changing, but I wouldn't say comics like Danger Girl should be branded as offensive, perhaps sexist but only in terms of viewing women as impossibly attractive, and in no way degraded. I only find sexism offensive when women are mistreated, or talked down to, such as in Robin Thicke's song and video (2013) and how Mr Fantastic and other members of the Fantastic Four treated Invisible woman in their early 1960's comics. I found this extremely offensive and disgusting, and wouldn't read comics if they were still written like this, Not only does Mr Fantastic talk down to his wife, he has also been known to hit her. This level of sexism that is benifitable to no-one and has no place in modern media, but this was written in a time society reflected this. 

So initially Danger Girl looks sexist, and it is, but the women are strong yet sexy characters. They're funny, can fight and are the main protagonists that save the day and often the men. They just do it while looking good. It is the writing I would call offensive, like in early Fantastic Four comics, and writing that can still be found in the music industry in lyrics of songs by stars like Nikki Minaj and Robin Thicke.