Comic books haven’t had the best run when it comes to drawing women, hell we have entire tropes on the topic such as boob socks, the most common superpower and painted on costumes.

Many superheroes have (and still do) had sexist costumes (and before people complain, there is a big difference between sexy and sexist), from Power Girl, the Invisible Woman, She-Hulk and all the Star Sapphires (well all the women anyway).

However in recent years, we’ve made great progress in calling these out, from the ugly covers of Teen Titans #1 and Spider-Woman #1, Tony Harris indorsing the Fake Fan Girl myth and Scott Lobdell sexually harassing MariNaomi. We’ve even set up ways to express our annoyance such as the Hawkeye Initiative (on an off-topic, is the Hawk Eye Initiative still up and running, I haven’t heard anything about it in ages).

But why is it that many give Bruce Timm's art a lot of slack, despite in many ways, his artwork is just as bad. True, none of his breasts break the laws of thermodynamics with their size, but many of his woman have boob socks, spines that are capable of bending in impossible angles and painted on costumes. The odd thing I that the boob sock seem to be a more recent addition to his art as his more early work on the DCAU seem to lack it:

In fairness, the recent article (well done getting main paged jpedersen by the way (: ) showing off his artwork was not well received within the comments, with a lot of negative feedback and many reasons why the art seems off. You are also completely allowed to disagree with me and enjoy what you like. But for me, it’s confusing why he gets less slack, especially nowadays.

Advertisement

Is it because we allow our love for DCAU to ignore it and that at the time, the art was a massive improvement over the gritty and pouchy art work that plagued the 90s (many poor souls still go to therapy from years of young blood disease)? Is it because the art is far more stylised then others and as such, it gets more leeway?