"It is a matter of grave importance that Fairy tales should be respected.... Whosoever alters them to suit his own opinions, whatever they are, is guilty, to our thinking, of an act of presumption, and appropriates to himself what does not belong to him." -- Charles Dickens
No, I wasn't talking about being marketed towards different genders. Romance novels are targeted at a very specific type of person, whereas comics are an entire medium that can be targeted towards anyone.
They can be, but let's be honest: America basically uses comics for a single genre.
Even then, comics are a much bigger niche than romance novels, and tend to have more social acceptability.
At the same time, the comic industry made $128 million, and sci-fi + fantasy $495 million. The only thing that beats romance is religion, which includes Bible sales.
As of 2006, romance novels were a $1.4 billion industry, making up 21% of the book market.
you know that "i don't want to live on this planet anymore" reaction image?
that
I've mentioned this story before, but I like shopping for old books. On math, history, science, you name it. One day I happened across a large used book store here in town and went in to check it out and it was nothing but rows and rows and rows of aftermarket romance novels -- and nothing else.
I would think hell would be being stuck in one of those for all eternity
"It is a matter of grave importance that Fairy tales should be respected.... Whosoever alters them to suit his own opinions, whatever they are, is guilty, to our thinking, of an act of presumption, and appropriates to himself what does not belong to him." -- Charles Dickens
I've mentioned this story before, but I like shopping for old books. On math, history, science, you name it. One day I happened across a large used book store here in town and went in to check it out and it was nothing but rows and rows and rows of aftermarket romance novels -- and nothing else.
This is a blatant sexual objectification of a man.
It does not matter that they are from two separate storytelling mediums. It does not matter that one is geared towards lonely housewives and the other is geared towards lonely nerds.
They are both fantasy.
They both sexually objectify either men or women.
They sexually objectify in order to appeal to a market.
To say that one is bad and one is okay, no matter how you rationalize it, is hypocrisy.
But Hypocrisy isn't bad, its just layman's terms for having an unfair advantage in an argument, depending on the concepts of right and wrong, it usually just means you are right at the expense of others, which people don't agree with. In the end though, as long as you are hypocritically right, then the only hypocrisy that is bad is hypocrisy that isn't your own.
Plus in this society men being sexualized and over-aggro'd in any media is perfectly okay since they tend to dominate the world anyway and are superior to women? I don't remember any female Hitlers after all.
So under that assumption, female romance novels are okay because they don't portray lesbian romance novels in the same manner (i've chequed) and men have earned their right to domineer over women AND have their sexy fantasy girls to appeal to their victorious nature, so in essence they are both okay.
Except if you are a fictional lesbian, then they both are offensive and non-hypocritically wrong.
But Hypocrisy isn't bad, its just layman's terms for having an unfair advantage in an argument, depending on the concepts of right and wrong, it usually just means you are right at the expense of others, which people don't agree with. In the end though, as long as you are hypocritically right, then the only hypocrisy that is bad is hypocrisy that isn't your own.
Plus in this society men being sexualized and over-aggro'd in any media is perfectly okay since they tend to dominate the world anyway and are superior to women? I don't remember any female Hitlers after all.
So under that assumption, female romance novels are okay because they don't portray lesbian romance novels in the same manner (i've chequed) and men have earned their right to domineer over women AND have their sexy fantasy girls to appeal to their victorious nature, so in essence they are both okay.
Except if you are a fictional lesbian, then they both are offensive and non-hypocritically wrong.
here's my problem with the Comic Books vs. Romance Novels comparison
There isn't, as far as i know, like a die hard romance novel fandom. For the most part it seems that the people who read romance novels just kinda pick them up and read them as a way to kill time ect., whereas there are lots of comic book fans that are fairly serious about it.
"It is a matter of grave importance that Fairy tales should be respected.... Whosoever alters them to suit his own opinions, whatever they are, is guilty, to our thinking, of an act of presumption, and appropriates to himself what does not belong to him." -- Charles Dickens
Plus in this society men being sexualized and over-aggro'd in any media is perfectly okay since they tend to dominate the world anyway and are superior to women? I don't remember any female Hitlers after all.
I need feminism because women are still unable to become genocidal dictators.
whereas there are lots of comic book fans that are fairly serious about it.
This is true, and it's one of the things that upsets me the most about comics nowadays. Comics are throwaway entertainment with little to no social value whatsoever. At least they used to be, and to me this was the best thing about them. I grew up on Harvey Comics and Archie back when it was all about Wendy or Audrey or Archie on some stupid five-minute adventure. They were fun, mindless entertainment.
Nowadays they're stuck between being their ridiculous spandex superhero selves and at the same time trying to elevate themselves to having a voice on poignant social issues. Comics are even trying to escape being called what they are and now we have "graphic novels", which are still funny books no matter how grim and gritty they get or how they try to hide it.
whereas there are lots of comic book fans that are fairly serious about it.
This is true, and it's one of the things that upsets me the most about comics nowadays. Comics are throwaway entertainment with little to no social value whatsoever. At least they used to be, and to me this was the best thing about them. I grew up on Harvey Comics and Archie back when it was all about Wendy or Audrey or Archie on some stupid five-minute adventure. They were fun, mindless entertainment.
Nowadays they're stuck between being their ridiculous spandex superhero selves and at the same time trying to elevate themselves to having a voice on poignant social issues. Comics are even trying to escape being called what they are and now we have "graphic novels", which are still funny books no matter how grim and gritty they get or how they try to hide it.
Well the thing is that there are good serious comics, and there are even good serious comics that are also superhero comics.
But the thing is that neither of those are issues of Batman, it's stuff like Flex Mentallo. The modern comic industry is so caught up in continuity porn (I used a troper term and I am not sorry) that it becomes next to impossible for anyone new to break into it unless they have an obsessive enough personality to be into that kind of thing in the first place.
In other words, American comics deliberately alienate the non-core audience.
Does your mom have any slightly older female friends?
My mom has a ton of them, and yes, yes there is. It's older women in their 50s and 60s who don't have much to do. It's not a fandom in the way you'd think of it nowadays because they don't have a huge internet presence, but yeah, groups of middle age women absolutely gather around to talk about romance novels and they absolutely do argue over favorite characters and ship and things like that.
One of them treats it very differently than the other though.
You're right. Romance novels don't try to inject a political soapbox or social issue right in the middle of Fabio's open shirt and long hair blowing in the wind on page 453
Grant Morrison's run on Doom Patrol is the only example of a superhero title trying to be arty that I can think of that was successful in its endeavor, and that's only because it was so different than a traditional superhero title.
Granted, I do not read many superhero comics and my reading that was inspired by reading Morrison's own Kill Your Boyfriend rather than any prior interest in the Doom Patrol.
"It is a matter of grave importance that Fairy tales should be respected.... Whosoever alters them to suit his own opinions, whatever they are, is guilty, to our thinking, of an act of presumption, and appropriates to himself what does not belong to him." -- Charles Dickens
One of them treats it very differently than the other though.
You're right. Romance novels don't try to inject a political soapbox or social issue right in the middle of Fabio's open shirt and long hair blowing in the wind on page 453
Man remember that time Fabio gave up being Captain Topless because the President was evil?
One of them treats it very differently than the other though.
You're right. Romance novels don't try to inject a political soapbox or social issue right in the middle of Fabio's open shirt and long hair blowing in the wind on page 453
Man remember that time Fabio gave up being Captain Topless because the President was evil?
No, but I do remember the time that Fabio was on a speeding roller coaster and a pelican or a seagull slammed right into his face while in mid-flight
One of them treats it very differently than the other though.
You're right. Romance novels don't try to inject a political soapbox or social issue right in the middle of Fabio's open shirt and long hair blowing in the wind on page 453
Man remember that time Fabio gave up being Captain Topless because the President was evil?
is this a reference to that time Captain America stopped being Captain America and then his sidekick became Captain America in a black suit who carried a handgun and was totally not Conservative soapboxing?
I think comics might be the only medium that accurately reflects how politically polarized modern America is, come to think of it, because comics are equally politically polarized.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Also Justice, Both Batgirl/Oracle and Batwoman are popular DC super-heroes.
Yes, but there also examples of female characters that are tied pretty heavily to Batman and where all the "female-flavor" of him at some point.
Granted, I guess Wonder-Woman could be argued to be the "female flavor" of Superman...
But frankly I'm not sure if that helps are harms my point...which I think is that comic book writers don't seem very good at making female characters with-out basing them on an existing popular male character...
Which is probably off topic.
...As a matter of fact, this whole thread seems to be some sort of crazy meta argument at this point...
Hard to believe Romance Novels make a lot more money than Comic Books.
I don't see many comic books make it onto the New York Times Best-Seller shelf.
Plus Keri Arthur's "Im half angel half werewolf and have sex with grim reapers" books are absolutely absurd but still sell hellishly good just because the grim reapers ARE OH MY GOD FUCKING HAWT instead of being bony evil fuckers with no attraction value.
Okay scratch that, it's called Aedh instead of angel to allow her angel characters to have sex organs and loose values so they can have romantic and sexual flings with werewolves and reapers.
Not only that, 50 Shades of Grey had NO HOT GUYS ON THE COVER yet made more money in a month that Marvel Comics made in a 2 year period on their Avengers merch. (I think the difference was 42.55%, and if somebody knows what 12.55% of $4,000,000.00 (estimation) is then that's a fuckboat of sales.)
One of them treats it very differently than the other though.
You're right. Romance novels don't try to inject a political soapbox or social issue right in the middle of Fabio's open shirt and long hair blowing in the wind on page 453
Man remember that time Fabio gave up being Captain Topless because the President was evil?
is this a reference to that time Captain America stopped being Captain America and then his sidekick became Captain America in a black suit who carried a handgun and was totally not Conservative soapboxing?
I think it's a reference to where Fabio was used as a political assessment of feminism and politics back in 2001 but nobody cared because 9/11 happened and girls were too busy wishing that Fabio would romanticize them all over gondola boats and palm tree hammocks and stuff.
Comparing comics to romance novels is like comparing apples to boxes.
Because apples are good for you, and boxes hold things. Although, both apples and boxes are bio-degradable and serve to enhance the geometrical studies world (after all Newton was inspired by a falling box).
Well, think of comparing them like this.
Comic Books with their sexy and under-developed females and Romance Novels with their sexy well-developed male characters can be equal of....wait...that doesn't make any sense.
Hold on, I just got a brain fart and ran out of argument powder.
Either way, Megan Fox was the primary selling point of M Bay's Transformers series because if they played it true to the giant robots fighting giant robots movie it would have sold as well as Real Steel, and they needed the tits to lure in horny teenagers that didn't give two shits about giant robots.
And aside from me bringing up Megan Fox in hopes of igniting a flame war on the internet about using sex appeal to ruin franchises,
And asides from the Female Readers vs. Comic Book Fans debate....LETS DELVE INTO THE SHITSTORM OF THE CENTURY
Doctor Who reference in Pokemon B2W2? Headcanon accepted.
Comic books are also strictly limited to comic book shops now. At least, they are around here. The 90's crash took their fucking toll on comics big time and opened the door for that glut of manga we've seen (thanks to bookstores like Barnes and Nobles.) Do people even read American comics anymore? I know DC did that reboot and all but I don't even know anymore.
I'm sure if they started making their comics more cost efficient and opened up the markets a little bit (as in letting most small or large grocery stores stock their product on the magazine racks like the rest of the world) or cutting down on the amount of money they try to rake in on each one (I believe there are a lot of them that are in the $20.00+ market while the over-seas mangahhhh ranges from $7.99 to 12.99)
They could make a lot more money by being cheaper since a lot of their fans are kind of poor now with how the economy is raping them. For every non-special edition uncolored non-vinyled 10.00 book they sell, they add another fan that can actually afford their crap. Instead of having to milk one fan for every penny they have, they can have 3 poorer fans chip in a 10 dollar bill to enjoy their stories.
Ah, Barnes and Noble Sponsorship, why do you teach me so much about the comic book crisis....
Discussion has probably moved on but i spent way too long typing this out so posting it anyway and what are you gonna do about it
The romance novel comparison would be valid if the objection here were to sex, period. But it isn't. This isn't some minor detail, it's the crux of the entire 'sexual objectification' argument - women are not merely sexualized, but objectified. To dismiss this as 'rationalization' is to entirely miss the point of the complaint. Sex is not a bad thing. Sexy people are not a problem, per se. The problem is the lack of female agency; women in comics (and other geek media including video games, fantasy films and cult TV shows) are very often cast as objects for the sexual gratification of the male reader or lead character. i'm even willing go a step further and argue that this objectification needn't be overtly sexual, and that a great deal of moe anime and manga sells itself on these terms. These works are not directly analogous to Western superhero comic books and i was hesitant to mention them at all because the situation with them is rather different and muddles the argument somewhat, but i think it's instructive to consider this particular point: in moe manga, sex is often absent, with the 'purity' of the moe characters emphasized. The characters themselves, however, are very often bland, cookie-cutter stereotypes designed to inspire paternal feelings in male readers (many of whom will doubtless later sexually conquer these pure heroines by masturbating to them). This is what objectification entails. The characters exist for no other reason than to fulfil a male need.
Now, there is an argument, and it's a very strong argument, that all media objectifies. The characters never exist for their own sakes, no matter how convincing their characterization might appear; they exist for the sake of the audience. While perfectly true, not all objectification is equal, and this is a key respect in which romance novels differ. Captain America is objectified, yes, but he is still allowed to be an independent character with his own motivations and goals, and the majority of time, he is not being sexualized. He is not objectified to nearly to the same extent that She-Hulk is objectified, let alone the average booth babe. The lead male in a romance novel is usually a character with his own motivations and goals, and the entire aim of the female heroine is to win his affections. The female romantic interests of most comic book heroes, by contrast, are usually secondary to the male lead's other goals.
A further point to consider is the differences between romance novels and comic books in terms of the cultural context that produces them and the social niche they occupy. A little history. The romance novel is actually a very old form of entertainment, actually predating the mainstream English-language novel. Books like Eliza Heywood's Love In Excess were hugely popular in their day. Granted, times have changed. The majority of romance novels selling today are mass-produced affairs like the ones produced by Harlequin in the US and Mills & Boon in the UK (if Heywood or Aphra Behn were writing today their books would very likely be classed as chick lit), but the social niche they have occupied has remained more or less the same. These books offer escapism. In a society in which women and their bodies are constantly objectified in day to day life - and this was especially true back when women couldn't vote and were expected to be subservient to their husbands - romance novels offer a fantasy of a better, more exciting world.
None of this is to say that romance novels are unproblematic or that they aren't shaped by the values of the culture that produces them, nor that 'romance good, comics bad'. But there's a false equivalency in treating romance novels as identical to comic books. In terms of readership, assessing only the numbers and setting aside the question of how they are consumed and enjoyed, romance novels are mainstream entertainment. Their targeted audience is the 'average' woman, not a subculture or niche. There's no direct male equivalent here, because the average targeted male escapism is the mainstream; the closest male equivalent is probably pornography, which is chiefly consumed by male audiences and is arguably afforded only slightly less respect as a genre. Like porn, the enjoyment of a Mills & Boon novel is generally a private, personal affair, not part of a wider participatory culture (contrast chick lit); these books are often regarded as guilty pleasures.
Comic books occupy a different cultural niche. They are geek entertainment, which positions itself in opposition to the male mainstream (traditionally, although comic books are growing in mainstream acceptance). If they have a direct female equivalent, it sure isn't Harlequin Romance. There are parallels that can be drawn with the considerably more mainstream soap opera, and also with romances like the Twilight series - ongoing storyline, participatory fandom, and in the case of Twilight and its imitators, marketed towards a younger demographic than the mainstream romance novel. Again, Edward is not a mere object, but a character with agency, and male participation in soap opera fandoms is rarely discouraged (at least not by the fans themselves) and is sometimes actively welcomed. The latter is more or less true in comic book fandoms as well. Female fans - not critics - are usually welcomed, though being a minority their participation is sometimes met with a level of incredulity.
Comic books, speaking broadly, provide an escapism for the (often) younger male reader, one who feels some level of unease with the values of mainstream culture and very often may not fit in with their peers, and so looks for adventure and entertainment elsewhere. In conjunction with other geek media, and facilitated by conventions, fanzines and the Internet, they also provide a subculture in which geeks can interact with other people who share their interests, exchange ideas and feel part of a greater whole. Unlike Twilight and its ilk, the focus of comic books is rarely romance. It'll be there, sure, but it's not the main draw. While there's no doubt some truth in the stereotype of the lonely, horny male nerd, the sense of disempowerment amongst those working- or middle-class individuals whose interests don't align with the mainstream is not specific to, nor motivated by a resentment of, any particular gender. i disagree with Gilda here - i think fandom is a wonderful thing for many people, for all its failings (of which there are many) it provides a basis for common social interaction for people who would otherwise be quite isolated, and that it's 'corporate' is hardly a serious failing in a society in which everything from land to water is a commodity. And one of the remarkable things about geek culture, really one of the main draws for a lot of people, is the perception that it's non-judgemental, that anyone is welcome to participate - nobody in fandom cares if you can't kick a football.
So it's easy to see why many women would also want to be a part of this, and it's easy to see how comic books, which after all are not primarily about heterosexual male romantic pursuits, would appeal to female audiences as well as male ones. But there are barriers to female enjoyment of geek entertainment, and the level of female objectification in these works is one that's often highlighted by women themselves.
Comic books are also strictly limited to comic book shops now. At least, they are around here. The 90's crash took their fucking toll on comics big time and opened the door for that glut of manga we've seen (thanks to bookstores like Barnes and Nobles.) Do people even read American comics anymore? I know DC did that reboot and all but I don't even know anymore.
Some people do, here's the thread for it on our step-sister site IJBM. It started out as a Liveblog/Let's Read/whatever but later became a general comics thread.
I don't, personally. I don't read much manga either though and what I do read is mostly 4komas.
I don't much appreciate your stereotyping of anime fans (it's not entirely your fault of course, a lot of what gets classified as "moe anime" really isn't. A good example of a stale cardboard moe show like the ones you describe is the somewhat obscure K-On!) but I otherwise agree with the majority of it.
Oh also, re: Wonder Woman, i'd argue she's not actually a direct female equivalent to Superman. She's not unproblematic, but she's arguably a lot more progressive than many portrayals of women in modern comic books, with their tokenism and their 'strong female characters' who are anything but.
Comments
Romance Novel tend to be sold in Supermarkets
I dont know the situation in Northern Ireland though.
As of 2006, romance novels were a $1.4 billion industry, making up 21% of the book market.
At the same time, the comic industry made $128 million, and sci-fi + fantasy $495 million. The only thing that beats romance is religion, which includes Bible sales.
大學的年同性戀毛皮
aaaaa
It's Don Quixote's library!
Wait, that's the other kind of romance.
☭
B̤̺͍̰͕̺̠̕u҉̖͙̝̮͕̲ͅm̟̼̦̠̹̙p͡s̹͖ ̻T́h̗̫͈̙̩r̮e̴̩̺̖̠̭̜ͅa̛̪̟͍̣͎͖̺d͉̦͠s͕̞͚̲͍ ̲̬̹̤Y̻̤̱o̭͠u̥͉̥̜͡ ̴̥̪D̳̲̳̤o̴͙̘͓̤̟̗͇n̰̗̞̼̳͙͖͢'҉͖t̳͓̣͍̗̰ ͉W̝̳͓̼͜a̗͉̳͖̘̮n͕ͅt͚̟͚ ̸̺T̜̖̖̺͎̱ͅo̭̪̰̼̥̜ ̼͍̟̝R̝̹̮̭ͅͅe̡̗͇a͍̘̤͉͘d̼̜ 
⚢
☭
B̤̺͍̰͕̺̠̕u҉̖͙̝̮͕̲ͅm̟̼̦̠̹̙p͡s̹͖ ̻T́h̗̫͈̙̩r̮e̴̩̺̖̠̭̜ͅa̛̪̟͍̣͎͖̺d͉̦͠s͕̞͚̲͍ ̲̬̹̤Y̻̤̱o̭͠u̥͉̥̜͡ ̴̥̪D̳̲̳̤o̴͙̘͓̤̟̗͇n̰̗̞̼̳͙͖͢'҉͖t̳͓̣͍̗̰ ͉W̝̳͓̼͜a̗͉̳͖̘̮n͕ͅt͚̟͚ ̸̺T̜̖̖̺͎̱ͅo̭̪̰̼̥̜ ̼͍̟̝R̝̹̮̭ͅͅe̡̗͇a͍̘̤͉͘d̼̜ 
⚢
But Hypocrisy isn't bad, its just layman's terms for having an unfair advantage in an argument, depending on the concepts of right and wrong, it usually just means you are right at the expense of others, which people don't agree with. In the end though, as long as you are hypocritically right, then the only hypocrisy that is bad is hypocrisy that isn't your own.
Plus in this society men being sexualized and over-aggro'd in any media is perfectly okay since they tend to dominate the world anyway and are superior to women? I don't remember any female Hitlers after all.
So under that assumption, female romance novels are okay because they don't portray lesbian romance novels in the same manner (i've chequed) and men have earned their right to domineer over women AND have their sexy fantasy girls to appeal to their victorious nature, so in essence they are both okay.
Except if you are a fictional lesbian, then they both are offensive and non-hypocritically wrong.
☭
B̤̺͍̰͕̺̠̕u҉̖͙̝̮͕̲ͅm̟̼̦̠̹̙p͡s̹͖ ̻T́h̗̫͈̙̩r̮e̴̩̺̖̠̭̜ͅa̛̪̟͍̣͎͖̺d͉̦͠s͕̞͚̲͍ ̲̬̹̤Y̻̤̱o̭͠u̥͉̥̜͡ ̴̥̪D̳̲̳̤o̴͙̘͓̤̟̗͇n̰̗̞̼̳͙͖͢'҉͖t̳͓̣͍̗̰ ͉W̝̳͓̼͜a̗͉̳͖̘̮n͕ͅt͚̟͚ ̸̺T̜̖̖̺͎̱ͅo̭̪̰̼̥̜ ̼͍̟̝R̝̹̮̭ͅͅe̡̗͇a͍̘̤͉͘d̼̜ 
⚢
what kind of sheltered life have you been living
Well the thing is that there are good serious comics, and there are even good serious comics that are also superhero comics.
But the thing is that neither of those are issues of Batman, it's stuff like Flex Mentallo. The modern comic industry is so caught up in continuity porn (I used a troper term and I am not sorry) that it becomes next to impossible for anyone new to break into it unless they have an obsessive enough personality to be into that kind of thing in the first place.
In other words, American comics deliberately alienate the non-core audience.
Does your mom have any slightly older female friends?
My mom has a ton of them, and yes, yes there is. It's older women in their 50s and 60s who don't have much to do. It's not a fandom in the way you'd think of it nowadays because they don't have a huge internet presence, but yeah, groups of middle age women absolutely gather around to talk about romance novels and they absolutely do argue over favorite characters and ship and things like that.
Grant Morrison's run on Doom Patrol is the only example of a superhero title trying to be arty that I can think of that was successful in its endeavor, and that's only because it was so different than a traditional superhero title.
Granted, I do not read many superhero comics and my reading that was inspired by reading Morrison's own Kill Your Boyfriend rather than any prior interest in the Doom Patrol.
why why
is this a reference to that time Captain America stopped being Captain America and then his sidekick became Captain America in a black suit who carried a handgun and was totally not Conservative soapboxing?
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
大學的年同性戀毛皮
aaaaa
☭
B̤̺͍̰͕̺̠̕u҉̖͙̝̮͕̲ͅm̟̼̦̠̹̙p͡s̹͖ ̻T́h̗̫͈̙̩r̮e̴̩̺̖̠̭̜ͅa̛̪̟͍̣͎͖̺d͉̦͠s͕̞͚̲͍ ̲̬̹̤Y̻̤̱o̭͠u̥͉̥̜͡ ̴̥̪D̳̲̳̤o̴͙̘͓̤̟̗͇n̰̗̞̼̳͙͖͢'҉͖t̳͓̣͍̗̰ ͉W̝̳͓̼͜a̗͉̳͖̘̮n͕ͅt͚̟͚ ̸̺T̜̖̖̺͎̱ͅo̭̪̰̼̥̜ ̼͍̟̝R̝̹̮̭ͅͅe̡̗͇a͍̘̤͉͘d̼̜ 
⚢
Plus Keri Arthur's "Im half angel half werewolf and have sex with grim reapers" books are absolutely absurd but still sell hellishly good just because the grim reapers ARE OH MY GOD FUCKING HAWT instead of being bony evil fuckers with no attraction value.
Okay scratch that, it's called Aedh instead of angel to allow her angel characters to have sex organs and loose values so they can have romantic and sexual flings with werewolves and reapers.
Not only that, 50 Shades of Grey had NO HOT GUYS ON THE COVER yet made more money in a month that Marvel Comics made in a 2 year period on their Avengers merch. (I think the difference was 42.55%, and if somebody knows what 12.55% of $4,000,000.00 (estimation) is then that's a fuckboat of sales.)
☭
B̤̺͍̰͕̺̠̕u҉̖͙̝̮͕̲ͅm̟̼̦̠̹̙p͡s̹͖ ̻T́h̗̫͈̙̩r̮e̴̩̺̖̠̭̜ͅa̛̪̟͍̣͎͖̺d͉̦͠s͕̞͚̲͍ ̲̬̹̤Y̻̤̱o̭͠u̥͉̥̜͡ ̴̥̪D̳̲̳̤o̴͙̘͓̤̟̗͇n̰̗̞̼̳͙͖͢'҉͖t̳͓̣͍̗̰ ͉W̝̳͓̼͜a̗͉̳͖̘̮n͕ͅt͚̟͚ ̸̺T̜̖̖̺͎̱ͅo̭̪̰̼̥̜ ̼͍̟̝R̝̹̮̭ͅͅe̡̗͇a͍̘̤͉͘d̼̜ 
⚢
☭
B̤̺͍̰͕̺̠̕u҉̖͙̝̮͕̲ͅm̟̼̦̠̹̙p͡s̹͖ ̻T́h̗̫͈̙̩r̮e̴̩̺̖̠̭̜ͅa̛̪̟͍̣͎͖̺d͉̦͠s͕̞͚̲͍ ̲̬̹̤Y̻̤̱o̭͠u̥͉̥̜͡ ̴̥̪D̳̲̳̤o̴͙̘͓̤̟̗͇n̰̗̞̼̳͙͖͢'҉͖t̳͓̣͍̗̰ ͉W̝̳͓̼͜a̗͉̳͖̘̮n͕ͅt͚̟͚ ̸̺T̜̖̖̺͎̱ͅo̭̪̰̼̥̜ ̼͍̟̝R̝̹̮̭ͅͅe̡̗͇a͍̘̤͉͘d̼̜ 
⚢
Well, think of comparing them like this.
Comic Books with their sexy and under-developed females and Romance Novels with their sexy well-developed male characters can be equal of....wait...that doesn't make any sense.
Hold on, I just got a brain fart and ran out of argument powder.
Either way, Megan Fox was the primary selling point of M Bay's Transformers series because if they played it true to the giant robots fighting giant robots movie it would have sold as well as Real Steel, and they needed the tits to lure in horny teenagers that didn't give two shits about giant robots.
And aside from me bringing up Megan Fox in hopes of igniting a flame war on the internet about using sex appeal to ruin franchises,
And asides from the Female Readers vs. Comic Book Fans debate....LETS DELVE INTO THE SHITSTORM OF THE CENTURY
JAPANESE OTAKU VS. AMERICAN NERDS
Can I has High School of the Dead Shitstorm plz?
☭
B̤̺͍̰͕̺̠̕u҉̖͙̝̮͕̲ͅm̟̼̦̠̹̙p͡s̹͖ ̻T́h̗̫͈̙̩r̮e̴̩̺̖̠̭̜ͅa̛̪̟͍̣͎͖̺d͉̦͠s͕̞͚̲͍ ̲̬̹̤Y̻̤̱o̭͠u̥͉̥̜͡ ̴̥̪D̳̲̳̤o̴͙̘͓̤̟̗͇n̰̗̞̼̳͙͖͢'҉͖t̳͓̣͍̗̰ ͉W̝̳͓̼͜a̗͉̳͖̘̮n͕ͅt͚̟͚ ̸̺T̜̖̖̺͎̱ͅo̭̪̰̼̥̜ ̼͍̟̝R̝̹̮̭ͅͅe̡̗͇a͍̘̤͉͘d̼̜ 
⚢
They could make a lot more money by being cheaper since a lot of their fans are kind of poor now with how the economy is raping them. For every non-special edition uncolored non-vinyled 10.00 book they sell, they add another fan that can actually afford their crap. Instead of having to milk one fan for every penny they have, they can have 3 poorer fans chip in a 10 dollar bill to enjoy their stories.
Ah, Barnes and Noble Sponsorship, why do you teach me so much about the comic book crisis....
The romance novel comparison would be valid if the objection here were to sex, period. But it isn't. This isn't some minor detail, it's the crux of the entire 'sexual objectification' argument - women are not merely sexualized, but objectified. To dismiss this as 'rationalization' is to entirely miss the point of the complaint. Sex is not a bad thing. Sexy people are not a problem, per se. The problem is the lack of female agency; women in comics (and other geek media including video games, fantasy films and cult TV shows) are very often cast as objects for the sexual gratification of the male reader or lead character. i'm even willing go a step further and argue that this objectification needn't be overtly sexual, and that a great deal of moe anime and manga sells itself on these terms. These works are not directly analogous to Western superhero comic books and i was hesitant to mention them at all because the situation with them is rather different and muddles the argument somewhat, but i think it's instructive to consider this particular point: in moe manga, sex is often absent, with the 'purity' of the moe characters emphasized. The characters themselves, however, are very often bland, cookie-cutter stereotypes designed to inspire paternal feelings in male readers (many of whom will doubtless later sexually conquer these pure heroines by masturbating to them). This is what objectification entails. The characters exist for no other reason than to fulfil a male need.
Now, there is an argument, and it's a very strong argument, that all media objectifies. The characters never exist for their own sakes, no matter how convincing their characterization might appear; they exist for the sake of the audience. While perfectly true, not all objectification is equal, and this is a key respect in which romance novels differ. Captain America is objectified, yes, but he is still allowed to be an independent character with his own motivations and goals, and the majority of time, he is not being sexualized. He is not objectified to nearly to the same extent that She-Hulk is objectified, let alone the average booth babe. The lead male in a romance novel is usually a character with his own motivations and goals, and the entire aim of the female heroine is to win his affections. The female romantic interests of most comic book heroes, by contrast, are usually secondary to the male lead's other goals.
A further point to consider is the differences between romance novels and comic books in terms of the cultural context that produces them and the social niche they occupy. A little history. The romance novel is actually a very old form of entertainment, actually predating the mainstream English-language novel. Books like Eliza Heywood's Love In Excess were hugely popular in their day. Granted, times have changed. The majority of romance novels selling today are mass-produced affairs like the ones produced by Harlequin in the US and Mills & Boon in the UK (if Heywood or Aphra Behn were writing today their books would very likely be classed as chick lit), but the social niche they have occupied has remained more or less the same. These books offer escapism. In a society in which women and their bodies are constantly objectified in day to day life - and this was especially true back when women couldn't vote and were expected to be subservient to their husbands - romance novels offer a fantasy of a better, more exciting world.
None of this is to say that romance novels are unproblematic or that they aren't shaped by the values of the culture that produces them, nor that 'romance good, comics bad'. But there's a false equivalency in treating romance novels as identical to comic books. In terms of readership, assessing only the numbers and setting aside the question of how they are consumed and enjoyed, romance novels are mainstream entertainment. Their targeted audience is the 'average' woman, not a subculture or niche. There's no direct male equivalent here, because the average targeted male escapism is the mainstream; the closest male equivalent is probably pornography, which is chiefly consumed by male audiences and is arguably afforded only slightly less respect as a genre. Like porn, the enjoyment of a Mills & Boon novel is generally a private, personal affair, not part of a wider participatory culture (contrast chick lit); these books are often regarded as guilty pleasures.
Comic books occupy a different cultural niche. They are geek entertainment, which positions itself in opposition to the male mainstream (traditionally, although comic books are growing in mainstream acceptance). If they have a direct female equivalent, it sure isn't Harlequin Romance. There are parallels that can be drawn with the considerably more mainstream soap opera, and also with romances like the Twilight series - ongoing storyline, participatory fandom, and in the case of Twilight and its imitators, marketed towards a younger demographic than the mainstream romance novel. Again, Edward is not a mere object, but a character with agency, and male participation in soap opera fandoms is rarely discouraged (at least not by the fans themselves) and is sometimes actively welcomed. The latter is more or less true in comic book fandoms as well. Female fans - not critics - are usually welcomed, though being a minority their participation is sometimes met with a level of incredulity.
Comic books, speaking broadly, provide an escapism for the (often) younger male reader, one who feels some level of unease with the values of mainstream culture and very often may not fit in with their peers, and so looks for adventure and entertainment elsewhere. In conjunction with other geek media, and facilitated by conventions, fanzines and the Internet, they also provide a subculture in which geeks can interact with other people who share their interests, exchange ideas and feel part of a greater whole. Unlike Twilight and its ilk, the focus of comic books is rarely romance. It'll be there, sure, but it's not the main draw. While there's no doubt some truth in the stereotype of the lonely, horny male nerd, the sense of disempowerment amongst those working- or middle-class individuals whose interests don't align with the mainstream is not specific to, nor motivated by a resentment of, any particular gender. i disagree with Gilda here - i think fandom is a wonderful thing for many people, for all its failings (of which there are many) it provides a basis for common social interaction for people who would otherwise be quite isolated, and that it's 'corporate' is hardly a serious failing in a society in which everything from land to water is a commodity. And one of the remarkable things about geek culture, really one of the main draws for a lot of people, is the perception that it's non-judgemental, that anyone is welcome to participate - nobody in fandom cares if you can't kick a football.
So it's easy to see why many women would also want to be a part of this, and it's easy to see how comic books, which after all are not primarily about heterosexual male romantic pursuits, would appeal to female audiences as well as male ones. But there are barriers to female enjoyment of geek entertainment, and the level of female objectification in these works is one that's often highlighted by women themselves.
Some people do, here's the thread for it on our step-sister site IJBM. It started out as a Liveblog/Let's Read/whatever but later became a general comics thread.
I don't, personally. I don't read much manga either though and what I do read is mostly 4komas.
How's that for a J.K. Rowling novel, Mojave?
I read it.
I don't much appreciate your stereotyping of anime fans (it's not entirely your fault of course, a lot of what gets classified as "moe anime" really isn't. A good example of a stale cardboard moe show like the ones you describe is the somewhat obscure K-On!) but I otherwise agree with the majority of it.
I remember when I was trying to start doing comics I was often criticized for tokenism because most of my characters were female.
I still don't know what to think of that particular criticism.