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.
Yeah, sorry about that. i realize most anime/manga fans aren't half as bad as that, but creeps do exist and i felt i couldn't overlook them having specifically brought up the question of sexualization in manga, and the lack thereof.
And K-On! was precisely the kind of show i had in mind when writing that part.
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.
Yeah, sorry about that. i realize most anime/manga fans aren't half as bad as that, but creeps do exist and i felt i couldn't overlook them having specifically brought up the question of sexualization in manga, and the lack thereof.
And K-On! was precisely the kind of show i had in mind when writing that part.
Well you do have to realize that people you might consider creeps are not necessarily bad people. I don't particularly care for the fetishization of rape (physically forced or emotionally coerced) that goes on in hentai and honestly I find it pretty gross.
also for the record, none of the following series often labeled "moe shows" are really an example of the genre
Lucky Star (domestic comedy)
Azumanga Daioh (sketch comedy/domestic comedy)
PaniPoniDash! (sketch comedy)
Nichijou (sketch comedy)
Kamichu! (Iyashikei / "meditation show", this is a pretty difficult genre to describe so I'll let TVTropes do the talking, I helped work on that page and know it's accurate)
Windy Tales (Iyashikei)
a "moe show" is something that focuses entirely around the characters being cute, and most of those other than maybe K-On! and Hidamari Sketch are pretty obscure except among certain otaku circles.
All I know about Lucky Star is AHR mentioning way back that there was a character that creeped her out because she felt it only existed for otaku fapping.
All I know about Lucky Star is AHR mentioning way back that there was a character that creeped her out because she felt it only existed for otaku fapping.
she's probably referring to Miyuki, who is supposed to be a parody of the innocent girl archetype. In her defense it's not really that obvious in the show because nothing is ever done with Miyuki.
Iyashikei (癒し系) is Japanese for "healing", a term used for anime and manga created with the specific purpose of having a healing or soothing effect on the audience. Works of this kind often involve alternative realities with little to no conflict, emphasizing nature and the little delights in life.
Even though many iyashikei creations seem to have a strong escapist basis, the goal is not only to offer a means of getting away from daily worries, but to let the audience embrace a calming state of mind.
Oh, oh! and internet critic Confused Matthew who is so called because he is baffled by notions of writing, storytelling, and character mentioned that it was the only anime he liked.
Iyashikei (癒し系) is Japanese for "healing", a term used for anime and manga created with the specific purpose of having a healing or soothing effect on the audience. Works of this kind often involve alternative realities with little to no conflict, emphasizing nature and the little delights in life.
Even though many iyashikei creations seem to have a strong escapist basis, the goal is not only to offer a means of getting away from daily worries, but to let the audience embrace a calming state of mind.
That sounds rad.
It is. I'll recommend Kamichu! and perhaps more importantly the Yokohama Kaidashi Kikou manga to you if that's a thing you'd be interested in. The latter in particular is very bittersweet.
Are there any like, other shows you could suggest that are of this Iyashikei style?
Pretty much everything on the list in that TVTropes article is accurate except for Mushishi which is a character driven horror show despite being rather atmospheric and Sora No Woto which is fucking depressing.
Doctor Who reference in Pokemon B2W2? Headcanon accepted.
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.
This is just mind-boggling right here. You and just about everyone else here keeps insisting that the comparison between women being sexually objectified in comic books (a male-targed medium) is a completely different beast than the sexual objectification of men in romance novels (a female-targed medium.) You say that women are cast as objects for male gratification in comics and I'm left to suppose that you think this is completely impossible for the same thing to happen to men as objects of gratification for female readers in romance novels. I've posted several images of completely typical examples of the genre and you still shake your head and are all, "nope, don't see it."
While perfectly true, not all objectification is equal, and this is a key respect in which romance novels differ.
Yes it is equal. All of it. Objectification is objectification, and this is where the rationalization is kicking into high gear. Just because most males don't give two shits about the entire subject doesn't make it any less hypocritical for women to scream about female objectification in a male-targeted facet of the entertainment industry whenever a related part of this same industry, which happens to be 10 times more ubiquitous and profitable and targeted to an entirely female demographic, is guilty of the exact same thing.
But no, it's different, you insist.
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 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.
I'm having a really hard time trying to understand what you're saying right here. You state that She-Hulk is objectified, this is true. That's all I can tell here. One thing that is missing, unsurprisingly, is mention of the fact that the male in a romance novel fulfills the exact same purpose as She-Hulk here, but for the female audience. Another example of that wonderful double standard at work.
And I'm not trying to be rude, but I find the rest of your argument -- about the culture and history of all this -- to be completely irrelevant and I'll explain why.
Comics are a storytelling medium. Romance novels are a storytelling medium.
One's demographic is predominantly male, the other is almost exclusively female.
In order to cater to their respective demographics, producers of each go so far as to objectify the opposite sex to drive sales. Hence: Power Girl and every romance novel cover, ever.
To argue that one -- especially the smaller one -- is sexist for its objectification of one gender of people while ignoring the other one, which is over 10 times larger and profitable does the exact same thing, is complete hypocrisy.
Now, do I care that men are sexually objectified in such a manner? No, I couldn't give two shits about it if I tried. Do I find shit like Power Girl's physique and that ridiculous costume she's in defensible? Not in the least. Do I have a problem with people raising a stink over a problem and then in the same breath justify and rationalize the exact same problem elsewhere? Yeah, I do.
Do I have a problem with people raising a stink over a problem and then in the same breath justify and rationalize the exact same problem elsewhere? Yeah, I do.
But you're the one who brought up romance novels in the first place
This isn't even a discussion about them, and whatever sexism and objectification that lays within them has nothing to do with discussing the sexism and objectification in comic books.
But you're the one who brought up romance novels in the first place
This isn't even a discussion about them, and whatever sexism and objectification that lays within them has nothing to do with discussing the sexism and objectification in comic books.
Actually yes it does. I'm comparing two very similar industries and how they relate to one singular issue, and if you can't see that then I don't know what to tell you
This is just mind-boggling right here. You and just about everyone else here keeps insisting that the comparison between women being sexually objectified in comic books (a male-targed medium) is a completely different beast than the sexual objectification of men in romance novels (a female-targed medium.) You say that women are cast as objects for male gratification in comics and I'm left to suppose that you think this is completely impossible for the same thing to happen to men as objects of gratification for female readers in romance novels. I've posted several images of completely typical examples of the genre and you still shake your head and are all, "nope, don't see it."
Wait what? The reason they are different because Power Girl and She-Hulk isn't on the front of the Harlequin Romance Novels, and Christian Grey isn't being sexualized in Empowered. About the only front-liner "hey you should masterbate to me" comicbook girl I've found is the one by Adam Warren, but not only that she's hilarious because the reason's she's such a shitty super heroine is because SHE'S A WOMAN and the reason why the super villains always attack her is because she's extremely sexy AND easy to defeat.
Then again if it was revealed that Wonder Woman was a futanari or a hermaphrodite but looked exactly the same and was decently sexualized on the front pages would it be the same as the book covers of 50 Shades of Gay or Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone?
Edit: How come the quote button isn't working? It's probably because it was made by a WOMAN
Romance novels have generally no pretensions to being something other than quasi-smutty fluff, whereas as you yourself said earlier comic books try to be serious a lot of the time.
As such, people do not take the lessons and implied morals of comic books to heart in the same way as they would comics.
Romance novels have generally no pretensions to being something other than quasi-smutty fluff, whereas as you yourself said earlier comic books try to be serious a lot of the time.
As such, people do not take the lessons and implied morals of comic books to heart in the same way as they would comics.
Yes but if you remember, I was complaining about comics taking themselves seriously which they really have no business doing
I'll give something like Road to Perdition a free pass in that regard but anything with a superhero in tights trying to be Shakespeare? no
I think I liked Empowered's approach on super sexy objectified women in comics, because he just plays straight into it.
LOOKIT HOW CUTE SHE IS, I JUST WANT TO OBJECTIFY THE FUCK OUT OF HER Not only that the audience almost thinks the same way as the super villains when they comment on how shitty and ineffectual she is.
Romance novels have generally no pretensions to being something other than quasi-smutty fluff, whereas as you yourself said earlier comic books try to be serious a lot of the time.
As such, people do not take the lessons and implied morals of comic books to heart in the same way as they would comics.
Yes but if you remember, I was complaining about comics taking themselves seriously which they really have no business doing
I'll give something like Road to Perdition a free pass in that regard but anything with a superhero in tights trying to be Shakespeare? no
Sometimes it's done well, and I say this as an outsider to the fandom. I read Watchmen, for example, and it was amazing because it was about superheroes, not in spite of 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
Comments
And K-On! was precisely the kind of show i had in mind when writing that part.
☭
B̤̺͍̰͕̺̠̕u҉̖͙̝̮͕̲ͅm̟̼̦̠̹̙p͡s̹͖ ̻T́h̗̫͈̙̩r̮e̴̩̺̖̠̭̜ͅa̛̪̟͍̣͎͖̺d͉̦͠s͕̞͚̲͍ ̲̬̹̤Y̻̤̱o̭͠u̥͉̥̜͡ ̴̥̪D̳̲̳̤o̴͙̘͓̤̟̗͇n̰̗̞̼̳͙͖͢'҉͖t̳͓̣͍̗̰ ͉W̝̳͓̼͜a̗͉̳͖̘̮n͕ͅt͚̟͚ ̸̺T̜̖̖̺͎̱ͅo̭̪̰̼̥̜ ̼͍̟̝R̝̹̮̭ͅͅe̡̗͇a͍̘̤͉͘d̼̜ 
⚢
If there were any tangible way to reward you for your efforts into this argument/discussion, I would reward you accordingly.
Aside from the primary appeal of human satisfaction and increase in serotonin from enhancing a discussion as this, I can only gift you...
+1 Viani's Gratitude
+1 Viani's Acceptance
+1 Universal Internet Reward
You are cool in my (comic)book, if that means anything.
☭
B̤̺͍̰͕̺̠̕u҉̖͙̝̮͕̲ͅm̟̼̦̠̹̙p͡s̹͖ ̻T́h̗̫͈̙̩r̮e̴̩̺̖̠̭̜ͅa̛̪̟͍̣͎͖̺d͉̦͠s͕̞͚̲͍ ̲̬̹̤Y̻̤̱o̭͠u̥͉̥̜͡ ̴̥̪D̳̲̳̤o̴͙̘͓̤̟̗͇n̰̗̞̼̳͙͖͢'҉͖t̳͓̣͍̗̰ ͉W̝̳͓̼͜a̗͉̳͖̘̮n͕ͅt͚̟͚ ̸̺T̜̖̖̺͎̱ͅo̭̪̰̼̥̜ ̼͍̟̝R̝̹̮̭ͅͅe̡̗͇a͍̘̤͉͘d̼̜ 
⚢
Is it Jojo's Bizarre adventure?
Fair enough, Mojave. i will own to stereotyping a bit there.
i am not familiar with Jojo's Bizarre Adventure and therefore cannot discuss it.
☭
B̤̺͍̰͕̺̠̕u҉̖͙̝̮͕̲ͅm̟̼̦̠̹̙p͡s̹͖ ̻T́h̗̫͈̙̩r̮e̴̩̺̖̠̭̜ͅa̛̪̟͍̣͎͖̺d͉̦͠s͕̞͚̲͍ ̲̬̹̤Y̻̤̱o̭͠u̥͉̥̜͡ ̴̥̪D̳̲̳̤o̴͙̘͓̤̟̗͇n̰̗̞̼̳͙͖͢'҉͖t̳͓̣͍̗̰ ͉W̝̳͓̼͜a̗͉̳͖̘̮n͕ͅt͚̟͚ ̸̺T̜̖̖̺͎̱ͅo̭̪̰̼̥̜ ̼͍̟̝R̝̹̮̭ͅͅe̡̗͇a͍̘̤͉͘d̼̜ 
⚢
also for the record, none of the following series often labeled "moe shows" are really an example of the genre
Lucky Star (domestic comedy)
Azumanga Daioh (sketch comedy/domestic comedy)
PaniPoniDash! (sketch comedy)
Nichijou (sketch comedy)
Kamichu! (Iyashikei / "meditation show", this is a pretty difficult genre to describe so I'll let TVTropes do the talking, I helped work on that page and know it's accurate)
Windy Tales (Iyashikei)
a "moe show" is something that focuses entirely around the characters being cute, and most of those other than maybe K-On! and Hidamari Sketch are pretty obscure except among certain otaku circles.
☭
B̤̺͍̰͕̺̠̕u҉̖͙̝̮͕̲ͅm̟̼̦̠̹̙p͡s̹͖ ̻T́h̗̫͈̙̩r̮e̴̩̺̖̠̭̜ͅa̛̪̟͍̣͎͖̺d͉̦͠s͕̞͚̲͍ ̲̬̹̤Y̻̤̱o̭͠u̥͉̥̜͡ ̴̥̪D̳̲̳̤o̴͙̘͓̤̟̗͇n̰̗̞̼̳͙͖͢'҉͖t̳͓̣͍̗̰ ͉W̝̳͓̼͜a̗͉̳͖̘̮n͕ͅt͚̟͚ ̸̺T̜̖̖̺͎̱ͅo̭̪̰̼̥̜ ̼͍̟̝R̝̹̮̭ͅͅe̡̗͇a͍̘̤͉͘d̼̜ 
⚢
Yeah, in Japan.
I was referring to obscure here.
i may be slow replying to things here because i'm going to go get food and stuff, but i appreciate that you're taking the time to respond, Corporal.
I know. It was just for reference.
Iyashikei in particular is often confused with moe because they're both genres with a lot of shows in which very little actually happens.
she's probably referring to Miyuki, who is supposed to be a parody of the innocent girl archetype. In her defense it's not really that obvious in the show because nothing is ever done with Miyuki.☭
B̤̺͍̰͕̺̠̕u҉̖͙̝̮͕̲ͅm̟̼̦̠̹̙p͡s̹͖ ̻T́h̗̫͈̙̩r̮e̴̩̺̖̠̭̜ͅa̛̪̟͍̣͎͖̺d͉̦͠s͕̞͚̲͍ ̲̬̹̤Y̻̤̱o̭͠u̥͉̥̜͡ ̴̥̪D̳̲̳̤o̴͙̘͓̤̟̗͇n̰̗̞̼̳͙͖͢'҉͖t̳͓̣͍̗̰ ͉W̝̳͓̼͜a̗͉̳͖̘̮n͕ͅt͚̟͚ ̸̺T̜̖̖̺͎̱ͅo̭̪̰̼̥̜ ̼͍̟̝R̝̹̮̭ͅͅe̡̗͇a͍̘̤͉͘d̼̜ 
⚢
Lucky Star that is.
☭
B̤̺͍̰͕̺̠̕u҉̖͙̝̮͕̲ͅm̟̼̦̠̹̙p͡s̹͖ ̻T́h̗̫͈̙̩r̮e̴̩̺̖̠̭̜ͅa̛̪̟͍̣͎͖̺d͉̦͠s͕̞͚̲͍ ̲̬̹̤Y̻̤̱o̭͠u̥͉̥̜͡ ̴̥̪D̳̲̳̤o̴͙̘͓̤̟̗͇n̰̗̞̼̳͙͖͢'҉͖t̳͓̣͍̗̰ ͉W̝̳͓̼͜a̗͉̳͖̘̮n͕ͅt͚̟͚ ̸̺T̜̖̖̺͎̱ͅo̭̪̰̼̥̜ ̼͍̟̝R̝̹̮̭ͅͅe̡̗͇a͍̘̤͉͘d̼̜ 
⚢
It is. I'll recommend Kamichu! and perhaps more importantly the Yokohama Kaidashi Kikou manga to you if that's a thing you'd be interested in. The latter in particular is very bittersweet.
☭
B̤̺͍̰͕̺̠̕u҉̖͙̝̮͕̲ͅm̟̼̦̠̹̙p͡s̹͖ ̻T́h̗̫͈̙̩r̮e̴̩̺̖̠̭̜ͅa̛̪̟͍̣͎͖̺d͉̦͠s͕̞͚̲͍ ̲̬̹̤Y̻̤̱o̭͠u̥͉̥̜͡ ̴̥̪D̳̲̳̤o̴͙̘͓̤̟̗͇n̰̗̞̼̳͙͖͢'҉͖t̳͓̣͍̗̰ ͉W̝̳͓̼͜a̗͉̳͖̘̮n͕ͅt͚̟͚ ̸̺T̜̖̖̺͎̱ͅo̭̪̰̼̥̜ ̼͍̟̝R̝̹̮̭ͅͅe̡̗͇a͍̘̤͉͘d̼̜ 
⚢
Should I make a thread about this?
☭
B̤̺͍̰͕̺̠̕u҉̖͙̝̮͕̲ͅm̟̼̦̠̹̙p͡s̹͖ ̻T́h̗̫͈̙̩r̮e̴̩̺̖̠̭̜ͅa̛̪̟͍̣͎͖̺d͉̦͠s͕̞͚̲͍ ̲̬̹̤Y̻̤̱o̭͠u̥͉̥̜͡ ̴̥̪D̳̲̳̤o̴͙̘͓̤̟̗͇n̰̗̞̼̳͙͖͢'҉͖t̳͓̣͍̗̰ ͉W̝̳͓̼͜a̗͉̳͖̘̮n͕ͅt͚̟͚ ̸̺T̜̖̖̺͎̱ͅo̭̪̰̼̥̜ ̼͍̟̝R̝̹̮̭ͅͅe̡̗͇a͍̘̤͉͘d̼̜ 
⚢
As in depressing sad, or depressing bad?
Sad.
"Shows that make you cry" is another genre entirely and one I do not recall the Japanese name for.
But if you like things like that the visual novel Planetarian might be up your alley. That thing fucking wrecked me.
Yes it is equal. All of it. Objectification is objectification, and this is where the rationalization is kicking into high gear. Just because most males don't give two shits about the entire subject doesn't make it any less hypocritical for women to scream about female objectification in a male-targeted facet of the entertainment industry whenever a related part of this same industry, which happens to be 10 times more ubiquitous and profitable and targeted to an entirely female demographic, is guilty of the exact same thing.
☭
B̤̺͍̰͕̺̠̕u҉̖͙̝̮͕̲ͅm̟̼̦̠̹̙p͡s̹͖ ̻T́h̗̫͈̙̩r̮e̴̩̺̖̠̭̜ͅa̛̪̟͍̣͎͖̺d͉̦͠s͕̞͚̲͍ ̲̬̹̤Y̻̤̱o̭͠u̥͉̥̜͡ ̴̥̪D̳̲̳̤o̴͙̘͓̤̟̗͇n̰̗̞̼̳͙͖͢'҉͖t̳͓̣͍̗̰ ͉W̝̳͓̼͜a̗͉̳͖̘̮n͕ͅt͚̟͚ ̸̺T̜̖̖̺͎̱ͅo̭̪̰̼̥̜ ̼͍̟̝R̝̹̮̭ͅͅe̡̗͇a͍̘̤͉͘d̼̜ 
⚢
☭
B̤̺͍̰͕̺̠̕u҉̖͙̝̮͕̲ͅm̟̼̦̠̹̙p͡s̹͖ ̻T́h̗̫͈̙̩r̮e̴̩̺̖̠̭̜ͅa̛̪̟͍̣͎͖̺d͉̦͠s͕̞͚̲͍ ̲̬̹̤Y̻̤̱o̭͠u̥͉̥̜͡ ̴̥̪D̳̲̳̤o̴͙̘͓̤̟̗͇n̰̗̞̼̳͙͖͢'҉͖t̳͓̣͍̗̰ ͉W̝̳͓̼͜a̗͉̳͖̘̮n͕ͅt͚̟͚ ̸̺T̜̖̖̺͎̱ͅo̭̪̰̼̥̜ ̼͍̟̝R̝̹̮̭ͅͅe̡̗͇a͍̘̤͉͘d̼̜ 
⚢
I am confus
Well "who's" is short for "who is". You were asking "who is raising a stink", thus it's "who's".
Whose is for when you're asking who something belongs to.
☭
B̤̺͍̰͕̺̠̕u҉̖͙̝̮͕̲ͅm̟̼̦̠̹̙p͡s̹͖ ̻T́h̗̫͈̙̩r̮e̴̩̺̖̠̭̜ͅa̛̪̟͍̣͎͖̺d͉̦͠s͕̞͚̲͍ ̲̬̹̤Y̻̤̱o̭͠u̥͉̥̜͡ ̴̥̪D̳̲̳̤o̴͙̘͓̤̟̗͇n̰̗̞̼̳͙͖͢'҉͖t̳͓̣͍̗̰ ͉W̝̳͓̼͜a̗͉̳͖̘̮n͕ͅt͚̟͚ ̸̺T̜̖̖̺͎̱ͅo̭̪̰̼̥̜ ̼͍̟̝R̝̹̮̭ͅͅe̡̗͇a͍̘̤͉͘d̼̜ 
⚢
Wait what? The reason they are different because Power Girl and She-Hulk isn't on the front of the Harlequin Romance Novels, and Christian Grey isn't being sexualized in Empowered. About the only front-liner "hey you should masterbate to me" comicbook girl I've found is the one by Adam Warren, but not only that she's hilarious because the reason's she's such a shitty super heroine is because SHE'S A WOMAN and the reason why the super villains always attack her is because she's extremely sexy AND easy to defeat.
Then again if it was revealed that Wonder Woman was a futanari or a hermaphrodite but looked exactly the same and was decently sexualized on the front pages would it be the same as the book covers of 50 Shades of Gay or Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone?
Edit: How come the quote button isn't working? It's probably because it was made by a WOMAN
☭
B̤̺͍̰͕̺̠̕u҉̖͙̝̮͕̲ͅm̟̼̦̠̹̙p͡s̹͖ ̻T́h̗̫͈̙̩r̮e̴̩̺̖̠̭̜ͅa̛̪̟͍̣͎͖̺d͉̦͠s͕̞͚̲͍ ̲̬̹̤Y̻̤̱o̭͠u̥͉̥̜͡ ̴̥̪D̳̲̳̤o̴͙̘͓̤̟̗͇n̰̗̞̼̳͙͖͢'҉͖t̳͓̣͍̗̰ ͉W̝̳͓̼͜a̗͉̳͖̘̮n͕ͅt͚̟͚ ̸̺T̜̖̖̺͎̱ͅo̭̪̰̼̥̜ ̼͍̟̝R̝̹̮̭ͅͅe̡̗͇a͍̘̤͉͘d̼̜ 
⚢
☭
B̤̺͍̰͕̺̠̕u҉̖͙̝̮͕̲ͅm̟̼̦̠̹̙p͡s̹͖ ̻T́h̗̫͈̙̩r̮e̴̩̺̖̠̭̜ͅa̛̪̟͍̣͎͖̺d͉̦͠s͕̞͚̲͍ ̲̬̹̤Y̻̤̱o̭͠u̥͉̥̜͡ ̴̥̪D̳̲̳̤o̴͙̘͓̤̟̗͇n̰̗̞̼̳͙͖͢'҉͖t̳͓̣͍̗̰ ͉W̝̳͓̼͜a̗͉̳͖̘̮n͕ͅt͚̟͚ ̸̺T̜̖̖̺͎̱ͅo̭̪̰̼̥̜ ̼͍̟̝R̝̹̮̭ͅͅe̡̗͇a͍̘̤͉͘d̼̜ 
⚢
LOOKIT HOW CUTE SHE IS, I JUST WANT TO OBJECTIFY THE FUCK OUT OF HER
Not only that the audience almost thinks the same way as the super villains when they comment on how shitty and ineffectual she is.
☭
B̤̺͍̰͕̺̠̕u҉̖͙̝̮͕̲ͅm̟̼̦̠̹̙p͡s̹͖ ̻T́h̗̫͈̙̩r̮e̴̩̺̖̠̭̜ͅa̛̪̟͍̣͎͖̺d͉̦͠s͕̞͚̲͍ ̲̬̹̤Y̻̤̱o̭͠u̥͉̥̜͡ ̴̥̪D̳̲̳̤o̴͙̘͓̤̟̗͇n̰̗̞̼̳͙͖͢'҉͖t̳͓̣͍̗̰ ͉W̝̳͓̼͜a̗͉̳͖̘̮n͕ͅt͚̟͚ ̸̺T̜̖̖̺͎̱ͅo̭̪̰̼̥̜ ̼͍̟̝R̝̹̮̭ͅͅe̡̗͇a͍̘̤͉͘d̼̜ 
⚢
I thought the audience was taking them seriously, not the guys who make the money off of the audience?
Empowered has no nose.
She's like a Grey with a wig.
☭
B̤̺͍̰͕̺̠̕u҉̖͙̝̮͕̲ͅm̟̼̦̠̹̙p͡s̹͖ ̻T́h̗̫͈̙̩r̮e̴̩̺̖̠̭̜ͅa̛̪̟͍̣͎͖̺d͉̦͠s͕̞͚̲͍ ̲̬̹̤Y̻̤̱o̭͠u̥͉̥̜͡ ̴̥̪D̳̲̳̤o̴͙̘͓̤̟̗͇n̰̗̞̼̳͙͖͢'҉͖t̳͓̣͍̗̰ ͉W̝̳͓̼͜a̗͉̳͖̘̮n͕ͅt͚̟͚ ̸̺T̜̖̖̺͎̱ͅo̭̪̰̼̥̜ ̼͍̟̝R̝̹̮̭ͅͅe̡̗͇a͍̘̤͉͘d̼̜ 
⚢
There I found one with a nose